This piece looks at how taxpayer-funded inmate tablet programs have gone wrong in multiple states, the legal fallout when inmates use those devices to threaten witnesses, and the political responsibility of officials who approved and funded those programs.
Back in May, reporting showed California spent $190 million on tablets and internet connections for prison inmates, and investigators said some inmates used the devices for watching adult content and grooming children. That scandal even drew scrutiny from the House Oversight Committee, which demanded documents from Gavin Newsom. Those revelations set the tone for a national conversation about whether providing internet-enabled devices to people behind bars is a good idea.
The problem isn’t limited to the West Coast. In Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, inmates received tablets as part of a program approved by Milwaukee County Executive and Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Crowley. The initiative was presented as a way to help with education, communication and rehabilitation, but critics warned the risks were real and underplayed. Opponents argued the programs traded public safety for convenience and PR.
One of those inmates, Thomas Zollicoffer, is accused of using his tablet to try to intimidate witnesses while facing three counts of first-degree intentional homicide for killing his ex-girlfriend and two others. When the behavior came to light, Milwaukee County Judge David Borowski stripped Zollicoffer of his communication privileges. The move underscored how quickly well-meaning tech policies can turn into tools for abuse when oversight is weak.
Judge Borowski asked a blunt question in court: “Why was the Sheriff’s Department giving laptops and iPads to defendants who are charged in homicides, or any defendants?” The judge pressed the point again: “Why is the Sheriff’s Department handing laptops or iPads to defendants?” Court staff had no clear answer, and one person off-camera replied, “That one’s above my pay grade, Judge.”
The judge did not mince words about the consequences: “And that needs to be addressed,” Borowski said. He recalled past cases where devices became means of harassment, including an instance where a defendant allegedly hacked a device to access illegal material. Those examples helped the court justify the immediate revocation of privileges in a triple homicide case.
“Why?”
https://x.com/AJBayatpour/status/2093371493858054464
“Judge, I have no idea,” a woman said off-camera. “That one’s above my pay grade, Judge.”
“And that needs to be addressed,” Borowski continued, “this is a bigger question. I have had cases. I had a case in particular where I had a defendant who was given a laptop or an iPad by the Sheriff’s Department. He used it to intimidate witnesses. He then, later, apparently — allegedly — hacked through it to access child pornography. There’s another very high-profile case in front of another judge … where a defendant allegedly made 1,200 or 1,500 intimidating threats and phone calls or threats from a tablet.”
In response to these incidents, the judge ordered the defendant locked down and barred from having tablets or laptops except for attorney meetings. He made it clear: “No defendant in this court ever gets to intimidate a witness or a victim. Ever.” That kind of ruling reflects a simple principle: custody is not the place to hand someone tools that could be used to threaten the public or undermine investigations.
David Crowley approved the Milwaukee program in 2022 and reauthorized it last year, and the expense has become a political flashpoint as he wages a campaign for governor. While Crowley pushes policies that expand services, critics point out the cost to taxpayers and the consequences for public safety when programs are rushed or poorly supervised. Meanwhile, county residents are left paying higher taxes while sheriffs say staffing and budgets remain strained.
County officials must answer whether these tablet programs are being run with sufficient safeguards and whether personnel and systems exist to prevent misuse. Without strict controls, inmates can turn communication tools into weapons against witnesses and victims, and courts will have to react after the fact. That reactive posture leaves families and communities exposed, which is exactly what critics warn about.
Taxpayer dollars should prioritize safety and accountability, not experiments that create new avenues for criminal behavior. Leaders who greenlight these programs need to explain how they will stop devices from becoming instruments of intimidation and abuse. Until meaningful protections are in place, judges and prosecutors should err on the side of public safety when it comes to inmate access to internet-connected hardware.
Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.
