Court Opinion

ID: 9616121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:43:41.938346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:55.095994
License: Public Domain

Thompson, J.,
concurring:
I agree with the majority opinion, but wish to add a comment. The Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is aimed at protecting one’s right of privacy (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), 84 A.L.R.2d 933; Kaplan, Search and Seizure, 49 Cal.L.Rev. 474, 481 (1961), and at the deterrence of unlawful police activity (People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905 (1955)). Those aims are not frustrated by the conduct here in question. One’s right of personal privacy is dramatically diminished when he has been lawfully placed in jail. He *459must then submit to reasonable measures designed to promote jail security and the orderly handling of inmates. The segregation of prisoners and the inventorying of their personal belongings is a matter of internal police administration, and does not offend the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. During the period of police custody, an arrested person’s personal effects, like his person, are subject to reasonable inspection, examination, and test. People v. Chiagles, 237 N.Y. 193, 142 N.E. 583 (1923). See also Nootenboom v. State, 82 Nev. 329, 418 P.2d 490 (1966); United States v. Caruso, 2 Cir., 358 F.2d 184 (1966); People v. Rogers, 50 Cal.Rptr. 559 (1966); People v. Long, 152 Cal.App.2d 716, 313 P.2d 174 (1957).