C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER V—BUREAU OF PRISONS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT › PART 540—CONTACT WITH PERSONS IN THE COMMUNITY › Subpart I—Telephone Regulations for Inmates

28 C.F.R. § 540.100

Purpose and scope

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Bureau of Prisons extends telephone privileges to inmates as part of its overall correctional management. Telephone privileges are a supplemental means of maintaining community and family ties that will contribute to an inmate's personal development. An inmate may request to call a person of his or her choice outside the institution on a telephone provided for that purpose. However, limitations and conditions may be imposed upon an inmate's telephone privileges to ensure that these are consistent with other aspects of the Bureau's correctional management responsibilities. In addition to the procedures set forth in this subpart, inmate telephone use is subject to those limitations which the Warden determines are necessary to ensure the security or good order, including discipline, of the institution or to protect the public. Restrictions on inmate telephone use may also be imposed as a disciplinary sanction (see 28 CFR part 541).

(b) Except as provided in this rule, the Warden shall permit an inmate who has not been restricted from telephone use as the result of a specific institutional disciplinary sanction to make at least one telephone call each month.

[59 FR 15824, Apr. 4, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 90, Jan. 2, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1986–2011 · leading case: Jamalud-din Almahdi v. Thomas Ridge, 310 F. App'x 519 (3rd Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jamalud-din Almahdi v. Thomas Ridge, 310 F. App'x 519 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “See also 28 C.F.R. § 540.100 (a). In addition, prisons are authorized to restrict telephone use as a disciplinary sanction, and during investigations.”
Perez v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 229 F. App'x 55 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 540.100 (b). As such, limiting Perez’s social telephone calls to one per week certainly cannot be construed to deprive Perez of a liberty interest.”
United States v. Kojo Sababu, Jaime Delgado, & Dora Garcia, 891 F.2d 1308 (7th Cir. 1989). “28 C.F.R. § 540.100 provides: Inmate telephone use is subject to limitations and restrictions which the Warden determines are necessary to insure the security, good order, and discipline of the institution and to protect the public.”
United States v. Angelo Amen, Mark A. Deleonardis, Michael Paradiso & Oreste Abbamonte, Jr., 831 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1987). “28 C.F.R. § 540.100 provides: Inmate telephone use is subject to limitations and restrictions which the Warden determines are necessary to insure the security, good order, and discipline of the institution and to protect the public.”
United States v. Richard Willoughby, Quintin Prioleau, Arthur Prioleau, & Carleton Montgomery, 860 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1988). “Given the institution’s strong interest in preserving security, we conclude that the interception of calls from inmates to noninmates does not violate the privacy rights of the noninmates.”
Aref v. Holder, 774 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D.D.C. 2011). “BOP Terre Haute CMU Institution Supplement at 2 (citing 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.100 (b), 540.101(d)). With the exception of legal phone calls, id.”
William Langton & David Leblanc v. William Hogan, Jr., 71 F.3d 930 (1st Cir. 1995). “The issue of the regime’s lawfulness under the statutes may be debatable, but it is doubtful that it is a close call.”
United States v. Vasta, 649 F. Supp. 974 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “Defendants additionally argue that regulations authorizing the monitoring of prisoners’ telephone conversations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.100 , 540.101, are invalid as overbroad, and alternatively that if the regulations are valid the procedures at Lewis-burg do not comply with them.”
Yosuf v. United States, 642 F. Supp. 415 (M.D. Penn. 1986). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 540.100 states inter alia “ .”
Searcy v. United States, 668 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2009). “” 28 C.F.R. § 540.100 (a). “Telephone privileges are a supplemental means of maintaining community and family ties that will contribute to an inmate’s personal development.”
Robinson v. Gunja, 92 F. App'x 624 (10th Cir. 2004). “at 13 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 540.100 (“[I]nmate telephone use is subject to those limitations which the Warden determines are necessary to ensure the security or good order, including discipline, of the institution or to protect the public.”
Aref v. Holder (D.D.C. 2011). “BOP Terre Haute CMU Institution Supplement at 2 (citing 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.100 (b), 540.101(d)). With the exception of legal phone calls, id.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.