In re Short

California Court of Appeal Feb 17, 1976 No. Crim. No. 27398Published

Before: Files, Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that prison regulations regarding mail from courts must be amended to require that such mail be opened in the presence of the inmate to ensure the regulation is observed, though the court should not dictate the specific language of the amendment.

Issues

Whether a prison regulation allowing officials to open mail from a court outside the presence of the inmate is constitutionally valid.
Whether a trial court may dictate the exact language of a regulation when ordering a state agency to amend its policies.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that the position of the petitioner is well taken and that both an inmate and the director will gain from a requirement that, so far as possible, will assure that the right recognized by statute and regulation is observed.”

“we conclude that the director should not, in this case or in the case of any future revision of his regulations, be tied to some exact judicially imposed terminology.”

Opinion — Kingsley

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J. Petitioner, a prisoner at California Mens Colony, sought, by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, to attack the validity of a regulation relating to mail privileges of prisoners, adopted by the Director of the Department of Corrections.1 The regulation attacked provides as follows:

[270]“DP-2405. Correspondence Between Inmates And Courts: Sealed correspondence from an inmate to a court will not be opened or censored. Correspondence to a court will not be prevented from leaving an institution for any reason. Correspondence in a court envelope to an inmate will be opened only by a designated employee. The correspondence will not be read except to the extent necessary to determine that the contents are in fact from the court. The institution head will maintain a listing of such designated employees.”

It is admitted that an envelope, addressed to petitioner, bearing the return address of the County Clerk of San Luis Obispo County, had been opened by a prison official, acting under that regulation,2 in the absence of petitioner. It is the contention of petitioner that he had a constitutional and statutory right to be present when an envelope addressed to him, bearing the return address of a court, was opened. To secure recognition of that right, he petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas; the petition was granted, the court including in its order the language of an amended regulation which the director was ordered to adopt.. The Department of Corrections has appealed. We modify the order and affirm it as modified.3

It is urged that we reverse the order on two grounds: (1) That the present regulation is constitutionally valid; and (2) That, in any event, the trial court should merely have directed that the regulation be amended to provide for the presence of the inmate, instead of actually dictating the exact language of the amendment.

The Constitution of the State of California grants “to all persons” an inalienable right to privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) That constitutional provision is, to some extent, limited by the provision in section 2600 of the Penal Code, which provides:

“This section shall be construed so as not to deprive such person of the following civil rights, in accordance with the laws of this state:

In re Short

AI Brief

Opinion — Kingsley

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

Dissent — Files

AI Brief