August 22, 2002
Calipatria State Prison
Warden: Silvia Garcia
7018 Blair Road
P.O. Box 5001
Calipatria, CA 92233-5001
CONSTRUCTIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW (17 USC §1702)
Re: Obstruction of Correspondence
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §2601; AND
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS,
TITLE 15, ARTICLE 6, §1063.
Dear Ms. Garcia:
I am writing this letter concerning mail that was returned by Calipatria
State Prison. On August 9, 2002 and August 13, 2002, I mailed letters
with enclosures to Prisoner Joel Brown, D-35361. Enclosed was a religious
E-mail that I had received from Pastor Paul Ciniraj who lives in India.
The other E-mail was a copy of a letter I had sent to Rick Grenz, Chief,
Regulation and Policy Management Branch, Department of Corrections.
Of note is that the suggested change had been made to these proposed regulations.
Also enclosed was a document "Education for Kids," which had been written
by Joel Brown. I have encouraged him in his writing, so now he is
putting some of his thinking into writing, and I had typed up his writing
and placed on my Website where I put writings and poems written by prisoners.
My letters were returned stamped with a "RETURN TO SENDER - For the
following reason(s)" and was checked/circled as "Unauthorized" and hand
written "No Internet pages/addresses." There is no reason to return
mail just because it has an E-mail address or Website address on it, as
there would be no way for the inmates to access the Internet, except that
those on the outside would do this for them. This is a clear violation
of the Prisoner Bill of Rights, and a violation of Federal and State regulations
and laws.
The Federal Law states as follows:
| 18 United States Code Section 1702. Obstruction of correspondence
Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post
office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter
or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository,
or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered
to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence,
or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes,
embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both. |
This states that all mail in the custody of an authorized person, before
it is delivered, is guilty of obstruction if they pry into the business
or secrets of another, opens or destroys correspondence. In other
word's mail is sacred, and it is not to be tampered with by any person
who has custody of the letter until it has been delivered to the person
it was directed.
Now to California Code, and there the only authority granted
is that prison authorities may open and inspect incoming mail and search
for contraband, as granted in Penal Code §2602 (b). Contraband
has to do with goods prohibited by law—not mail. Also granted is authority
to exclude obscene publications and writings, or writings that would incite
violence, gambling, etc. If an electronic communication contained
any of these kinds of writings that could be excluded. Here is the
California
Code.
Penal Code §2601 (b) To correspond, confidentially, with
any member of the State Bar or holder of public office, provided that the
prison authorities may open and inspect incoming mail to search for contraband.
(c) (1) To purchase, receive, and read any and all newspapers, periodicals,
and books accepted for distribution by the United States Post Office.
Pursuant to this section, prison authorities may exclude any of
the following matter:
(A) Obscene publications or writings, and mail containing information
concerning where, how, or from whom this matter may be obtained.
(B) Any matter of a character tending to incite murder, arson, riot,
violent racism, or any other form of violence.
(c) Any matter concerning gambling or a lottery.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the right
of prison authorities to do the following:
(A) Open and inspect any and all packages received by an inmate.
(B) Establish reasonable restrictions as to the number of newspapers,
magazines, and books that the inmate may have in his or her cell or elsewhere
in the prison at one time. |
The California Code of Regulations state much the same as to
Correspondence:
| Title 15, Article 6, §1063. Correspondence.
The facility administrator shall develop written policies and procedures
for inmate correspondence which provide that:
(a) there is no limitation on the volume of mail that an inmate may
send or receive;
(b) inmate mail may be read when there is a valid security reason
and the facility manager approves;
(c) inmates may correspond, confidentially, with state and federal
courts, any member of the State Bar or holder of public office, and the
State Board of Corrections; however, jail authorities may open and inspect
such mail only to search for contraband, cash, checks, or money orders
and in the presence of the inmate;
(d) inmates may correspond, confidentially, with the facility manager
or the facility administrator; and,
(e) those inmates who are without funds shall be permitted at least
two postage paid letters each week to permit correspondence with family
members and friends but without limitation on the number of postage paid
letters to his or her attorney and to the courts. |
Calipatria State Prison had no "valid security reason" to return the
mail sent to Joel Brown, as it contained a religious article, information
about the CDC visiting regulations, and a paper that Joel Brown wrote himself.
The United States Supreme Court in the case of Procunier v. Martinez,
416 U.S. 396 (1974), a Northern California case that applies to the present
case, as my First Amendment rights have been violated in not allowing free
speech in writing to an inmate. "Communication by letter is not
accomplished by the act of writing words on paper. Rather, it is effected
only when the letter is read by the addressee. Both parties to the correspondence
have an interest in securing that result, and censorship of the communication
between them necessarily impinges on the interest of each. Whatever the
status of a prisoner's claim to uncensored correspondence with an outsider,
it is plain that the latter's interest is grounded in the First Amendment's
guarantee of freedom of speech."
The restriction of Internet mail or addresses is overly broad.
"Thus a restriction on inmate correspondence [416 U.S. 396, 414] that
furthers an important or substantial interest of penal administration will
nevertheless be invalid if its sweep is unnecessarily broad." Procunier,
supra. As this regulation is applied to all correspondence, without valid
reason it "is unnecessarily broad." "Prison officials may not
censor inmate correspondence simply to eliminate unflattering or unwelcome
opinions or factually inaccurate statements. Rather, they must show that
a regulation authorizing mail censorship furthers one or more of the substantial
governmental interests of security, order, and rehabilitation."
Procunier,
supra.
| The following is a quote from Procunier v. Martinez,
416 U.S. 396 (1974).
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, concurring.
I concur in the opinion and judgment of the Court. I write separately
only to emphasize my view that prison authorities do not have a general
right to open and read all incoming and outgoing prisoner mail. Although
the issue of the First Amendment rights of inmates is explicitly reserved
by the Court, I would reach that issue and hold that prison authorities
may not read inmate mail as a matter of course. . .
A prisoner does not shed such basic First Amendment rights at the prison
gate. Rather, he "retains all the rights of an ordinary citizen except
those expressly, or by necessary implication, taken from [416 U.S. 396,
423] him by law." Coffin v. Reichard, 143 F.2d
443, 445 (CA6 1944). Accordingly, prisoners are, in my view, entitled
to use the mails as a medium of free expression not as a privilege, but
rather as a constitutionally guaranteed right. . .
It seems clear that this freedom may be seriously infringed by permitting
correctional authorities to read all prisoner correspondence. A prisoner's
free and open expression will surely be restrained by the knowledge that
his every word may be read by his jailors and that his message could well
find its way into a disciplinary file, be the object of ridicule, or even
lead to reprisals. A similar pall may be cast over the free expression
of the inmates' correspondents. Cf. Talley v. California,
362 U.S. 60, 65 (1960); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462
(1958). Such an intrusion on First Amendment freedoms can only be justified
by a substantial government interest and a showing that the means chosen
to effectuate the State's purpose are not unnecessarily restrictive of
personal freedoms. . .
The State asserts a number of justifications for a general right to
read all prisoner correspondence. The State argues that contraband weapons
or narcotics may be smuggled into the prison via the mail, and certainly
this is a legitimate concern of prison authorities. But this argument provides
no justification for reading outgoing mail. Even as to incoming mail, there
is no showing that stemming the traffic in contraband could not be accomplished
equally well by means of physical tests [416 U.S. 396, 425]
such as fluoroscoping letters. If physical tests were inadequate,
merely opening and inspecting - and not reading - incoming mail would clearly
suffice.
It is also suggested that prison authorities must read all prison mail
in order to detect escape plans. The State surely could not justify reading
everyone's mail and listening to all phone conversations on the off chance
that criminal schemes were being concocted. Similarly, the reading of all
prisoner mail is too great an intrusion on First Amendment rights to be
justified by such a speculative concern. There has been no showing as to
the seriousness of the problem of escapes planned or arranged via the mail.
Indeed, the State's claim of concern over this problem is undermined by
the general practice of permitting unmonitored personal interviews during
which any number of surreptitious plans might be discussed undetected.
When prison authorities have reason to believe that an escape plot is being
hatched by a particular inmate through his correspondence, they may well
have an adequate basis to seize that inmate's letters; but there is no
such justification for a blanket policy of reading all prison mail.
Procunier
v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) |
For the reasons stated above, I find that the blanket prohibition of
Internet Mail or Websites to be overly broad in its application.
This puts an unnecessary stress on the Mail personnel, that these rules
should only be applied to those who have abused their rights by conducting
themselves in an inappropriate manner in the use of Electronic Mail.
Employees are making decisions in an arbitrary manner. It is imperative
that this regulation be rescinded immediately, that the prisoners have
a First Amendment right to receive their mail without obstruction or censorship,
except as provided in the laws stated above.
Remember that those writing to prisoners also have First Amendment rights
to correspond and be free from having their mail read by prison personnel.
I agree with what Justice Marshall stated above. That mails be opened
and inspected, but not read except as provided by law.
Thank you for your attention to the matter.
Sincerely yours,
Janice D. Crumley
cc: Thom McConnell, Executive Director, Board of Corrections
Edward S. Alameida, Jr., Director, California Department of Corrections
Senator Steve Peace
Senator Maurice Johannessen
E-Mail: Interested parties |