In Re Jordan
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BURKE, J.
In this case we consider the scope of the attorney-inmate confidential correspondence privilege set forth in Penal Code section 2600, subdivision (2).1 We are asked to determine whether Director’s Rule 2406,2 *578under which the Department of Corrections treats all printed enclosures in attorney-inmate mail as nonprivileged material, is consistent with the statutory rights afforded prisoners by section 2600. We have concluded that Director’s Rule 2406, to the extent that it authorizes prison authorities to read printed enclosures in attorney-inmate correspondence, is inconsistent…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Procunier v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- In Re HarrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- In Re JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
3Cited by25 opinions
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Mitchell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- In Re Complex Asbestos LitigationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- De Lancie v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & AssociatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.