Last week, New Mexico corrections officials at the Curry County Adult Detention Center (CCADC) monitored a telephone conversation between an inmate and his wife about an officer who was smuggling marijuana into the facility. When the conversation turned out to be more than idle chatter, CCADC officer Damien Pardue was arrested.

Telephone monitoring improved facility security in this case, but state defense attorneys are concerned about what these recorded conversations mean for inmate privacy. New Mexico statute prohibits the recording of attorney-client conversations and some lawyers say that policy conflicts with monitoring in corrections facilities.

“Monitoring makes my clients nervous, and they are constantly concerned that someone is listening in on our conversations,” says Randall Harris, a defense attorney and principal of Harris Law Firm. “By law, I think it's unconstitutional to monitor conversations between attorneys and their clients,”

CCADC officials maintain that the allegations are unfounded because defense attorney calls are automatically routed around the monitoring system, which has been used for years. CCADC Warden Leslie Johnson says telephone monitoring improves security and lets inmates retain their rights.

“These attorneys might try to make a story out of it for awhile, but it's not a problem,” Johnson says. “We've used this system to prevent escapes and illegal activity in the past. In some cases, this system has yielded officer arrests. This is about security.”

An automated voice informs inmates at the beginning of each call that their conversations are monitored and can be used by officials. Typically, police officers go through the telephone records for pertinent case information and then notify the District Attorney of their findings. Harris is concerned that attorney-client conversations could slip through the automated system and become recorded and monitored.

“I constantly have clients asking me if they are being recorded. I know it's hard to quantify this as a problem, but this is about striking a balance. The government has a need to know, but every citizen still has the right to privacy,” says Harris.

According to Harris, who was District Attorney for 14 years, officials should turn to a judge for monitoring privileges.

“There needs to be credible information that criminal activity is occurring,” says Harris. “They should have to prove to a judge that these calls should be monitored.”

Johnson doesn't think that adds up.

“I wouldn't say we make a frequent amount of arrests due to the phone monitoring system,” she says. “Inmates are wise to the fact that their conversations are being monitored. Monitoring isn't going to change. We will continue to use it.”