28 C.F.R. § 552.11

Searches of inmates

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

(a) Electronic devices. Inspection of an inmate's person using electronic devices (for example, metal detector, ion spectrometry device, or body imaging search device) does not require the inmate to remove clothing. The inspection may also include a search of the inmate's clothing and personal effects. Staff may conduct an electronic device search of an inmate on a routine or random basis to control contraband.

(b) Pat Search. Inspection of an inmate using the hands does not require the inmate to remove clothing. The inspection includes a search of the inmate's clothing and personal effects. Staff may conduct a pat search of an inmate on a routine or random basis to control contraband.

(c) Visual search—a visual inspection of all body surfaces and body cavities.

(1) Staff may conduct a visual search where there is reasonable belief that contraband may be concealed on the person, or a good opportunity for concealment has occured. For example, placement in a special housing unit (see 28 CFR part 541, subpart B), leaving the institution, or re-entry into an institution after contact with the public (after a community trip, court transfer, or after a “contact” visit in a visiting room) is sufficient to justify a visual search. The visual search shall be made in a manner designed to assure as much privacy to the inmate as practicable.

(2) Staff of the same sex as the inmate shall make the search, except where circumstances are such that delay would mean the likely loss of contraband. Where staff of the opposite sex makes a visual search, staff shall document the reasons for the opposite sex search in the inmate's central file.

(d) Digital or simple instrument search—inspection for contraband or any other foreign item in a body cavity of an inmate by use of fingers or simple instruments, such as an otoscope, tongue blade, short nasal speculum, and simple forceps. A digital or simple instrument search may be conducted only by designated qualified health personnel (for example, physicians, physician assistants, and nurses) upon approval of the Warden or Acting Warden and only if the Warden or Acting Warden has reasonable belief that an inmate is concealing contraband in or on his person. If located, the contraband or foreign item may be removed immediately by medical staff if such removal can easily be effected by use of fingers or the simple instruments referred to above. Staff shall document all digital and simple instrument searches and the reasons for the searches in the inmate's central file.

(1) Staff shall solicit the inmate's written consent prior to conducting a digital or simple instrument search. However, the inmate's consent is not required.

(2) Staff may not conduct a digital or simple instrument search if it is likely to result in physical injury to the inmate.

[45 FR 75134, Nov. 13, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 48970, Oct. 21, 1983; 56 FR 21036, May 6, 1991; 72 FR 37631, July 11, 2007; 80 FR 32001, June 5, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010).
Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 8× “This policy is stated in 28 C.F.R. § 552.11 and BOP Program Statement 5521.”
Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2002). “She also alleged that the searches were conducted in an open area where she was viewed by a number of other inmates, in spite of the Bureau of Prisons’ own regulation ( 28 C.F.R. § 552.11 ) requiring visual searches to “be made in a manner designed to assure as much privacy to…”
Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008). “05, Searches of Housing Units, Inmates, and Inmate Work Areas 6(b)(1) (1997) (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 552.11 (c)(1)). And the policy specifies that “a good opportunity for concealment has occurred,” and the searches are to be performed, when an inmate is processed into the facility…”
United States v. William Eldridge Caldwell, 750 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. §§ 552.11 (c) and 552.-12(b). Caldwell contends that the FCI officials failed to use the least intrusive method practicable when they attempted a digital search instead of using the dry cell procedure or x-ray examination.”
United States v. Dwight Eugene Smith, 774 F.2d 1005 (10th Cir. 1985). · cites it 5× “In denying Smith’s motions, the trial court noted that Smith was relying exclusively on the Fourth Amendment, and had not relied on 28 C.F.R. § 552.11 (1984), which authorizes a body cavity search of an inmate upon approval by the warden if the warden has a reasonable belief…”
Bruscino v. Carlson, 654 F. Supp. 609 (S.D. Ill. 1987). “” 28 C.F.R. § 552.11 (c) (1986) (emphasis added).”
George W. Levoy v. Richard Mills, Herb Maschner, Dale R. Bohannon & Thomas Harvey, 788 F.2d 1437 (10th Cir. 1986). “1985), we declined to reach the Fourth Amendment question when we held that the body cavity search in that case was not based on a “reasonable belief” that the prisoner was concealing contraband, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 552.11 (1984). Given the procedural posture of this…”
United States v. Oakley, 731 F. Supp. 1363 (S.D. Ind. 1990). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 552.11 authorizes federal prison authorities to perform body searches, including digital rectal searches, on inmates.”
Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1992). “28 C.F.R. § 552.11 (1991) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Dwight Eugene Smith, 781 F.2d 184 (10th Cir. 1986). “Before the filing of our opinion, this Court, by order of June 26, 1985, directed each of the parties to file a typewritten memorandum setting forth his respective views concerning the applicability of 28 C.F.R. § 552.11 (1984) to the instant case, *185 and, if such be…”
United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 3× “1 I The visual search procedure challenged by the defendant is a national BoP policy authorized pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 552.11 . 2 The policy, contained within a BoP program statement entitled “Searches of Housing Units, Inmates and Inmate Work Areas,” dated June 30, 1997, 3…”
Jean-Pierre v. Bur Prisons, 301 F. App'x 124 (3rd Cir. 2008). “…and personal effects. Staff may conduct a pat search of an inmate on a routine or random basis to control contraband. 28 C.F.R. § 552.11 (b) (2007).”
— 28 C.F.R. § 552.11(c)(1) — 1 case
Pinson v. Carvajal (D. Ariz. 2024).
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.