Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cr-00095/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cr-00095-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aly Mohsen
Defendant
Amr Mohsen
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO. CR. 03-0095 WBS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS COPIES OF 

 HIS JAIL MAIL

AMR MOHSEN and ALY MOHSEN,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Defendant Amr Mohsen (“Defendant”) moves to suppress

the copies of his personal mail that have been provided to the

government by authorities at two Alameda County Jails since June

2004. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On March 25, 2003, a 19-count indictment was filed

charging defendant with one count of conspiracy to obstruct

justice and to commit perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371

(Count 1), four counts of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1621 (1) (Counts 2-5), one count of subornation of perjury in

Case 3:03-cr-00095-WBS Document 440 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622 (Count 10), eight counts of mail

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts 11-18), and one

count of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503

(Count 19). The trial of these charges was originally scheduled

for March 31, 2004 before Judge Alsup. (Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to

Def.’s Mot. to Disqualify 6.) On March 27, 2004, defendant was

arrested based upon information that he was planning to flee the

country. (Id.) On March 29, 2004, Judge Alsup ordered defendant

to be detained in the Santa Rita jail pending trial. (Id.)

While defendant was detained at the Santa Rita jail, an

inmate contacted law enforcement and reported that defendant

wanted him to facilitate acts of murder and witness intimidation.

(Def.’s Mot. to Suppress Jail Cell Evidence Ex. B (Application &

Aff. for a Search Warrant ¶¶ 4, 5, 18).) The government

subsequently requested that jail authorities copy all of

defendant’s non-legal mail and deliver those copies to the

government. (USA’s Mem. in Opp’n to Suppress Jail Mail 2.) The

government began receiving defendant’s correspondence on June 3,

2004; the earliest mail the government has received was dated May

26, 2004. (Id.) 

On July 27, 2004, the grand jury issued a superseding

indictment charging defendant with contempt of court in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) (Count 20), attempted witness tampering in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) (Count 21), solicitation to

commit arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373 (Count 22), and

solicitation to commit the murder of a federal judge in violation

of 28 U.S.C. § 373 (Count 23). Defendant now moves to suppress

his jail mail, arguing that the interception and copying of his

Case 3:03-cr-00095-WBS Document 440 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stroud had a somewhat expansive holding. Since it was 1

decided, Stroud has been limited to the proposition for which it

is cited herein. United States v. Whalen, 940 F.2d 1027 (7th

Cir. 1991)(“Modern cases have limited Stroud to situations in

which prison officials have seized outgoing letters in the

exercise of legitimate government interests.”). 

The court notes that although defendant has asserted 2

that his First Amendment rights were violated by the government’s

seizure of his jail mail, he has not supported this conclusory

statement with any argument. The court declines to research and

determine an issue that defendant has not meaningfully raised.

3

mail violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights and occurred

in violation of the Santa Rita Jail’s own policies. (Def.’s Mot.

to Suppress Jail Mail 1, 2.)

II. Discussion

In a line of cases beginning with Stroud v. United

States, 251 U.S. 15, 21 (1919), the courts have deferred to

prison authorities in finding that legitimate penological

interests justify the examination of a inmate’s communications.1

See, e.g., United States v. Whalen, 940 F.2d 1027, 1035 (7th Cir.

1991) (“[B]ecause of their reasonable concern for prison security

and inmates’ diminished expectations of privacy, prison officials

do not violate the constitution when they read inmates’ outgoing

letters.” (quoting United States v. Brown, 878 F.2d 222, 225 (8th

Cir. 1989)(emphasis added))) ; United States v. Vallez, 653 F.2d 2

403, 406 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The warrantless seizure of a sealed

letter from a prisoner’s cell therefore violates the fourth

amendment, unless it serves a ‘justifiable purpose of

imprisonment or prison security.’”)(quoting United States v.

Savage, 482 F.2d 1371, 1373 (9th Cir. 1973)); Savage, 482 F.2d at

1373 (“[A]bsent a showing of some justifiable purpose of

imprisonment or prison security the interception and photocopying

Case 3:03-cr-00095-WBS Document 440 Filed 12/22/05 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

of the [inmate’s] letter [by prison officials] was violative of

the fourth amendment . . . .”). 

The interception and copying of defendant’s mail in

this case served a “legitimate penological purpose.” After

receiving information from a confidential informant that

defendant was attempting to harass witnesses and solicit murder,

the government had reason to suspect that defendant was engaging

in illegal activity. (Def.’s Mot. to Suppress Jail Cell Evidence

Ex. B (Application & Aff. for a Search Warrant ¶¶ 5, 18).) To

prevent defendant from using the mails to commit new offenses, to

keep the jail from becoming the locus of criminal conduct, and to

ensure order and security within the jail, the government

monitored defendant’s mail. (USA’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. to

Suppress Jail Mail 2-3.) 

In Thornborough v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 412 (1989),

the Supreme Court noted that outgoing correspondence may

implicate the authorities’ interest in prison security if

involves “escape plans, plans relating to ongoing criminal

activity, and threats of blackmail or extortion.” See also

Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 266 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Preventing

prisoners from disseminating offensive or harmful materials

[through the mail] clearly advances the orderly administration of

prisons, the rehabilitation of prisoners, and the security of

those receiving the materials.”). Here, defendant’s mail may

have been the vehicle for criminal activity or may have included

plans relating to ongoing criminal activity and threats. In

fact, the government states that it “may introduce numerous

letters that the defendant sent while in prison . . . as direct

Case 3:03-cr-00095-WBS Document 440 Filed 12/22/05 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

evidence of guilt on the charged offenses . . . .” (USA’s Mem.

in Opp’n to Mot. to Suppress Jail Mail 2.) Therefore, monitoring

and copying of defendant’s mail served a legitimate penological

purpose and thus did not offend the Constitution. 

Furthermore, because he has not established that a

Constitutional violation occurred, defendant has no grounds to

ask for suppression of the letters. The exclusionary rule

operates to exclude evidence that was obtained, whether directly

or indirectly, through an illegal search and seizure. Segura v.

U.S., 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984). As explained above, the seizure

of defendant’s mail was not illegal or unconstitutional. Courts

often admit evidence properly derived from viewing an inmate’s

jail mail. See United States v. Workman, 80 F.3d 688, 699 (2d

Cir. 1996); Whalen, 940 F.2d at, 1034-35; Stroud, 251 U.S. at 21-

22; People v. Garvey, 99 Cal. App. 3d 320, 324 (1980).

Defendant also argues that the government’s

interception and copying of his mail occurred in violation of the

jail’s policies, but similarly fails to explain how such a

violation would merit exclusion of evidence. Defendant claims

that because the rules state that “[a]ll mail will be opened and

inspected for contraband,” government authorities should not have

copied the mail to be used as evidence at trial. (Def.’s Mot. to

Suppress Jail Mail.) As the government points out,

correspondence related to an ongoing scheme to threaten witnesses

would fall under the term “contraband.” In addition, even if the

jail authorities contravened their own regulations, this would

not amount to a Constitutional violation. The Ninth Circuit has

held that “[a]bsent a constitutional violation or a

Case 3:03-cr-00095-WBS Document 440 Filed 12/22/05 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

congressionally created remedy, violation of an agency regulation

does not require suppression of evidence.” United States v. Ani,

138 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v.

Hensel, 699 F.2d 18 (1st Cir. 1983)). Therefore, suppression of

defendant’s mail seized during his imprisonment is not warranted.

Finally, there is no merit to defendant’s argument that

there is no longer good cause for continuing to copy defendant’s

mail after he was transferred to the Dyer Detention Center and

placed in Administrative Segregation. (Def.’s Reply 2.) Simply

because defendant no longer has contact with other inmates does

not mean that can no longer solicit help from others. To the

contrary, an argument can be made that because he no longer has

contact with other inmates he is more likely to solicit help

through communications with people on the outside.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to

suppress his jail mail be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED: December 22, 2005

Case 3:03-cr-00095-WBS Document 440 Filed 12/22/05 Page 6 of 6