33. Privacy.

U.S. Appeals Court MEDIA MAIL

Brown v. Williams, 36 Fed.Appx. 361 (10th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a pro se [section] 1983 action against prison officials, challenging the handling of his mail from his attorney and from a radio station. The district court dismissed the case and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the fact that a mail package sent by an attorney was never received by the prisoner, and that another package from the attorney was opened in the prisoner's presence by prison officials, did not amount to a deprivation of the prisoner's First Amendment right or his right to counsel or right of access to the courts. The court also found that prison officials' interception of incoming correspondence addressed to the prisoner from a radio station and an outgoing letter to the radio station's address, was reasonable in light of the personal nature of the correspondence. The incoming letter contained a check for the prisoner and was sent by his godmother, who worked for the radio station. The court noted that prison officials may regulate correspondence thought to be disguised as privileged mail. (Lea County Correctional Facility, Oregon)

U.S. Appeals Court RIGHT OF PRIVACY SEARCHES

Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2002). A female federal prisoner brought a civil rights action against prison officials, alleging Fourth Amendment violations arising from strip searches. The district court denied summary judgment for the officials and refused to dismiss the action. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the prisoner's right not to be subjected to a humiliating strip search in full view of several others was "clearly established" at the time of the search in question. The court held that summary judgment was precluded because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether prison officials had a legitimate penological need to conduct the strip search of the prisoner in an open area and in view of inmates and staff. According to the court, while a prison inmate's right to privacy must yield to a prison's need to maintain security, "it does not vanish altogether." (Englewood Federal Correctional Facility, Colorado)

U.S. District Court PRIVACY ACT

Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 578 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A prisoner who was allegedly transferred and reclassified as a "special offender" in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, brought a pro se action for violation of the Privacy Act. The district court dismissed the case and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the prisoner adequately alleged the first three elements of a Privacy Act claim for damages: inaccurate records, agency intent, and proximate causation. The inmate alleged that he was transferred in retaliation for filing grievances. (Federal Correctional Institutions in Allenwood, Pennsylvania, and Marianna, Florida)