Kevin Harris committed a crime in Connecticut. He was convicted in Connecticut and spent more than two decades serving his sentence in a Connecticut correctional facility. But he’s currently imprisoned in Arizona and may serve the remainder of his sentence there.

Arizona is far away from Harris’ support system, chiefly his family. At the moment, Alex Taubes, Harris’s lawyer, says Harris is not even able to speak to his legal team or family about a recent health diagnosis because he’s on a mental health watch.

And the Connecticut Department of Corrections (DOC), which is responsible for transferring Harris to Arizona doesn’t necessarily want the public to know Harris’ location. Despite Harris’ transfer being publicly searchable through the DOC’s online inmate search tool, the agency withheld identifying information about Harris, as well as from documents related to other inmates who were involuntarily transferred out of state, in documents it turned over to Inside Investigator as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

DOC cited an exemption to FOIA that allows it to withhold information if it has a reasonable expectation releasing it would be a safety risk to individuals confined in a correctional facility. But Taubes says Harris, who is one of at least 48 Connecticut inmates who have been transferred involuntarily to prisons in other states via an interstate compact, is best protected by bringing awareness to his story. According to Taubes, it’s Harris’ transfer to Arizona that is the biggest threat to his safety.

Documents related to Harris’ transfer read like those of other inmates transferred involuntarily, citing ‘safety and security concerns,’ sometimes because of aggression on the inmate’s part, sometimes citing aggression directed against the inmate by fellow prisoners.

But Taubes says there was another element to Harris’ transfer: his religion. And Harris may not be the only inmate transferred for similar reasons.

In at least one other instance, documents turned over to Inside Investigator appear to show Connecticut DOC officials looking to transfer an Orthodox Jewish inmate to another state because of an inability to accommodate his religious dietary requirements.

Harris in Connecticut

Harris, who also has prior convictions, was originally sentenced to 60 years, a life sentence in Connecticut, in prison for murder and felony murder.

On September 4, 1993, Harris, then 21 years old, shot and killed Richard Whipple, whom Harris knew. According to a summary of evidence from Harris’ trial, Harris visited Lorraine Clouse in Bristol prior to the murder and showed her a gun. He asked Clouse for a hat, stating he intended to rob someone, which Clouse did not have. Harris said he still intended to commit robbery. Clouse followed Harris outside and saw him approach Whipple, who was walking down the street alone. She also saw him take out the gun, point it at Whipple’s head, demand money, and then fire the gun, killing Whipple.

In November 2023, Harris’ sentence was reduced by 12 years, less than the 20-year reduction he was seeking.

Judge Michael Gustafson of the state’s superior court declined to grant the full 20-year reduction because of Harris’ mixed disciplinary record in prison. “On the positive side of the ledger, the defendant has matured, albeit only recently.” Gustafson wrote in his decision granting the 12-year reduction.

In presenting evidence of good cause for a reduction in Harris’ sentence, Harris and Taubes emphasized steps he had taken in prison to rehabilitate himself, including participation in programming and seeking out educational opportunities. Harris earned his high school diploma, began signing up for a paralegal course at the Blackstone Career Institute before his transfer to Arizona, and completed multiple life-skill courses. He also held several jobs while in prison, including chapel worker, laundry worker, and cart server. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Harris also volunteered to work on the medical quarantine unit and served as a cleaner.

Gustafson acknowledged these positive steps Harris had taken, citing excellent performance reviews from DOC staff in 2015, 2016, and 2021. But he also characterized this as a recent change, stating that Harris had been “a disciplinary problem for most of his incarceration” and had received 50 disciplinary citations between June 28, 2002, and June 24, 2019. Incidents include an assault on a DOC employee in 2004, incidents with threats, and interfering with security.

“The defendant acknowledges this lackluster record but contends that many of the issues were non-violent. In addition, he has not been disciplined in more than four years, including an unblemished record in Arizona. While the lack of any disciplinary issuers [sic] since mid-2019 suggests a recent turn around on the defendant’s journey towards rehabilitation, his prior 17 years of steady disciplinary trouble evinces a prolonged history of being something other than a model prisoner.” Gustafson wrote.

The reduction in Harris’ sentence came after he was transferred to Arizona in July 2021, ostensibly because of his disciplinary record. But as an initial inquiry DOC sent to Arizona prison officials in April 2021 about potential transfer notes, Harris had no physical disciplinary issues since 2009.

Transfers In Statute

Corrections officials can transfer prisoners between states, and in some cases between federal prison facilities, through interstate corrections compacts.

Connecticut is part of three compacts: one that includes all 50 states plus Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands; a second that only includes New England states; and a third that authorizes the transfer of prisoners to federal prisons.

Each compact is codified in a separate section of Connecticut statute.

The statute applying to transfers between state prison and federal prison facilities stipulates that the DOC commissioner can enter into a contract to allow any of DOC’s facilities to be used for holding federal prisoners, including aliens, and that the commissioner may enter a contract to house a Connecticut inmate at a federal facility if doing so allows a particular need to be met, or is in the state’s best interest.

The New England Interstate Corrections Compact makes similar provisions for the transfer of inmates, but only between Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It allows for the transfer of inmates when “necessary or desirable in order to provide adequate quarters and care or an appropriate program of rehabilitation or treatment.”

But it’s the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS), which includes all 50 states plus several U.S. territories, that is used most frequently.

The compact is governed by a commission, as are transfers made under it. The Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) is a “quasi-governmental administrative body with broad regulatory authority and rulemaking powers” and is responsible for ensuring states comply with the compact.

The compact, which Connecticut entered in 1949, requires that states accept a transfer for an inmate if they meet several criteria:

• if they are under supervision for a felony,
• if they are under supervision for a felony or a qualifying misdemeanor and their sentence was deferred following a guilty plea or finding of guilt
• if they are a misdemeanor offender whose sentence includes a year or more of supervision as well and if their instant offense involves
  • a threat of physical or psychological harm or direct physical or psychological harm,use or possession of a firearm,a second or repeat conviction for driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs,
  • or a sexual offense requiring registration as a sex offender in the state transferring the prisoner.

If a prisoner doesn’t meet these criteria, acceptance of the transfer is at the receiving state’s discretion.

There are two types of transfers: voluntary transfers, initiated by an inmate, and involuntary transfers, initiated by the state’s correctional agency.

Under the IC AOS an inmate’s transfer request must be granted if the following criteria are met:

• there are more than 90 days of supervision remaining at the time their transfer request is submitted by the state in which they are housed,
• they have a valid supervision plan,
• they are in substantial compliance,
• they are a resident of the receiving state, have family and employment or a means of support there, they are a military member and they or a family member is transferred, they or a family member receive an employment transfer, or they are a veteran transferring because of mental health or to receive medical services.

If these criteria are not met, states can accept or reject transfer requests at their discretion. Should they choose to move forward with a transfer, the sending state is required to explain how the transfer would support the inmate’s successful completion of supervision, rehabilitation, or would promote public safety or protect victims’ rights.

Transfers By the Numbers

According to the 2023 annual report from the commission that oversees the ICAOS, the acceptance rate of transfers has increased in recent years. Between 2020 and 2023, acceptance rates for discretionary transfers have increased from approximately 64 percent to approximately 67 percent. The acceptance rate of overall transfers increased from 78.3 percent to 80.3 percent in the same period.

Across all states, Connecticut’s acceptance rate of incoming and outgoing transfers is on the higher end. In 2023, Connecticut accepted 82.8 percent of incoming transfers and had an 80.2 percent acceptance rate for outgoing transfers. In the same year, there were 772 incoming transfers and 972 outgoing transfers, both numbers on the lower ends across all states.

But information on these transfers, beyond top-line numbers of inmates moving into and out of the state, is hard to come by.

According to the DOC’s fiscal year 2022-2023 report to the governor, the department’s Interstate Compact Office (ICO), which oversees interstate transfers under the compact and interstate agreements involving detainment processes, 5 inmates were temporarily transferred to Connecticut from out of state to resolve pending charges. 57 Connecticut inmates were transferred to other states to resolve pending charges. The office transferred 3 Connecticut inmates out of state and transferred 8 inmates into the state. In addition, ICO staff was involved in the coordination of 40 interstate movements.

In the late 1990s, the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) requested two years of prisoner transfer data from the DOC at the request of a legislator. Between September 1996 and September 1998, DOC housed approximately 20 prisoners in federal prisons and 50 in other state prisons.

Inside Investigator tried to learn more about current and previous year prisoner transfers through FOIA but ran into issues with how the DOC maintains records.

The Fight for Records

Inside Investigator first requested information about prisoners either transferred into or out of Connecticut through the interstate compact on August 4, 2023.

The request was for all records related to inmates transferred out of state under the New England Interstate Corrections Compact and the Interstate Corrections Compact, citing the specific passages in state statute where each can be found, for the past ten years. It also contained a request for DOC communications referencing the transfer of prisoners into or out of the state for the same timeframe.

Five days later, on August 9, the DOC sent a request for clarification, calling the request “very vague.”

“The interstate unit does not hold past lists of CT offenders housed in other states or out of state offenders housed in CT. The population of the current offenders changes on a daily basis and would be pulled in real time.” the department’s public records officer explained in an email responding to the request.

The response also noted that the communications portion of the request needed to be reformatted to meet the “specific guidelines” required by the department’s IT capabilities, which required a timeframe, the name of DOC staff whose emails should be searched, and keywords to search for.

In further communications, DOC’s public records officer further elaborated on the limitations of DOC’s ability to provide records.

The interstate compact unit does not retain records of inmates no longer participating in the interstate compact. In addition, because the current prison population changes daily, information on prisoners can only be pulled in real-time.

The only option for obtaining records of past inmates is by submitting a request from DOC’s data unit, which costs $50 or $60 dollars an hour to run a request for records that might not materialize.

After narrowing our email communications request, Inside Investigator was also told that a 10-year timeframe would “most likely not be possible to run” due to the number of returns it was likely to generate.

In September 2023, DOC provided an initial response to the request. They identified 85 inmates who were either transferred to a Connecticut prison from out of state or who had been transferred from Connecticut to an out of state prison. They also asked for Inside Investigator’s request for all records related to inmates transferred through the interstate compact to be narrowed because fulfilling it would take a substantial amount of time. Inside Investigator requested the following information for each inmate that had been identified: sentence length, the date on which they were transferred either into or out of the state, and the reason for that transfer.

In October 2023 the department provided the email portion of Inside Investigator’s request. At the same time, they noted that they were working on obtaining records related to the list of inmates moved into and out of the state. They also noted that the list of inmates had likely changed since it was originally released in September and would need to be updated.

After reviewing the email portion of the request, which was heavily redacted, Inside Investigator sought a request for those redactions.

“Some of the redactions were completed by legal due to privileged correspondence and the other redactions pertained to a specific inmate’s name and number.” DOC’s public information officer wrote. “Unfortunately, I made a choice with legal to exempt the inmates’ names throughout the emails and leave the body of the emails so you could see the actual content. Some of the inmates’ locations and information are confidential for the physical safety of that inmate, and I felt that the disclosure of inmates’ names in the extracted emails in conjunction to details of inmate movement, denied request for interstate, inmate behaviors, etc. could pose a risk to the inmate.”

On December 28, 2023, DOC provided an updated list of out of states inmates being housed in Connecticut. On January 11, 2024, they provided an updated list of inmates who had been transferred from Connecticut to another state. In both cases, the lists were identical to those that had been turned over to Inside Investigator in September 2023 but with certain names redacted. Those names had previously been unredacted.

After Inside Investigator inquired about the reason for the redactions, DOC replied that they received additional information “stating that the location of the redacted inmates from other states is confidential and cannot be released for safety and security reasons.”

At the same time, DOC confirmed that responsive interstate records were being reviewed for any relevant exemptions. Once that review was completed, DOC stated they would confer with their legal department and release the remaining records.

On April 1, 2024, DOC turned over a portion of transfer request records, all of which were for prisoners who were transferred from Connecticut.

At the time of publication, over eight months since first filing a request, there are still outstanding records. Inside Investigator has not yet received transfer request records for prisoners moved into Connecticut from out of state and for a handful of Connecticut prisoners transferred out of state on the lists DOC initially turned over in September.

Redactions and Reasoning

As of September 23, the date DOC executed Inside Investigator’s requested search, 47 Connecticut inmates were housed out of state and Connecticut was housing 38 inmates from out of state.

Inside Investigator also submitted a separate FOIA request to the federal Bureau of Prisons, which revealed no records on Connecticut prisoners currently housed in federal facilities.

As of the time of publishing, the DOC has turned over no records related to the prisoners transferred to Connecticut from other states and records for all but two of the 47 identified inmates who were transferred to other states.

The data DOC turned over fell into two categories: inmates who voluntarily requested a transfer out of state, and those who were moved involuntarily. For this latter category, DOC redacted identifying information, citing the safety of the prisoner. A number of files errantly contained identifying prisoner information but Inside Investigator has chosen to not release that data out of respect for stated inmate safety concerns.

In total, DOC provided files on 18 inmates who were transferred out of state following prisoner-initiated requests. For those individuals, all but three were convicted of at least one charge involving the death of another, ranging from murder to a capital felony to manslaughter. Most inmates were convicted of multiple charges. Sentences ranged from 3 years to life without the possibility of parole.

The most common reason for the transfers DOC officials cited in communications addressed to states it was hoping would receive prisoners was ‘safety and security.’ The phrase appeared in half of the records of prisoners who initiated a voluntary transfer the agency turned over. In several cases, the safety and security concerns were because the inmate had committed a high-profile crime and there were fears of retaliation. In several other cases, the safety concerns meant the prisoner in question needed protective custody; a transfer to another state meant a chance to be in the general population.

Proximity to family was also an influencing factor in transfer requests for family, all of whom were transferred either to the state they requested or one of the states they requested. In several cases where a transfer was initiated in part because of proximity to family, the inmate was also serving a concurrent sentence in the state to which they were transferred.

In another case, an inmate was transferred as the result of a settlement in a complaint brought against prison officials. The complaint alleged that he was attacked by several other inmates because a correctional inmate had called him a snitch.

In all but one case, inmates were transferred to a state in which they indicated they wanted to be housed. In the one case where the inmate was sent to a different state than requested, the reason the inmate was transferred was due to safety and security reasons following assaults on DOC employees.

Safety and security concerns were also a common reason DOC initiated involuntary transfer requests. Of the 27 inmates who were transferred involuntarily and for whom DOC provided records, almost all mentioned safety, either for the inmate or for the correctional facility, in reasoning for the transfer. The reason for one inmate’s transfer was completely redacted.

Assault on DOC officers and assaults on other inmates crop up commonly as reasons behind involuntary transfer requests. Several records also mention escape risks. Others also mention an opportunity for an inmate in protective custody to be released into the general population if transferred.

Redactions throughout specific portions of the document relating to prisoner history and classification make understanding specific reasons for a transfer impossible.

Accommodations and Uncovered Redactions

Kevin Harris’ transfer records were among those DOC redacted to remove personal information. A portion of the referral summary related to the reasons for his transfer was among the sections that were partially redacted.

The readable portion of the document mentions safety and security concerns, “numerous disciplinary reports” that were threatening, and an alleged inappropriate relationship with a female staff member. The document also mentions manipulating staff members into “conceding rules and regulations associated with Administrative Detention Housing” and “several instances” of suspected involvement with moving drugs into prison facilities. A portion of this was also redacted.

“He has numerous documented (and undocumented) conflicts at other Connecticut facilities with inmates and staff, making him a housing management issue within CT DOC.” the document reads.

An April 20, 2021, an email sent by Jaclyn Osden, a counselor supervisor with the Sentence Calculation and Interstate Management Unit, broaching the subject of an interstate transferal mentions Harris’ history of physical assault, but also notes there are no recent incidents.

“I know you’re wary of assaults on staff. He has two (1994 and 2004) but nothing recent. Nothing physical since 2009 – Fighting (inmate).” Osden wrote. She also noted that Connecticut and Arizona were “out of balance,” adding “it would be nice to even up our numbers!”

This is not the only time a request for a prisoner transfer notes an imbalance between Connecticut and another state. In cases where one state involved in a potential request houses more prisoners than another, this imbalance is frequently invoked, seemingly as a means of encouraging the state into which a transfer is requested to accept.

Hidden in the redactions to the summary of reasons DOC requested a transfer for Harris is his former affiliation with the Latin Kings, which he renounced in 2015, and his religious affiliation with the 5% Nation of Gods and Earth, also referred to as the Five-Percent Nation, or 5%. Inside Investigator was able to read the full, unredacted, document because it was provided by attorney Taubes.

Another redacted portion of the report on Harris, which details gang and security risk group affiliations, goes further into Harris’ affiliation with 5%. The Five-Percent Nation was founded in 1964 in Harlem by Clarence Smith, or Clarence 13X, who was initially a member of the Nation of Islam, but later broke away due to a difference in beliefs over teachings.

According to Britannica , 5% rejects being called a religion, although it is influenced by Islam, and prefers to be known as a culture and way of life. The five percent in the movement’s title refers to Clarence’s teaching: “Only 5 percent of humanity is made up of righteous people who understand the truth—that the living God is the black man who teaches freedom and justice to black communities.”

5% is not considered a legitimate religion in many states and is instead considered a security risk group (SRG), on par with gangs like the Latin Kings, which Harris self-admitted to being a member of in 1994.

The section on security risk group affiliations, which DOC redacted, notes that prior to his sentencing Harris claimed to be a member of the “Fruits of Islam,” which it identifies as 5%, although it is really a wing of the Nation of Islam, since he was 14.

It further notes that Harris “currently identifies as 5% Nation of God and Earth with Religious Services and is being tracked by our Security Division (5% Nation of God and Earth is not considered an SRG in CT).”

The 5% is not currently a security risk group in Connecticut, but that’s a fairly recent development. In 2017, Connecticut settled a federal lawsuit brought by Harris and two other prisoners alleging that the state was violating their First Amendment rights and violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which protects prisoners’ rights to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs and puts the burden on the government to justify restricting religious practices.

DOC settled the lawsuit following discovery, which found Harris’ allegations that he had been denied the ability to practice his religion, correct. The agency agreed that 5% observances and practices would be deemed religious in nature and prisoners identifying with the religion would be allowed to practice their faith. They also agreed to remove 5% from the list of disruptive groups and to return to Harris and the other prisoners involved in the suit any materials associated with the religion that had previously been confiscated.

But the settlement was not the end of the issue.

On April 1, 2020, legal representatives for the DOC and Harris appeared in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut to address allegations that DOC was not abiding by the settlement. Harris alleged he was denied written materials and meal accommodations on observance days. Per the settlement, 5% adherents are entitled to receive pre-dawn and post-sundown meals if they choose to fast on observance days. Harris also alleged items that DOC had confiscated prior to the settlement were not returned to him and that he had been retaliated against for exercising his rights.

Connecticut is not the only state that has been forced to recognize 5% as a religion. In 2018 a federal district court ordered the Virginia Department of Corrections to remove the security threat group designation from the Nation of Gods and Earth and recognize it as a religion. The court ruled Virginia was violating the RLUIPA and prisoners’ First Amendment rights by classifying 5% as a security group.

Despite this, 5% is still not universally recognized as a religion in state departments of corrections. One of those states that still considers it a gang is Arizona.

Despite what DOC records say—indicating disciplinary issues were the reason Harris was transferred—Taubes believes Harris’ religion influenced the transfer. He said the Connecticut DOC knows the despite Arizona recognizing the religion on paper, this isn’t really the case as member’s rights are routinely violated.

Nor is that the only lawsuit in which Harris has been involved. In 2022, Harris brought a civil complaint against several correctional officers at Garner Correctional Institute, where he was previously housed.

According to the complaint, in August 2018 Harris was brought to a DOC captain’s office for questioning after failing to comply with orders during a prison riot. Following the meeting, because of DOC officers’ dissatisfaction with Harris’ response to questions at the meeting, Harris was placed in a Restrictive Housing Unit pending an investigation. While there, he was given only a t-shirt for clothing. Harris requested underwear and his religious headwear. The complaint alleges several correctional officers then used racist and discriminatory language against him, including telling him that he was a fake Muslim, a suicide bomber, and saying that the tassels on his religious headwear resembled a tampon. They denied him his religious headwear. A claim in the lawsuit, one of six, that doing so violated his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion, was dismissed because he did not show that the officers’ actions burdened a particular belief.

Another claim in the lawsuit alleged Harris’ First Amendment right to redress of grievances was violated when DOC officers retaliated against him for filing a grievance after an incident where Harris was sprayed with a chemical agent while in restrictive housing.

According to the lawsuit, Harris, who is allergic to the agent, had to be hospitalized and filed a grievance about the incident. He was later taken to meet a Connecticut state trooper, who told him that his property had been searched and cocaine powder found in his sneakers. The trooper also told Harris that he had received a report Harris was involved in recent assaults, narcotics, and gang activity, which Harris said was a lie. When asked why prison officials would lie, he replied it was because prison staff did not like that he had won rights for the 5 %. He also denied that the powder was cocaine, saying it was foot powder. Nearly two years later, in February 2020, Harris’ family contacted state police and learned testing of the powder had found it was not drugs.

Prior to Harris’ sentence modification, Taubes received documents from State’s Attorney Donna Mambrino, which included several of the same (unredacted) documents DOC provided to Inside Investigator.

In a letter to Gustafson, Taubes noted that, despite the 2021 transfer citing Harris’ disciplinary history, the documents showed DOC had no issues with Harris between June 24, 2019, and July 19, 2021.

“That is a span of over two years without any issues. That Mr. Harris had no issues for over two years before he was transferred to Arizona raises a question of whether he was transferred for inappropriate reasons.” Taubes wrote.

Taubes also took issues with other documentation, including an April 2021 memo from DOC Director of Security Antonio Santiago that notes Harris’ affiliation with 5%. “Although, [inmate] Harris currently identifies as a Five Percenter, current intelligence gathered indicates he still associates with the Latin Kings from a distance and acts as an advisor for the group.” the memo reads.

But Taubes notes there is no evidence to support this or another line in the memo charging Harris with using his influence to manipulate staff and inmates. He further states that the referral summary fails to include any information on issues after June 24, 2019, two years before its creation.

“The lack of evidence justifying transfer suggests that the motivation for sending Kevin Harris to Arizona may have been religious retaliation. By sending Mr. Harris to Arizona, the State of Connecticut could prevent Mr. Harris from being able to continue practicing his religious beliefs, which are not recognized out of state, but which have been subject to years of litigation here.” Taubes wrote.

“Accommodations we have trouble meeting”

Harris’ transfer may not be the only one in which religion was potentially a contributing factor.

Included in the emails DOC turned over was a request for help accommodating an 80-year-old Orthodox Jewish inmate who is in protective custody (PC). Reverend Dr. Charles Williams, the director of religious services with the DOC, sent an email to correctional authorities in 29 other states seeking information about accommodations they made for Orthodox inmates. According to Williams, the inmate was “requesting Orthodox accommodations we have trouble meeting.”

Specifically, Williams wanted to know if other states provided Kosher meals and by what process, as well as what they allowed for holidays, including Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, and Hanukkah.

“This is an urgent request because we are in court with this inmate now. Our Legal Department was in negotiations most of the day today. If your State provides services for Orthodox Jewish inmates, I am very interested in hearing from you. We have an Interstate Compact with your State, which I why I limited this email to you folks.” Williams wrote.

DOC did not respond to a request for comment about the religious accommodations it makes for inmates, particularly for Orthodox Jewish inmates.

According to the DOC’s 2023 annual report, the Food Services unit makes food accommodations for 34 different religious observances. Chaplains within the Religious Services unit provide Roman Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Jewish, Native American, and Jehovah Witnesses services.

Due to a lack of identifying information, Inside Investigator was unable to determine the identity of the prisoner in question and determine when they might have been transferred, to where, and whether religious requirements were a contributing factor.

DOC received responses from three states to the inquiry, including one from Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) official Bernard Morris that noted a 2018 court order “brought the Orthodox Jewish Diet” to the state’s prisons.

“Offenders who believe they need this diet write to the Statewide Food Service Director and he makes the decision to approve or deny. By direction of the Attorney General’s Office the letter from the offender needs to mention a rabbi’s approval or following the scriptural dictates that they eat certified kosher food or meals certified by a rabbi. We are still learning how to adapt to this religious diet in regards to approval or denial.” Morris continued.

Other emails turned over reveal more information about how prison officials navigate transfer requests behind the scenes. In several cases, emails showed transfer requests proceeding smoothly between states, with officials updating each other when inmates had successfully been moved.

In other instances, officials had more to say about prospective requests. Another email chain indicates a separate issue with an inmate involved in the interstate compact, though the inmate’s name and number are redacted. On January 24, 2019, MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution Deputy Warden Gerald Hines wrote to Osden and Kelli Stamm asking that they “review and handle” the issue accordingly. Later the same day, Assistant Attorney General Steven Strom responded. His email was completely redacted.

Hines replied again later on January 24, addressing Strom and saying he would “leave that up to” Osden and Stamm. Osden replied the next day and said she would confer with the attorney general’s office and handle the matter.

On February 1, Osden replied again, writing “Our office’s response is attached. He will be getting his letter in the mail, but if you could please include a copy in his master file.”

“Thank you so much, seems quite clear to me.” Hines wrote back later the same day.

DOC Deputy Commissioner William Mulligan later responded, “It looks clear to everyone but him.”

Because identifying information was redacted, Inside Investigator was unable to determine the identity of the inmate or what the issue was.

In at least one case, a transfer request was turned down because of a lack of available housing. The Maine Department of Corrections turned down a transfer referral because the state’s Intensive Mental Health Unit was full and had a waiting list for in-state offenders. In another email, officials worried about an inmate who had sent a transfer request on carbon paper.

In 2018, Hines forwarded a voluntary transfer request to Stamm and Osden.

“Our office received the same letter, a carbon copy of the letter written to your attention. When did inmates get access to carbon copy paper? This is a new one for me!” Stamm responded.

Hines noted in his response that they shouldn’t have any and asked captains to address the situation.

“ A n unconstitutional substantial risk of serious harm.”

Arizona’s prisons have been the subject of legal scrutiny. In 2023, a federal district court judge issued a permanent injunction against the state’s prisons after finding conditions created “an unconstitutional substantial risk of serious harm.”

Included in the injunction are calls for: better documentation of medical records, quicker follow-up appointments and diagnostic tests, protection of patient confidentiality, regular and timely delivery of medication, and rapid medical and mental health screenings when inmates enter a facility.

In December 2022, Taubes and fellow civil rights attorney Gabriel Lopez Low wrote a letter to Gov. Ned Lamont and DOC Commissioner Angel Quiros calling for Harris to be returned. The letter in part addressed alleged failures by the Arizona prison system to properly address Harris’ medical issues, including an injury requiring a catheter, which was not provided, and injuries, including a fractured hand that went untreated, that Harris received at the hands of prison gangs that view him as an outsider.

According to the letter, DOC did not transfer Harris’ medical records with him to Arizona, leading to Harris losing weight because his food allergies were not being addressed properly.

These issues seemingly continue with attorney Taubes and Harris’ family being unable to contact him in Arizona, despite a recent serious medical diagnosis, because he was placed on a mental health watch.

Taubes said this practice differs from Connecticut, where, as far as he is aware, DOC cannot deny a prisoner a phone call because of a mental health condition that is being watched.

In Connecticut, Harris received weekly visits from his family—something that was touted as a stabilizing factor contributing to his rehabilitation in documents submitted in support of his sentence modification. In Arizona, Harris lacks this support system. Despite this, he has maintained a clean disciplinary record.

The interstate compact specifically requires states seeking a transfer be able to explain how moving a prisoner will support their rehabilitation and successful completion of their prison sentence, as well as to promote public safety and protect victims’ rights. But most of that information is missing from Harris’ file. DOC’s disciplinary and housing challenges with Harris might be resolved by sending him out of state, but the agency has not articulated how the move betters Harris.

The post Religion and Redactions: Connecticut’s Interstate Prisoner Compact appeared first on Connecticut Inside Investigator .