Technical corrections only. v3 updates the bill's status from "Reported in Senate" to "Engrossed in Senate" and reflects its passage by the Senate, changing "A BILL" to "AN ACT" and adding attestation. No substantive policy changes were made to the text of the bill itself.
Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping Prison Contraband Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill doubles the maximum federal prison sentence for providing a phone to an inmate and requires a policy review to enhance correctional facility safety.
What it actually does
This bill increases the maximum federal prison sentence for providing a phone to an inmate in a correctional facility from one year to two years. Additionally, it mandates that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons conduct a review of existing policies related to inmates possessing prohibited objects and update those policies within one year to improve protections for both incarcerated individuals and staff.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that increasing penalties for introducing contraband phones into prisons is crucial for maintaining security, preventing criminal activity orchestrated from within facilities, and protecting both correctional staff and other incarcerated individuals from threats posed by unauthorized communication. They believe stricter penalties act as a stronger deterrent against those who would compromise prison safety.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that increasing prison sentences for non-violent offenses like providing a phone may contribute to over-incarceration without addressing underlying issues that drive contraband introduction. They may also contend that the focus should be more on effective screening and interdiction methods rather than solely on punitive measures, and that longer sentences could strain the federal budget.
The bill is very short and can be read and understood quickly by any interested party.
Section 2
Enhanced Penalties for Providing Phones in Correctional Facilities
This section amends federal law (18 U.S.C. 1791(b)) to increase the maximum penalty for providing a phone to an inmate in a correctional facility. Previously, this offense carried a maximum sentence of one year; this bill raises that maximum to two years of imprisonment, or both a fine and imprisonment. This change aims to create a stronger deterrent against the introduction of unauthorized communication devices.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that phones are a significant security threat in prisons, enabling inmates to coordinate crimes, intimidate witnesses, and engage in illicit activities. Increasing the penalty provides a stronger deterrent against individuals attempting to smuggle phones into facilities, thereby enhancing safety for staff and inmates and maintaining order.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that doubling the maximum sentence for this offense may not significantly deter determined individuals and could contribute to prison overcrowding and increased costs. They may argue that resources would be better spent on improving detection technology and staffing rather than solely on punitive measures.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for stronger deterrence against a recognized security threat and the potential for increased incarceration rates and associated costs. While proponents prioritize security, opponents might highlight the broader implications for the justice system and the effectiveness of punitive measures alone.
Section 3
Mandated Review and Update of BOP Contraband Policies
This section requires the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to conduct a comprehensive review of its existing policies concerning inmates who possess, make, obtain, or attempt to obtain prohibited objects, including phones. Following this review, the BOP must update these policies as necessary within one year of the Act's enactment to better protect both incarcerated individuals and correctional staff from the dangers posed by contraband.
The bill increases penalties for providing an object 'specified in subsection (d)(1)(F) of this section.' This subsection (d)(1)(F) of 18 U.S.C. 1791 defines 'prohibited object' to include 'a phone or other device used by an inmate to communicate with the outside world.'
Section 2, referring to 18 U.S.C. 1791(d)(1)(F)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing statutory definitions. It's not necessarily evasive, but it does require external reference for full clarity.
Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing existing definitions ensures legal precision and avoids creating conflicting or redundant definitions within the U.S. Code. It streamlines the legislative text and maintains consistency across federal statutes.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying heavily on cross-references makes bills less accessible to the public and requires legal expertise to fully comprehend the scope of the legislation, potentially obscuring the direct impact of the law.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the specific object for which the penalty is increased, impacting individuals involved in providing such devices by making the legal consequences for their actions more severe.