Detection and Prevention of Illicit Drugs in a Correctional Facility
George Brotchi

Abstract
The purpose of this research was to examine and determine the common types of
illicit drugs entering correctional facilities today and the effects these drugs have on the
inmate population and detention staff. This research further explores methods of drug
detection and prevention and how these methods are being utilized from eleven
correctional facilities surveyed throughout the state of Florida. These various methods
ascertained from those surveyed provides insight into which technique of drug interdiction
may be most effective in reducing or even stopping the flow of drugs in our correctional
institutions.
Introduction
Illicit drugs have a detrimental impact in a correctional facility and the methods of
detecting and preventing these drugs from entering the facility presents a constant
challenge. The goal of this research is to examine the most common types of dangerous
drugs being found within facilities across Florida and the nation. This research further
intends to provide an understanding of the methods of how drugs are being illegally
introduced within correctional institutions. Once the portal for the entry of specific drugs
is identified, the focus will be to determine methods in which drugs can be detected and
prevented from entering prisons and jails.
One can certainly ascertain as to the dangers illicit drug pose and with the opioid
epidemic this country is experiencing; correctional facilities are no exception. Due to this
epidemic and coupled with the introduction of drugs in facilities, inmates are suffering and
or dying from overdoses at a high rate.
We must be diligent in examining the dangerous types of drugs being smuggled in
and understand how these drugs present devastating effects to the inmate population
and detention staff. Some effects can be, but not limited to, inmate overdoses, violence,
and safety concerns to staff, who come in contact with certain drugs. It’s our duty to
ensure our facilities remain safe and secure for the inmate population and employees.
Once establishing the risk drugs pose and the manner in which they are introduced, one
can establish a method as to how said drugs can be detected and subsequently
prevented.
The traditional methods of detection are in the form of searches performed by
detention staff, which can be further augmented with the use of drug sniffing dogs or K9’s. However, are there best practice methods that can enhance human intervention?
What other tools can be used to help lessen the burden of liability? As our society
continues to advance in technology and automation, can these advancements be used
to prevent the introduction of drugs in our correctional institutions?
1

Literature Review
Types of Drugs and the Dangerous Effects:
It’s difficult to almost impossible to list all the type of drugs being smuggled into
correctional facilities. It was said "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged
by entering its prisons." (Shapiro, 2006). It’s my understanding this quote refers to what
occurs in the free society could also mimic to what’s occurring in correctional facilities.
For this research I selected several common types of illicit and dangerous drugs being
used outside and inside the walls of confinement. It should be noted that my selection of
illicit drugs are only a few drugs out of many being smuggled into facilities, which pose a
risk.
The most commonly used illicit drug in the United States is marijuana, which first
became popular in the 1920’s. There has been a great deal of debate whether or not
marijuana is a “gateway drug”. In 2011, the most commonly detected drug among male
arrestees in the United States was marijuana. This data was collected through selfreporting and urinalysis samples, which was collected at booking facilities in ten cities
across the U.S. Other drugs detected from these urinalysis samples were cocaine,
opiates and methamphetamine. (Cesar, 2013)
Another more dangerous drug which has been, since 2008, a serious issue in the
United States is synthetic cannabinoids or synthetic marijuana also known as spice or
K2. The drug is a human made mind altering chemical, which is meant to mimic
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This chemical can be sprayed on dried plant material and
then smoked or distributed in a liquid state to be inhaled in electronic cigarettes. The
effects from taking this drug are unpredictable, dangerous and life threatening. This drug
has serious physical and mental effects which may include, but limited to the following:
rapid heart rate, high blood pressure, kidney damage, violent behavior, paranoia,
hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. (NIDA, 2018, February 5)
This drug has greatly impacted our society both inside and outside the correctional
setting. It was reported that, on August 15, 2018, in New Haven, Connecticut, more than
70 people had suffered from drug overdoses within a 24 hour period. All of these
overdoses occurred in a small geographical area and the cause of the overdoses were
from the use synthetic cannabinoids. (Schmidt, 2018)
In regards to correctional facilities there have been an unprecedented amount of
overdoses and violence associated with synthetic marijuana just in the past two years. It
was reported in 2018 that the Florida prison system has had a dramatic increase in
accidental deaths among inmates, which totaled 12 in 2016 and 62 in 2017. The majority
of these deaths are related to overdoses according to the Florida Department of
Corrections (FDC). In a FDC internal audit the top drug which caused the most deaths
was synthetic marijuana. (Blaskey, 2018)
In August of 2018, Pennsylvania Prison officials reported that their facilities in the
western part of the state have seen a four percent increase of inmate violence, which
includes inmate on staff assaults. This increase is measured over a six-month period and
the contributing factor was K2. (Esack, 2018)
In a Washington DC jail, on March 15, 2018, at least a dozen employees became
sick when a package arrived in the facility mailroom containing what was first thought to
2

be fentanyl, but later determined to be synthetic cannabinoid. At least seven of the
effected employees, who suffered from dizziness and breathing difficulties, were taken to
the hospital for treatment. (Coffin, 2018)
Another type of drug which has had a harmful impact in our society is opioids. For
this research I focused my attention to fentanyl and heroin. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid
similar to the natural drug morphine. However, Fentanyl can be up to 100 times more
powerful than morphine. (NIDA, 2019) Heroin on the other hand is natural product made
from morphine. Both of these drugs are highly addictive and deadly. (NIDA, 2018, June
8)
Another commonalty that these opioids have is that in 2016 both reached the top
of the charts as being the most common drugs found in overdose deaths. Fentanyl was
ranked number one with 18,335 deaths and Heroin at number two with 15,961 deaths.
However, in the previous four years (2013 to 2016) heroin was ranked number one.
Fentanyl jumped 113 percent each of the four years to land at the top of the chart.
(Kounang, 2018)
Fentanyl and other opioids has had increased notoriety in the past couple of years
with overdose occurring in prisons and jails across the country, to include ill effects this
drug has had on officers by direct and indirect exposure. In August 2018, an inmate at
an Ohio correctional facility was found to have overdosed on a mixture of fentanyl and
heroin and was sent to the hospital. Accompanying the inmate were 27 staff members
from the facility, who had been exposed to the drug. (Duggan, 2018)
In the Miami-Dade County Jail two inmates had died and two others sent to the
hospital. The suspected cause was from the use of fentanyl. It is further alleged that that
one of the deceased inmates obtained the drugs from an inmate who had been recently
transferred from another facility. It is believed that this inmate had smuggled the drug in
the facility in his anal cavity. In November 2018, he was indicted for murder. (Ovalle,
2018)
On February 1, 2019, the Pasco County Jail was placed on lockdown and a facility
wide search was underway due to five inmates, who suffered from drug overdoses in less
than a week. One of the inmates’ died as a result of the overdose even after receiving
four doses of Narcan. The drug believed to have caused the overdoses was fentanyl
laced methamphetamines. It is suspected that the drugs entered the facility by an inmate
hiding it in his body cavity. (Cascio, 2019)
Another drug that has become increasingly common in correctional facilities is
Suboxone. Suboxone is a prescribed medication used to manage opioid addiction.
Suboxone formulated using a combination of buprenorphine, which is a synthetic opioid,
and Naloxone. (NIDA, 2018, January 17)
Drug Smuggling techniques:
Inmate’s motivation for obtaining drugs in correctional facilities is extreme and
various techniques are used in order to thwart the efforts of detention staff. The following
describes different methods in which inmates smuggle drugs into correctional facilities
throughout Florida and United States. One popular method is through outside mail
delivered to the inmates. In Panama City, Florida, 27 arrests were made in connection
with a drug smuggling operation at the Bay County Jail. Through a yearlong investigation
3

it was discovered that mail sent to inmates was laced with synthetic drugs to include
suboxone. (Breaux, 2018)
Another example of drugs being smuggled in through the mail occurred at the Polk
County Jail where K2 was sprayed on sheets of paper and mailed to inmates. The papers
were disguised with legal information and personal messages written on bogus and
appropriate law firm stationary. Some papers were brought in to the facility during
meetings with an attorney. (WFTS, 2018)
Another method includes arrestees being brought into the facility with drugs hidden
on their person to include in their body cavity. In July 2018, an incident occurred at St.
Johns County Jail, in St. Augustine, Florida, where drugs were found on a female arrestee
at the time she was being booked in. A search revealed that the women had hidden
drugs in her anus, which included three bags of methamphetamine and one bag of crack
cocaine. (WJXT, 2018)
A similar case occurred in Columbus, Indiana at the Bartholomew County Jail. An
officer had received information of a women planning to smuggle drugs into the jail. Upon
entering the jail, the woman was taken to a medical facility where she removed, from her
body cavity, drugs consisting of 2.5 grams of heroin, suboxone pills, other unknown pills
and two packs of cigarettes. Later the Sheriff of Bartholomew County explained that the
only way to find contraband concealed in the body cavity is by intelligence, a probable
cause search warrant, and body scanner. (King, 2019)
One can only assume that when inmates come in contact with other individuals the
chances of contraband being passed to the inmate is great. It reasonable to say that
inmates need a connection with individuals outside the facility to obtain drugs. An
example would include inmate visitation, especially if the visitation is conducted in a
manner in which the inmate is in direct contact with the visitor. In January 2019, at Lowell
Correctional Institute, near Ocala, a man who was visiting a female inmate simply
removed something from his jacket and gave it to the inmate. Fortunately, this was
witnessed by staff and the inmate was search. It was discovered that the inmate was in
possession of fifteen strips of suboxone. (Fillmore, 2019)
Another example of inmates obtaining drugs from an outside source would be
through the contact with professional visitors and detention staff assigned to the facility.
In a North Carolina jail a man disguised as a pastor attempting to see an inmate was
discovered having suboxone strips inside his bible. (Price, 2019)
In Plymouth County Massachusetts, two women entered the county correctional
facility. One of the women was an attorney who used her credentials to gain access into
the jail and make contact with an inmate. The attorney gave the inmate sixty-one
suboxone strips. (Legal Monitor Worldwide, 2018)
Detention staff who provide drugs to inmates are not uncommon as one would
hope. An example occurred in Columbia County, FL, where a correctional officer was
arrested for distributing drugs to an inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution. It was
reported that the office received payments from the inmate’s girlfriend, which totaled
$1,100. (Hamlin, 2019)
As indicated inmates will go to great lengths to obtain drugs and have used more
sophisticated methods in doing so. One such smuggling technique is through use of
small remote piloted drones. With use of these drones contraband can be dropped in
and around facilities.
4

In the early morning hours, on August 18, 2017, two correctional officers from a
correctional facility in Michigan witnessed a drone drop two bags near a housing unit.
The bags contained a cellphone and drugs. (Corrections One, 2017)
Detection and Prevention:
As previously identified there are different and diverse ways inmates smuggle
drugs into facilities. This problem presents a constant endeavor and challenge for
detention employees. Technology in the correction setting has advanced rapidly. In
many ways advancements in technology has lessen the burden for staff or help them
become more proficient and even safer during the course of their duties.
One form of technology that can be used to detect contraband hidden on
individuals, including concealed in body cavities, are full body scanners. In 2012, the
Hamilton County Jail, in Ohio, began using a full-body digital scanner. The brand name
for this particular device is SecurPass. This devise was used to scan inmates in addition
to strip searches in the intake area of the facility. In 2013, the Pinellas County Jail also
implemented the SecurPass scanner, which is also used in the facilities intake and
receiving area in order to scan all new prisoners. In a twelve-month period there were
158 incidents where contraband was detected while using the scanner. The forms of
contraband detected included, but not limited to, the following: drugs, drug paraphernalia,
guns, knives and handcuff keys. At the end of 2015 there were 200 correctional facilities
throughout the United States using SecurPass scanners. (Clarke, 2016)
In Orange County Florida, at the Orange County Jail, staff have battled the
introduction of contraband to include drugs. In April 2016, the jail began using a full body
digital scanner. In a particular case, following implementation of the scanner, an arrestee
was brought into the facility and denied having any contraband. After being scanned the
arrestee removed from her body cavity forty-nine bags of heroin and ten bags of cocaine.
(Allen, 2016)
Drugs sent through the mail not only jeopardizes the safety and security of the
inmate population, but has threatening effects on staff. With the use of technology inmate
mail can now be scanned for drugs. With the use of this type of device the Okaloosa
County Jail is able to screen a letter in just seconds. The devise then determines if the
letter contains illicit drugs such as cocaine, heroin, amphetamines and suboxone. The
brand name of this particular devise is the Verovision Mail Screener. In just several weeks
of using the screener forty pieces of mail was found to have illicit drugs. (Judnich, 2018)
Another method of combating contraband in mail is to not have inmate mail
delivered to the facility. Smart Communication is a company base in Pinellas County, FL
and has devised a system called MailGuard. Instead of mail being sent directly to the
correctional facility, it is sent off-site and to a third party, scanned and then uploaded to
kiosks located in an inmate housing unit. The inmate may then view the correspondence.
The mail is further filtered with specific security setting customized for your facility. (Sims,
2017)
Just in the past several months the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office began using
the MailGuard system at their jail facility. The jail further adopted an inmate electronic
messaging system, where the inmate may correspond with family and friends through the
kiosk. (Williams, 2019)
5

Drone detection and interdiction pose another type of challenge for jail
administrators. In a survey prepared for the National Institute of Justice, it was explained
that the most effective method of drone detection is through the use of radio frequency
(RF). When using this technology, the user may identify the GPS coordinates and altitude
of the drone and even the GPS location of the drone operator. There are other methods
of detection such as audio, video, thermal and radar detection. (NIJ, 2017)
In May 2016, the Suffolk County Correctional Facility in New York, installed drone
detection equipment at their facility. Although there were no incidents with drones that
prompted this move to install the technology, but understood that incidents involving
drones were happening at other facilities. Since being installed the facility has not had
any drones enter their area. However, the facility was alerted to drones flying in a public
parking lot near the facility, which confirms the system works. (Coppola, 2017)
Inmate visitation certainly increases the risk of contraband introduction. One
method facilities can implement would be the use of a video visitation system. This type
of visitation is similar to a video conference and is conducted remotely as opposed to
being face to face or in person. Video visiting was first implemented in correctional
facilities around 25 years ago. As technology advanced so did the application of the
system resulting in more user friendly equipment and affordability. Research and
subsequent guide prepared for the National Institute of Corrections suggested that these
type of systems are used to improve safety and security of correctional facilities.
A reduction in contact or in person visits may reduce the amount of contraband
introduction. This type of technology may further reduce both inmate movement and
incidents that occur in visitation rooms. (Hollihan & Portlock, 2014)
Methods
The focus of this research was to examine what dangerous and illicit drugs are
being introduced in correctional facilities, methods of introduction and what techniques
and forms of technology are being used to detect and prevent drugs from entering
facilities. The method in which research data was collected was through the use of
surveys. The surveys were forwarded to eleven correctional facilities throughout the
State of Florida. These facilities included county jails in Lake, Orange, Polk, Seminole,
Volusia, Pasco, Hillsborough, Collier, and Palm Beach County. In order to broaden the
scope of this research, surveys were also forwarded to two Florida Department of
Correction facilities, which included Jefferson Correctional Institution and Okaloosa
Correctional Institution. The surveys were sent, by email, to an individual from each of
the selected facilities.
The facilities that took part in this survey were selected based on geographic
location with intent of ensuring input was gathered throughout the State of Florida. The
daily average inmate population of the eleven facilities surveyed range from 800 to just
over 3000 inmates. Although the facilities varied greatly in inmate population, I didn’t
want to isolate the research to just a large or small institutions.
The design of the survey was intended to gather information from the selected
institutions to determine effective and innovative measures used to detect and prevent
the introduction of illicit drugs. This survey was further intended to ascertain if the use of
6

technological devices have generated successful results or is the applied technology only
effective when used in conjunction with traditional measure such as human interdiction
methods or officer searches and the use of other means such as drug detection dogs.
This survey is to be confidential by only indicating the name of the facility and not the
individual completing the survey. The weakness in this survey is that some of the
questions maybe too broad in scope not requiring a more definitive or finite response.
Although the purpose of these type of questions may ensure a greater degree of
openness and candor, they may also require a small degree of interpretation.
Results
The surveys, consisting of twenty-three questions, were sent by email to eleven
correctional facilities throughout the State of Florida. I had a 100 percent return rate as
all eleven surveys were returned. However, one survey was incomplete with only 64% of
the questions answered or nine questions unanswered.
The first question simply inquired to the size of the facility or the average daily
population (ADP) of inmates at the time of the survey. Indicated in the table below are
the responses of those surveyed.
Table 1: Average Daily Population (ADP)

ADP
3000

2800

2600
A

A

3500

-- --

3000

.&.

1500
~

2500

1700

1300
~

1750

.-=..

2000

1200

940

,s-f

1500

'l)-$2

1000

825

q.,"-

500

~
'l)~

0

800

o')
'l)~
'>.

◊

'5-o"

◊

q.,'>

~
o0

-fJ"¥>

l.,

'l>'

0

~"
q.,~

r,'>

q.,l>

0~

.:xq.,

'l,0¢-s-

~

ol>

q.,...,.o

'l)~

.;y'°'

;t..O

'?¢{:'
V:

o°'
o'>
~
c,~·

q.,l>

ADP

Question 2 of the survey focuses on the type of illicit drugs being detected entering
each of the participating facilities. The results of the eleven facilities surveyed indicated
ten types of illicit drugs that have been detected. Ten facilities (91%) detected Marijuana,
seven facilities (64%) detected Cocaine, seven facilities (64%) detected
Methamphetamines, six facilities (55%) detected Synthetic Cannabinoids (K2), three
facilities (27%) detected Heroin, three facilities (27%) detected Prescription Pills, two
7

facilities (18%) detected Ecstasy, one facility (9%) detected Fentanyl, One facility (9%)
detected Suboxone and only one facility (9%) detected Amphetamine. See Table 2
below, which further illustrates the responses.
Table 2: Illicit Drugs Detected in Correctional Facilities

Illicit Drugs Detected in Correctional Facilities
12
10
10

.,,

~
·o

8

7

7
6

6

It>

~

4

3

3
2

2

1

1

1

0
~'l>

~

i...~

~'l>

Question 3 asked participants the methods in which illicit drugs are being
introduced and or smuggled into their respective facilities. The following are the surveyed
responses of all eleven facilities based on the most common methods of introduction to
the least common: Intake/Booking areas (81% of the facilities), mail, staff, inmate work
crews (45% of the facilities), Visitation (27% of the facilities), Professional visitors (18%
of the facilities), individuals dropping and throwing drugs over fences or into the facility
(18% of the facilities), one facility indicated prison transfers and one facility indicated
contracted employees (9% of the facilities) as a method of introduction.

8

Table 3: Methods of Introduction

Methods of Introduction
9

9

8

FACILITIES

7
6
5

5

5

5

4

3

3

3
2

2

1

1
0

Question 4 of the survey inquired as to how many inmates in the participant’s
facility have suffered from a drug overdose since 2016. Hillsborough, Polk, and Pasco
County Jails, to include Jefferson CI indicated that they have had greater than 10 inmates
who have suffered from a drug overdose. Palm Beach and Volusia County Jails stated
that they have had 6 to 10 inmates suffer a drug overdose. Whereas Okaloosa CI and
jails in Collier, Lake and Seminole County indicated they had less than 5 inmates
overdose from illicit drugs. A response to this question was not received from Orange
County.

9

Table 4: Incident Involving Drug Overdoses

INCIDENTS INVOLVING DRUG OVERDOSES

Less Than 5
4 Facilities

Greater Than 10
4 Facilities

6 to 10
2 Facilities

Question 5 asked those surveyed as to what type of inmate visitation does their
facility conduct. Seven out of the eleven facilities, to include Collier, Hillsborough, Palm
Beach, Pasco, Polk, Volusia, and Orange County use a video visitation system. Lake
and Seminole County inmates conduct visitation face to face visits with a barrier so no
contact between the inmate and the visitor can occur. Jefferson and Okaloosa CI conduct
in person visits without a barrier.
Question 6 focuses on incidents that have occurred involving the detection or
introduction of illicit drugs into the facilities Intake/Receiving area since 2016. Ten
responses were received for this question. Of those ten responses five facilities (50%)
stated that they had 31 or more incidents, which includes Hillsborough, Palm Beach,
Pasco, Seminole and Volusia County, . Four facilities (40%) indicated that they have had
10 or less incidents. These facilities include Jefferson CI, Okaloosa CI, Collier and Polk
County. Lake County responded that they have experienced 11 to 20 incidents since
2016.

10

Table 5: Intake/Receiving Incidents

INTAKE/RECEIVING INCIDENTS 2016-PRESENT

10 or Less
40%

31 or more
50%

11 to 20
10%

The seventh question wanted to know the amount of incidents involving illicit drugs
being introduced through inmate mail since 2016. Only one facility failed to respond to
this question. Seventy percent of those who did respond indicated that 10 or less
incidents have occurred. Two facilities stated that they have had 11 to 20 incidents since
2016. The remaining facility responded that 31 or more incidents have occurred during
this period.
Question 8 asked the participants the amount of incidents involving illicit drugs
being introduced through inmate visitation since 2016. Six of the ten responses or 60%
indicated that there were no incidents that occurred. Two of the participants indicated that
they have had 10 or less incidents. One facility responded that they have had 11 to 20
incidents that had occurred and the remaining facility answered that they have had 31 or
more incidents.
Question 9 and 10 centered on the use of drones (remote aircraft) and if those
surveyed had any incidents with drones flying in and around their facilities or have drones
been used as a means to smuggle in contraband. Jefferson CI indicated that they have
experienced less than 10 incidents. Okaloosa CI stated that they had 2 incidents involving
drones. The remaining facilities or 80% have not experienced any drone activity. In
Question 10 it was asked to those surveyed if they deploy any type of drone detection
and prevention technology. All eleven responses specified “No” to this question.
For Question 11 the participants were asked if they have had incidents where
employees have provided or attempted to provide illicit drugs to inmates. Six facilities
(55%) provided a “Yes” to this question with the other five facilities or 45% indicating that
this had not occurred.
11

Question 12, similar to the previous question, asked if there had been any incidents
involving professional visitors who had provided or attempted to provide inmates with illicit
drugs. Only three county jails to include Lake County, Palm Beach County and Polk
County answered “Yes” to this question. The remaining participants responded “No.”
The next two questions focused on methods that have been implemented to
prevent employees and professional visitors from smuggling in drugs into their respective
facility. In regards to employees, Hillsborough County conducts random bag searches
on agency staff and contract employees as they enter the facility. Palm Beach County
conducts random bag searches, locker searches, utilizes cameras, signage showing the
consequences of bringing in drugs. Polk County posted signs advising that anyone can
be searched. Seminole County responded that security screenings are conducted for
staff and visitors. Volusia County conducts random bag searches. Orange County stated
that they use a third party to screen those entering the compound. Jefferson CI answered
that they deploy metal detectors and hand held wands and conduct pat searches.
Okaloosa CI said they use an enhanced search process, cell phone detection wands and
K-9’s. Collier, Lake and Pasco County indicated that they do not have any methods of
preventing employees from smuggling in drugs.
In regards to question 14, methods to prevent professional visitors from smuggling
in drugs, Hillsborough County searches bags and all personal property. Palm Beach
County deploys metal detector and bag x-ray scanners and conducts bag searches. Polk
County indicates that they have a K-9 at their facility. Seminole County conducts security
screening. Volusia County conducts random bag searches. Orange County, like the
response for question 13, indicated that they use a third party to screen those entering
the compound. Jefferson CI responded that they deploy metal detectors and hand held
wands and conduct pat searches. Okaloosa CI, similar to question 13, explained they
use an enhanced search process, cell phone detection wands, K-9’s and searches
visitors entering and exiting restrooms. Collier County responded that belongings are xrayed prior to entering the attorney visitation area. Volusia County conducts random bag
searches and Lake County do not have methods for preventing professional visitors from
smuggling in illicit drugs.
Question 15 asked those being surveyed if they use drug detection dogs in their
facilities. Eight facilities (73%) responded they use drug detection dogs on a regular
basis. Those facilities include Jefferson CI, Okaloosa CI, Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk,
Orange, Lake, and Volusia County. The remaining three facilities do not deploy drug
detection dogs on a regular basis. However, Seminole and Hillsborough County indicated
that dogs are used as needed based on a suspicion of drugs. Hillsborough County noted
that they had a drug detection dog in the past. Further elaboration was requested in
Question 16 asking the participants as to when, where, and how often are drug detection
dogs being utilized. The responses varied considerably in regards to how often dogs are
used. Polk and Palm Beach County uses dogs on a daily basis. Pasco County uses dogs
four times a week and Orange County deploys dogs weekly. In Volusia County local law
enforcement brings dogs into the facility several times a month for training. Jefferson and
Okaloosa CI utilizes dogs three times a month.
Question 17 asked the participants to indicate how many incidents occurred
involving illicit drugs being detected by drug detection dogs from 2016 to present. Ten of
the eleven surveyed responded to this question. Four of the ten facilities indicated that
12

they have had no incident where drugs were detected. Four facilities responded that
they have had 10 or less incidents. One of the participants stated that their facility has
had 11 to 20 incident and the remaining facility had 31 or more incidents, since 2016,
where drug detection dogs have discovered drugs.
Table 5: Incidents Involving K-9 Drug Detection Since 2016

Incidents Involving K-9 Drug Detection
Since 2016

10%
10%
40%

■ No Incidents
■

10 or Less Incidents

■ 11

to 20 Incidents

■ 31 or More Incidents

40%

Question 18 asked those surveyed if they use detection devices or any forms of
technology to detect and prevent illicit drugs from entering their facility. All but one
participant responded “Yes” to this question. However, the one that responded “No”
indicted that their facility is currently testing a video visitation system for future
implementation. The following question requested that the participants describe the
devices currently used. The most commonly deployed items were Body Scanners (used
by 7 facilities), video surveillance cameras (used by 7 facilities) and video visitation. Other
devices included were metal detection equipment (hand held and walk through), mail
scanners (used by 2 facilities) and cellular telephone detection devices. One facility
indicated they use a system where inmate mail is sent to a third party (off compound),
who scans and uploads the mail to a kiosk in the inmate housing area.
Question 20 simply asked if the use of the devices or forms of technology used
been effective in detecting and preventing drugs from entering their facilities. Nine of the
eleven who responded stated “Yes”. One of the participants responded “No” and the
remaining participant was not definitive as the response was both “Yes” and “No.”
13

In Question 21 the participants were asked how often does their facility conduct
random searches using detention staff. Daily searches were conducted by staff at 73%
of the facilities surveyed. One facility explained that every area of the facility will be search
quarterly. One of the participants indicated that searches are done twice a week. The
remaining participant indicated that each of their four squads complete searches monthly.
Question 22 is a follow up to the previous question by asking the participants to
indicate how many incidents have occurred where illicit drugs were detected during
random facility searches conducted by detention staff since 2016. Out of the ten
responses received 50% indicated 31 or more incidents, which include Jefferson CI, Lake,
Palm Beach, Pasco, and Volusia County. Four of the responding facilities or 40%
indicated 10 or less incidents, which includes Collier, Hillsborough, Polk and Seminole
County. Okaloosa CI indicated that no incidents have occurred.
Table 6: Incidents Involving Random Searches by Detention Staff

INCIDENTS INVOLVING RANDOM SEARCHES BY
DETENTION STAFF
None
10%

31 or More
50%
10 or Less
40%

Question 23 asked those surveyed the method(s) that have been most effective in
detecting and preventing illicit drugs in their facility. Five of the eleven facilities (45%)
indicated inmate cell searches and or facility searches. Four facilities (36%) indicated
body scanners. There were two indications (18%) of obtaining information/intelligence
from inmates. Two participants indicated the deployment of drug detection dogs. Two
facilities stated inmate searches and one response to searching inmate mail. It should

14

be noted that five participants provided multiple responses. See Table 7, which illustrates
the participant’s responses.
Table 7: Most Effective Methods

Most Effective Methods
Searching Inmate Mail

1

Drug Detection Dogs

2

Inmate Pat/Strip Searches

2

Intelligence from Inmates

2

Body Scanners

4

Facility Searches

5

Discussion
The responses from the survey were informative and interesting and somewhat
surprising to a certain degree. In the first portion of the survey, where it asked for the
type of drugs entering their respective institution, it was no surprise that Marijuana was
the most common response equating to 91% of the facilities. Research conducted prior
to the surveys indicated Marijuana as being the most commonly detected drug among
male arrestees. The second most common drugs found entering the surveyed facilities
were Cocaine and Methamphetamine followed closely by the introduction of Synthetic
Cannabinoids, also known as K-2, which 54% of the facilities reported. What was
surprising was only one facility indicated the synthetic opioid Fentanyl considering the
increased notoriety this drug has had in recent years. Furthermore, it was discovered in
previous research that in 2016 Fentanyl had surpassed heroin as being the highest cause
of death with 18,335 deaths a years. This leads one to assume that the most volatile and
dangerous drug doesn’t necessarily correlate with the most popular drug being
introduced.
In regards to methods in which drugs are introduced into those participating
facilities, the most common response, by nearly all or 82%, was through intake areas.
This location is the first process arrestees/prisoner undertake as they enter the county
jail. The two facilities that understandably did not indicate this response are the two
15

Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) institutions. FDC receives inmate from other
secured facilities such as prison and county jails, which those inmates would have been
searched prior to transport. The second most popular methods were inmate mail, inmate
work crews, and staff. Five of the eleven participant’s specified staff as being a method
of drug introduction, which was interesting considering there was a lesser response to
professional visitors and visitation. The issue with staff being a method was further
confirmed later in the survey when it was asked of the participants if there had been any
incidents where staff have provided or attempted to provide illicit drugs to inmates. Six
facilities or 55% indicate “Yes.”
As far as incidents involving drugs being detected intake/receiving areas, five of
the ten facilities who responded to this specific question indicated that they have had
greater than 31 incidents since 2016 and one facility stated that have had between 11
and 20 incidents. What is interesting that of these six facilities; five facilities deploy body
scanners. Four facilities responded they have had 10 or less incident. One of the
participants did not respond.
In respect to drugs entering through inmate mail, which 45% of the participants
indicated; only three responded that they use a form of technology to prevent this from
occurring. Two facilities use a mail scanner, whereas the other facility explained that mail
is scanned at a remote location and the inmates read their mail on a kiosk. This system
is similar if not the same as the MailGuard system found in previous research. This
system would certainly elevate the issue of mail being a concern.
Another area explored through this survey was the use of drug detection dogs (K9). Eight facilities of the eleven who responded use K-9’s in some regular capacity with
varying schedules of use. Search schedules included (most frequent to least frequent):
every day, four times a week, weekly, three times a month and once a month. When
asked to indicate how many incidents have occurred, since 2016, involving drugs
detected by K-9’s; the responses indicated that only one facility had 31 or greater
incidents of detection and one facility had 11 to 20 incidents. Both are FDC institutions
and use K-9’s only three times a month, but have the most incidents. Three other facilities
who use K-9’s only had 10 or less incidents and one facility has had none. It should be
noted that three facilities surveyed only use K-9’s on an as needed basis or when
suspicion arise.
Another segment of the survey focused on the frequency of random searches (i.e.
shakedowns and cell searches) conducted by staff and are these random searches
effective in detecting illicit drugs. Eight facilities advised that random searches are
conducted daily. However, I was somewhat surprised with the remaining response
considering that one facility indicated only twice a week. Two of the responses were
somewhat ambiguous advising that every area of the facility was completed quarterly and
the other stated that each of their four squads are responsible for completing searches
monthly of various areas. This may equate to daily or possibly weekly searches, but it’s
uncertain.
In regards to the effectiveness random searches have on detecting drugs, five of
the ten facilities who responded have had 31 or more incidents where drugs have been
detected since 2016. Of these five facilities, only four conduct random searches on a
daily basis. As to the other four facilities, who conduct daily searches, three facilities have
had 10 incidents or less and the remaining facility had none. The one facility that only
16

conduct searches twice a week had 31 or more incidents. One can theorize that it may
not be the frequency of the search, but the effective manner in which searches are being
conducted. One can further theorize that the size of the facility or a higher inmate
population may contribute to likelihood of increased incidents of detecting drugs.
At the conclusion of the survey the participants indicated the most effective
method(s) of detecting and preventing drugs in their facilities. The responses to this
question was significant and answers an important question of this research. Of the
sixteen different types of methods received 62% of these methods involved the utilization
of staff in the efforts to detect and prevent illicit drugs. This utilization is in the form of
facility searches, intelligence gathering from inmates, pat/strip searches and mail
searches. What is interesting is that seven facilities deploy body scanners, but there were
only four facilities (36%) indicating body scanners as being one of their most effective
methods. This data would further confirm that detention staff is the single most important
commodity in detecting and preventing illicit drugs in a correctional facility.
Recommendations
The information obtained from the survey appears to be somewhat consistent with
efforts taken to stop the flow of drugs in jails and prisons. However, are the efforts taken
enough to avoid an inmate suffering from an overdose and/or die? Are the efforts enough
to prevent staff from being exposed to a harmful drug that cause severe effects as the
previous literature suggested? These questions are best answered by administrators in
correctional institutions. Each institution varies in size with regards to inmate population
and each may have certain limitations dependent on budgets and staffing levels.
However, it is a certainty that inmates will continue make every attempt or use any method
to smuggle in drugs. It’s our job to ensure this does not occur as we are bound in
providing care, custody and control of the inmate population.
The information collected through this research was beneficial in providing an
understanding and insight to the various types of illicit drugs and how these drugs are
entering our facilities. It was equally valuable in determining the different types of
technology being deployed, such as full body scanners, mail scanners, video visitation
and surveillance cameras. Based on my research and considering each facilities differs
to a degree, I would recommend all the detection and prevention methods mentioned
paying close attention to those areas where drugs are likely to enter. I would further
recommend each facility must continue to research technology based efforts as advances
in this field will continue to grow.
This research further confirms that the utilization of detention staff is the most
effective method in preventing drugs in a correctional institution. It’s my recommendation
that facilities invest in this valuable resource by providing proper and effective training for
staff in the areas of facility and inmate searches and investigative techniques.

17

Lieutenant George Brotchi has been a member of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s for over 24 years, beginning
his career in the Department of Detention and Correction in 1995. He has worked various assignments
throughout his tenure to include: shift supervisor, shift commander, Juvenile Boot Camp Sergeant, Internal
Affairs Investigator and member of the Corrections Response Team and Honor Guard. He is currently
assigned as an Administrative Lieutenant in the Support Services Division within the Department of
Detention and Corrections and is the Commander of the Corrections Response Team. George has a
Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from Mountain State University.

References
Allen, S. (2016, August 25). Scanner helps stop flow of drugs in Fla. jail.
Correctionsone.com. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from
ttps://www.correctionsone.com/products/facility-products/bodyscanners/articles/214087187-Scanner-helps-stop-flow-of-drugs-in-Fla-jail/
Attorney Accused for Smuggling Drugs in Jail. (2018, May 12). Legal Monitor
Worldwide. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from
https://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&u=22112_clear&id=GALE|A538257985
&v=2.1&it=r&sid=GPS&asid=6f75e171#
Blaskey, S. (2018, August 22). This drug is turning Florida inmates into 'zombies.' It's
fueling a record death toll. Miami Herald.com. Retrieved March 6, 2019, from
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/special-reports/floridaprisons/article215642855.html
Breaux, C., & Breaux, C. (2018, July 23). 27 arrested in jail drug smuggling
investigation. Panama City News Herald. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from
https://www.newsherald.com/news/20180720/27-arrested-in-jail-drug-smugglinginvestigation
Cascio, J. (2019, February 1). Jail sweep underway after Pasco inmate dies from drug
overdose. Fox 13 News. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from
http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/pasco-jail-deputies
Center for Substance Abuse Research. (2013, October 29). Retrieved February 24,
2019, from http://cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp
Clarke, M., & Prison Systems. (2016, June 3). Increasing number of jails, prisons using
full-body digital scanner. Prison Legal News. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/jun/3/increasing-number-jailsprisons-using-full-body-digital-scanners/
Coffin, C. (2018, March 15). Officials: Package sent to DC Dept. of Corrections
contained synthetic cannabinoid, not fentanyl. Fox5DC.com. Retrieved March 6,
2019, from http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/suspicious-packagereported-at-dc-jail-corrections-officers-transported
18

Coppola, M. (2017, July 25). How a New York prison is using UAS detection tech.
Correctionsone.com. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from
https://www.correctionsone.com/products/corrections/articles/387579187-How-aNew-York-prison-is-using-UAS-detection-tech/
Corrections One. (2017, August 18). 3 arrested after drone drops cellphone, drugs to
prison yard. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from
https://www.correctionsone.com/drones/articles/411361187-3-arrested-afterdrone-drops-cellphone-drugs-to-prison-yard/
Duggan, P. (2018, August 30). Fentanyl exposure sickened Ohio prison staff. Retrieved
Washingtonpost.com. March 6, 2019, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fentanyl-exposure-sickenedohio-prison-staff/2018/08/30/23fcbbec-ac82-11e8-b1daff7faa680710_story.html?utm_term=.103fdae7e6fd
Esack, S. (2018, August 22). Increased assaults in Pa. prisons linked to smuggled K2.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved February 24, 2019, from https://www.postgazette.com/news/state/2018/08/22/K2- synthetic-marijuana-Pennsylvania-stateprisons-assaults/stories/201808220182
Fillmore, A. (2019, January 28). Man faces charge of smuggling contraband into Marion
County prison. Ocala StarBanner. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from
https://www.ocala.com/news/20190128/man-faces-charge-of-smugglingcontraband-into-marion-county-prison
Hamlin, J. (2019, January 17). Columbia corrections officer accused of smuggling
drugs into prison. WCJB.com. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from
https://www.wcjb.com/content/news/Columbia-Corrections-Officer-accused-ofsmuggling-drugs-into-prison-504488201.html
Hollihan, A., & Portlock, M. (2014, December). Video visiting in corrections: Benefits,
limitations, and implementation considerations. National Institute of Corrections.
Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://nicic.gov/video-visiting-correctionsbenefits-limitations-and-implementation-considerations
Judnich, T., & Judnich, T. (2018, May 03). New scanner reveals drugs meant for
inmates. The Destin Log. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from
https://www.thedestinlog.com/news/20180502/new-scanner-reveals-drugsmeant-for-inmates
King, M. (2019, February 28). Woman tries to smuggle drugs into Bartholomew Co. Jail.
Retrieved March 4, 2019, from https://localnewsdigital.com/woman-tries-tosmuggle-drugs-into-bartholomew-co-jail/

19

Kounang, N. (2018, December 28). Fentanyl is the deadliest drug in America, CDC
confirms. CNN.com. Retrieved February 24, 2019, from
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/health/drugs-overdose-fentanylstudy/index.html
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2019, February 28). Fentanyl. Retrieved March 6,
2019, from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018, June 7). Heroin. Retrieved March 6, 2019, from
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018, January 17). Opioid Addiction. Retrieved
March 6, 2019, from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drugaddiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/evidence-basedapproaches-to-drug-addiction-treatment/pharmacotherapies
National Institute on Drug Abuse (2018, February 5). Synthetic Cannabinoids
(K2/Spice). Retrieved March 6, 2019 from
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicationsdrugfacts/synthetic-cannabinoids-k2spice
National Institute of Justice, (2017, July 12). A Market Survey on Contraband Detection
Technologies. NIJ.gov. Retrieved
from:https://nij.gov/topics/corrections/institutional/contraband/pages/contrabanddetection-devices-what-market-has-to-offer.aspx
Ovalle, D. (2018, November 08). Two inmates indicted for murder in fentanyl overdose
death in Miami-Dade jail. Miami Herald. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article221280565.html
Price, M. (2019, January 03). Man posing as minister brought Bibles stuffed with drugs
to NC jail, deputies say. Charlotte Observer. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article223822870.html
Schmidt, S. (2018, August 16). 'It is taking people out': More than 70 people overdose
on K2 in a single day in New Haven. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 6,
2019, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morningmix/wp/2018/08/16/it-is-taking-people-out-more-than-70-people-overdose-on-k2in-a-single-day-in-new-haven/?utm_term=.0e7777644a66
Shapiro, F. R. (2006). Yale Book of Quotations. Yale University Press.
Sims, T. (2017, October 05). Smart communications tackles contraband with
technology. Correctionalnew.com. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from
http://correctionalnews.com/2017/10/06/smart-communications-tacklescontraband-technology/

20

WFTS Webteam. (2018, September 11). 9 arrested for smuggling K-2 into Polk jail.
ABC Action News. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-polk/nine-arrested-for-smuggling-k2-into-polk-county-jail
Williams, M. (2019, January 11). Seminole County Jail ditches letters for electronic
messages. Video calls to take place of inmate visits. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved
March 12, 2019, from https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/osne-seminole-county-jail-mail-20190111-story.html
WJXT News 4 Jax (2018, July 30). Deputies: 4 bags of drugs found in woman's body
cavity at jail. Retrieved March 4, 2019,
fromhttps://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/st-johns- county/deputies-4-bags-ofdrugs-found-in-womans-body-cavity-at-jail

Appendix A
Survey Introduction:
My name is Lieutenant George Brotchi with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. I’m
currently attending the F.D.L.E. Senior Leadership Program in Tallahassee and part of
the requirement for this program is to complete a research project. I am conducting
research on the Detection and Prevention of Illicit Drugs in a Correctional Facility.
Attached is a survey, which is needed to complete my research. I am respectfully
requesting your assistance in completing the attached survey. This survey is to be
confidential by only using the name of the facility and information obtained, but not the
name of the individual completing the survey. Once completed, please forward the survey
back to me via email to gbrotchi@pcsonet.com. Please return by July 15, 2019. Please
feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Your assistance with this important
research is greatly appreciated.
Survey Questions:
1. What is your facilities average daily population?
2. What type of illicit drugs have been detected entering your facility?
3. List methods in which illicit drugs are introduced/smuggled into your facility (for
example, intake/receiving areas, visitation, inmate mail, facility employees, professional
visitors, drones)

21

4. How many Inmates in your facility have suffered from a drug overdose from 2016 to
present? Please select the appropriate category.
O None
O Less than 5 occurrences
O 6 to 10 occurrences
O Greater than 10 occurrences
5. What type of inmate visitation does your facility conduct?
O In person visits
O Video visits
O Visits with barrier (Inmate is unable to make physical contact with visitors)
O Other, explain _______________________________________________
6. How many incidents have occurred involving illicit drugs being detected or introduced
in the intake/receiving area of your facility from 2016 to present?
O None
O 10 or less
O 11 to 20
O 21 to 30
O 31 or more
7. How many incidents have occurred involving illicit drugs being detected or introduce
through inmate mail from 2016 to present?
O None
O 10 or less
O 11 to 20
O 21 to 30
O 31 or more

22

8. How many incident have occurred involving illicit drugs being introduce through
inmate visitation from 2016 to present?
O None
O 10 or less
O 11 to 20
O 21 to 30
O 31 or more
9. How many incidents have occurred involving drones flying in and around your facility
or have been used to smuggle contraband?
10. Does your facility use drone detection/prevention technology?
O Yes
O No
11. Has your facility had incidents where employees have provided or attempted to
provide illicit drugs to inmates?
O Yes
O No
12. Has your facility had incidents where professional visitors provided or attempted to
provide illicit drugs to inmates?
O Yes
O No
13. What methods are implemented to prevent employees from smuggling in drugs at
your facility?
14. What methods are implemented to prevent professional visitors from smuggling
drugs in your facility?
15. Does your facility use drug detection dogs for detecting illicit drugs?
O Yes
O No
23

16. When, where and how often are drug detection dogs utilized in you facility?
17. How many incidents have occurred involving illicit drugs being detected by drug
detection dogs from 2016 to present?
O None
O 10 or less
O 11 to 20
O 21 to 30
O 31 or more
18. Does your facility use detection devices or any forms of technology (i.e. body
scanners, mail scanners, video visitation, video surveillance) to detect and prevent illicit
drugs from entering your facility?
O Yes
O No
19. If answered “Yes” to Question 18 please describe the devices or forms of
technology used and when were they implemented in your facility?
20. Has the use of devices or forms of technology used been effective in detecting and
preventing drugs from entering your facility?
O Yes
O No
21. How often does your facility conduct random searches using detention staff (i.e.
shakedowns, cell searches, facility searches)?
22. Please indicate as to how many incidents occurred where illicit drugs were detected
during random searches conducted by detention staff from 2016 to present?
O None
O 10 or less
O 11 to 20
O 21 to 30
O 31 or more
24

23. What method(s) of detecting and preventing illicit drugs in your facility have been
the most effective
Your input for this survey is greatly appreciate and if you wish to include additional
information please do so below.
__________________________________

25