Opinion ID: 2607900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Right to Purchase and Receive Reading Materials

Text: Petitioners Ingram and McKinney complain of various restrictions that have been placed upon their right to purchase and receive reading materials pursuant to section 2600 of the Penal Code. [21] We summarize the complaints of petitioners relative to restrictions which they claim are inconsistent with their rights under section 2600. (1) Petitioner McKinney complains of an institution rule at Folsom Prison which limits him to 16 hard-bound books in his cell at any one time and effectively prevents him from having sets of law books purchased by him. (2) Petitioner Ingram complains of an institution order at San Quentin which requires that books and other literature be purchased from a vendor approved by the institution. (3) Petitioner Ingram complains of an institution order purporting to implement that portion of section 2600 which allows the institution to forbid receipt by inmates of published materials falling within certain subject-matter categories. [22] (20) We turn first to the matter raised by petitioner McKinney. It appears that in September of 1969 petitioner McKinney requested and obtained permission to receive a number of legal publications which included Lawyer's Edition Supreme Court Reporter 2d and Supreme Court Digest. Petitioner proceeded to make arrangements to purchase these items through approved correspondents, but prior to delivery prison authorities revoked the authorization. As the associate warden explained in a letter to petitioner's mother, prison authorities were unaware at the time of authorization that the material in question consisted of 42 volumes, and as soon as they were made aware of that fact the authorization was withdrawn because possession of 42 hard-bound books would be in violation of prison rules. [23] The letter further explained to the mother that the two sets in question would be sent to her and that petitioner may request through my office a varying number of the volumes (so as not to exceed the 16-book limit) as he may need same. It is clear, of course, that a limitation of the type here in question is expressly contemplated by Penal Code section 2600. (Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the right of prison authorities ... (ii) to establish reasonable restrictions as to the number of newspapers, magazines, and books that the inmate may have in his cell or elsewhere in the prison at one time.) Moreover, we are of the view that the restriction placed by Folsom Warden's Rule F 2402 and Director's Rule D 2601 is reasonable in light of applicable custodial circumstances. The prison authorities have indicated a willingness to allow petitioner to use his personal library within the limits of the 16-book rule by means of mail requests to his mother. If petitioner wishes to have more convenient access to the whole of his library he may do so within the terms of Director's Rule D 2601 by donating it to the prison library. (21a) We next consider the matter of approved vendors. San Quentin Institution Order No. 408 provides in substance that, whereas certain items not available at the prison canteen may be received from approved correspondents (typewriters, drafting equipment, musical instruments and equipment, and hobby tools), books may be received only from Cottage Book Store [San Rafael] ... or other suitable vendors. Petitioner Ingram contends that this restriction is unreasonable and irrational  and that it is not authorized by Penal Code section 2600. It is urged that the institutional rationale for the rule  to wit, the prevention of smuggled contraband  is much more applicable to items such as musical instruments than it is to books because the former would provide a more convenient vehicle for smuggling contraband. The Director, however, points out a tenable basis for the distinction. The number of items such as typewriters and musical instruments which are sent to the inmates is relatively small, so that authorities have the time to make a thorough search of them before delivery to the inmate. On the other hand, the volume of printed material coming to the inmates is great, and the institution is not adequately staffed to permit minute inspection of all of this material. Thus it has been determined that the best way of preventing the smuggling of contraband in books and other printed material is to control the source from which it is sent. Newspapers and magazines must come directly from the publisher. (Director's Rule D 2402, subd. 12.) Books must come from vendors who can be counted upon to refrain from cooperating in schemes for smuggling contraband. We believe that this arrangement, although not expressly sanctioned by Penal Code section 2600, is reasonable and proper. (22a) Section 2600 cannot be construed as a straitjacket limiting the ability of prison authorities to deal with institutional realities. Rather it is to be viewed as a prison bill of rights setting forth certain fundamental guarantees which are to be protected against arbitrary infringement. (21b, 23) The guarantee which here concerns us  that of receiving and reading any and all printed matter other than that in prohibited subject-matter categories  is not automatically infringed by a requirement as to the source from which that material must come. Only if it should be made to appear that certain nonprohibited reading matter cannot be obtained from authorized sources would an infringement of the basic guarantee be involved. No such showing has been made in the instant case. (24a) Finally, we treat petitioner Ingram's contention that prison authorities have undertaken censorship of printed materials beyond that authorized by section 2600. The relevant portion of section 2600 provides that prison authorities shall have the authority to exclude obscene publications or writings, and mail containing information concerning where, how, or from whom such matter may be obtained; and any matter of a character tending to incite murder, arson, riot, violent racism, or any other form of violence; and any matter concerning gambling or a lottery. San Quentin Institution Order No. 507 was revised following enactment of the above portion of section 2600 in order to conform with the statutory mandate. The latest revision of that order, effective March 10, 1970, is set forth in full in the margin. [24] It provides inter alia that periodical [25] publications may be excluded if their subject matter is among those set forth in section 2600  i.e., if they are obscene (as defined in § 311 of the Pen. Code) [26] or tend to incite violence or gambling. It goes on to provide, however, as follows: In the interest of institutional security and the ultimate return of the inmates to society, publications which characteristically advocate or tend to incite acts which are a misdemeanor or a felony may be excluded. Publications dealing with detailed techniques of crime will not be permitted. Individual issues of an otherwise approved publication may be subject to confiscation if in violation of PC 2600 or PC 311. It is the application and validity of Order No. 507, and particularly the last-quoted paragraph, which is here in issue. On March 21, 1969, [27] petitioner Ingram, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Order No. 507 for review of magazines not previously approved (see fn. 24, ante ), filed with the warden a request that he be permitted to purchase a single copy of Realist magazine for examination and approval. On March 24, 1969, petitioner Ingram received a form from the acting prison librarian indicating that this magazine has been disapproved. No reason for disapproval was given. [28] Petitioner's subsequent inquiry in the matter was not answered by prison authorities. [29] On February 24, 1969, petitioner Ingram wrote a letter to Dr. Walter Houston Clark, retired Professor of the Psychology of Religion, Andover Newton Theological School, Newton Centre, Massachusetts. In the letter petitioner explained that he was an inmate at San Quentin serving a sentence for sale of marijuana, [30] and that he planned to undertake a challenge of the constitutionality of marijuana laws on the ground, among others, that marijuana is an aid to spiritual enlightenment and laws pertaining to it infringe the free exercise of religion. He asked Dr. Clark to furnish him with a copy of an article written by Dr. Clark and Dr. Timothy Leary entitled Religious Implications of Consciousness  Expanding Drugs. Dr. Clark responded to this letter on March 3, 1969, sending under separate cover the article requested along with several other articles and documents upon the same subject. [31] Petitioner Ingram received Dr. Clark's letter but he did not receive the enclosures. On March 28, 1969, he received a memorandum from the associate warden stating that the subject enclosures would not be transmitted to petitioner but would be placed in [his] property. The reason given for this action was as follows: In as much as drug usage as covered in the material you received is a crime, either a felony or a misdemeanor, you will not be permitted to accumulate a library of materials advocating or favorable to the use of drugs. Petitioner Ingram thereupon directed a memorandum to the associate warden complaining that his rights under section 2600 were being violated. He pointed out that section 2600 did not authorize exclusion of material on the ground stated in the associate warden's memorandum and urged that Order No. 507 was invalid insofar as it permitted such exclusion. The associate warden sent the following answer: We are interpreting PC 2600 as not allowing introduction of materials advocating crimes or teaching the techniques of committing crimes. We will not allow the publications on techniques of locksmithing, safecracking nor will we permit materials advocating the use of narcotics. You have the right to believe in whatever you wish but I do not believe a State prisoner has a right to materials that encourage him in the commission of further felonies. A further memorandum from the associate warden to petitioner Ingram on November 13, 1969, stated the position of prison authorities as follows: I will not permit any written material that advocates, encourages or presents in an enticing manner the use of illegal drugs or narcotics. We are constrained by our obligations as ratified in the Penal Code to provide programs conducive to rehabilitation and good management. Conversely, we cannot be in the position of encouraging convicted felons to further violate the law. I will note for the record that your litigation in this area is directed to the legalization of narcotics, and not as to your guilt or innocence in your current commitment. [32] On December 9, 1969, in response to a letter from a member of the Assembly concerning this matter, the assistant to the Director of Corrections stated that the Director supported San Quentin prison authorities in this matter. In this state we have long since abandoned the medieval concept of strict civil death and have replaced it with statutory provisions seeking to insure that the civil rights of those convicted of crime be limited only in accordance with legitimate penal objectives. The 1968 amendments to part 3, title 1, chapter 3 of the Penal Code, which resulted in the enactment of section 2600 in its present form, represent the most recent legislative effort in this direction. (22b) As we have suggested above, the 1968 amendment to section 2600 in effect constitutes a prison bill of rights which sets forth four basic guarantees which are retained by persons sentenced to imprisonment. Those guarantees are, generally speaking, (1) to inherit property, (2) to correspond confidentially with attorneys and public officials, (3) to own written material produced during imprisonment, and (4) to purchase, receive, and read published writings. (25a) It is the fourth of these guarantees whose lineaments we are here called upon to define. At the outset it is clear that the strong language chosen by the Legislature to state the basic right indicates an intention that any limitation on that right beyond those specifically set forth is to be viewed with circumspection. Thus, the basic right is To purchase, receive, and read any and all newspapers, periodicals, and books accepted for distribution by the United States Post Office. The basic right is subject to express limitations of two kinds. The first of these relates to subject matter and proceeds by listing specific subject-matter categories within which prison authorities may exercise a right of exclusion. The second relates to matters of institutional necessity such as the discovery of contraband and considerations of space within the prison. (26) As we have indicated above, we do not believe that the considerations of institutional necessity set forth in this second group of limitations are the only such considerations which prison authorities may utilize in order to govern the time, place, and manner under which the basic right is to be exercised. As long as the right is in fact exercised and protected reasonable limitations of this nature are to be tolerated. (25b) We observe, however, that there is a fundamental difference between this group of limitations  which may be characterized as limitations of time, place and manner  and the first group of limitations dealing with the subject matter of materials which may be excluded. The limitations comprising this first group impinge directly upon the basic right involved since they may prevent access to some reading material. In other words, the guarantee insures access to any and all printed materials except those excluded under this group of subject-matter limitations. We think that these subject-matter limitations should be construed in the light of their manifest purposes. Those purposes as we conceive them are only two: (1) to prevent access to obscene materials, and (2) to prevent access to materials tending to incite certain activities which pose a distinct threat to prison discipline, i.e., violence and gambling. (27) Although at some future time the Legislature may amend section 2600 to permit the exclusion of published materials which, in the opinion of prison authorities, are not conducive to rehabilitation in that they characteristically advocate or tend to incite acts which are a misdemeanor or a felony, [33] it is manifest that the present section does not permit exclusion on such broad grounds. Rather, the judgment of the Legislature expressed in section 2600 would seem to be that free access to all printed materials which are accepted for distribution by the United States Post Office  excepting those which are obscene or which tend to incite activities posing a threat to prison discipline  is more in accord with legitimate penal objectives than limited access according to the views of particular prison authorities on the rehabilitative effect of such materials. We do not consider this view to be wholly lacking in rational support. It may well be that even persons who have committed antisocial acts warranting their imprisonment may derive greater rehabilitative benefits from a relatively free access to the thoughts of all mankind as reflected in the published word than they would derive from a strictly controlled intellectual diet. [34] We do not wish to imply, however, that materials such as those here in question may under no circumstances be excluded by prison authorities. As we have indicated, section 2600 clearly permits the exclusion of any matter of a character tending to incite ... any ... form of violence. It might well be that under particular prison circumstances, such as for example a narcotics problem within the prison, material tending to encourage and justify the use of narcotics might have a tendency to incite violent situations. In such a case such material might be properly excluded on the indicated narrow ground. [35] We hold only that under section 2600 of the Penal Code prison authorities have no authority to exclude, on the ground that in their view it has an adverse rehabilitative effect, published material which is accepted for distribution by the United States Post Office. (24b) For the foregoing reasons we conclude that San Quentin Institution Order No. 507 is invalid insofar as it permits prison officials to exclude published materials on the broad ground that they characteristically advocate or tend to incite acts which are a misdemeanor or a felony. The published materials sought by petitioner Ingram, although they might be properly excluded on some narrower ground set forth in section 2600, may not be excluded on the broad ground stated. Our conclusion on this point renders unnecessary a present consideration of petitioner Ingram's further contention that exclusion of materials on marijuana and its use as a purported agent of spiritual enlightenment unreasonably impedes his access to the courts. (28) Finally, we are of the view that full and effective implementation of the guarantees set forth in section 2600 requires that prison authorities specify and communicate to affected inmates their reasons for excluding publications sought to be purchased pursuant to prison procedures. [36]