28 C.F.R. § 540.102
Monitoring of inmate telephone calls
The Warden shall establish procedures that enable monitoring of telephone conversations on any telephone located within the institution, said monitoring to be done to preserve the security and orderly management of the institution and to protect the public. The Warden must provide notice to the inmate of the potential for monitoring. Staff may not monitor an inmate's properly placed call to an attorney. The Warden shall notify an inmate of the proper procedures to have an unmonitored telephone conversation with an attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2010).
Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2010). “But the imperfection is necessary to protect the prison’s interest in security— and is lessened by allowing prisoners to engage in unmonitored phone conversations with their lawyers.”
United States v. O'Brien, 870 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2017). “) ("Massachusetts and the Federal government have both promulgated regulations prohibiting prison officials from monitoring phone calls between inmates and their attorneys,”); see also 28 C.F.R, § 540.102, 4 . Moreover, as the government notes in its brief, and O’Brien did not…”
Darrell Debrew v. Atwood, 792 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “Although the BoP monitors inmates’ telephone calls, see 28 C.F.R. § 540.102 , we do not think it is “suspect” that the agency says it did not retain recordings of De-Brew’s conversations, SafeCard Sens.”
United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966 (1st Cir. 1995). “28 C.F.R. § 540.102 (1995). The Federal Bureau of Prisons requires notice to be posted at all monitored telephones “advis[ing] the user that all conversations from that telephone are subject to monitoring and that use of the telephone constitutes consent to this monitoring,” and…”
United States v. Donte Hammond, 286 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2002). “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 540.102 , the BOP monitors all outgoing inmate phone calls except those that are cleared in advance and made to counsel.”
United States v. Novak, 531 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2008). “08 (1994) (Massachusetts regulation); see also 28 C.F.R. § 540.102 (prohibiting monitoring of attorney calls in federal prisons).”
Yosuf v. United States, 642 F. Supp. 415 (M.D. Penn. 1986). “Mir reads 28 C.F.R. § 540.102 to create a duty to provide more phone calls.”
Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir. 1994). “Although such collect legal calls are generally unlimited, the provisions of former 28 CFR § 540.102 (1993) provided that a warden may, nevertheless, limit such communication if the inmate has an adequate alternative method of contacting counsel.”
Searcy v. United States, 668 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2009). “28 C.F.R. § 540.102 . “The inmate is responsible for any misuse of the telephone,” and a “violation of the institution’s telephone regulations may result in institutional disciplinary action.”
United States v. Heatley, 994 F. Supp. 483 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “Prisoners, like defendants Cuff and Heatley, are advised of this policy in a notice form they sign upon admission to the facility, acknowledging that they know and understand the prison’s monitoring and recording rules.”
United States v. Novak, 453 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D. Mass. 2006). “28 C.F.R. § 540.102 (2006) (“Staff may not monitor an inmate’s properly placed call to an attorney.”
United States v. Janis, 820 F. Supp. 512 (S.D. Cal. 1992). “28 C.F.R. § 540.102 provides that, “The Warden may not apply frequency limitations on inmate telephone calls to attorneys when the inmate demonstrates that communication with attorneys by correspondence, visiting, or normal telephone use is not adequate”.”
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.