State v. Copeland, 1348--III

• Decision Date: 20 April 1976
• Docket Number: No. 1348--III,1348--III
• Citation: 15 Wn.App. 374,549 P.2d 26
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Ronald COPELAND and Dennis Henderson, Appellants.

Page 374

15 Wn.App. 374

549 P.2d 26

STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Ronald COPELAND and Dennis Henderson, Appellants.

No. 1348--III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3.

April 20, 1976.

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1976.

Review Denied Aug. 31, 1976.

Donald W. Schacht, McAdams & Schacht, Walla Walla, for appellants.

Arthur R. Eggers, Pros. Atty., Walla Walla, for respondent.

GREEN, Judge.

Defendants were convicted of assault in the first degree. They appeal, contending the court erred in refusing to suppress a letter written by defendant, Ronald Copeland, to the victim of the assault. ¹ We affirm.

On June 13, 1974, Theodore Kelley, an inmate at the Washington State Penitentiary, was seriously stabbed. That same day, the defendants who were suspected of committing the stabbing were placed in maximum security. A few days later Mr. Copeland wrote the following letter to the victim who was in the prison's hospital ward:

Dear Bro.

How's everything? I'm sorry that Dennis and I split after helping you get up! But when we seen (sic) how bad you was (sic) hurt! We thought you was (sic) almost dead! And with my and his records( We could'ent (sic) afford to be in a cell with a dead man! So thats why we panic'd (sic) and left you! How was we to know that it must've just happened before we got there! Anyway I got this cutt (sic) on me from Denny and me playing around with his wood carving set! So they think Dennis and I had something to do with you getting cutt. (sic) I know your (sic) not going to tell them who did it! I would'ent (sic) ask you too! But would you explain to them that me (sic) and Dennis had nothing to do with it!

Cause you know how they are! they think were (sic) guilty until proven innocent! Next time you have any hassle's or conflict with someone! Let me know and I'll do what I can to help you! Hope you are better now and keep yourself together!

Love always

Bro. Rowdy

This letter was placed in a sealed envelope addressed to 'Ted Kelley, Hospital Ward, P.O. Box 520, Walla Walla, Wash. #99362.' The upper left-hand corner of the envelope contained Mr. Copeland's name, serial number, and return address, 'P.O. Box 520.' Mr. Copeland handed the envelope to a prison guard who took it to Superintendent B. J. Rhay. Mr. Rhay opened the letter, read it and delivered it to a Walla Walla detective who was investigating the stabbing. The following day, investigating officers met with Mr. Copeland. After reading the Miranda warnings to him, they questioned Mr. Copeland about the stabbing. When he denied knowledge of the stabbing, they confronted Mr. Copeland with the letter. He immediately objected to the seizure of the letter and requested counsel. At the suppression hearing, he testified that he expected the letter to go through the postal service and to be delivered to the victim without being read by the prison administration.

The question presented by this appeal is succinctly stated by defendants in their brief:

Was the censorship of the correspondence by Superintendent Rhay an unconstitutional abridgment of appellants' (defendants') First Amendment right and its use therefore illegal and entitled to exclusions?

First, defendants contend that Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1811, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), compels an affirmative answer to this question. We disagree.

Procunier was a class action in behalf of inmates of California penal institutions challenging the constitutionality of certain state prison regulations relating to censorship of prisoners' incoming and outgoing mail. The court recognized that:

(T)he legitimate governmental interest in the order and security of penal institutions justifies the imposition of certain restraints on inmate correspondence. . . . Our task is to determine the proper standard for deciding whether a particular regulation or practice relating to inmate correspondence constitutes an impermissible restraint of First Amendment liberties.

Procunier v. Martinez, supra, at 1811.

The court held that 'censorship of prisoner mail is justified if the following criteria are met':

First, the regulation or practice in question must further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. . . . (Prison officials) must show that a regulation authorizing mail censorship furthers one or more of the substantial governmental interests of security, order and rehabilitation. Second, the limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved. . . . This does not mean, of course, that prison administrators may be required to show with certainty that adverse consequences would flow from the failure to censor a particular letter. Some latitude in anticipating the probable consequences of allowing certain speech in a prison environment is essential to the proper discharge of an administrator's duty.

(Italics ours.) Procunier v. Martinez, supra, at 1811--12.

For purposes of defendants' contention, we assume without deciding, that Mr. Copeland's communication was a letter and that Procunier governs its interception and use. Given that assumption, we are unable to find that the interception of the letter violated the criteria set forth in Procunier. In light of Superintendent Rhay's responsibility, it cannot be denied that a substantial governmental interest in security and order existed and...