In Re Bell

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

G. W. Sumner, warden of the prison at San Quentin, appeals from an order for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to prevent

[820]

prison officials from imposing particular limitations on the visiting privileges of inmates found to be in possession of contraband.

Inmate Richard Bell had been found in possession of a marijuana cigarette and inmate John Van Deutekom was found in possession of contraband currency. Prison authorities deprived both inmates of contact visits, i.e., visits without a physical barrier between the inmate and the visitor.

In petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus the inmates requested the trial court to “permanently enjoin the Warden from excluding prisoners charged with or found guilty of narcotics infractions unrelated to visiting from any type of contact visits to which they otherwise would be entitled. . .. ” The court granted this request, adjudging that “suspension will be allowed [only] in the event that the prison authorities have some evidence that the contraband was obtained during a contact visit.”

It has been provided by statute that the civil rights of state prisoners include the right to have personal visits, subject to the power of the Department of Corrections to provide such restrictions as are “necessary for the reasonable security of the institution.”

1

The language of the proviso in section 2601, subdivision (d), has received little analysis in the reported decisions. The Attorney General argues that the phrase “necessary for the reasonable security of the institution” connotes a standard of reasonableness; the inmates argue that it proscribes restrictions if the legitimate security interests of the institution can be furthered by less restrictive means. The latter approach appears to have guided the court in the most recent decision on point,

In re French

(1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 74 [164 Cal.Rptr. 800], in which the court upheld an injunction precluding San Quentin prison authorities from indefinitely excluding visitors on the basis of their one-time refusals to submit to unclothed body searches. The opinion implied that the procedure was “unnecessarily restrictive” (106 Cal.App.3d at p. 83) because to require strip searching of a visitor on every visit after a one-time refusal would as effectively deter smuggling of contraband into the institution. (106 Cal.App.3d at pp. 85-86.)