visit clients in jail

Your version of Internet Explorer is out of date and no longer compatible with GettingOut. Please try using another browser or upgrade your current version of Internet Explorer by clicking here .

schedule a visit

Three Types of Video Visits

At Facility

These visits are when you go to your facility and sit at a video visit station in the lobby. Your loved one or friend will be on a video visit station in their pod.

From Computer

At select facilities families and friends can have video visits from their own personal computers in the comfort of their own homes. You will need the following equipment to do a video visit from home:

• A computer.
• A webcam and a microphone, or a computer with these components built in (most laptops have these built in).
• An internet browser. Internet browsers Safari 4 and higher, or Firefox 7 and higher, are strongly recommended. Using other browsers may not load the page appropriately in order to begin your visit. We are not responsible for technical problems or issues that may arise from using an unsupported browser.
• For the best visit experience you should use headphones, but they are not required.
• High speed internet (DSL or Cable) connection (dial up and satellite are not supported).

From Android Device

Video visits go mobile with our Visit Now Android app. At select facilities families and friends can have video visits from their own Android devices.

How to Schedule a Visit

Free video visit policy.

Free visits are a benefit for the inmate and are credited to the  inmate’s account. Therefore the inmate is the only one who  can book a free visit . This allows the inmate at your facility full control of whom they want to use their free visit with. There are also advanced scheduling rules that control the timeframe that a free visit can be booked. These rules vary by facility. If an inmate books a visit outside this timeframe, they will not be allowed to use a free visit.

• Book the visit with their Friends & Family.
• Suggest a visit with their Friends & Family. The Friends & Family must have no prepaid funds on their account at the time they confirm the suggested time. The inmate’s free visit will then be deducted.
• Confirm a suggested visit from their friends and family. The Friends & Family must have no prepaid funds on their account at the time the inmate confirms the visit. The inmate’s free visit will then be deducted from their free visit allowance.

The only way Friends & Family can use a free visit is by suggesting a visit with the inmate. If the inmate has a free visit available and there are no prepaid funds on the Friends & Family account at the time the inmate confirms, the free visit will be deducted from inmate’s account.

What Services Are Available At My Facility?

Select your facility below, available services:.

• Phone & Voicemail
• Video Visit at Facility
• Video Visit from Home

• Photo Sharing
• Tablets Your inmate has access to tablets. Make a deposit to their account so they have more ways to be productive, and you have more ways to stay connected.
• Verification Required

What is Telmate Verified?

If you are asked to be Telmate Verified it means your facility requires verification of your identity prior to acceptance of inmates' calls. The purpose of verification is to ensure inmates are not connecting with inappropriate people on the outside. The verification process is simple and can be completed before or after creating an account.

To be verified, you can make a deposit , schedule a visit or download and complete the Telmate Verified form .

Did you know…

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, inmates who

maintain strong relationships

with friends and family, greatly reduce their risk of recidivism.

Terms of Use governing use of GettingOut services state that all services are intended to be used by persons over the age of 18.

To continue, please enter your date of birth to confirm you are over the age of 18.

Prisoners' Legal Services of Massachusetts

The following documents provide general information for incarcerated individuals with problems or concerns related to visitation rights:

Interference with Attorney, Paralegal, or Law Student Visit

Visitation problems at county facilities, visitation problems at state prisons.

Visitation Rights of Unmarried Incarcerated Fathers

Attorneys, paralegals, and law students are entitled to special protections when they visit an incarcerated client. The rights of attorneys, paralegals, and law students to enter prison without harassment were litigated in a Suffolk Superior Court case called  Greenblatt v. Fair – a copy of that decision is attached. Two sections of the Department of Correction regulations also govern visitation in prisons. Visits by legal professionals are covered in  103 CMR 486.00  et seq. Visitation, in general, is covered by  103 CMR 483.00  et seq., some of which apply to legal visits.

If an attorney, paralegal, or law student is asked to submit to any body search in order to enter prison, or if any other privileges extended by regulation to legal visitors are denied, they should contact the Department of Correction legal department at (617) 727-3300 ext.124, and ask to speak to the attorney of the day. Due to resource restraints, MCLS is unable to advocate on behalf of legal professionals who experiences interference with a legal visit. We can offer advice to any legal professional who experiences interference with a legal visit on how to advocate for him or herself. If you are calling from a prison or jail while you are trying to get access to your client, please call this office at 1(800)882-1413, ask for the intake attorney and explain that you need to speak to someone right then due to your circumstances.

^ back to menu

Chapter 103, section 950  of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations sets out the rules for visiting incarcerated individuals in county facilities. These regulations give general information for those who want to visit a person in a jail or house of correction and also set out the rules regarding searches of visitors and concerning what a visitor must do if he or she is barred from visiting the jail. Each county jail and house of correction has its own particular visitation rules that specify the hours of visits, which individuals can get visits on each day of the week, what the clothing requirements are for visitors, etc. You can get those local rules from each jail or house of correction.

Unfortunately, MCLS does not represent people who have problems visiting their friends and relatives.

If you have been barred, or if you are an incarcerated individual whose visitor has been barred, you should follow the procedures in 103 CMR 950.05. If you are barred, you are entitled to written notification of the bar, and you are entitled to a review of the bar if you ask for one in writing.

950.05: Exclusion of Visitors

The visiting plan shall contain policy and procedure including, but not limited to, the following:

• Any visitor, even one who has obtained prior permission to visit, may be denied entrance to the facility or told to terminate a visit and leave the premises;
• A visitor who is denied entrance or asked to leave shall be told the reason for such action, except when it is deemed that to specify the reason might jeopardize security interests or the safety of any person or the facility;
• The officer(s) responsible for denying entrance or terminating a visit shall file a written report with the Sheriff/Facility Administrator, in accordance with Sheriffs Department policy. This report shall include the name of the visitor and the inmate visited, the time for the denial or termination, and the reasons for the action;
• When the Sheriff/Facility Administrator denies, suspends, or places restrictions on visiting privileges, the visitor shall be notified in writing of the reasons for such action, unless specification of the reason would jeopardize security interests or the safety of the individuals or the facility. The visitor may request a review of such action by writing the Sheriff/Facility Administrator. The Sheriff/Facility Administrator shall respond to all such requests in writing informing the visitor of the reasons for upholding, eliminating or modifying the original action;
• A statement that visiting privileges may be suspended for a specific time and procedures for reapplication of visiting privileges;
• Nothing in 103 CMR 950.00 shall in any way impair the Sheriff s or a designee’s authority pursuant to M.G.L. c. 127, s. 36 to exclude a visitor whenever, in the administration’s opinion admitting that person to visit would be injurious to the best interest of the facility or the administration of the facility; and,
• Before any attorney or any of the officials listed in 103 CMR 950.03(2)(b) is excluded, the Sheriff/Facility Administrator or other officer in charge shall be consulted. The attorney or official may immediately appeal any exclusion to the Sheriff.

950.04: Searches of Visitors

The visiting plan shall contain policy and procedure for the conducting of searches of visitors, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following

• A large sign posted in the lobby or other entrance warning that, “ALL VISITORS ARE SUBJECT TO BEING SEARCHED”, and containing the same wording in Spanish, “TODAS LAS VISITAS ESTAN SUJETAS A REVISION”, or a language which is understood by a significant number of visitors;
• A search procedure effective in preventing the smuggling of articles into the visiting area of the facility; to include that visitors successfully pass through a metal detector or scanner, or a pat down, and that any articles they are carrying may be thoroughly searched,
• If the search procedure is to include a more extensive search than mentioned above (up to and including a strip search), the following shall be included: (a) authorization from the Sheriff/Facility Administrator or designee for such search; (b) the visitor must be informed that he may leave the facility rather than submit to such a search. If he agrees to said search, a record of consent must be documented noting date, time, individual being searched and individuals conducting search; (c) the officer(s) conducting a more extensive search shall file a written report concerning the search with the Sheriff/Facility Administrator prior to the end of his tour of duty. The report shall contain the name of the visitor, the names of the searching officers and of the official who approved the search, the extent of the search, and what, if anything, was found;
• No search of a visitor’s body cavities (anal or genital) shall be conducted by corrections personnel. If a search less intrusive than a body cavity search (of anal or genital body cavities) is insufficient to eliminate suspicions that the visitor is smuggling, the visitor shall be denied admission;
• Any person refusing to submit to any aspect of the search procedure shall be denied entrance to the facility. Where the refusal occurs under circumstances indicating that the most likely motive for refusal is to prevent discovery of concealed articles, where a suspicious pattern of refusals is apparent, or where a visitor engages in offensive or assaultive behavior during the search process, visiting privileges may be suspended or terminated;
• Pat searches that involve removal of more than just external clothing and accessories shall be conducted by a correctional employee of the same sex as the visitor, conducted in private, and documented with a written report. Searches are to be conducted in a professional and courteous manner; and,
• Papers and documents carried in or out by any judge, attorney, law student, paralegal, the governor, any legislator or member of the parole board may be inspected for concealed articles but may not be read.

950.03: Identification and Sign-In 

The written plan shall contain a means to identify and register visitors to the facility and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

• A visitor shall be required to produce a current photographic identification such as a Massachusetts driver’s license or a passport. (Exceptions may be made by the Sheriff/Facility Administrator or his designee);
• if the visitor answers that he has been convicted of a felony, the visitor may be required, as a condition of entry, to provide a statement of the crime(s) for which he was convicted and the sentence served.
• the following persons generally may not be asked to provide the statement generally required by 103 CMR 950.03(2): the Governor, a member of the Governor’s Council, a member of the General Court, a Justice of the Supreme Judicial, Superior or District Court, the Attorney General, a District Attorney, the Commissioner, a Deputy or Associate Commissioner of Correction, Sheriff, County Commissioners, a member of the Parole Board, a Parole or Probation Officer, or others as designated by the Sheriff/Facility Administrator. Any such officer shall be required to sign his name, business address and the office which brings him within the exemption from the normal sign-in requirement.
• Each visitor shall be asked by the admitting officer before entrance into the facility if he has a weapon. All weapons shall be given to the officer prior to entry to the facility.

Chapter 103, section 483  of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations sets out the rules for visiting incarcerated individuals in county facilities. These regulations give some general information about visiting someone in prison as well as stating the rules regarding searches of visitors and what you can do when a visitor is barred from visiting. Each institution has a set of visiting rules which is more specific about visitation times and the rules and dress code for visitors. This information can be obtained from the institution.

Unfortunately, MCLS is unable to provide advocacy to people who have experienced problems with visiting their family or friends in prison.

If you have been barred from visiting, or if you are an incarcerated person whose visitor has been barred, the procedures in 103 CMR 483.16 must be followed. If you are suspended from visiting, you are entitled to written notice and the opportunity to respond in writing within fifteen working days. The superintendent should give you a response within two weeks of a request for re-entry. You should also ask for an informal meeting with the superintendent, which is permitted in section 6.

483.16: Exclusion of Visitors 

• Any visitor, even one who has obtained prior permission to visit, may be denied entrance to the institution or told to terminate a visit and leave the premises. M.G.L. c. 266, s. 123 makes it a criminal trespass to refuse to leave an institution after being ordered by an officer to do so.
• A visitor who is denied entrance or asked to leave shall be told the reason for such action, except when it is deemed that to specify the reason might jeopardize security interests or the safety of any person.
• Where the problem is something that clearly can be remedied, the visitor may be told that he may return to the institution at some specified time in the near future (such as the next day or the next visiting period) or upon satisfaction of some stated condition (such as having sufficient identification or being properly dressed). In cases where this is not appropriate, the visitor shall be told to await notification from the superintendent before returning to the institution.
• The officer(s) responsible for denying entrance or terminating a visit shall, except where such denial or termination is based on prior order of the superintendent, or on a failure to obtain prior permission to visit where such permission is required by 103 CMR 483.11, file an incident report with the superintendent, prior to the end of the shift. This report shall include the name of the visitor and the inmate-visitee, the time of the denial or termination and the reasons therefor. If the visitor has been informed that he may return at some specified time in the near future or upon satisfaction of some condition, the report shall so indicate.
• In a case where the visitor has been told that he may return to the institution at some specified time or upon the satisfaction of some stated condition, the superintendent may take no action, thus allowing the resumption of visits to occur.
• The superintendent may notify the visitor that he may return to the institution to resume visiting.
• The superintendent may notify the visitor in writing that he may resume visiting under specified conditions.
• The superintendent may notify the visitor in writing that visiting privileges are suspended for a specified period up to one year and that he may reapply for admission at the end of the period or that readmission will be automatic. The written notice shall contain a statement of the reasons for the superintendent’s action except when, in the opinion of the superintendent, specifying reasons might jeopardize security interests or the safety of any individual. A copy of each such notice shall be sent forthwith to the Commissioner, and a. copy shall be given to the inmate who is visited by the visitor.
• Every superintendent’s notice pursuant to 103 CMR 483.16(5)(c) and (d), shall advise the visitor that he may seek a review or reconsideration of the barring, suspension, or restrictions by the superintendent by sending him a letter within 15 business days. The visitor’s letter shall include a detailed narrative describing the incident and setting forth the reason the visitor feels the bar, suspension or restriction should be lifted. The visitor may also request an informal meeting with the Superintendent or a designee.
• The superintendent shall review any visitor’s letter and shall respond no later than two weeks from receipt of a letter seeking review or reconsideration of any bar, suspension or restriction still in effect. The superintendent may take any action he deems necessary to resolve questions raised by a visitor’s letter including, but not limited to, additional investigation of the facts, consultation with the Commissioner, the Department’s legal office, or the conducting of an informal meeting or conference. After review, the superintendent may eliminate, reduce, or modify the specific limitations on visiting. No person shall be penalized for exercising the rights of appeal provided by 103 CMR 483.00.
• Before any attorney or any of the officials listed in 103 CMR 483.11(2)(a), is excluded, the superintendent or other officer in charge shall be consulted. The superintendent shall consult with the General Counsel regarding any attorney and the Commissioner regarding any of the officials listed in 103 CMR 483.11(2)(a), prior to any bar. The superintendent shall then make the decision as to whether exclusion is appropriate. Within 15 business days of any such exclusion, the superintendent shall take any of the actions listed in 103 CMR 483.16(5). In addition to rights to seek reconsideration or review by the superintendent, pursuant to 103 CMR 483.16(6), the attorney or official may immediately appeal any exclusion to the Commissioner.
• Whenever an inmate is transferred out of an institution whose regular visitor is currently suspended or barred from visiting, the superintendent of the institution to which he is transferred shall be notified by the sending institution of the suspension or bar. The suspended visitor may apply to the superintendent of the new institution for permission to visit. The superintendent may allow the visit, or deny visitation for a period not to exceed the original suspension.
• Nothing in 103 CMR 483.00 shall in any way impair the superintendent’s authority pursuant to M.G.L. c. 127, s. 37 to exclude a visitor whenever, in the superintendent’s opinion, admitting that person to visit would be injurious to the best interests of the institution, or the superintendent’s and Commissioner’s authority pursuant to M.G.L. c. 127, s. 36 to deny permission to visit.

  483.15: Conduct of Visitors 

Visitors shall be expected to dress and conduct themselves reasonably and not to engage in physical contact with inmates that is excessive or inappropriate for a public place. Serious deviations from appropriate standards of behavior may result in administrative action such as warning, termination of a visit, or suspension or loss of visiting privileges.

483.14: Searches of Visitors 

• Each superintendent shall have posted a large sign in the lobby or other entrance warning that, “ALL VISITORS ARE SUBJECT TO BEING SEARCHED,” and containing the same wording in Spanish, “TODAS LAS VISITAS ESTAN SUJETAS A REVISION.”
• Each superintendent shall establish a search procedure that is effective in preventing the smuggling of articles of articles into the visiting area of the institution. The search procedure may include as a prerequisite to admission that visitors successfully pass through a metal detector and/or scanner, and/or a personal search, and that any articles they are carrying be thoroughly searched. Where a visitor is unable to clear a metal detector and/or scanner, the visitor may be asked to remove and submit for examination by a staff member outer articles of clothing that may be causing a high reading. The search procedure may also include personal searches of visitors who have already passed the initial screening and proceeded into the institution.
• A personal search of a visitor may not be conducted without prior authorization of the shift commander. The visitor shall be granted the opportunity to leave the institution rather than submit to a personal search unless; (a) The employee has those arrest powers granted by the authority of M.G.L. c. 127, s. 127 and; (b) The employee has probable cause to believe that the visitor has committed an arrestable offense; and (c) The employee has probable cause to believe that the visitor has seizable evidence concealed on his person. Under these conditions, a personal search incident to arrest may be conducted.
• Before conducting any such strip search, a correctional officer shall relate to his Shift Commander his reason for suspecting that the visitor may be carrying concealed articles. Strip searches may take place only with the approval of the Superintendent or a designee. If the visitor agrees to the strip search, the visitor shall record such consent by signing a log book kept for that purpose. The searching employee shall enter the date and time of the search and sign the log as well.
• The employee has those arrest powers granted by the authority of M.G.L. c. 127, s. 127 and;
• The employee has probable cause to believe that the visitor has committed an arrestable offense; and
• The employee has probable cause to believe that the visitor has seizable evidence concealed on his person. Under these conditions, a personal search incident to arrest may be conducted. (c) The officer(s) conducting any strip search shall file an incident report concerning the search with the superintendent prior to the end of the shift. The report shall contain the name of the visitor, the names of the searching officers and of the official who approved the search, the extent of the search, and what, if anything, was found.
• Employees may only conduct a visual inspection of a visitors oral, anal or genital cavities. Any more intrusive form of search requires a search warrant. The assistance of the District Attorney for the county in which the institution is located shall be requested in that event.
• Any person refusing to submit to any aspect of the search procedure shall be denied entrance to the institution. Where the refusal occurs under circumstances indicating that the most likely motive for refusal is to prevent discovery of concealed articles, where a suspicious pattern of refusals is apparent, or where a visitor engages in offensive or assaultive behavior during the search process, his visiting privileges may be suspended or terminated. The procedures outlined in 103 CMR 483.16, shall be followed.
• Employees conducting searches shall do so in a professional and courteous manner.
• Personal searches and strip searches shall be conducted by a correctional employee of the same sex as the visitor. Searches that involve removal of more than external clothing and accessories shall be conducted in private.
• Papers and documents carried in or out by any judge, attorney, law student, paralegal, the Governor, any legislator or member of the parole board may be inspected for concealed articles but shall not be read.

In order to obtain a court order requiring visitation privileges when the mother has refused to allow your children to visit you in jail or prison, you must first establish that you are the father. This can be done in two ways:

• File a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity signed by both you and the mother of the child; or
• File a Complaint to Establish Paternity in the Probate Court. This Complaint should ask that the Probate Court rule you are the father. In such a complaint, you could also ask the Court to order visitation.

If it appears unlikely that the mother will cooperate in any way, you will have to file a Complaint to Establish Paternity. The court is required to prepare forms that can be used by persons proceeding  pro se  (without an attorney). You should write the court and ask them to send you the appropriate paternity forms. Tell them that you are indigent and ask them to send you an Affidavit of Indigency.

You should file the Complaint in the Probate Court of the county where your child(ren) resides. You should also send the court an Affidavit of Indigency, which the court should provide for you, together with a simple motion you should prepare to request visitation. It is best if possible to name one of your female relatives in your motion as the person who can take your children to prison to see you; the courts tend to be most open to visitation in prison under those conditions. It would also be a good idea to write a cover letter to the court explaining that you are in prison and asking to be informed of any additional steps you must take.

Once you have filed the Complaint, the court will send you a summons. This can be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at your ex’s last and usual residence and by mailing copies to her as well, at her last and usual residence.

If you have additional questions or concerns that you would like assistance with, please call us during our intake hours on Monday (or Tuesday if Monday is a holiday):

1:00pm – 4:00pm

or write us a letter to:

50 Federal Street 4th Floor Boston, MA 02110

Subscribe to our newsletter

PRISONERS’ LEGAL SERVICES

50 Federal St., 4th Floor, Boston MA 02110

Get Involved

Criminal Defense Attorneys in North and South Carolina

Hablamos español, jail visits from your lawyer – process, limitations, and considerations.

by Gilles Law | Jul 7, 2021 | Blog Posts

Jail visits from your lawyer – Sometimes when someone is charged with a crime, they can get out on bond while their case goes through the criminal justice process. Other times however the defendant is in pre-trail confinement . This largely depends on their previous record, severity of the crime, and unfortunately, the financial position of the defendant. This is because in North Carolina State Court, like many other jurisdictions, the financial bond system is still in use.

When a defendant is in jail, he must communicate with his lawyer regarding the facts and circumstances of his case through the process of jail visits. How does he relay information, how does his lawyer give him information, and how does he get or view his discovery? These are the questions that we hope to answer. In this blog, we will discuss jail visits from your lawyer. Like all our blogs, this is intended for general informational purposes only and not intended as a substitute for the advice and counsel of a criminal defense attorney .

Jail visits from your lawyer – the process

If someone is in jail, their lawyer will be able to visit them any day of the year, with some rare exceptions. The jail is open 7 days a week and is open on all holidays. Every jail has certain visiting hours where a lawyer can see you, the visiting hours vary from county to county. No advanced appointments are usually necessary, and the attorney can come and see you anytime he or she is free if they bring their photo identification and their bar card.

When you get a jail visit from your lawyer, there is a log or record made of that visit and each visit. There are often time limits to the visit since there are times when jail visits are not available. For example, there may be a break in the middle of the day so that the residents of the jail can be fed lunch. During that time in many counties the jail visit must stop.

Jail visits from your lawyer – the limitations

Communication with your lawyer through a jail visit is not always ideal but sometimes is the only real option that is available. Phone calls can be problematic, but we will talk about that later.

There are several limits to jail visits including but not limited to the following :

• There is limited privacy, sometimes people can hear your conversations and you can hear theirs if you are in a booth near each other.
• You lawyer’s time is in high demand so he may not be able to see you as often as you would like.
• There is limited physical contact so certain demonstrations will not be possible.
• There is a limit to what can be given to the client, so sharing discovery and other things can be tricky.

Jail visits from your lawyer and attorney client privilege

Your communication with your attorney regarding jail visits are protected under attorney client privilege . Your phone calls with your attorney while you are in jail are also covered under attorney client privilege unless it is not because of a third pay. If you call your attorney directly, your conversation is privileged. If you call someone and have them call your attorney on some sort of conference call, you are not protected by attorney client privilege.

DO NOT TALK TO ANYONE ELSE AT THE JAIL ABOUT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR CASE .

DISCLAIMER – This forum is intended for general questions and comments about the particular law or topic. Comments are public and are not protected by confidentiality or attorney-client privilege; therefore, they can be used against you in court. Please refrain from revealing your identify or specifics about any actual criminal case. No attorney-client relationship is created in this forum.

• Federal Criminal Defense
• NC Criminal Defense
• SC Criminal Defense

Latest Posts

• Different Types of Pleas
• What a criminal defense attorney does
• Charged with Murder
• Charged with Discharging a firearm
• Charged with Drug Trafficking
• There is only so much your criminal defense attorney can do
• Charged with Statutory rape
• Charged with Indecent liberties
• Charged with Robbery
• Charged with Rape
• October 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021
• December 2020
• November 2020
• October 2020
• August 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• August 2019
• February 2019
• January 2019
• December 2018
• November 2018
• October 2018
• September 2018
• August 2018
• February 2018
• January 2018
• December 2017
• November 2017
• October 2017
• September 2017

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

I Am Incarcerated and Charged with a Crime. How and When Should I Communicate with My Criminal Defense Lawyer?

Communications between a lawyer and a client are important to a successful attorney-client relationship. An informed client is often a happy one. Further, a lawyer who is truthfully informed by his client regarding the subject of the charges can better prepare a defense. This article provides some guidance on effective attorney-client communications, which leads to stronger relations between the parties.

There are many ways for lawyers and clients to communicate. This includes, but is not limited to, phone, text message, email, video-teleconference or chat, letters, written correspondence, and, of course, in-person.

For clients who are incarcerated, not all of these communication methods are available. People in jail do not have access to cell phones or computers for texting, emailing, or video-conferencing. This limits inmates’ ways of communicating with their lawyers to phone, letters, and in-person.

• Phone communications

Letter or written correspondence

In-person jail visits, a lawyer should periodically meet with the client, a lawyer’s true work, criminal defendants must understand.

Phone communications between lawyers and incarcerated clients present unique challenges. First, many lawyers do not accept jail calls. However, if a client calls his lawyer’s office (within reason), the call should be answered.

When making these calls, clients should be warned that outgoing jail calls are typically recorded. Most prison phone systems contain warnings to the parties that these calls are recorded. While attorney-client communications are considered private and protected by the law, the parties must do their part to keep their communications confidential. If they knowingly engage in sensitive discussions during a recorded jail call, they do so at their own risk.

Not only are jail calls recorded and monitored, but they are also reviewed by prosecutors and when they contain incriminating statements, may be offered as evidence at trial. For these reasons, jail calls to your lawyer should be kept to a minimum and not contain any sensitive information.

If you would not say it to the prosecutor or police, do not say it to your lawyer over the phone when calling from the cellblock.

If you are incarcerated and need to speak with your lawyer confidentially by phone, ask your counselor or prison authorities for permission to make a legal call.

The penal system understands that inmates need to speak with their attorneys. Jail calls are expensive, and some inmates do not have the resources for these calls.

Therefore, the jail will (or at least should) accommodate periodic, reasonable legal calls. Scheduled legal calls are private and should not be recorded. Further, scheduling the call in advance, ensures your lawyer will be available to take the call.

Another way for incarcerated clients to communicate with their lawyers is by letter or written correspondence. When an inmate receives mail from a lawyer that is clearly marked “legal” or “privileged,” the contents are not (or are not supposed to be) to be read or monitored by jail authorities.

The best lawyers keep their clients informed with letters summarizing court appearances, enclosing discovery, motions, and other materials, relaying pretrial offers from the prosecution, reporting dates, court decisions, and more.

The more informed a client is about his case, the more satisfied the client is with his lawyer’s services and the more prepared he will be to assist in his defense. Similarly, if a client has questions or ideas to communicate to his lawyer about the case, the client is encouraged to send a letter. A good lawyer will receive, read and respond to it quickly.

The final way incarcerated clients communicate with their lawyers is in person during jail visits. Normally, clients receive lawyer visits at the very beginning of the attorney-client relationship for purposes of an intake. This is when the lawyer obtains initial background information about the client and the case.

Lawyers should next visit clients to review the evidence or discovery, once received. Many lawyers receive and review the discovery on their own. These same lawyers typically do not provide their clients with a copy of the discovery.

The best lawyers provide their clients with a full copy of the discovery materials, review alone at first, and then review them together with the client. This is the best time and way for clients and lawyers to ask each other questions about the case evidence for purposes of clarification, additional investigation and discovery, possible motions, and defense strategy development.

As the case progresses to trial, motions, disposition, and sentencing, a lawyer should periodically meet with the client to prepare for these events.

Clients often – and sometimes too often – ask when their lawyers will visit. It is understandable that incarcerated clients want to see and meet with their lawyers. However, conducting many and repeated jail visits is not always practical for a lawyer or the most effective way to communicate with clients.

Clients who have one or a few non-emergency questions should consider writing a letter or scheduling a legal call. Those who need to review their discovery, discuss the law applicably, or prepare for court should meet in person. The frequency and duration of jail visits vary by case and stage of the proceedings.

For example, a lawyer waiting to receive and/or review discovery will visit a client less frequently than when the parties are preparing together for trial. The number of visits you receive from your lawyer has nothing to do with the quality of representation you are receiving, or the experience and skill of the lawyer who is representing you.

If you are incarcerated, before asking to see your lawyer in person, keep in mind that while visiting you in prison, the lawyer is not actively working on your case or any other case being handled by his office.

A lawyer’s true work is done in court, conducting research on the computer or in the law library, and, most importantly, spending quiet, uninterrupted hours thinking, planning, and strategizing in his office.

Jail visits, while important to the process, are disruptive to a lawyer’s daily work and do very little to help a client’s case. Many clients seek visits to ask their lawyers how the case is going or for a routine case update. These visits are a complete waste of the lawyer’s time.

A good lawyer sends letters and other written correspondence to update his client regularly. Therefore, visits for the limited purpose of providing these updates are unnecessary.

Lawyers want to meet with their clients, just as clients want to meet with their lawyers. However, the lawyer’s primary responsibility is to get the casework done in a manner that leads to a positive result, whether by motion, plea, at trial, and/or at sentencing.

Clients must understand that when the lawyer needs to speak with the client, he will conduct a visit. If you have a good and trustworthy lawyer, his not visiting usually means he is hard at work either for you or another client who is of equal importance to him.

A lawyer is legally and ethically required to give each client his 100% best. Most of this effort occurs outside the client’s presence. This is difficult for many clients to accept or understand, but it is absolutely true.

If you have been charged with a crime and are incarcerated, call the Law Office of John L. Calcagni, III for a free consultation.

Our office consists of a team of lawyers, paralegals, legal assistants, and investigators who are led by the dedication, experience, and committed hard work of Attorney John L. Calcagni III. By retaining our office, you will become part of the legal team devoted to your defense.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

When It Comes To Email, Some Prisoners Say Attorney-Client Privilege Has Been Erased

Carrie Johnson

Within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, inmates are asked to "voluntarily" agree to electronic monitoring in order to use the bureau's email system. Above, a prison cell block is seen at the Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno in Oklahoma in 2015. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, inmates are asked to "voluntarily" agree to electronic monitoring in order to use the bureau's email system. Above, a prison cell block is seen at the Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno in Oklahoma in 2015.

It's a staple on some of the longest-running crime shows on television: Communications between people charged with crimes and their lawyers are protected from government snooping under what's known as attorney-client privilege.

In practice, things don't always work that way, especially when it comes to email messages between incarcerated people in the federal system and their attorneys. That's because within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, inmates are asked to "voluntarily" agree to electronic monitoring in order to use the bureau's email system.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers says there's nothing voluntary about it. Unless incarcerated people agree to monitoring, they're locked out of email communications. The group and a prominent civil liberties clinic at the University of California, Berkeley are now sounding the alarm . They say their concerns have been compounded during a pandemic that has made in-person visits particularly risky.

Biden Makes 1st Judicial Nominations, Including A Supreme Court Contender

"BOP reading inmates' email was concerning even before the pandemic, but now email is one of the few ways attorneys can reliably communicate with their clients when they're in custody," said Catherine Crump, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at Berkeley Law.

Together with the NACDL, the clinic has sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons for more information about how and where email messages exchanged over the prison service, known as TRULINCS, are monitored.

"We're in 2021 — the system has not caught up," said Jumana Musa, director of the Fourth Amendment Center at the NACDL. Musa said her group has been unable to find any "overarching policy" at the Justice Department, with some inconsistencies even among prosecutors in the same U.S. attorney's office. While some DOJ offices have developed specific policies that cover when federal prosecutors can read the emails, others either don't have policies or have failed to describe what they're doing.

Action in Congress

Critics are also pushing Congress to act. In February, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act by a vote of 414 to 11.

The legislation, which awaits action in the Senate, would require the attorney general to make sure that the BOP refrains from monitoring the contents of emails between incarcerated people and their lawyers and to get a warrant to access their contents. The bill makes clear that authorities can pierce attorney-client privilege in situations where a prisoner or detainee is suspected of working with a lawyer to actively commit or cover up a crime or fraud.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said the vote garnered a large bipartisan majority at a time when lawmakers don't agree on much.

Coronavirus Updates

Pandemic's deadly toll behind bars spurs calls for change in u.s. jails and prisons.

"The time has arrived for us to address this egregious practice, lift up the presumption of innocence, facilitate due process and allow fundamental fairness to permeate all aspects of our judicial system," Jeffries said.

The Congressional Budget Office predicted that if the legislation passed the Senate, the Federal Bureau of Prisons would have to build a new email system and create a registry of approved lawyers — measures it expects could cost $52 million through 2025.

Scott Taylor, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, pointed out that inmates and their contacts who use the email system "voluntarily consent to having all system activity monitored and retained." He said that prisoners and their lawyers can communicate through phone, letters or visits, which he said are not monitored by staff.

An essential tool

Federal judges have had a mixed response to the concerns. Some have expressed consternation that it's happening. Others have ordered the government not to read the emails.

For attorneys and their clients, email can be an essential tool for communication. Ken White, a defense lawyer in California, points out that it's "extremely time-consuming and burdensome to visit somebody in jail, let alone prison."

"It's often a multihour process to visit someone, even for five minutes," White said.

Now, with the coronavirus pandemic sweeping the U.S., some in-person visits have been curtailed altogether, and the mail is slow. But White said he nonetheless tries to limit his communications on the BOP email system, using it to notify incarcerated clients about the dates of their next hearings but not for strategy or the facts of their case.

The Coronavirus Crisis

Doj has charged nearly 500 with covid-related fraud in the past year.

Peter Goldberger, a defense attorney based in Ardmore, Pa., has firsthand experience with how the email monitoring can hurt a defendant.

Prosecutors collected communications from his client, former state Sen. Vincent Fumo, after Fumo was convicted of conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice and tax violations.

The government used Fumo's own emails against him at his resentencing hearing, when the judge cited them in part to tack on six more months to his prison term. In the messages, Fumo expressed "frustration" about prosecutors, wrote that he was "convicted of technical [BS]" and called the jury that convicted him "stupid," his lawyer said.

Clients want to communicate with their lawyers, and it's easy to forget their lawyers' warnings, Goldberger said.

"It seems to me that it would be so simple to fix electronically and so fair and appropriate to everyone," Goldberger said. "That lawyers' ability to communicate with their clients be made easier — not harder and not riskier."

Washington State Bar News

THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

Advocating for Clients in Jail

BY ETHAN FRENCHMAN

The goals of a zealous criminal defense are well known: to get one’s client out of jail and achieve the best possible outcome for the case. Attorneys have honed the skills to achieve these goals—creative arguments, effective cross-examination, motions practice, and communicating to a court or jury that one’s client is more than what may have occurred on one of the worst days of their life. 

However, the past year has brought into even greater focus that these goals and the traditional tools of courtroom lawyering used to achieve them are insufficient to address the many problems our clients face when they are incarcerated pretrial. 

Since 2016, Disability Rights Washington 1 1 Disability Rights Washington (DRW) is a private, nonprofit advocacy organization that is federally mandated to provide protection and advocacy services to individuals with disabilities in Washington. DRW’s AVID Program focuses on improving the conditions of incarcerated people with disabilities in our state’s jails and prisons. has monitored nearly all of our state’s 58 city, county, and regional jails. We have found that people in jail are commonly placed in solitary confinement, denied adequate medical and mental health care, and have limited ability to communicate with people outside while awaiting trial. 2 2 www.disabilityrightswa.org/reports/cruel-not-unusual/ .

The reach of these harms is staggering. The average total daily population of all of Washington’s 58 jails is greater than 12,000 people. 3 3 www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/09/18/state-jail-bookings/ . Because jail stays typically last for a period of months or weeks, this large number hides an even darker reality: According to one estimate, no fewer than 98,000 people are booked into Washington jails each year. 4 4   Id. 

As those of us who have practiced in Washington’s criminal courts know all too well, people in jail are typically there because they are too poor to pay bail. They disproportionately identify as a racial minority, and they are more likely to be in need of medical care, social services, or other assistance. The U.S. Department of Justice has estimated that approximately 40 percent of people in jail self-identify as having at least one disability. 5 5 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/disabilities-among-prison-and-jail-inmates-2011-12 . People in jail are also commonly sick and living with serious underlying medical conditions, 6 6 Laura M. Maruschak, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 210696, Medical Problems of Jail Inmates, 2006. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/mpji.pdf . and have mental health needs. 7 7 KiDeuk Kim, Miriam Becker-Cohen, & Maria Serakos, The Urban Institute, The Processing and Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons in the Criminal Justice System (2015). www.urban.org/research/publication/processing-and-treatment-mentally-ill-persons-criminal-justice-system/view/full_report . When they arrive in jail, they have often gone without treatment for a substantial period of time. 8 8  Doris J. James & Lauren E. Glaze, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 213600, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, 2006. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf.  

Unfortunately, jails and the staff that run them have little incentive, on their own, to care for people in custody. Strapped county budgets and the federal Medicaid inmate exclusion policy 9 9 The Social Security Act (42 U.S. Code § 1396d(a)(A)) prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds from being used to pay for services for people incarcerated in jails and prisons, even if they are eligible for or enrolled in Medicaid during their incarceration. mean that there is little money available for care. Notwithstanding state and federal laws that require jails to provide necessary medical treatment and accommodations, DRW has found through its monitoring that jails in Washington, like jails across the country, commonly fail to provide such care. 10 10 E.g., www.disabilityrightswa.org/reports/prescription-change; www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/04/the-jail-health-care-crisis . And because Washington has no standards or effective oversight bodies to make jails accountable, incarcerated people often have no place to turn for help. 

Given this hard reality, criminal defense attorneys have a critical role to play in helping their clients receive better treatment in jail during the pendency of their criminal case by educating them on how they can advocate for themselves and, in some cases, stepping in to advocate for their clients with jail staff and administrators. Doing so may also help a client be released from jail, if the jail cannot meet their needs, and may improve case outcomes by facilitating the client’s participation in their criminal case and furthering the attorney-client relationship.  

EDUCATE AND ENCOURAGE SELF-ADVOCACY

Most jails in Washington operate complicated internal administrative systems for people in custody to make requests and file complaints about their treatment. These systems are often daunting and inaccessible to people with disabilities. People in jail may also be afraid that speaking up could result in retaliation or make them a target for harassment or violence from other people in custody or from staff. Attorneys can educate and encourage their clients on how they can advocate for themselves in jail. A lawyer who is well-versed in a jail’s administrative processes can provide tailored advice to such clients. 

The simplest advice clients in jail may need to hear is encouragement to speak up and raise an issue with staff. Depending on the facility and the nature of the problem, an informal request to an officer on the individual’s unit, or medical staff during pill line (where individuals wait in line to receive their medications) or a visit to a clinic, may be enough to resolve the client’s issue. Because such requests are not documented, however, they cannot be used to substantiate subsequent allegations of mistreatment. On the other hand, and for the same reason, such informal requests create less risk of retaliation.

Clients can also be encouraged to submit a “kite.” A kite is a fast, formal method for incarcerated people to make written requests. They are also used to share information and ask questions. While some jails have single kites, other jails—for example, King County Correctional Facility—use different kites in a complex array of colors to ensure that the individual’s concern is directed to the appropriate staff. 

If a kite does not resolve the issue, an incarcerated person can typically also submit a formal grievance. A grievance is a written complaint about one’s treatment, conditions in the jail, or staff actions. Grievances are often reviewed by more senior staff or leadership. A client who is interested in writing a grievance should be advised to complain about only a single issue. To the best of their ability they should prepare a short, concise statement that identifies the problem they are having, the steps they have taken to resolve the issue, any witnesses or necessary information, and a proposed remedy. 

As those of us who have practiced in Washington’s criminal courts know all too well, people in jail are typically there because they are too poor to pay bail. 

For example, if a client reports that they are not receiving their psychiatric medication, an attorney can encourage the client to use the kite system to report to jail health staff their diagnosis, the contact information for their provider or pharmacy (if any), any prior prescriptions, their symptoms, and, if they have never received medication before, why they think medication may be beneficial. If this kite is ignored or results in an inadequate response, the attorney can encourage the client to write a grievance describing when they wrote their kite, what information they included in their kite, why the response was inadequate, and the remedy sought (such as psychiatric medication).

Some jails also operate an administrative appeals process through which an incarcerated person can appeal the jail’s response to a formal grievance. Where they exist, appeals are typically reviewed by senior jail leadership under strict timeframes. As with grievances, people in jail should be encouraged to appeal grievance responses with which they disagree, explaining the specific problem with the response and their proposed solution.

Exhausting a jail’s administrative remedies, including grievances and appeals, is typically a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit against a jail regarding a person’s conditions or treatment. Failure to exhaust an available administrative remedy is grounds for dismissal under the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a)). Clients and attorneys should also keep in mind that not all issues—for example, matters beyond the control of the jail, issues affecting other people, and issues for which there is a separate appeals process—can be raised via the jail grievance process. 

WHEN ATTORNEYS SHOULD CONTACT JAILS 

Some clients face emergent and potentially life-threatening issues in jail. Others may not have access to a jail administrative process because they are in solitary confinement, are in the middle of an acute psychiatric crisis, or are unable to use the process for other disability-related reasons. For still others, the jail may simply be refusing to solve a client’s problem after the person has exhausted the jail’s administrative process. For such people, the defense attorney is in the best position to reach out to the jail and advocate for the client’s needs. 

There are several steps that defense attorneys can take to effectively advocate for their client in jail. Sometimes a problem can be resolved with a simple telephone call with jail leadership or medical staff. An attorney may express concerns based on the client’s report of their treatment or conditions and propose a solution or remedy. While discussing the issue over the phone, an attorney should request the contact information, including email address, of the person to whom they are speaking and promptly follow up with an email documenting the conversation. Even if the jail refuses to take further action, such an email could prove to be a valuable record as proof that the jail was notified of a concern. 

Attorneys can also perform short, simple investigations into their client’s conditions at the jail. This typically involves nothing more than having a client sign a release of information for the jail to share medical and custodial records with the attorney. Jail medical records must be provided under the Uniform Health Care Information Act (RCW 70.02), and custodial records must be provided under the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) and the City and County Jails Act (RCW 70.48). 

With this information, as well as a client’s own reports, attorneys can follow up with jail medical and custody staff as necessary, track jail efforts to improve their client’s treatment, or document a jail’s failure to provide appropriate care. In such cases, a defense attorney will have collected ample documentation to put before a court in support of a motion for bail modification that may result in the client’s release from jail. 

ISSUES FACING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN JAIL

Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Jails are subject to the ADA. Therefore, jails must not exclude people with disabilities from participation in jail programs, services, and activities. Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey , 524 U.S. 206 (1998). That includes the ability to safely use hygiene services such as toilets and showers,  to engage in exercise, and to use the mail, administrative kite and grievance program, and phones. Jails must also provide people with disabilities accommodations to ensure that they can participate in jail programs such as educational classes, religious services, and work assignments on the same basis as other people. See Pierce v. County of Orange , 526 F.3d 1190, 1214 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Yeskey , 524 U.S. at 209-10 ); 28 C.F.R. § 35.152. 

While jail is difficult for everyone, it is particularly challenging for people with disabilities.

Disability Rights Washington has found that many jails across the state fall short of these ADA requirements. 11 11 E.g., www.disabilityrightswa.org/reports/wasted-time/ . While jail is difficult for everyone, it is particularly challenging for people with disabilities. Jails often fail to provide people with disabilities even basic accommodations to ensure that they can properly communicate their needs to jail staff. Such people may require additional assistance from their defense attorney to receive necessary accommodations. 

For example, jails should provide individualized accommodations to people who are blind or have low vision. These accommodations could include the guided “mapping,” or walk through, of their housing unit so that they can learn their space and not trip or fall. An individual may also require a cane, a lower bunk, and a shower chair. If the individual cannot read printed books, they will require accommodations for their personal reading, court papers, and law library access. Defense attorneys can take steps to ensure that the jail has provided their blind and low-vision clients with audio books, tape recorders, a Braille slate stylus, and other tools they may need. Attorneys may need to provide their low-vision clients with audio recordings of motions, discovery, and other court papers. Jails should provide such individuals with assistance in writing and reading mail, kites, grievances, and law library materials. 

Jails should also provide accommodations to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Some jails offer Video Relay Service, which is a video-enabled translation service for people who use American Sign Language to communicate. Jails must also provide hearing aids and assistive listening devices as necessary. Such tools are critical for people to communicate not only with defense counsel, but jail staff, medical providers, and the court. 

Similarly, individuals with intellectual disabilities that impact their cognitive functioning and skills may be unable to use phones or jail kite and grievance systems. For such individuals, it is crucial that defense attorneys communicate with jails on their client’s behalf to explain their needs and advocate for them to receive appropriate accommodations, such as assistance in using phones and administrative processes. 

UNIQUE PROBLEMS FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE IN JAIL

Transgender people face many of the same challenges as other people in jail, but often face additional and serious risks of harm due to prejudice or ignorance. Studies have shown that transgender people in correctional settings are at extraordinarily high risk for sexual abuse, assault, and self-harm. 12 12   See e.g., https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/0/1149/files/2013/06/BulletinVol2Issue2.pdf .

Due to these risks, the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act and its implementing regulations require that transgender people be housed in correctional facilitates, including jails, according to the results of an individualized assessment of the person’s safety that includes input from the person. 13 13 Prison Rape Elimination Act (2012), www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/content/prisonsandjailsfinalstandards_0.pdf . Jails violate federal law if they mechanically house transgender people according to their sex assigned at birth without assessment of their individual safety or medical needs. 

Clients know that an attorney who fights for them with the jail will fight for them in their case, regardless of the outcome.

Many transgender people experience gender dysphoria, which is distress caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit made clear that correctional facilities must provide medically necessary care for gender dysphoria in Edmo v. Corizon, Inc. , 935 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2019). Many transgender people in the community are receiving feminizing or masculinizing hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which is a medically necessary intervention for gender dysphoria. Even brief interruptions to HRT can cause patients serious physical and mental health consequences. If a defense attorney knows that a transgender client is not receiving their HRT prescription, they should take steps to have the client’s doctor or pharmacy contact the jail and inform the jail of its legal obligations to provide gender-affirming care.

Finally, it is important for transgender people in jail to be assigned the proper name and gender marker. The person’s incarcerated name and gender marker will be used not only to identify the person in the jail, but in state prison if they are transferred. Defense attorneys are in a good position to assist transgender clients by providing documents to a jail of a person’s legal name change order from a county auditor’s office and government identification with their current gender marker. In addition, defense attorneys can take steps to have the criminal case caption amended so that the client’s case name reflects their current legal name. Steps like these can ensure that transgender clients are able to live with dignity and without the fear of having their transgender identity needlessly disclosed due to inaccurate and out-of-date jail and court paperwork that will follow the client for the rest of their life.

Investing the relatively small amount of time necessary to pursue the steps discussed in this article could have enormous benefits, both for the client and for the attorney-client relationship. For many clients, resolving an emergent medical or mental health issue can be lifesaving. For others, finding a solution to such issues, or a disability accommodation, is necessary to their participation in their own defense. Clients may need their attorney’s help to access treatment for an acute mental illness or to receive their court paperwork in an accessible format so they can get down to the work of assisting their attorney. Even documenting that a jail has failed to meet a client’s needs could result in an effective bail modification argument and the client’s release from pretrial detention. Advocating for a client’s treatment in jail will also build trust and strengthen the attorney client-relationship, improving the quality of communication and case outcomes. I have found that clients know that an attorney who fights for them with the jail will fight for them in their case, regardless of the outcome. 

Ethan Frenchman is an attorney with Disability Rights Washington’s AVID Program, where he litigates cases that protect the rights of people who are incarcerated in Washington’s jails and prisons. He has also worked as a trial and appellate public defender and taught at the University of Maryland School of Law and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. 

1. Disability Rights Washington (DRW) is a private, nonprofit advocacy organization that is federally mandated to provide protection and advocacy services to individuals with disabilities in Washington. DRW’s AVID Program focuses on improving the conditions of incarcerated people with disabilities in our state’s jails and prisons. 

2. www.disabilityrightswa.org/reports/cruel-not-unusual/ .

3. www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/09/18/state-jail-bookings/ .

4. Id. 

5. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/disabilities-among-prison-and-jail-inmates-2011-12 .

6. Laura M. Maruschak, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 210696, Medical Problems of Jail Inmates, 2006. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/mpji.pdf . 

7. KiDeuk Kim, Miriam Becker-Cohen, & Maria Serakos, The Urban Institute, The Processing and Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons in the Criminal Justice System (2015). www.urban.org/research/publication/processing-and-treatment-mentally-ill-persons-criminal-justice-system/view/full_report . 

8. Doris J. James & Lauren E. Glaze, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 213600, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, 2006. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf . 

9. The Social Security Act (42 U.S. Code § 1396d(a)(A)) prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds from being used to pay for services for people incarcerated in jails and prisons, even if they are eligible for or enrolled in Medicaid during their incarceration. 

10. E.g., www.disabilityrightswa.org/reports/prescription-change ; www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/04/the-jail-health-care-crisis .

11. E.g., www.disabilityrightswa.org/reports/wasted-time/ .

12. See e.g., https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/0/1149/files/2013/06/BulletinVol2Issue2.pdf .

13. Prison Rape Elimination Act (2012), www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/content/prisonsandjailsfinalstandards_0.pdf .

Share this:

Discover more from washington state bar news.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Inmate Search & General Jail Guide

Inmate Search | Inmate Mail | Inmate Phones | Orca Lookup & More

How To Visit An Inmate In Prison | All Your Questions Answered

Table of Contents

Visiting an inmate for the first time is one that is filled with mixed feelings of what to wear, what form of identification to present to the guards, what to bring along as a gift, if kids are allowed in, and other random thoughts like that.

With all these thoughts popping up in your head at the same time, you may end up more confused and frustrated. Not to worry!

This guide contains what you need to know when visiting an inmate for the first time, and perhaps will provide answers to all your confusions.

Types Of Prison Visitations

There are several types of visitation for inmates. Visitation ranges from video visitation, non-contact/telephone visitation, and contact visitation.

Prison Video Visitation

Video visitation is the one that’s mostly being used today. Just like the way you’d use Skye, video visitation can be done even from the comfort of your home.

No Contact Jail Visitation

Non-contact/ telephone visitation is one that involves sitting behind a glass barricade while talking with your inmate on the telephone.

Full Contact Prison Inmate Visitation

Contact visitation is the most common and often preferred by visitors. Here, you are able to sit with the inmate and talk for a short period of time. It even gives you the opportunity to even make contact with your ok inmate, however there’s a limitation to that.

Forms of contact usually allowed include a brief hug, hello, and goodbye. Holding of hands is often frowned at by prison officials.

What To Do Before You Visit A Prison

It is important that before you are granted access to visit your inmate, you must have previously been in contact with him/her. The prison has a visitors list that contains the friends and family members that are allowed to visit.

Some facilities provide inmates a list containing slots for 10 visitors that they wish to include. As such, the inmates must have all the details of the visitors he intends to include In the list, which include: the visitor’s full name, the visitor’s address, the phone number, and at times more other information about the visitor.

So if your inmate does not know all this information, you can send him a mail containing a letter that stipulates your information. 

Other facilities may request all prospective visitors of the inmate to fill out a visiting application (some only give out this form based on the wish of the inmate).

How To Apply For A Visitation At The Prison

The visiting application is given to visitors who intend to pay a visit to inmates, however not all facilities will request that you fill a visitors application (most facilities do anyway).

The visiting application is more like a questionnaire that contains a portion in which you are required to fill out your name, address, and questions that seeks to find out if you are a convicted felon, or if you’ve been incarcerated or worked in the department of corrections.

Proceed to answer, fill in your names and answer the questions as truthful as you can because the information provided will be used to perform a background check up on you.

The findings will determine if your visit will be approved or denied.

What Can Make You Denied From Visiting A Friend In Jail?

• If the information provided in the visiting application is false.
• If you’re a convicted felon.
• If you’ve previously served time in a correctional facility, or have worked in the department of corrections.
• If you have outstanding warrants.
• If there’s a protective order against you or the inmate.
• If you are seen as a threat to security at the facility.
• If you are on PTI, probation, or parole (although some exceptions can be made to this).
• If you’ve already filled a visiting application to another inmate at the facility.

You will only know if your visiting application is approved or denied when your inmate tells you, most institutions will not inform you. Therefore, you must ensure a constant communication with your inmate to ascertain the status of your application.

However, if you’re denied visiting privileges, you have a choice to appeal the decision. Only make sure you file for appeal within the stated time frame.

How To Prepare For A Prison Visitation

If your visiting application is approved by the facility, check the schedule of the visitation hours specified by the institution.

You check visiting hours for some facilities on their website, and be sure to double check if possible, as visiting hours may be changed at any time or even cancelled without notifying you.

A correctional facility may cancel visiting if the facility goes on a lockdown, if an inmate has escaped, or due to reasons known to the facility. An inmate may also be denied visiting privileges if they’re confined in solitary.

Once you are sure of the visiting hours, ensure to take along every needed form of identification on the day you intend visiting your inmate.

Although in most cases you only need your valid state issued identification card or drivers license, some facilities however vary in the type of identification they accept.

Visiting A Jail As A Minor Or With A Minor

If you’re visiting with a child or minor, the facility will require you to first fill out a special visiting with minors authorization form.

When such a minor is above 14, he/she would have to come along with a school issued photo ID or birth certificate before they’re allowed to visit.

Also, minors are not allowed to visit inmates alone, as it is required that they must be always accompanied by a parent or guardian. Inmates who were incarcerated for crimes against a child cannot have access to visits by minors.

Small children or babies may also need to come along with their birth certificate to be allowed to visit, but it is not a must in all cases. When visiting with children, try as much to control them because they’re found causing a nuisance, you can get kicked out from the visiting area.

How To Dress For A Prison Visitation

Every correctional facility has a dress code for visitors thus, if you’re visiting any, ensure to put on the specified dress code else you’ll be refused from visiting. 

Here are some things to keep in mind when selecting a dress for visiting inmates:

• Do not put on a dress that resembles the inmate’s clothes in design or color, and that of the staff.
• Do not visit in medical scrubs or any sort of uniform, as this may pose a threat to the facility’s security.
• You must dress in shirts and put on shoes.
• Clothes that expose sensitive parts of the body are prohibited.
• See through fabrics are not allowed.
• Sleeveless shirts are prohibited.
• Shorts and skirts that are above the knee or those with slits are prohibited.
• Offensive imprints or languages on clothing is prohibited.
• Tight clothing which include spandex, leggings, tights are prohibited.
• Jewelries are also prohibited, so keep that in mind when dressing.

Sometimes, it is up to the prison guard to scrutinize which kind of dressing is allowed into the prison. To avoid being sent back because of a violation in dress code, you can come with a change of clothing just in case.

Getting Searched At A Prison During Visitation

It is advisable to arrive a few minutes early to the facility when visiting, as you may be required to fill out more paperwork (you may get into trouble if you arrive too early though).

Keep in mind that you’ll be searched from your arrival at the parking lot, your car will also be searched by the prison guards or even security dogs for any incriminating item or one that violates the rules of the facility.

Even when you enter the facility, expect to be searched again usually by pat down or with a metal detector. And If you refuse to be searched, you’ll be banned from visiting.

There are even cases where visitors must consent to strip search before they’re allowed in, but if you’re not comfortable with this, it doesn’t mean you’ll be refused visitation. 

Strip searching was mainly done to detect drugs hidden in the body that scanners couldn’t pick. However, it is now a thing of the past as security dogs are used by facilities instead.

What To Take With You On A Prison Visitation

This varies from one facility to another. Some facilities may provide lockers that can be rented for about a quarter to store your belongings in, others do not.

You’re only allowed to bring in your ID, single car key, eyeglasses (if any), some change for use at the vending machine, as you may need it to buy snacks for your inmate while you talk.

If you’re visiting with a baby, you may be allowed to come with a feeding bottle and a change of diaper. Items such as medications, cigarettes are considered illegal, as you can be banned if found in possession of any of these, and possibly charged.

Questions About Visiting A Friend In Jail

If you have about visiting an inmate that was not answered in this article, you can post in the comment section below and we’ll do our best to provide answers to such questions.

Can you kiss on prison visits?

You can kiss during prison visitation at a low risk community prison, however, in many other centres, the case is different. Kissing on a prison visit depends on the type of prison facility where your loved one is incarcerated.

These days, most facilities do their best to prevent direct contact in order to avoid smuggling of drugs and other prohibited substances. If you intend to kiss your loved one, then make sure the rules in the facility permit you to do so.

How long does it take to get approved for prison visitation?

Most prison visitations are approved on a first-come first-served basis. Your request for a prison visit can be approved in less than a week, however the visitation date may vary.

You need to put in every prison visitation request on time so as to factor in the time it may take to process other requests submitted before you, and to give the prison operations director enough time to make adequate preparations for the security and safety of you and other visitors.

What is the process of visiting someone in prison?

For most prisons, you will need to fill out a visitation request online, and submit it for them to get started on processing your visitation request. FOr many others, you will need to schedule a visit through the visitation centre.

How do I visit someone in jail in Canada?

Most prisons in Canada accommodate visits through a visitation centre. You will need to schedule an appointment through the visitation centre for your request to be processed.

Can you wear jeans to visit an inmate?

Members of the public are allowed to wear jeans or any form of clothing to a prison visitation. Notwithstanding the type of clothe you put on, highly sophisticated infra-red sensors will always be at major entry points to scan you for prohibited items.

How many visits do prisoners get a week?

Prisoners are allowed to get as much visits as the prison can accommodate. Most prisons tailor their activities to only accept a number of visitors per day and once this number is reached, other visitation requests are pushed on to the next available day.

Are conjugal visits monitored?

Conjugal visits are usually monitored for the safety of both the inmate and the visitor. A highly trained staff will monitor the activities that happen during the visit to make sure that the visitation conforms with acceptable practices.

Conjugal visits were designed as a means to preserve families and give incarcerated people the opportunity to procreate even while in prison. These days, there are not many prison facilities around the world that still allow conjugal visits from an inmate’s registered spouse.

Can you swear in a letter to an inmate?

If a letter to an inmate contains a swear word, it will be given a second review to determine what to do with it. The level and context of the swearing in a letter will determine if it will be handed over to the inmate, or confiscated for vulgarity.

What happens to your clothes when you go to jail?

When you go to jail, your clothes are locked up in your property. This is a little lock box assigned to all inmates where clothes, keys, wallets, shoes and received books/letters are kept.

How should I dress for a prison visit?

While preparing for a prison visitation, wear something that you feel very comfortable in. Do not put on very oversized clothes that may put you on the spotlight and have the guards second-guessing if you;re hiding something underneath.

Do Death row inmates get visitors?

Yes. Death row inmates are allowed to receive visitors just like any other inmate. Friends and family, loved ones, lawyers, human rights organisations and other religious societies are allowed to visit inmates on death row.

Can you wear a bra in jail?

Inmates are given adequately sized bras in jail to put on. While these bras are issued, it is however the responsibility of the inmate to put them on.

Can you hug an inmate during visitation?

Hugging an inmate can be allowed in certain incarceration facilities, but in some others, a no contact law is usually enforced and must be adhered to.

Your ability to hug a loved one during a prison visitation will depend on the laws guiding that particular institution. Make sure you check in with the regulations before you attempt to hug an inmate.

Can you wear your wedding ring in jail?

A wedding ring is usually considered a sentimental item and thus, inmates are allowed to wear their wedding rings after they are vetted by the security department.

If an inmate poses some degree of threat, or is seen capable of inflicting bodily harm or injury through a ring, then they are denied the ability to wear their wedding ring while in prison.

Can you FaceTime inmates?

It is not possible to facetime with inmates. Electronic gadgets are prohibited in prisons and any inmate found with a mobile phone will face very serious charges which could increase their sentence.

What can you bring to a conjugal visit?

If you’re approved for a conjugal visit, you will be given a list of items that are permitted, and a list of items that are prohibited.

Breaking the law during a conjugal visit may lead to very serious consequences for both the visitor and the inmate.

What is a conjugal visit in jail?

A conjugal visit is a visitation that allows an inmate have some private time for intercourse with a listed spouse. This type of visitation is allowed to help families cope with their intimate desires.

Why are conjugal visits not allowed?

For most facilities, conjugal visits are denied because they pose a great risk to the operations of the prison facility. Most times, prisoners use conjugal visits as an opportunity to smuggle prohibited items like drugs and weapons into the prison facility.

Can you get sperm from an inmate for artificial insemination?

It is impossible to get a sperm from an inmate for artificial insemination. This is a practice that has not been approved in any prison facility. If you intend to conceive, you can request for a conjugal visit if it is allowed, or have intercourse with your partner if they are ever released to attend a funeral or family event.

One Response

• Pingback: How To Encourage And Support Friends In Prison - Prison Life

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How Attorney-Client Privilege Breaks Down When The Client Is In Prison

11 May How Attorney-Client Privilege Breaks Down When The Client Is In Prison

The right to have confidential conversations with an attorney in the English-based legal system dates back to at least 1577 . In 1973’s United States v. Rosner , the U.S. Supreme Court maintained that government interfering in attorney-client communications is a violation of a person’s Sixth Amendment rights. Even in prison, the attorney-client privilege is supposed to be a bedrock principle of the American justice system. But in 2021, attorneys and activists are concerned that that right is being threatened in prison systems around the country.

Prison email and messaging services bake privilege-destroying agreements into their terms and conditions.

While there are some exceptions, attorney-client privilege generally applies to all communications between those two parties. That includes digital communications such as email or instant messaging. But when it comes to people in prison and their legal counsel, that isn’t always the case .

The BOP uses a system called TRULINCS that gives people in prison limited access to email. It is the only possible way for BOP residents to send or receive emails. Yet users must agree to allow the company and the prison to monitor their emails as part of TRULINCS’ terms and conditions of use.

State Departments of Corrections contract their email and messaging services through JPay. Content monitoring is also a part of JPay’s terms and conditions . These terms even have a specific warning not to use the system for legal communications. It says, “The Service should not be used by attorneys to communicate with incarcerated individuals as the content of your email will not be treated as privileged and confidential.”

Phone calls are also supposed to be confidential, but are often not.

Prison systems in the United States have also violated attorney-client privilege in phone calls between incarcerated people and their attorneys. Those actions are the subjects of multiple lawsuits.

In 2018, a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit against CoreCivic, a private operator of the BOP facility Leavenworth Detention Center and Securus Technologies, Inc., the facility’s communications provider. Two attorneys with the Kansas Federal Public Defenders (KFPD) filed the suit. They discovered that the companies secretly recorded at least 1,338 calls between attorneys and clients between 2011 and 2013. The companies also shared some of these calls with federal prosecutors.

In 2020, CoreCivic agreed to pay $3.7 million to settle the suit. It did not, however, admit to any wrongdoing.

Another lawsuit filed against the Orange County Sheriff’s Department alleges similar violations. Both Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and GTL, the agency’s communications provider, have admitted wrongdoing. They acknowledged recording 1,079 calls to attorneys from Jan. 2015 through July 2018. According to the suit, officers accessed 58 of those calls on 87 occasions. However, the attorney who filed the suit believes the number of calls recorded may actually be “in the hundreds of thousands.”

David C. Fathi, director of the ACLU’s National Prison Project, said that “the law has been clear for decades” about attorney-client phone privilege, yet violations still occur.

“This kind of unlawful eavesdropping occurs with alarming frequency,” he said. “Whether it’s inadvertent or intentional, prisons and jails need to have robust protections in place to ensure that this kind of snooping doesn’t happen.”

In-person meetings are often difficult. Sometimes they’re impossible.

Without the ability to communicate confidentially over phone or email, attorneys and their clients are left with the option of in-person consultations. But by design, prisons are often in rural areas.

The First Step Act did require the BOP to locate incarcerated people closer to their homes. But that provision only requires the bureau to house people within 500 driving miles of their home base. That means if someone in prison wanted to use a lawyer from their community, that attorney could end up driving eight to ten hours one way for a meeting. This presents serious logistical challenges both for attorneys and for the people who have to pay for their time.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person visitations have gone from difficult to impossible. Prison systems across the country suspended in-person visits in 2020. This left people in prison with no other way of contacting their attorneys other than phone, email or mail—which prisons also monitor .

A new bill in Congress could help address the issue.

Some lawmakers have attempted to make headway on the issue. In 2020, Rep. Hakeem Jefferies (D-NY), introduced H.B. 5546 , also known as the “Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act.” The bill would require the BOP to obtain a warrant to read emails between attorneys and their incarcerated clients. While it passed the House, it never made it to the Republican-led Senate floor.

But Jeffries re-introduced the bill in February of 2021. Now labeled H.R. 546 , the “Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act” has once again passed the House by a 414-11 margin. It will soon head to the Senate, where the Democratic party holds a slight majority.

Speaking about the bill earlier this year, Jeffries alluded to both the importance and the urgency of passing the bill.

“The time has arrived for us to address this egregious practice, lift up the presumption of innocence, facilitate due process and allow fundamental fairness to permeate all aspects of our judicial system,” he said.

Laws around attorney-client privilege have failed to keep up with technology, and that has allowed prisons to violate the Sixth Amendment Rights.

The introduction of electronic communications into prisons has certainly had its benefits. Systems like TRULINCS and JPay allow families and friends to communicate more easily with an incarcerated loved one. But they have also allowed state and federal governments to bend and break the Sixth Amendment rights of the people they house.

If enacted, H.R. 546 could provide meaningful legal protection to privileged communications. But, as multiple lawsuits have shown, the illegality of doing so has not stopped government agencies from interfering in these communications to this point.

Op-Ed: Lawyers can’t visit clients in prison, so quit monitoring their emails

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

As concern over the impact of COVID-19 on prison populations began to mount, the federal Bureau of Prisons implemented a ban in March that prohibits lawyers from visiting their incarcerated clients. However justifiable the ban may be, it compounds the challenges lawyers face representing those held in custody, a crucial tool lawyers rely on to gather the facts they need to mount an effective defense.

While nothing can replace the way face-to-face interactions help build trust, the bureau should at long last end its unjust policy of requiring inmates to “voluntarily” waive privilege in emails they send to their attorneys through the bureau-provided email system.

A bipartisan group in Congress that includes two California Democrats — Reps. Karen Bass of Los Angeles and Anna G. Eshoo of Menlo Park — sponsored legislation that would do just that. The Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act would prohibit the Bureau of Prisons from monitoring emails between inmates and their attorneys except in certain limited cases. The act passed the House as part of a COVID-19 relief package and awaits action in the Senate.

In our deeply divided times, the fact that the legislation is being co-sponsored by 25 members — 11 Republicans and 14 Democrats — is a sign of its urgent need.

The Bureau of Prisons houses some 163,000 inmates . To encourage them to maintain contact with members of the community, the agency provides most inmates with access to an email system. They are allowed to contact approved individuals who are not in the bureau’s custody if the recipient has agreed to receive messages. But as a condition of using the system, inmates must waive their right to confidentiality in the messages they send and receive.

This requirement means that lawyers cannot ethically use the email system to communicate with their clients about substantive and important aspects of their cases because it requires them to violate their obligation to maintain their clients’ confidences. The risks to the inmates are not merely hypothetical. Federal prosecutors have, in fact, used emails sent through the system against defendants in court.

World & Nation

More than 70% of federal prison inmates tested for coronavirus are infected

Lawmakers are joining prisoners’ advocates who are alarmed by the government’s response to the growing coronavirus crisis behind bars.

April 30, 2020

Even in the best of times, the bureau’s monitoring would be bad policy and of dubious constitutionality. Federal circuit courts have held that the Constitution prohibits prison officials from reading mail between inmates and their attorneys that has been sent through the U.S. Postal Service, some grounding their decision in the 1st Amendment right to free speech and others in the 6th Amendment right to assistance of counsel. Given that email has become an essential form of business communication, that constitutional protection should extend to email as well.

Federal prosecutors have argued that inmates do not need email to communicate with their clients because alternative methods such as postal mail, unmonitored phone calls and in-person visits are available. But email has become an essential business communications tool because what it offers is nearly instantaneous and it is free.

These are particularly useful qualities given that it can take weeks for an inmate to receive a letter sent via old-fashioned mail, and arranging an unmonitored phone call is an administrative headache that can take as long as a month. When available, an in-person visit may require an attorney to travel a significant distance and wait for hours to meet with their client.

Now, of course, even in-person visits are unavailable.

In addition to requiring the Bureau of Prisons to stop monitoring email between inmates and their attorneys, the legislation under consideration in Congress creates sensible exceptions to its prohibition on monitoring. For example, the emails would not be privileged if the inmate is obtaining advice from the attorney for the purpose of furthering a crime or fraud. The bill also would require law-enforcement agents to secure a warrant to access any email sent through the prison email system, just as they have to do to access email sent through a private provider such as Google.

The Bureau of Prisons email monitoring policy was out of step with constitutional values even before COVID-19. The pandemic has only emphasized the need to reform a system that unnecessarily interferes with attorney-client communications and thus with effective representation.

Catherine Crump is director of the Samuelson Clinic for Law, Technology and Public Policy at UC Berkeley Law School. She co-represents the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers in a lawsuit seeking records about the Bureau of Prisons monitoring policy. Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, is a criminal defense attorney at Brown, White & Osborn LLP in Los Angeles.

More to Read

FBI again searches California federal women’s prison plagued by sexual abuse

March 11, 2024

Opinion: Why are California prisons helping ICE deport immigrants who have served their time?

Sept. 9, 2023

California debates solitary confinement in local jails — and whether it’s really possible to end it

Aug. 31, 2023

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Opinion: Latinos are getting out of the ‘other’ box on the U.S. census

April 3, 2024

Abcarian: I wanted to hate what UC Berkeley parents are doing in the name of safety, but I can’t

Goldberg: Voters wishing for an alternative to Trump and Biden got one. Unfortunately, it’s RFK Jr.

April 2, 2024

Opinion: Heat pumps cut costs and pollution. So why isn’t it easier to install one in California?

Wallin & Klarich

Jails in California Must Allow Face to Face Lawyer Visits with Inmates

One of our most treasured constitutional rights is the right to have a lawyer if you are accused of a crime. Encompassed within this right is the ability to effectively communicate with your attorney, and the right to do so in a private setting. In a recent case, inmates’ rights to communicate effectively and privately with their attorneys were called into question.

How Attorneys and Inmates Meet

Claiming it was done for safety reasons, officials at the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility restricted attorneys from meeting their clients in rooms that don’t have glass partitions except by special request. The reasoning behind this was that the jail population had increased while the staff had been reduced.

Most inmates only had the ability to speak to their attorneys through a phone system, but sound was muffled and unclear. Some attorneys attempted to speak through the glass, but it required them to yell.

The attorneys’ side was equipped with soundproof walls, but the inmates’ side was not. That meant that anyone could hear the inmates as they shouted private information to their attorneys. Inmates demanded that “contact visits” (or face-to-face) meetings be restored.

What Did the Court Decide?

When it comes to attorney jail visits, the courts often defer to jail officials. The courts typically believe that officials at the jail will best know what is safe at their particular facility, and what is within their budgets. However, the cost of protecting constitutional rights cannot justify a blanket denial of inmates’ rights.

Citing the Fourteenth Amendment, the courts have established that jail and prison facilities have an obligation to make sure inmates have meaningful access to the courts, including the right to face-to-face meetings with their attorneys.

The court agreed that there is no constitutional right to “unrestricted contact visits with counsel.” The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee an absolute right to a “‘meaningful relationship’” between an accused and his counsel and physical touch between a lawyer and an inmate is not guaranteed. Contact visits may be restricted if there is a legitimate justification. But, policies and practices that unjustifiably obstruct the right to assistance of counsel are invalid, the court decided. Unjustified restrictions on contact visits implicate due process and are a proper subject of concern for the courts.

Do Inmates Get to Meet with Attorneys Face to Face?

In determining whether jail restrictions on attorney contact visits are reasonable, the relevant factors the court considered were:

• Whether there is a valid, rational connection between the jail restriction and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it;
• Whether there are alternative means of exercising the right;
• How the accommodation of the asserted right will impact guards, other inmates and the allocation of jail resources; and
• Whether the restriction is an exaggerated response to jail concerns

Taking these factors into consideration, the court determined that the restrictions were not appropriate in this instance. The court was careful to state that this is not a blanket decision, and that perhaps different kinds of restrictions may be appropriate as long as there is proper justification.

Call an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Today

If your constitutional rights are being denied, you need to speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our skilled criminal lawyers will fight for your rights and help you navigate the complex legal system. We have been successfully defending our clients facing criminal charges for over 40 years. We can help you now.

Our offices are located in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Torrance, Victorville, Ventura, West Covina and Sherman Oaks. We are available to help you now matter where you work or live.

AUTHOR: Paul Wallin

Paul Wallin is one of the most highly respected attorneys in Southern California. His vast experience, zealous advocacy for his clients and extensive knowledge of many areas of the law make Mr. Wallin a premiere Southern California attorney. Mr. Wallin founded Wallin & Klarich in 1981. As the senior partner of Wallin & Klarich, Mr. Wallin has been successfully representing clients for more than 30 years. Clients come to him for help in matters involving assault and battery, drug crimes, juvenile crimes, theft, manslaughter, sex offenses, murder, violent crimes, misdemeanors and felonies. Mr. Wallin also helps clients with family law matters such as divorce and child custody.

Practice area

Contact us now.

If you or a loved one have been accused of a crime, now is the time to contact us.

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• City and State of Case *
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

California Elder Abuse Laws | PC 368

Domestic Violence Restraining Orders | PC 273.6 Explained

Navigating the Legal Maze: How to Find the Right Criminal Defense Attorney in Irvine, CA 

If you or a loved one have been accused of a crime, this is the time to contact us.

Los Angeles County

Los Angeles | Long Beach | Glendale | Santa Clarita | Lancaster | Palmdale | Pomona | Torrance | Pasadena | West Covina | Carson | Santa Monica | Whittier | Lakewood | Redondo Beach | Arcadia | Diamond Bar | Glendora | Cerritos | La Mirada | Rancho Palos Verdes | Culver City | Manhattan Beach | Claremont | Beverly Hills | San Dimas | Walnut | Calabasas | Hermosa Beach | El Segundo | Palos Verdes Estates | Malibu

Orange County

Santa Ana | Anaheim | Irvine | Huntington Beach | Garden Grove | Orange | Fullerton | Costa Mesa | Mission Viejo | Westminster | Newport Beach | Buena Park | Lake Forest | Tustin | Yorba Linda | San Clemente | Laguna Niguel | La Habra | Fountain Valley | Anaheim Hills | Placentia | Rancho Santa Margarita | Aliso Viejo | Cypress | Brea | Stanton | San Juan Capistrano | Dana Point | Laguna Hills | North Tustin | Seal Beach | Ladera Ranch | Laguna Beach | Laguna Woods | La Palma | Coto de Caza | Los Alamitos | Rossmoor | Midway City | Las Flores | Villa Park

Riverside County

Riverside | Moreno Valley | Corona | Temecula | Murrieta | Jurupa Valley | Indio | Hemet | Menifee | Perris | Eastvale | Cathedral City | Palm Desert | Lake Elsinore | Palm Springs | La Quinta | Coachella | San Jacinto | Beaumont | Wildomar | Banning | Norco | Desert Hot Springs | Blythe | Rancho Mirage | Canyon Lake | Calimesa | Indian Wells

San Bernardino County

San Bernardino | Fontana | Rancho Cucamonga | Ontario | Victorville | Rialto | Hesperia | Chino | Chino Hills | Upland | Apple Valley | Redlands | Highland | Colton | Yucaipa | Montclair | Adelanto | Twentynine Palms | Loma Linda | Barstow | Yucca Valley | Grand Terrace | Big Bear Lake | Needles

San Diego | Oceanside | Escondido | Carlsbad | Vista | San Marcos | Encinitas | Solana Beach | El Cajon | Santee | Poway | La Mesa | Del Mar

Oxnard | Thousand Oaks | Simi Valley | Ventura | Camarillo | Moorpark | Santa Paula | Port Hueneme | Fillmore | Ojai

• Mobile Site
• Staff Directory
• Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

• Biz & IT
• Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

Michigan jails sued —

Jails banned visits in “quid pro quo” with prison phone companies, lawsuits say, civil rights group sues two counties, says hundreds more have banned visits..

Jon Brodkin - Mar 29, 2024 6:31 pm UTC

Two lawsuits filed by a civil rights group allege that county jails in Michigan banned in-person visits in order to maximize revenue from voice and video calls as part of a "quid pro quo kickback scheme" with prison phone companies.

Civil Rights Corps filed the lawsuits on March 15 against the county governments, two county sheriffs, and two prison phone companies. The suits filed in county courts seek class-action status on behalf of people unable to visit family members detained in the local jails, including children who have been unable to visit their parents.

Defendants in one lawsuit include St. Clair County Sheriff Mat King, prison phone company Securus Technologies, and Securus owner Platinum Equity. In the other lawsuit , defendants include Genesee County Sheriff Christopher Swanson and prison phone company ViaPath Technologies. ViaPath was formerly called Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL), and the lawsuit primarily refers to the company as GTL.

Each year, thousands of people spend months in the county jails, the lawsuit said. Many of the detainees have not been convicted of any crime and are awaiting trial; if they are convicted and receive long sentences, they are transferred to the Michigan Department of Corrections.

The named plaintiffs in both cases include family members, including children identified by their initials.

“Hundreds of jails” eliminated visits

The Michigan counties are far from alone in implementing visitation bans, Civil Rights Corps said in a lawsuit announcement . "Across the United States, hundreds of jails have eliminated in-person family visits over the last decade," the group said, adding:

Why has this happened? The answer highlights a profound flaw in how decisions too often get made in our legal system: for-profit jail telecom companies realized that they could earn more profit from phone and video calls if jails eliminated free in-person visits for families. So the companies offered sheriffs and county jails across the country a deal: if you eliminate family visits, we'll give you a cut of the increased profits from the larger number of calls. This led to a wave across the country, as local jails sought to supplement their budgets with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from some of the poorest families in our society.

St. Clair County implemented its family visitation ban in September 2017, "prohibiting people from visiting their family members detained inside the county jail," Civil Rights Corps alleged. This "decision was part of a quid pro quo kickback scheme with Securus Technologies, a for-profit company that contracts with jails to charge the families of incarcerated persons exorbitant rates to communicate with one another through 'services' such as low-quality phone and video calls," the lawsuit said.

Under the contract, "Securus pays the County 50 percent of the $12.99 price tag for every 20-minute video call and 78 percent of the $0.21 per minute cost of every phone call," the lawsuit said. The contract has "a guarantee that Securus would pay the County at least $190,000 each year," the St. Clair County lawsuit said.

reader comments

Channel ars technica.

• The Inventory

Prison Phone Companies Involved in Scheme to Ban In-Person Jail Visits, Lawsuit Says

New litigation suggests prison phone companies have incentivized the elimination of in-person visits at prisons to spike their own profits..

Two lawsuits filed by an activist organization allege a conspiracy between county governments in Michigan and prison phone companies. This conspiracy has involved a “quid pro quo kickback scheme” that eliminated in-person visits at prisons to boost profits for the companies, the litigation claims. As part of the scheme, a portion of those profits were allegedly then shared with the county governments.

The Civil Rights Corps, a non-profit that describes itself as “dedicated to challenging systemic injustice in the United States’ legal system,” recently filed the two lawsuits, which allege a similar scheme in both St. Clair and Genesee counties in Michigan. These arrangements involved business relationships with the county sheriffs of St. Clair and Genesee that were predicated on the elimination of in-person prison visits. Under the new systems, visitors to the jails had to pay for phone calls with the incarcerated, and the money from those calls was then shared between the providers and the counties, the lawsuit alleges.

For instance, in the case of the St. Clair lawsuit —which lists as defendants St. Clair Sheriff Mat King, St. Clair County, prison phone company Securus, and others related to the deals—the litigants claim:

On September 22, 2017, St. Clair County officials decided to implement a new policy: a Family Visitation Ban prohibiting people from visiting their family members detained inside the county jail...The County’s decision was part of a quid pro quo kickback scheme with Securus Technologies, a for-profit company that contracts with jails to charge the families of incarcerated persons exorbitant rates to communicate with one another through “services” such as low-quality phone and video calls. The County officials agreed to prohibit in-person visits at the jail in exchange for a substantial cut of Securus’s future revenue.

In the case of Genesee County, meanwhile, the litigation makes a similar argument. It claims that Genesee again colluded with Securus to end family in-person visitations at the county jails:

On September 22, 2014, Genesee County officials enacted a new policy: a Family Visitation Ban prohibiting people from visiting their family members detained inside the county jail...The County’s initial decision in 2014 was part of a quid pro quo kickback scheme with Securus Technologie...

However, Genesee later switched providers from Securus to a different phone provider, a company that was then called Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL), but later changed its name to ViaPath. The deal again centered around extracting money from the paid phone calls that visitors had to make to communicate with people incarcerated at the jails, and sharing the profits between the government and the company:

At then-Undersheriff (now-Sheriff) Christopher Swanson’s direction, in 2018, the jail’s captain told an account executive for Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL)—the other major jail telecommunication company in the country—that the County Defendants wanted to make more money from phone and video calls than the cash-incentive arrangement with Securus: “We need the best deal you can do,” he wrote. And he got it. The County Defendants switched providers for the jail, negotiating and then signing a contract with GTL in 2018. Under that contract, which remains in effect, GTL pays the County Defendants $180,000 per year from the company’s phone call revenue, an annual cash payment called a “technology grant” of $60,000, and 20% of the cost of every video call (the contract priced video calls at: $10.00 for 25 minutes). GTL projected that the County would receive another $16,000 per year from its cut of the video call revenue alone.

Cody Cutting, an attorney with Civil Rights Corps, told the Detroit Free Press : “These cases demand urgent action from the courts because children are suffering. Every day these children and parents remain separated adds to their pain. But the cases also pose a broader question: Do we as a public condone a criminal system so unmoored from any moral bearings that it supports the punishment and exploitation of children, families, and communities?”

ViaPath, which was previously called GTL, told the New York Times that the company “denies the allegations in the complaint and looks forward to the opportunity to defend the claims made against it.”

Securus Technologies, meanwhile, told Ars Technica that the case was “misguided and without merit. We look forward to defending ourselves, and we will not let this suit detract from our successful efforts to create meaningful and positive outcomes for the consumers we serve.”

Gizmodo reached out to ViaPath and Securus, as well as the St. Clair and Genesee county sheriff’s offices. We will update this story when they respond.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Lawsuits Accuse 2 Michigan Jails of Banning Family Visits to Increase Revenue

The suits contend that two counties entered into agreements with telecommunications companies that would bring more money because of increased use of phone calls and electronic messaging.

By Aimee Ortiz

Two county jails in Michigan banned in-person family visits for inmates several years ago as a way to boost county revenues from the increased number of phone calls and electronic messaging that resulted, a pair of lawsuits filed this month claim.

The bans on in-person visits leave “electronic communications — phone and video calls and electronic messaging — as the sole way for the families of people detained in the jail to talk with their loved ones inside,” according to the lawsuits, which were filed on behalf of the families. The suits claim that officials in St. Clair County and Genesee County entered into a “quid pro quo kickback scheme” with Global Tel*Link Corporation and Securus Technologies.

Both companies denied any wrongdoing.

Jennifer Jackson-Luth, a spokesperson for Securus, called the lawsuit in which that company is named “misguided and without merit.”

“We look forward to defending ourselves, and we will not let this suit detract from our successful efforts to create meaningful and positive outcomes for the consumers we serve,” she said.

Global Tel*Link, which changed its name to ViaPath Technologies in 2022 , said that it “denies the allegations in the complaint and looks forward to the opportunity to defend the claims made against it.”

Phone messages left with the Genesee County Sheriff’s Office and to the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Office this week were not returned.

The lawsuits claim that the family visit bans violate the Michigan Constitution, which “enshrines family integrity and intimate association.”

Cody Cutting, a lawyer with the Civil Rights Corps, one of the groups that filed the lawsuits against the two counties and the telecommunications corporations, said that “while a company paying a county hundreds of thousands of dollars for exclusive control over communication into and out of its jail is clearly problematic, we are unaware of any investigations into the practice.”

Genesee County enacted a “Family Visitation Ban” on Sept. 22, 2014, and St. Clair County began prohibiting in-person visits on Sept. 22, 2017, according to the lawsuits.

Genesee County originally had a deal with Securus Technologies, but switched to Global Tel*Link Corporation in 2018 at the direction of Christopher Swanson — who was undersheriff at the time and is now sheriff of Genesee County — for a deal that would make the county more money, according to the one of the lawsuits, which was filed in Circuit Court in Genesee County.

That lawsuit quotes a jail captain explaining the reasoning for the switch. “‘GTL offers a set guaranteed commission that is more than the average monthly commission we currently get [from Securus],’” the unnamed captain said.

According to the lawsuit, “in total, the GTL agreement promises the county that it will receive at least $240,000 in incentive payments each year based on its current policies.”

Securus, which entered into a contract with St. Clair County in 2017, pays the county 50 percent of the $12.99 price tag for every 20-minute video call and 78 percent of the 21 cents per minute cost of every phone call as well as a “minimum guaranteed annual payment of $190,000 paid up front,” according to the lawsuit filed in Circuit Court in St. Clair County.

The two counties and the contracts involved in the lawsuits are a microcosm of a larger national problem, according to lawyers who filed the lawsuits.

For a long time, “kids have been able to visit with their parents in person and hug them and look into their eyes and touch them,” Leslie Bailey, one of the lawyers involved in the suits and the director of the Debtors’ Prison Project at Public Justice, a national legal advocacy nonprofit, said in an interview. “This is something that is increasingly going away in jails across the country.”

The Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit working to reduce mass incarceration in the country, reported in 2015 that “74 percent of jails banned in-person visits when they implemented video visitation.”

Mr. Cutting, the lawyer with the Civil Rights Corps, said that the “pre-existing trend” of replacing in-person visits with electronic communications “then accelerated as many more jails ended in-person visitation in response to the pandemic and never restored it.”

Ms. Bailey said that “if you look at the contract between counties and companies like Securus and GTL, you understand that it’s all about money.” She added, “We are suing for the right of kids to hug their parents, for the right of families to not be separated for profit.”

Martreanna Browning, the mother of a 3-year-old named in the lawsuit, said in an interview that she had to take on a second job after her partner, Tamar Watkins, was transferred to the Genesee County Jail so that she could afford the communications with him.

“I just spent a lot of money,” she said. “I try not to add it up because I might go crazy.”

Ms. Browning said the video calls with Mr. Watkins have been hard on their daughter, who tries to play with him because “she thinks he’s here, but he’s not actually here.” In an affidavit, she said that “the video was pixelated, the lighting distorted his face, and the camera angle was unnatural.”

“In order for my daughter to have a relationship with her daddy, I have to sacrifice a lot of things,” she said in the interview. “So whatever it takes, I will do that, and he feels the same way also.”

Aimee Ortiz covers breaking news and other topics. More about Aimee Ortiz

• Data Collection in the Moscow Metro

• ►  August (1)
• ►  July (2)
• ►  June (1)
• ►  May (1)
• ►  April (1)
• ►  March (2)
• ►  February (2)
• Territory and Transgression: An Interview with Stu...
• Elizabeth Blackmar on Public Space
• Housing Demolition and the Right to Place
• ►  December (2)
• ►  November (3)
• ►  October (1)
• ►  September (1)
• ►  July (4)
• ►  June (5)
• ►  May (3)
• ►  April (5)
• ►  March (7)
• ►  February (13)
• ►  January (24)
• ►  December (31)
• ►  November (28)
• ►  October (30)
• ►  September (29)
• ►  August (31)
• ►  July (31)
• ►  June (30)
• ►  May (30)
• ►  April (29)
• ►  March (31)
• ►  February (29)
• ►  January (31)
• ►  December (28)
• ►  November (29)
• ►  October (31)
• ►  August (30)
• ►  July (32)
• ►  June (28)
• ►  May (29)
• ►  April (19)
• ►  March (26)
• ►  February (21)
• ►  January (27)
• ►  December (25)
• ►  November (21)
• ►  October (26)
• ►  September (25)
• ►  August (33)
• ►  July (23)
• ►  June (23)
• ►  May (33)
• ►  April (28)
• ►  February (25)
• ►  January (25)
• ►  December (35)
• ►  November (25)
• ►  October (34)
• ►  September (27)
• ►  August (2)

Alex Murdaugh sentenced to 40 years in prison for federal financial crimes

CHARLESTON, S.C. — A federal judge sentenced convicted murderer Alex Murdaugh to 40 years in prison Monday for stealing millions of dollars from his legal clients — a punishment that can be served at the same time as a 27-year state sentence previously imposed for related crimes.

The stakes had been raised in an otherwise routine sentencing hearing after federal prosecutors said in a filing last week that Murdaugh, 55, failed a polygraph test that he agreed to undergo as part of a plea deal. In addition, they said, they identified 11 new financial victims and $1.3 million more in stolen money.

Murdaugh, a former personal injury lawyer, faced a much harsher sentence, but U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel is allowing him to serve his prison sentences for state and federal crimes concurrently. He also ordered Murdaugh to pay more than $8 million in restitution to his financial victims.

Each of the various charges in federal court carried a maximum of at least 20 years in prison, the Justice Department said .

Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Limehouse asked Gergel to impose a 30-year sentence, arguing that "we don't believe he is capable of living a law-abiding life as a member of society" and that it would send "a very strong message about lawyers stealing money from their clients."

Gergel said he decided to go above that to hold Murdaugh further accountable and bring justice to his victims.

"This is a reprehensible crime that deserves the most serious of sanction," he said.

Murdaugh, shackled and wearing an orange prison jumpsuit, appeared emotional as he addressed Gergel.

"I literally am filled with sorrow and am filled with guilt over the things that I did," he said.

Murdaugh is already serving a life sentence without parole for the murders of his wife, Margaret, 52, and their younger son, Paul, 22, in 2021. He is attempting to appeal the conviction.

When Murdaugh pleaded guilty in September to 22 federal financial crime charges, it came with an agreement that he would subject himself to a polygraph. Federal prosecutors said he could be called to "testify fully and truthfully before any grand juries and at any other trials or other proceedings."

But prosecutors said in a filing that Murdaugh breached the agreement, writing that "he ranks as one of the most prolific fraudsters this state has ever seen."

Murdaugh's lawyers denied the allegation and had said in response that they should be able to respond in documents that can be made public.

"To allow the Government to publicly accuse Murdaugh of breaching his plea agreement while also allowing the Government to hide all purported evidence supporting that accusation from the public would violate the public's right to the truth," the filing said.

Federal prosecutors argued that the details must not be released because of an ongoing grand jury investigation.

But Gergel said Monday the issue was "moot" after attorneys spoke about the prosecution's filing in private chambers.

Murdaugh pleaded guilty last year to 14 counts of money laundering, five counts of wire fraud, one count of bank fraud and other charges. Prosecutors said Murdaugh, who worked at the family's Hampton County law firm, cheated clients out of settlement money and created fraudulent bank accounts.

Among his financial victims was the estate of his family's longtime housekeeper , Gloria Satterfield, who died following a " trip and fall accident " at the Murdaughs' home in 2018.

Satterfield's son, Michael "Tony" Satterfield, addressed Murdaugh on Monday as part of a victim impact statement.

"I pray for you daily," Satterfield said, staring directly at his mother's former employer. "I just want God to work on you and your heart."

Murdaugh was sentenced in federal court a year after his high-profile double murder trial, in which he took the stand to deny that he  fatally shot his wife and son but admitted to some financial misconduct.

State prosecutors accused him of murdering them to gain pity and to distract from financial crimes threatening to topple his reputation in South Carolina's Lowcountry, where three generations of family patriarchs had wielded power as the  top prosecutors  for decades.

Murdaugh said he suffered from a longtime addiction to prescription opioids , which he testified clouded his judgment.

He told the court Monday that he is "937 days clean."

"I do believe that my addiction contributed to me doing some of the things that I did," Murdaugh said. "And Judge Gergel, I hope with every cell of my existence, I hope that I will not have done what I did had I not been addicted to opioids."

His federal sentencing caps a long-winding legal saga.

In January, his defense team attempted to get him a new double murder trial, alleging that a court clerk had tampered with the jury and tainted the verdict as she sought to write a book about the case. But while a judge found that Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill was not a wholly credible witness, jurors were not persuaded by her actions.

Hill, who resigned last month, had denied in her testimony that she  tampered with the jury  for financial gain or any other reason.

Regardless of what happens with Murdaugh's murder appeal, he will remain in prison for at least four decades.

Juliette Arcodia reported from Charleston and Erik Ortiz from New York.

Erik Ortiz is a senior reporter for NBC News Digital focusing on racial injustice and social inequality.

Putin rounds up illegal migrants to send to the frontline in Ukraine

Posted: March 27, 2024 | Last updated: March 27, 2024

More for You

New York Judge's Letitia James Comment Sparks Backlash

37 Final Movie Lines So Good, They Have Gone Down In History As The Best Ever

19 American Foods that Are Not Allowed in Other Countries

The Only Way You Should Store Peanut Butter, According to SKIPPY

2024 WNBA mock draft roundup: Predictions for Angel Reese, Caitlin Clark

Russia's helicopters are screwing up its attempt to fool Ukraine with decoys by landing on its fake painted fighter jets: intel

McDonald’s brings beloved breakfast sandwich back to select locations

Democrat Judge Exempts NRA Members From New Gun Rule

30 slang words you may not realize came from TV and movies

Pittsburgh Police Announces They Will No Longer Respond to Calls That Are Not Ongoing Emergencies

The 43 Best Shows to Stream on Netflix Right Now

The True Cost of the Churchgoing Bust

Arby’s Is Giving Away Free Sandwiches All Month Long

Comedian Joe Flaherty has died after an illness, daughter says

13 Things You Should Never Keep in Your Wallet

Highlights from the iHeart Radio Music Awards

20 blockbuster films you may not know were inspired by real-life events

Don’t pack these 9 TSA-prohibited items in your checked baggage

12 Ordering Mistakes You're Making At Subway, According To Employees

Hunter Schafer Says She's Turned Down "Tons" of Trans Roles: "I Just Don't Want to Do It"