Remember that March interview Senator Lynne DiSanto did with the biological mother of the little girl whose February disappearance DiSanto has been exploiting for publicity? The biological mom was in prison at the time, and it occurred to Seth Tupper to ask how DiSanto would have gotten such a recording when Department of Corrections rules say visitors “may not use or possess cameras, wireless microphones, micro-cameras and/or other types of visual recording or photographic devices while attending visits.” An attorney of record may receive approval from prison officials to take pictures, audio, or video, but Senator DiSanto is certainly not an attorney.
Tupper learns that the DOC deputy secretary told DiSanto she couldn’t record, but DiSanto went around that ban, recording audio and video of the inmate from prison:
According to DiSanto, when she arrived at the prison, she asked to speak to the warden, with the intent of again seeking permission to record. But the warden was not present, so DiSanto said she asked a prison employee.
“I said to that person, ‘Is it OK if I record?’” DiSanto recalled. “And they said ‘yes.’”
DiSanto then made recordings during her prison visit with DiSanto’s biological mother and posted them online. DiSanto’s YouTube page includes a video and an audio recording of the visit, each posted March 13 and each with more than 9,000 views since then [Seth Tupper, “Corrections Head Reconsiders Ban Against Legislator,” Rapid City Journal, 2019.08.11].
Tupper says that Secretary of Corrections Mike Leidholt found out about these improper recordings and banned DiSanto from visiting any DOC facilities. DiSanto whines that she was told she could record by some underling, and Leidholt is backing down, but…
“It still concerns me,” Leidholt said, “that she received an answer from the deputy secretary and then went out to the Women’s Prison apparently looking for a different answer” [Tupper, 2019.08.11].
Come on, Secretary Leidholt! Stick to your tasers! Lynne DiSanto entered your facility and broke a rule. She heard the rule from a top official, then went looking for a lower official whom she could coax (perhaps using her Legislative position as leverage) into giving in to her wish to break that rule for her own self-promotion. Prisons have rules to maintain security. A person who seeks to break those rules endangers the security of prison staff, inmates, and the public. Unless Senator DiSanto is visiting a prison on official Legislative business, with a committee, seeking facts for legislation, you should not allow her into the Women’s Prison or any other Corrections facility again.
Related Reading: Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom says six months of investigating the disappearance have provided no evidence that the runaway girl is alive, but teams continue to search the area near Rockerville where she disappeared. DiSanto’s social media channels have turned up no evidence, either, only a forum for people who take comfort in spinning conspiracy theories instead of accepting the simpler truth.
Young Ms. Lyndi has much in common with Ms. Hubbel. They both have the gene that makes pretty young women seek attention over all else, but makes them insaner than most and rots their ugly brains with conspiracy theories. What makes Lyndi different is she is hurting other people more.
Lynne, Lyn, Lyndi DiSanto — thinks the rules apply to everyone else. Not her.
Sooooo disappointed that the dept of corrections backed down. So disappointed. John Q Public wouldn’t have gotten that ‘break’, that’s for sure.
Maybe I should test the DiSanto approach: I should go to the Women’s Prison or the Pen and ask around for permission to record a podcast until I get some underinformed guard or janitor or whoever to say, ‘Sure, go ahead and record, I don’t mind.”
Cory you aren’t as cute or as blonde as Lyn/Lynne/Lyndi, and I suspect are unable to bat your eyes as coquettishly as she can. You would be searched, and all recording devices confiscated (as they should be). In fact you would be lucky to keep your yellow legal pad.
Much as think LynneLynLyndi is a fruitcake, I have no problem with someone doing what she did. I did the same thing all the time. It’s the dive bar approach to prying out the information. If one person says “no,” you move on to the next person. Eventually, you might get lucky.
I almost always agree with Donald, but here I respectfully disagree. If the prohibition had an exception that authorized someone in authority to give permission to use a recording device then sure, ask until you find someone who will give permission. But here the rule linked by Cory is in writing, clear, direct, and apparently provided to visitors, but appears to have no such exception. To disregard a written prohibition because someone says that is okay seems unjustifiable and no defense at all if you get caught.
Mr. Pay’s description of an approach, as a dive bar veteran, might be accurate but it does not negate that young Ms. Lyndi committed a violation of the rules. She should be spanked to the appropriate level. I will leave it to the legislatures to do that.
I am a big fan following the rules, but I am also not afraid to ask questions either. Why are recording devices banned? How does having a recording device endanger the security of prison staff, inmates, and the public?
Why is the public not allowed to know what happens inside prisons? There seems to be no allowance for families. What if a spouse wants to take a new picture to show the kids their parent?
This gets me riled up, and smells too fishy. John Oliver recently did a piece on the profit parties involved in prisons, and how in some prisons you can’t even have face-to-face visits. Instead, you show up, enter a room, and have a video conference with the inmate(for a price)….all in the name of safety.
Certainly don’t break the rules, but I would hope that inquiring minds would want to know why such a rule even exists. Who is in jail is public knowledge, their crimes public, who works there public. Whose safety is in danger?
Without having answers to Mr. Nelson’s questions, I must wonder if prisoners might be exploited, if federal regulations might be violated, and if videotaping of prisoners might be against various laws in place to protect those fellows who are, by law, in the custody and under the protection of the state. Letting these fake “newsmen” in to videotape some 18 year old girl in jail might just be a little too much for the state to allow.
The other camp might say NOYB. Stay home and keep your own nose clean.
grudsnick,
You make a good point, I was not thinking if the privacy concerns of the patients. They are forced to be there, and n certain instances would not be able to consent to monitoring by outside people (I imagine they have no choice when it comes to govt monitoring). I have never visited anyone in jail, but I would imagine that there are rooms where people can meet privately, such as when a lawyer wants to talk to a client, or law enforcement officer/detective needs to speak with an inmate. I would imagine that there should be some sort of provision for that, which there might even be. I have not dug through all the rules as of yet.
I don’t know all the rules, either, Mr. Nelson, but even as I think my small thinks deeper on this, I can imagine what would happen if a guard’s face were on a video, or other inmates were on a video, and it got put out on the blogs and then some thug’s hooligan buddies went to the guard’s house because mayhap they knew where his wife lived and they ripped up their pumpkin garden or something like that. Threw eggs at the front window. The sort of thuggery fellows of this ilk might be want to undertake. And if these same fellow saw other inmates, violating those fellows rights be damned, might they not now know that Mr. X is now in the klink and golly he can’t stop me from farming the demon weed in his district or some other sort of shenannigans? It does seem a purple pickle, indeed.
Sure, the rule is for the protection of everyone, I’m sure. I have no problem with the rule, but we all know how government works, especially government run by Republicans. Favored people get variances from rules all the time. Exceptions are made with a wink and a nod. I’m sure Lyn/Lynne/Lyndi is used to getting special treatment.
Thank goodness Ms Lyndi is not into boreholes, eh?
I have no problem with people recording interviews with people who agree to be recorded, no matter where they are. How Elster we to know what’s going on around us?
My friend Joe Nelson is properly riled. The public should have a right to know what’s going on in its prisons. However, DiSanto wasn’t seeking info on corrections operations and treatment of prisoners. She was seeking an interview with the biological mother of a missing child.
Grudz also brings up fair points about privacy for inmates and guards.
(Now, if we want to get really off-topic, let’s talk about the ban on recording devices in our state and federal courtrooms. I can’t bring my tablet or laptop to take comprehensive notes in my lawsuit against South Dakota’s oppressive petition laws.)