Monday, September 1, 2014

Officers assaulted with a weapon at NKSP

A unit officer was conducting a random cell search in a housing unit, when the an inmate refused to exit his cell.  The inmate was showing signs of irrational behavior.  The Officer activated her personal alarm and awaited responding staff to arrive.

The inmate then began to assault the Officer with a weapon.  Her partner responded from the other side of the unit and was also assaulted.  The code 1 responders were able to subdue the attacker and place him into custody.  The inmate was subsequently re-housed in administrative segregation.

The Officers were taken out to an outside hospital for treatment to their injuries.  They were treated and released sometime later.

Thoughts and Prayers to all involved

(information is not official it was sent via a Rider) 

Friday, August 22, 2014

NKSP Officer C. Crawford

A southwest Bakersfield man was found dead in his home Friday morning in what police are calling a homicide.
The man was identified as 60-year-old Carl Aaron Crawford. He was found by his girlfriend at 8:32 a.m. in a house he lived in by himself in the 2600 block of Hempstead Lane.

Police described the man as “obviously deceased” but did not provide further details about the trauma he suffered, whether weapons were involved or how long he may have been dead. An autopsy is pending.
About 20 uniformed officers and detectives were working at or near Crawford’s home by late Friday morning. The street was closed off to the public just east of Edgemont Drive, near Charles H. Castle Elementary School.
Elvis Ricks, 57, identified himself as a relative of Crawford’s who’d arrived at the scene after receiving a call from his sister in Los Angeles saying she’d heard Crawford had been found dead in his home. Ricks said he used to live with Crawford, but moved to downtown Bakersfield about 10 months ago.
Ricks described Crawford as “laid back, a great person, friend and father.” He said Crawford has two adult children living in San Diego.
Crawford worked as a correctional officer at a facility in Delano, Ricks said

Thursday, August 21, 2014

CC1 Workload (SOMS)

This was just sent to me from CCPOA H.Q

The latest expansion of the SOMS is directed at the classification calculation work done by the CCIs. This is a huge change in how the CCIs do this work and it will cause workload backlogs for the CCIs primarily and may be felt all over the institution for a long time.

CCPOA has begun negotiations with the State on this change and we are schedule to continue to meet. However, the State is moving forward with implementation of this SOMS expansion and it is set for August 25th.

We expect a certain degree of chaos to follow the implementation. If workload does back-up, the members need to be sure to inform their supervisors. They should specify the tasks that are not going to get done and ask for accommodation. It is not always possible to do this in writing, but the members should try to follow-up their request for workload accommodation with an email to their supervisor.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

New FMLA Request Form



CDCR has implemented a revised request for FMLA/CFRA form.

Institutions are requiring staff to complete the form prior to providing the FMLA Certification packets.

CCPOA has questioned the State regarding this new form/procedure and has been informed that the new form is required so that local institutions may verify that the employee is entit...led to the leave prior to providing the Certification package. Information needed to verify eligibility may include:

- Has the employee been employed for the prior 12 months?
- Has the employee worked the required 1,250 hours in the year prior to the requested leave?
- Is the leave for a qualifying reason?
- Is the leave for a qualifying family member?

FMLA law (CFR §825.301) states: “An employee giving notice of the need for FMLA leave must explain the reasons for the needed leave so as to allow the employer to determine whether the leave qualifies under the Act. If the employee fails to explain the reasons, leave may be denied.”
Therefore, the state has not violated FMLA when it requires the completion of the form.

Another reason of concern is the area on the form regarding “Reason for Leave,” particularly box (a) which indicates that the leave is requested due to “A serious health condition that makes me unable to perform the essential functions of my job.”

FMLA law (CFR §825.123 (a)) states: “Definition. An employee is unable to perform the functions of the position where the health care provider finds that the employee is unable to work at all or is unable to perform any one of the essential functions of the employee’s position within the meaning of the Americans with disabilities Act (ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the regulations at 29 CFR 1630.2(n).
An employee who must be absent from work to receive medical treatment for a serious health condition is considered to be unable to perform the essential functions of the position during the absence for treatment.”

This definition indicates that a health care provider is the person who determines if a health condition is an FMLA qualifying condition which renders the employee unable to perform at least one of the essential function of the job.
The use of the term “unable to perform the essential functions of the job” on this new form triggers alarm bells with many Unit 6 employees. It is this exact language the state uses to begin the medical termination process.

For the state to expect a Unit 6 employee requesting FMLA leave to accept this language is unrealistic. The Unit 6 employee is not a medical doctor and cannot make the determination that a condition precludes the ability to perform any or all of the essential functions of the job.

However the request is for FMLA to provide for time lost due to a medical condition.

Therefore it is CCPOA’s position that the safest course of action is to cross through that part of the language on the form which addresses the inability to perform essential functions.

To conclude, it is legal for management to require the completion of the form prior to providing the Certification packet. It is acceptable to cross out language on this form which does not accurately reflect the employees’ situation and is best answered by a medical opinion."

Reading Inmate Mail

Prisons can inspect inmates' mail to their lawyers for evidence of illegal activity, like escape plans, but can't read the letters because of attorney-client confidentiality, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday.
"A criminal defendant's ability to communicate candidly and confidentially with his lawyer is essential to his defense," the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 2-1 ruling.

The court reinstated a suit by an Arizona Death Row inmate, Scott Nordstrom, whose letter to his lawyer was seized and read by a prison guard in his presence in May 2011.
The guard cited the Arizona prison director's policy of allowing officers to read outgoing mail to make sure it contains no contraband and "is of legal subject matter."
In California, by contrast, prison officials prohibit guards from reading inmates' mail to their lawyers, said attorney Donald Specter of the Prison Law Office, which filed arguments supporting Nordstrom's suit.
A federal judge in Arizona dismissed the suit, but the appeals court said the U.S. Supreme Court had implicitly ruled in a 1974 Nebraska case that officials could inspect, but not read, inmate mail.
While guards can examine outgoing mail to see if it contains a map of the prison, escape plans or other incriminating content, inmates would be chilled from discussing essential information about their cases and their backgrounds if they knew guards would read the letters, said Judge Barry Silverman in the majority opinion.
In dissent, Judge Jay Bybee questioned how guards could determine whether a letter contained escape plans without reading it. He said the court majority made an already tough prison environment "a little tougher."

Friday, August 8, 2014

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Inmate Escapes during transport (Wasco)

Saturday, August 02, 2014
The Merced County Sheriff's Office says a convicted murderer escaped while being transported from Wasco State Prison to Stockton, California.

The inmate, Jeffery Scott Landers, is considered highly dangerous. Officials are urging residents to not try to contact or apprehend if located.

Officials say Landers escaped somewhere in the area of Sultana Drive and Liberty Avenue in the Livingston area.

The Merced County Sheriff's Office released the following statement to Action News:

Convicted Murderer escapes during Prison Transport

Merced County California- Law Enforcement personnel has launched an active investigation and manhunt in attempts to apprehend a wanted Escapee. Merced County Sheriff's Office received an emergency assistance request from officials from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation just shortly after 6:00p.m., this evening.

CDC officials reported while transporting Inmate Jeffery Scott Landers, from Wasco State Prison to Stockton California, he managed to escapee from Officers custody. Landers escaped from Officers, possibly in the area of Sultana Drive and Liberty Avenue in the Livingston California area.

Landers is described as a 34 year old white male adult, 5-8, brown hair, hazel eyes, medium built, eagle tattoo on chest

Landers is a convicted murderer, who has been sentenced. Landers is considered highly dangerous. Law Enforcement Officials are asking anyone with information as to Landers whereabouts to dial 911. Do not try to contact or apprehend if located.