This is my personal experience being assaulted (or searched, if you prefer) by a dog at the Frackville state prison in East Central Pennsylvania. My story is better told by the letter which follows, but some further explanation is warranted. I've visited many Pennsylvania prisons over many years. At a few prisons visitors are treated with reasonable respect. Such civil treatment has become much more rare during Jeffrey Beard's tenure as imprisonment boss. Under Beard there's little respect for visitors and no respect at all for the prisoners. In fact, Beard's prison system has no respect for the law or even for common sense. He would do better at Guamtanamo. One of Beard's schemes is to harass visitors with dogs. It's a scheme being used at all Pennsylvania's prisons. The scheme is a way to bully visitors most of whom are women anxious to spend an hour or so with their sons or husbands. Beard's scheme seems aimed at breaking up families which are already strained by imprisonment. He also wants to reduce the number of persons visiting his prisons. They shouldn't see what the places are really like. The lazy guards should have even less to do. You likely remember the scandal at Abu Graib, the torture prison in Iraq. Dogs were used to terrorize mostly innocent young Iraqis. Apparently the specter excited Beard's envy. He started his own dog harassment program. His pretense was that hounds would be used to sniff out drugs. The trouble with that is that, firstly, most dogs aren't really very good at locating illegal drugs. Secondly, in Pennsylvania, dogs aren't supposed to be used to sniff people's bodies - cars are okay, places are okay, but not sniffing Junior's diaper. We tried to draw these facts to Beard's attention. As I've said, he shows little respect for the law. I was personally subjected to what was supposed to be an "air scan" search by a dog when I visited at Frackville. It could have been any Pennsylvania prison. The dog didn't just sniff the air around me. It repeatedly struck my body around my torso. Of course, it wasn't the dog's fault. The assault was by the dog-handler just as much as if he'd used a billy club. Making matters far worse, I was taken into custody to be subjected to the supposed search. For no good reason except to intimidate me, I was locked up in a small area. A clutch of male guards with no work to do, stood around gawking as I was humiliated. Visitors to Pennsylvania prisons should consider my experience as a warning about what kinds of maltreatment to expect. I thought for a long time before I did anything about the incident. At last, I decided to write to imprisonment boss Beard rather than simply filing suit. The letter I wrote follows. Jeffrey Beard, PhD Secretary of Corrections Box 598 Camp Hill, PA 17001 In Re: Dog Assault Dear Doctor Beard: While at the Frackville state prison on Saturday morning, 17 February 2007, I was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by a man whom I believe was named Yurkiewicz. He was in company with a gang of accomplices whose names have not as yet been discovered. The assailant and accomplices were/are all state prison guards ostensibly under your administration. If you are competent to rectify these egregious offenses, it will obviate my need to bring action against Mr. Yurkiewicz(?) and Governor Edward Rendell. These incidents occurred soon after the 2007 "Valentine's Day Storm." Because much of I 81 from Harrisburg to Frackville was still closed due to unplowed ice, I traveled by treacherous winding back roads. I was quite agitated and perspired when I finally arrived. This was an inappropriate time to further harass a sixty year-old woman who's been visiting prisons, including Frackville, since 1975. The assault appeared to be timed to make it as stressful as possible. After being questioned, I was escorted into custody/detention and locked in a confined space between locked steel barriers. Though there was no reasonable suspicion that I had committed a crime or that I was then or that I had ever smuggled drugs (as is well known, drugs are actually smuggled by the staff, I was required to sit in a vulnerable position. When I protested, my assailant confided that I should "thank Governor Rendell." I took that admission to indicate that Governor Rendell had instructed that I be assaulted. There was no rational reason for the Governor to give such instructions or to have me assaulted except, possibly in retaliation for the published contents of the website I publish. Or, the guard was using the old Eichmann defense1. Imprisonment-types often use the Eichmann defense to dodge responsibility by shifting blame to their superiors. Using a dog, Mr. Yurkiewicz repeatedly assaulted me Abu Graib style.2 Using the dog's muzzle, he struck my person at least ten times. I was struck all about my torso. While falsely imprisoned and while being assaulted, Mr. Yurkiewicz's accomplices (a gang of about four gawking men including a so-called "white-hat") looked on in bemusement.3 No one intervened. No one made an effort to stop the assault. No woman was present to witness the quasi-sexual nature of the assault. Had my assailant struck me in a similar manner with his own face instead of the dog's snout, or had he employed a truncheon, it could not have been more offensive. I was intimidated (which was undoubtedly the intention), humiliated, embarrassed and frightened. What can be the legitimate purpose for such an assault except to abuse me. I assented to being searched, not to being unlawfully restrained or assaulted. Of course, no drugs were found. I draw your attention to your amusing letter dated 11 April 2006 relating to what you characterized as the "Canine Air Scan program" and to our critical article at http://www.prisoners.com/visitdog.html. The incident I endured was not "air-scan." Nor was it a legitimate search conducted according to the protocol published near the prison's entrance. The dog was induced to repeatedly strike my person in clear violation of state law, see Commonwealth v Martin, 534 Pa 449, 626 A2d 556 (1993). My suit, if necessary, will be a state action making state legal and constitutional claims, not the far less protective federal claims. There was no legitimate reason to intimidate a visitor with the use of a dog. The so-called "ion-scanner" was available. It is well settled that dog-sniff for drugs is notoriously unreliable (less than 74%), see Doe v Renfrow, 451 US 1022 (1981), Brennan dissenting, among other sources. Because of its unreliability, a dog-sniff search of a person's physical body is unreasonable per se. I have a right to the privacy of my body to be free from unwanted touching and contact by humans and animals. Use of a dog can only be rationalized as an act of intimidation. On 9 March 2007, I was again subjected to the dog search. Again I was confined between bars, and required to sit while the dog was instructed to struck me several times around my body. However, on this occasion, I was twice physically struck with the baton of the guard as he instructed the dog to make contact with my body. This is an assault. The conduct of Department of Imprisonment employees was not simply unprofessional and intrusive, it was criminal and tortuous. I will publish this letter and the full course of the suit, if any, on our website along with your reply/excuse, if any. I request that the following evidence be retained for discovery: 1. The names of all the accomplice and witnesses who were lounging around the scene, smirking, 2. All contemporaneous written reports, records, memoranda of the incident(s) including any/all forms or releases I may be claimed to have executed, 3. Any and all video records of any or all parts of the incident(s), 4. The written protocols, justifications and safeguards of the Department of Imprisonment for a search and/or assault on me by dog(s), 5. The official certification that the dog used to assault me was/is (a) safe for dealing with persons including me, (b) fully trained for drug interdiction and (c) successful at accurately detecting illegal drugs while protecting my civil liberties, 6. The official certification attesting that the dog-handler/ assailant was/is fully trained and competent to search me and/or other women with a dog, 7. The official, published directive authorizing a prison guard to (a) take me into custody and (b) to use a dog to strike or assault me. I am: Sandra Feigley, Publisher sf@prisoners.com 717-236-xxxx Copy: Honorable Edward Rendell, Governor 225 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Robert Shannon, Superintendent 1111 Altamont Blvd. Frackville, PA 17931 FOOTNOTES lEichmann defense: Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi war criminal. He defended his atrocities by saying that he was only following orders. 2Abu Graib: One of America's many horrific prisons was Abu Graib not far from Baghdad, Iraq. The CIA and US military used it to torture victims. Mostly of their victims were teenage boys who were guilty only of being Iraqi. One ploy was to use savage dogs to terrify the prisoners (the US was obviously the real terrorists in this instance). They also took dirty pictures of the guys to add to their sadistic amusement. 3Gang of idle guards: Pennsylvania prisons are overflowing with unnecessary staff. All are greatly overpaid. One lieutenant named Downs, is reportedly paid $2293.60 for 2 weeks loafing). That's almost $60,000 a year, at least three weeks of which are spent on vacation. The staff has virtually nothing to do except coat taxpayers money. Most stand around idly doing nothing.

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com