May 28, 1998

Smuggling drugs into prison a risky affair

By ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

Prison life is underrated.

To be sure, you definitely aren't free to come and go. But can life really be all that bad when you have a roof over your head, three squares a day, and regular conjugal visits with your spouse? I don't know about you, but I've got friends who would kill for all those amenities.

Another thought: if you play your cards right, you can still use illegal drugs. Imagine that -- getting high in the privacy of your own cell. The trick is to find someone on the outside to slip the drugs into prison. Unfortunately, thanks to paranoid prison officials who view every visitor as a potential drug dealer, that's not such an easy proposition these days.

State v. Dane is a good case on point. In that case, even though she cleverly hid them in one of her body cavities, the wife of a Clallam County inmate got caught trying to smuggle marijuana and heroin into her husband's facility. The issue on appeal was whether the woman's drug convictions should be reversed because most of the incriminating evidence was obtained illegally.

By appellate standards, the Dane case is relatively new since the events took place less than four years ago.

In August 1994, two correctional officers at Clallam Bay Corrections Center got an anonymous tip that an inmate, William Dane, was being pressured by another inmate to have his wife smuggle drugs into prison. Their suspicions grew when they saw Dane associating with four inmates who had previous drug problems at the prison.

With this information in hand, the two officers, Lori Hansson and James Reno, decided to approach Elizabeth Dane inside the prison the next time she visited her husband. Their opportunity came on October 11, 1994.

After parking her car, Elizabeth walked through two security gates en route to the prison. Signs at both gates warned visitors they were subject to search. Elizabeth also signed a consent form acknowledging she was subject to search and that she'd be escorted away immediately if she refused to be searched.

Once inside the prison, Elizabeth first went to use a restroom, supposedly because she drank a 44-ounce soft drink while driving to the prison. She was followed inside by Hansson.

As Elizabeth started to undress in an enclosed stall, Hansson walked up and introduced herself and said she needed to talk for a few minutes. Agreeing to this abrupt change of plans, Elizabeth followed Hansson to a private conference room where, lo and behold, Officer Reno was waiting for her.

After giving Elizabeth her Miranda rights and getting her permission to talk, Reno noted she was "very nervous" (although I'd be nervous too if I was about to be interrogated indefinitely with a 44-ounce soft drink in my system). He then told Elizabeth that he suspected her of smuggling contraband into the prison. Reno (and Hansson) also reminded Elizabeth about the dangers of carrying foreign substances inside her body.

Although she initially denied Reno's accusation, Elizabeth later gave away the store when she said, "I'm not admitting anything, but what if I gave it up to you." A few minutes later, Reno left the room and returned with two police officers who resumed the interview. After they rejected her demand for immunity, Elizabeth stood up to leave but was promptly placed under arrest.

Following her arrest, Elizabeth told the police she wanted to remove the drugs from her body to avoid any harmful effects. Hansson then escorted Elizabeth to a restroom where she removed 11 balloons - ten with marijuana and one with heroin - and presumably eliminated the 44-ounce soft drink. For good measure, she also gave a taped confession to the police.

Elizabeth soon faced felony drug charges in Clallam County Superior Court. Claiming Hansson had unlawfully "seized" her during the first contact in the restroom, Elizabeth moved to suppress all subsequently obtained evidence, including the 11 balloons and her confession. But after the trial court said "No way" and a jury said "Guilty," Elizabeth said "I appeal."

At the risk of being too harsh on Mrs. Dane, trying to smuggle drugs into prison for your hubby is an act of stupidity, not love.

But under Washington law, people don't lose their rights by doing stupid things. And in a stroke of good fortune for Elizabeth, our state appeals court reversed her conviction.

Had Hansson been a police officer, the appeals court said, she would have had probable cause to detain Elizabeth. But in line with the consent form signed by Elizabeth (and also prison regulations), however, correctional officers have no authority to detain - i.e., they can only request a search and expulse those who refuse. That being the case, the court ruled, the drugs and Elizabeth's confession should have been suppressed.

Let's not forget about William, of course, who should likewise benefit from his wife's freedom. Although he probably can't look to Elizabeth for drugs, his conjugal visit privileges will likely be restored - which, for him at least, means happy days should be here again!

Previous columns:

• No warranty on human goods, 05-07-1998
• Adults beware toy guns, 04-23-1998
• Check your moose policy, 04-02-1998
• An intriguing battle for the custody of 'R', 02-12-1998
• Some immodest proposals, 01-22-1998
• The age of criminal capacity, 01-08-1998
• Dastardly communications, 12-25-1997
• Don't hold your breath, 12-11-1997