Estes v. Rowland

Decision Date23 March 1993
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesMilton ESTES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. James ROWLAND, Director, California Department of Corrections et al., Defendants and Appellants. A048296.

[14 Cal.App.4th 515] Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., Paul D. Gifford, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for defendants and appellants.

Richard Denatale, Edward Chen, San Francisco, Donald Specter, Gen. Delivery, San Quentin, for plaintiffs and respondents.

KLINE, Presiding Justice.

The California Department of Corrections and the director of the Department, James Rowland (hereinafter collectively the "Department"), appeal a trial court injunction that limits the Department's ability to conduct [14 Cal.App.4th 516] random searches of prison visitors' vehicles on prison property. The Department asserts the injunctive conditions effectively prevent it from conducting the vehicle searches, and maintains the injunction is contrary to settled authority holding that prison visitors consent to searches of their vehicles while on prison property. The Department further complains the injunction was premised on stale evidence that did not reflect the practices in effect at the time of trial, and argues the searches ought to be upheld as proper administrative searches. In their cross-appeal respondents assert the searches are unlawful and must be terminated.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On February 26, 1986 respondents filed a verified complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief challenging the Department's program of searching prison visitors' vehicles for narcotics and other contraband. They sought a preliminary injunction, which the Department opposed.

The complaint alleged five causes of action, and asserted violations of visitors' rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, article I, section 13 of the California Constitution, Penal Code sections 2600 and 2601 and administrative regulations.

Following a hearing on respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction the court concluded Mathis v. Appellate Department (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 1038, 105 Cal.Rptr. 126 required it find the searches were conducted pursuant to the visitors' consent. However, the court held the Department was required to permit visitors who refused the search to leave prison premises without returning that day. The court thus filed an order that granted in part and denied in part respondents' requested preliminary injunction.

On May 3, 1988 the Department filed a notice of motion for summary judgment, which was opposed by respondents. After a hearing the court denied the motion on June 30, 1988.

After a one-month trial, the superior court entered a judgment recognizing the Department's legitimate interest in searching visitors' vehicles to stem the flow of drugs and other contraband into the prisons; however, it noted its concern about apparent abuses in the program. Accordingly, the court imposed a number of restrictions designed to cure the problems it discerned.

The Court's Decision

In determining whether the searches qualified as valid administrative searches the court analyzed whether they met the requirements of McMorris [14 Cal.App.4th 517] v. Alioto (9th Cir.1978) 567 F.2d 897, 899. Under McMorris, a legitimate administrative search (1) must be clearly necessary to a vital governmental interest; (2) must be limited, and no more intrusive than necessary to accomplish

the governmental interest; (3) must be reasonably effective in accomplishing its purpose; and (4) must be conducted for a purpose other than the gathering of evidence for criminal purposes

The court concluded the first and third requirements had been met. However, with respect to the second criterion, the court observed that while some institutions had "maintained a policy of care and consideration toward the visitors," the treatment of other visitors "has bordered on the abhorrent." Finally, the court concluded the fourth McMorris condition had been met in most instances, but "grossly abused" in others. In sum, the court determined that although the evidence showed the existing search policies and practices were flawed, it concluded that if the searches were conducted in accordance with the court's injunctive conditions they would qualify as proper administrative searches under McMorris. Accordingly, the court imposed the following conditions:

1. All persons eligible to visit inmates must be mailed written notice (in both English and Spanish) of the dog search policy, the reasons for the policy, and the consequences of finding contraband in the vehicle or on the person of a prison visitor.

2. Immediately prior to a proposed search the driver of each vehicle must be informed orally and in writing (again, in both English and Spanish) of what the search will entail, the reasons for it, and the consequences of finding contraband. The notice must advise the driver that he or she has the option of leaving and returning without the car without losing visiting privileges for that day. Searches may be conducted only after written consent for the search is first obtained from the driver.

3. If the driver decides to leave, passengers may stay and cannot be denied their visit.

4. Local police officers may not be involved in the search process, and may not be present at the search unless there is some valid reason for their presence. Violations of the Vehicle Code may not be reported to any law enforcement agency.

5. No vehicle may be delayed more than 10 minutes prior to the search.

6. The search itself may last no longer than 10 minutes. If the drug-detecting dog indicates the presence of drugs the search may be extended by [14 Cal.App.4th 518] five minutes. If contraband is found during the search and is packaged in a manner suggesting it was intended to be smuggled into the prison, additional time for further searches, including unclothed body searches, may be taken.

7. Dogs must be kept at least 20 feet from visitors at all times.

8. There may be no reading of books, letters or other documents in possession of visitors that are not reasonably suspected of being contraband.

9. No visitor may be strip searched solely on the basis of a positive dog alert unless drugs are found in the vehicle. In the event of a strip search the visitor must be notified orally and in writing of the reason for the search.

10. If contraband is found the visit may not be denied unless the contraband was packaged in a manner suggesting it was intended to be smuggled into the prison.

11. No Department employee may damage or soil the visitors' possessions. If any possessions are removed from any portion of the vehicle they must be returned to the same location at the end of the search.

12. The Department must adopt regulations encompassing the conditions and must distribute them to all institutions prior to any future search.

13. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce and supervise the implementation of these conditions and, if necessary, to appoint a monitor to act on behalf of the court.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Prison officials testified that drugs are the central problem confronting California prisons. They described how drugs contribute to prison violence because various gangs fight over control of the drug trade in a particular area. Moreover, an inmate with a drug debt he cannot pay may be attacked or killed. Inmates and their families

are sometimes forced to participate in drug smuggling under threat of physical harm

Because existing search procedures were inadequate to detect drugs, prison officials decided to employ drug-detecting dogs to search visitors' vehicles. In December 1984 a dog-assisted search was conducted at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad using dogs provided by the U.S. Customs Office. Every car was searched and a "considerable amount" of narcotics discovered. Due to the success of its experiment, the Department purchased two dogs that were first employed at Soledad in August [14 Cal.App.4th 519] 1985. The dogs were not only used to inspect vehicles, but to search work and recreation areas and living units within the prison.

David Reaver, president of a private company that trains dogs used by the Department, testified that the animals are trained to detect marijuana, heroin, cocaine and their derivatives. According to Reaver, a dog's olfactory ability is "at least a million times better" than that of a human. Reaver explained that his dogs are trained to "pinpoint" the precise spot where drugs are detected and should only require 1 1/2 to 2 minutes to complete a car search. Trained dogs are capable of detecting the odor of drugs on a car seat even after the drugs are removed, and can detect the odor of drugs on a seat even if the drugs were hidden in a body cavity of the person who had previously been sitting there.

The prison searches at issue follow a similar format. At the entrance to each prison a sign is posted warning that possession of weapons, alcohol or drugs on prison property is a felony. On the day of a search a prison staff member advises incoming cars that a random vehicle search is being conducted using dogs trained to detect narcotics. Visitors are told they may decline the search and leave the grounds, but that they will lose the chance to visit that day. As vehicles approach the prison, randomly selected cars are directed to the search area. All occupants are obliged to leave the car and directed to a table on which they must place their personal belongings in a basket for inspection. A staff member obtains identifying information from the driver and records the date, time and results of the search.

Once the occupants of the car exit the vehicle the dog search begins, and normally takes only a few minutes. At some prisons, the search ends if the dog does not find anything; at other prisons correctional officers conduct a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • The People v. Low
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 24, 2010
    ...1184, 1189, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 477; People v. Lee (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 522, 536, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 927; Estes v. Rowland (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 508, 518, 522-523, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 901; Waid, supra, 127 Cal.App.2d 614, 617, 274 P.2d 217.) The Legislature could reasonably conclude that section 4573 a......
  • Smith v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Sup'Rs, B150973.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 26, 2002
    ...conducted under an established program that has both rehabilitative and fraud prevention purposes. (See also Estes v. Rowland (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 508, 522, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 901 [search conducted pursuant to regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose may be conducted witho......
  • People v. Bautista
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 2004
    ...the probable cause needed for a search warrant. (United States v. Spetz (9th Cir.1983) 721 F.2d 1457, 1464; Estes v. Rowland (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 508, 532, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 901.) Harris and Rocko were reliable informants. Muenchow knew their identity, their training and experience, and the f......
  • People v. Boulter
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 2011
    ...by a showing of probable cause directed to a particular place or person to be searched.’ [Citations.]" (Estes v. Rowland (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 508, 522, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 901.) "Even if the searches were authorized as regulatory searches, the court [must] ... analyze the manner in which the se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT