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 B—Correspondence

28 C.F.R. § 540.14

General correspondence

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

(a) Institution staff shall open and inspect all incoming general correspondence. Incoming general correspondence may be read as frequently as deemed necessary to maintain security or monitor a particular problem confronting an inmate.

(b) Except for “special mail,” outgoing mail from a pretrial inmate may not be sealed by the inmate and may be read and inspected by staff.

(c)(1) Outgoing mail from a sentenced inmate in a minimum or low security level institution may be sealed by the inmate and, except as provided for in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, is sent out unopened and uninspected. Staff may open a sentenced inmate's outgoing general correspondence:

(i) If there is reason to believe it would interfere with the orderly running of the institution, that it would be threatening to the recipient, or that it would facilitate criminal activity;

(ii) If the inmate is on a restricted correspondence list;

(iii) If the correspondence is between inmates (see § 540.17); or

(iv) If the envelope has an incomplete return address.

(2) Except for “special mail,” outgoing mail from a sentenced inmate in a medium or high security level institution, or an administrative institution may not be sealed by the inmate and may be read and inspected by staff.

(d) The Warden may reject correspondence sent by or to an imate if it is determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, to the protection of the public, or if it might facilitate criminal activity. Correspondence which may be rejected by a Warden includes, but is not limited to, correspondence which contains any of the following:

(1) Matter which is nonmailable under law or postal regulations;

(2) Matter which depicts, describes, or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption;

(3) Information of escape plots, of plans to commit illegal activities, or to violate Bureau rules or institution guidelines;

(4) Direction of an inmate's business (See § 541.13, Prohibited Act No. 408). An inmate, unless a pre-trial detainee, may not direct a business while confined.

This does not, however, prohibit correspondence necessary to enable an inmate to protect property and funds that were legitimately the inmate's at the time of commitment. Thus, for example, an inmate may correspond about refinancing an existing mortgage or sign insurance papers, but may not operate a mortgage or insurance business while in the institution.

(5) Threats, extortion, obscenity, or gratuitous profanity;

(6) A code;

(7) Sexually explicit material (for example, personal photographs) which by its nature or content poses a threat to an individual's personal safety or security, or to institution good order; or

(8) Contraband. (See § 500.1 of this chapter. A package received without prior authorization by the Warden is considered to be contraband.)

[50 FR 40109, Oct. 1, 1985, as amended at 56 FR 4159, Feb. 1, 1991; 62 FR 65186, Dec. 10, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Lutz v. Hemingway
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lutz v. Hemingway (2007) mied · cites it 3× “violation of 28 C.F.R. § 540.14 . II. Pursuant to 28 C.”
Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr. v. George Deeds, and Richard Fleming Sergeant Minton, Steven H. Goldblatt, Amicus Curiae (1999) ca4 · cites it 3× “See 28 C.F.R. § 540.14 (c)(2) (1998) (noting that all outgoing mail "may be read and inspected by staff”).”
Jordan v. Pugh (2007) cod · cites it 4× “10 (which states that the BOP "encourages correspondence that is directed to socially useful goals”), 28 C.F.R. § 540.14 (which addresses the handling of an inmate’s incoming and outgoing general correspondence), 28 C.”
Anthony King v. Federal Bureau of Prisons and Charles Gilkey (2005) ca7 “” 28 C.F.R. § 540.14 (d)(4). The references to “correspondence” and “correspond” might be thought to exclude the use of the phone, but such an inference would be inconsistent with the phone regulation itself, which does not suggest that telephone privileges can be withheld for…”
Young v. Keohane (1992) pamd “As a detainee, it would appear — at least from federal regulations — that none of his outgoing mail was subject to inspection, and therefore, the defendants could not have reasonably believed that opening Young’s mail did not encroach upon his federally protected rights absent…”
Polyns Bieregu v. Janet Reno L. Yearby G. Berman, All Employees of Mail Room Staffs (1995) ca3 “” 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.14 (a), 540.18(a). 2 Special mail includes incoming mail from federal and state courts.”
Christopher John Martin and Brett C. Kimberlin v. R.D. Brewer (1987) ca7 “The target of the suits is the prison’s practice of treating all incoming mail as general correspondence — which the prison can open and read before delivering to the inmate, see 28 C.F.R. § 540.14 (a) — unless the envelope is marked “Special Mail — Open only in the presence of…”
Donald G. Henthorn v. J.D. Swinson (1992) ca5 “28 C.F.R. § 540.14 . Special mail, which includes mail from attorneys, courts, and other public officials, however, can only be opened in the presence of the inmate and checked for contraband; it may not be read or copied.”
United States v. Charles Whalen (1991) ca7 “The record affirmatively shows that the prison requires inmates to leave their letters unsealed and that Mr.”
James W. Wheeler v. United States (1981) ca9 “28 C.F.R. § 540.14 (c). We do not need to reach the issue of whether a member of the public who has been or may be a witness in a trial involving the defendant can invoke the warden’s supervisory powers under 28 C.”
Gilliam v. Quinlan (1985) nysd · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 540.14 (a)(1) (1983) § 540.13 General Correspondence .”
Sparkman v. State (2009) mdctspecapp “See 28 C.F.R. § 540.14 (b). In short, it is well established that prisons have sound reasons for reading the outgoing mail of their inmates.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 540.14(c)(2) — 1 case
Altizer v. Deeds (1999) ca4
— 28 C.F.R. § 540.14(c)(l)(i) — 1 case
Lutz v. Hemingway (2007) mied “violation of 28 C.F.R. § 540.14 . II. Pursuant to 28 C.”
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.