SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

conversation between a person in the physical
custody of a law enforcement officer or other public
officer, or who is on the property of a law
enforcement agency or other public agency, and that
person’s attorney, religious advisor, or licensed
physician. (See In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3 rd 930,
937-938, fn. 3; People v. Lopez (1963) 60 Cal.2 nd
223, 248.)
Subdivision (b) makes it a felony to
eavesdrop on such a conversation by
“nonelectronic” means, but excludes
inadvertently overhearing such a
conversation, or when the conversation is in
a courtroom or other room used for
adjudicatory proceedings.
Where jail officers acted so that the suspect “and his
wife were lulled into believing that their
conversation would be confidential.” (North v.
Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3 rd 301, 311; People v.
Loyd (2002) 27 Cal.4 th 997, 1002.)
See also, “Wiretap Laws,” under “Searches with a
Search Warrant,” above.
Monitoring Jail Mail: It is constitutionally permissible to monitor
inmate mail coming into a jail facility. (People v. Dinkins (1966)
242 Cal.App.2 nd 892, 903; People v. Jones (1971) 19 Cal.App.3 rd
437, 449.)
An inmate’s “legal mail” (i.e., correspondence with the
prisoner’s attorney) may be opened as well, so long as it is
not read. (People v. Poe (1983) 145 Cal.App.3 rd 574;
People v. White (1984) 161 Cal.App.3 rd 246.)
Outgoing mail may also be monitored, “to prevent any
threats emanating from inmates.” (People v. Jones, supra,
see Cal. Code Regs, Title 15, § 3138(a))
The sole exception is legal correspondence to the
defendant’s attorney. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 15, §
3141(b), (c)): “An attorney at law listed with a
state bar.” (subd. (c)(6))
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
483