W.D.Pa.: Prison law librarians can examine papers to determine whether there’s a litigation deadline to manage library access

“Librarian Winters’ request to see Ivy’s legal documents to verify that he had upcoming deadlines also serves the DOC’s interest in institutional order and management of resources by balancing an individual inmate’s need for additional law library time with the ability of all inmates to use the law library. The Constitution affords prison administrators significant discretion regarding prison regulation and administration. See, e.g., Jones v. N. Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 126 (1977) (‘Because the realities of running a penal institution are complex and difficult, we have also recognized the wide-ranging deference to be accorded the decisions of prison administrators.’).” Ivy v. Wetzal, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187880 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 30, 2021).

“[O]fficers lawfully initiated a traffic stop after witnessing two traffic violations. And, again like in Franklin, officers detected the odor of marijuana when they approached the stopped vehicle. Contrary to Apple’s assertions, the officers’ testimonies are corroborated by the several pieces of loose marijuana found during the later search. Though this later-analyzed marijuana may have been higher in CBD content (compared to THC), the marijuana odor sensed by the officers was both raw and burnt. In other words, even assuming high-CBD-content marijuana has a less-pungent scent, high-potency marijuana in terms of THC could have been the cause of the strong burnt marijuana aroma encountered by officers.” United States v. Apple, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188167 (S.D.Ind. Sept. 30, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Prison and jail searches. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.