Opinion ID: 169830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sexually Explicit Material/Technical Publications

Text: On June 11, 1995, Jones filed a grievance stating he wished to subscribe to several magazines. He requested jail personnel to indicate which magazines were not allowed and to provide him the jail's policy concerning incoming publications. On June 13, 1995, Lieutenant Merrick responded to Jones' request, granting it as to National Geographic, Newsweek, U.S. News, Reader's Digest and New Era but denying it as to Playboy, Easyrider, In the Wind, Tattoo, Penthouse, Soldier of Fortune, Guns-n-Ammo, Combat Auto and Mother Earth News. It also referred Jones to the jail's policy regarding publications and attached that policy. On June 20, 1995, Jones requested a more detailed explanation of the jail's guidelines on inflammatory, technical and sexually explicit materials. The next day, Lieutenant Merrick responded, While I appreciate your input you have received the policy you requested. (R. Appellant's App. Vol. 1 at 235.) The jail's policy in effect at the time of Jones' request was Special Order No. 94-14. Sometime between June 1994 and June 1995, Special Order 94-14 was incorporated into the Salt Lake County Metro Jail Policy & Procedure Manual. This manual states in relevant part: (10) Publications (a) Prisoners will be allowed reading materials subject to restrictions consistent with Jail security concerns. (b) Magazines and/or newspapers will only be accepted when mailed directly from the publisher. (c) Publications permitted (I) Magazines meeting policy guidelines. (ii) Newspapers. (d) Publications not permitted (I) Calendars, free samples, sweepstake type application forms, and/or any other junk mail will be refused or discarded. (ii) Catalogs, technical publications, and/or any sort of sexually explicit material. (R. Appellant's App. Vol. 1 at 202.) Lieutenant Merrick testified the policy manual did not define consistent with Jail security concerns, catalogs, technical publications or sexually explicit material. Although there were no written definitions, he stated sexually explicit material meant pictures of breasts and genitals and technical publications meant reading material containing information on weapons, escapes, how to make alcohol, how to hide contraband, [and] how to move contraband. [6] (R. Appellant's App. Vol. 1 at 205, 220, 227.) Jones argues the County Jail's ban on sexually explicit material and technical publications is unconstitutional based on its use of vague and general terms. Specifically, he contends the policy does not define technical publications, sexually explicit material or consistent with Jail security concerns. He also argues it does not provide any criteria for jail officials to use when applying this policy. He claims such vague and unwritten rules grant prison officials unbridled discretion to refuse certain reading materials based on their own interpretation of these terms. He alleges this constitutes prior restraint and runs the risk of unconstitutional censorship. In support of this argument, Jones cites City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), and Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985). Jones' reliance on City of Lakewood and Cornelius is misplaced. These cases have no application to the prison setting. As stated above, Turner sets forth the law for determining the constitutionality of a prison regulation and the County Jail's policy banning receipt of sexually explicit material and technical publications satisfies Turner. [7] The jail's ban on inmate access to sexually explicit material and technical publications is expressly aimed at advancing jail security and the ban on sexually explicit material also protects the safety of jail personnel and other inmates. [8] Prison security and safety are legitimate governmental objectives. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 415, 109 S.Ct. 1874 (prison security is a legitimate governmental purpose central to all other corrections goals) (quotations omitted); Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir.1999) ([T]here is no doubt that protecting the safety of guards in general is a legitimate interest, and that reducing sexual harassment in particular . . . is legitimate.). The ban is rationally related to these objectives. Further, despite the ban on sexually explicit material and technical publications, the jail's regulations allow a broad range of publications to enter the facility. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 418, 109 S.Ct. 1874 (As the regulations at issue . . . permit a broad range of publications to be sent, received, and read, [the second Turner factor] is clearly satisfied.). Indeed, the ban on sexually explicit material does not prohibit sexually explicit prose or pictures of clothed women/men. [9] Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1061 (finding second Turner factor met where prison regulation did not ban sexually explicit letters between inmates and others or sexually explicit articles or photographs of clothed females). Moreover, to allow inmates to possess sexually explicit material and technical publications concerning weapons, contraband and escapes would have a significant impact on the safety and security of prison personnel and other inmates. Lastly, Jones points to no alternative that fully accommodates his rights while at the same time imposing de minimis cost to valid penological interests. Therefore, the jail's ban on sexually explicit material and technical publications passes constitutional muster.