Sec. 2. (a) A confined person may send and receive,
in any language, an unlimited amount of correspondence to or from any
person, except as provided by subsection (b).
(b) The department may require prior approval of correspondence
between a confined person and another person if the other person is on
parole or:
(1) is being held in a correctional facility;
(2) has been sentenced to a community corrections program;
(3) is being held in a county jail; or
(4) is participating in a work release program;
operated by the department, a county sheriff, a county, the United
States, or any state.
(c) If the department determines that the correspondence referred to
under subsection (b) is in the best interest of both the confined person
and the facility involved, such correspondence shall be permitted.
(d) When the department has prohibited correspondence referred to
under subsection (b) it shall follow the procedure for notification and
availability of the grievance procedure as provided in sections 4(d) and
4(e) of this chapter.
As added by Acts 1979, P.L.120, SEC.4. Amended by
P.L.150-1983, SEC.1; P.L.101-2006, SEC.21.
Notes of Decisions
Chad Eric Miller v. Jack A. Duckworth, & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Indiana, 963 F.2d 1002 (7th Cir. 1992).
· cites it 2× “While incarcerated at the Hendricks County jail, Miller was precluded from communicating with any inmate witnesses located at the IYC, pursuant to Indiana Code § 11-11-3-2: (b) The department [of Corrections] may require prior approval of correspondence between a confined person…”
Perry v. State, 505 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 8× “Our court has upheld Ind.Code § 11-11-3-2 against a First Amendment challenge.”
Esposito v. Leddy, 618 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
“See Ind.Code § 11-11-3-2(b)(1) (1983 Supp.). Kapachinski had not received the necessary permission to correspond with Esposito.”
— Ind. Code § 11-11-3-2(a) — 1 case
Perry v. State, 505 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987).
“Our court has upheld Ind.Code § 11-11-3-2 against a First Amendment challenge.”
— Ind. Code § 11-11-3-2(b)(1) — 1 case
Esposito v. Leddy, 618 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
“See Ind.Code § 11-11-3-2(b)(1) (1983 Supp.). Kapachinski had not received the necessary permission to correspond with Esposito.”
— Ind. Code § 11-11-3-2(b)(8) — 1 case
Perry v. State, 505 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987).
“Our court has upheld Ind.Code § 11-11-3-2 against a First Amendment challenge.”
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.