Three Toilets for 150 Men at Putnamville Correctional Facility

It has come to my attention that the A-side bathrooms in 12N have been completely closed. Previously only the showers had been closed but now roughly 150 offenders have to share 3 toilets. Simple math allows us to see that if each offender averages 5 minutes of "pooh-time" a day, that leaves only 3 toilets for 12.5 hours of poohing; not to mention 3 urinals (1 that overflows) and 4 sinks ( 3 of which do not drain properly). I hope the toilet area will be opened immediately to rectify the pooh problem. I will be sending the information to www.danbrewington.blogspot.com so the public can be aware of the health and safety concerns. Thank you.

This is a letter I wrote after finding out Putnamville Correctional Facility closed one of two bathrooms (indefinitely) in the 12 North housing facility, leaving 150 men to use 3 toilets and urinals, 4 sinks, and 8 showers. The reason for the closure is the facility refurbishing the old bathroom yet the project has been going on for roughly 2 months now. One maintenance worker referred to it as a work in progress as they were "learning as they go." With no true plan or regular work schedule, Putnamville Correctional Facility eliminated half of the bathroom facilities for a unit. From what I am told it was originally built to house less than 100 men and is currently housing nearly 150 men. Rather than lowering the population of the unit prior to construction, the facility just decided to strip inmates of proper and safe bathroom facilities. Please note there are 24 more bathrooms to refurbish. This was an issue I felt should be addressed to the public. Please feel free to contact the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Corrections, Bruce Lemmons with any comments or concerns. As always, thank you for your continued support and please check back for updates on this issue and others as well as my upcoming release on September 5 of this year.

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted Brewington's Motion for Extended Oral Argument.

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted Brewington’s Motion for Extended Oral Argument. The usual time allotment is 20 minutes for each side, with this order both sides now have 30 minutes.  The oral argument will be held September 12, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Indiana Supreme Court, 317 Statehouse, 200 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. The argument can be seen live, on-line.

Some of Brewington’s points in the Motion:

·         “…The argument in this matter will address whether to grant Brewington’s petition to transfer as well as the merits of Brewington’s claims of error.”

·         “Brewington’s Petition raises issues regarding protections under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I   9 of the Indiana Constitution, as well as issues of prosecutorial misconduct at grand jury proceedings.” (Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard)

·         “This Court must conduct a more thorough review of the evidence than is normally required in criminal appeals: When a case raises a First Amendment issue, “an appellate court has an obligation to ‘make an independent examination of the whole record’ in order to make sure that ‘the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.’”… The Court will therefore need to conduct a close review of the evidence presented at trial, and may wish to ask questions concerning the record as well as the legal issues raised in Appellant’s Petition.”

·         “Earlier this year, after briefing on the Petition to Transfer was complete, the (Indiana) General Assembly amended the intimidation statute to increase its scope.” (Senate Enrolled Act No. 361) The addition to the intimidation statute can be located at http://danbrewington.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-following-is-letter-that-is-being.html  “These amendments, which go into effect on July 1, 2013, increase the penalties for certain types of communication, and broaden the scope of conduct which gives rise to criminal liability. The intimidation statute has become more restrictive of speech.”   

To view The Motion for Extended Oral Argument and the Indiana Supreme Court’s Order

http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Appellant%27s%20Motion%20for%20Extended%20Oral%20Argument.pdf   Appellant Motion for Extended Time

http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Order%20granting%20extended%20time%20for%20Oral%20Argument%20for%20Sept%2012%2c%202013%20IN%20SC%20hearing..pdf  Order