Do prisoners have Constitutional rights at the Bucks County Correctional Facility? They are limited, but they still exist. The case law is pretty slim with respect to outlining what those rights are. Typically, any case arising out of a prison relates to assaults or contraband. Contraband cases especially relate to Constitutional rights since the contraband is normally found as a result of a search and seizure. These are the cases your Bucks County criminal lawyer should know about:
In Wallington, the record shows that appellant, on February 9, 1975, had been arrested and was being held at Philadelphia Police headquarters. While he and twelve others were detained in a cell, one inmate of that cell reported a theft of $ 500.00 from his person. All inmates were searched, and appellant was found to have $ 230.00, whereas when he arrived at headquarters some few hours previously, he possessed only $ 7.02. The other inmates were found to have various amounts. The indictments which were the subject of appellant's trial followed. The alleged crimes for which appellant first had been arrested are not a part of this appeal.The intermediate appellate court denied appellant's petition. The court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. It held that fourth amendment freedoms were justifiably limited in the prison environment to the extent that prison officials might search prisoners and seize contraband or evidence of suspected criminality and that otherwise-recognized safeguards of amend. IV were not cognizable unless and until such searches and seizures were solely for the purposes of harassment. The court stated that proper prison discipline called for prompt action when crime was committed in jail. It found that appellant's arrest was proper and with probable cause. Commonwealth v. Wallington, 238 Pa. Super. 427 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976).
in Moore, pursuant to a police request, the mailroom pulled defendant's non-privileged mail in order to determine there whereabouts of defendant's brother in connection with threats against a witness. Defendant's brother was taken into custody based on leads from two items of mail. Defendant and his acquaintances used coded references and avoided specific names, demonstrating an effort to conceal their dialogue. The appellate court held such effort indicated they had no subjective expectation that their correspondence would remain private. Thus, defendant's coded references belied his assertion of a subjective expectation of privacy. Prison officials informed defendant about the prison's mail inspection procedure when he first arrived at prison. Thus, there was no reasonable subjective expectation of privacy and defendant could not claim such under the Fourth Amendment. Given the co-extensive analyses required by the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions, there was no compelling reason to construe Pa. Const. art. 1, § 8 as providing greater rights than U.S. Const. amend. IV. Defendant had no constitutional right to privacy in his non-privileged prison mail. Commonwealth v. Moore, 2007 PA Super 207 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).