Prisoners/ Prisons/Booking Search
Category > Prisoners/ Prisons/Booking Search
Search of defendant's purse taken from the living room after her arrest was not justified as incident to arrest or a booking search.Officers arrested defendant in her living room. She asked if she could get something out of her purse which was on the floor. She then removed her wallet from the purse. Officers then took the purse and later searched it. The search was not justified as incident to arrest because it was not conducted at the time of her arrest. Moreover, the search was not justified under a booking search theory because she had left the purse behind when arrested and the purse was therefore not considered an extension of defendant's person at the time of the arrest.id: 11167
Defendant impliedly consented to the recording of his outgoing calls from the jail since the jail had announced a blanket policy of recording all calls. Defendant was arrested for domestic violence against his girlfriend. While in jail he called her several times, but the calls were recorded pursuant to an announced, blanket policy of recording all calls placed by jail inmates. The prosecutor obtained the recordings and used certain statements at trial. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's suppression motion since defendant impliedly consented to the recording of his calls, and the recordings were admissible under state
and federal law.id: 19369
Defendant's challenge to the order that he provide a DNA sample was not cognizable on appeal since the challenge did not affect the judgment of conviction.Defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property and his probation was revoked based on the same conduct. He argued the sentencing court improperly ordered him to comply with the DNA Data Bank Act of 1998, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the claim was not cognizable on appeal since the attack on the order cannot affect the validity of his conviction and sentence or relieve him of the mandatory requirements of the DNA Act. Nor could a successful Fourth Amendment challenge to the order bring him the injunctive relief he sought.id: 18616
Visual body cavity search of prisoner following anonymous notes suggesting he was dealing drugs in the prison did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The visual body cavity search of defendant, while in prison, was reasonable and constitutional. It was conducted only after prison officials received two anonymous notes stating defendant was selling drugs in prison, the second of which said he kept drugs on his person. Given the prison's right to find and destroy drugs, the information was sufficient to justify the search. That the anonymous nature of the notes did not allow for an internal disciplinary action was not dispositive. Finally, the search was carried out in a reasonable manner that protected defendant's sense of dignity.id: 17714
Collecting blood from a person convicted of a serious crime for inclusion in a DNA database does not violate the Fourth Amendment.Defendant argued the collection of his blood when he was a state prisoner under Penal Code section 295 for inclusion in the state's convicted offender DNA database violates the Fourth Amendment. He claimed the extraction of blood was a search requiring reasonable suspicion or a warrant, and that the state must show a special need for the procedure. However, Fourth Amendment privacy interests do not prohibit gathering information concerning identity from a person convicted of a serious crime, or of retaining that information.id: 17723
Since defendant was given notice that his prison telephone calls were subject to monitoring, he impliedly consented to the taping.Defendant argued the prosecution's wiretap of his jailhouse conversations was a violation of federal and state law. However, notices were posted suggesting the prison telephones were subject to monitoring. Since defendant was on notice that the conversations were subject to taping, and he proceeded with his conversations, he gave implied consent to the taping. The federal wiretap prohibitions therefore did not apply. Moreover, the provisions of Penal Code section 629.50 do not apply to the monitoring and recording of conversations where one party consents. Because defendant consented to have the conversations monitored, the prosecution did not need to seek judicial approval.id: 17061
State law now permits police to monitor and record unprivileged jail communications to gather evidence of a crime.Defendant argued the surreptitious tape recording of conversations between her and her visitors constituted misconduct in violation of DeLancie v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 865. However, DeLancie no longer correctly states California law regarding inmate rights. Following the 1994 amendment to Penal Code section 2600, California law now permits law enforcement officers to monitor and record unprivileged communications between inmates and their visitors to gather evidence of crime.id: 16783
Prison officials may monitor an inmate's mail for purposes of institutional security - in this case to prevent further drug trafficking.A state prisoner argued that the monitoring of his mail by the prison officials violated his right of privacy. While a police sergeant initially asked the institution to monitor defendant's mail, it was not done solely to obtain evidence to bolster a criminal case. It was done for institutional security. The prison reasonably believed defendant was a narcotics trafficker (based upon the large quantity of drugs they found on his person). Officials had a duty to keep him from selling more drugs. It was reasonable to monitor his mail to see if he was in the process of soliciting more drugs by mail.id: 15652
The opening of defendant's wallet and reading papers within it did not exceed the scope of a proper booking search.Defendant argued the search and seizure of the wallet exceeded the scope of a proper booking search because the detective read the telephone list in defendant's wallet. He argued that the reading of the documents in his wallet was not properly related to any inventory purpose and that the search was therefore invalid. However, opening the wallet and reading the contents did not exceed the scope of a proper booking search.id: 11196
X-Ray search of prisoner was not violative of the Fourth Amendment notwithstanding the lack of reasonable suspicion that he was carrying unsealed contraband.Appellant argued the court erred in denying his motion to suppress an X-ray search conducted on him as he entered Tehachapi State Prison. Since the prisoner was being transported from one high risk security housing unit to another the X-ray search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.id: 11101
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245