POLK
v.
UNITED STATES
Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan concurs.
I would grant certiorari in this case. Prison censorship of mail discovered a letter written by an inmate which at the trial of the inmate was used to convict him. The evils of censorship are thus compounded. The right of privacy protected by the Bill of Rights (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479) is re-emphasized when government is dealing with a captive audience (see Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451, 467-469 (dissenting opinion)). It includes, inter alia, the sanctity of thought and belief of the individual that is protected by the First and Fifth Amendments. As Mr. Justice Holmes said in Milwaukee Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 437 (dissenting) “the use of the mails is almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues.” Under our regime the right to use the mail free of censorship is basic whether the censor be a federal official working for the post office or a federal official working for the Department of Justice. The problem is squarely raised here, free from all problems of prison security.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emmett H. Massie v. Univ. OF Fla. & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 570 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…U.S. 459, 88 S.Ct. 1140, 20 L.Ed.2d 30, rehearing denied, 391 U.S. 929, 88 S.Ct. 1800, 20 L.Ed.2d 671 (1968). Shortly thereafter, in O’Keeffe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., 404 U.S. 254, 92 S.Ct. 405, 30 L.Ed.2d 424 (1971), rehearing denied, 404 U.S. 1053, 92 S.Ct. 702, 30 L.Ed.2d 742 (1972), the court further clarified the intent of the statutes. In that case, the deputy commissioner had initially rejected an employee’s claim on grounds that the proofs failed to establish his disability was related…
-
United States v. Long, 524 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1975)…to the house by collecting her personal belongings from the house while the agents were conducting the searches. Mrs. Long’s consent was valid. United States v. Matlock, supra; see United States v. Wilson, 447 F. 2d 1 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1053, 92 S.Ct. 723, 30 L.Ed.2d 742 (1972). Long next argues that he was improperly convicted and sentenced on two counts when the facts only support one offense. He claims that his supplying of false information is only one crime even though he purchase…
-
Sammie L. Nelson v. Moore, 470 F.2d 1192 (1st Cir. 1972)…victim [*1198] opened the door by use of her own key, this was lawful because she was then a resident of the apartment possessing a key supplied by Nelson. United States v. Wilson, 447 F. 2d 1, 5 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, Polk v. United States, 404 U.S. 1053, 92 S.Ct. 723, 30 L.Ed.2d 742 (1972). Cf., Gurleski v. United States, 405 F. 2d 253, 261-262 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, Smith v. United States, 395 U.S. 977, 89 S.Ct. 2127, 23 L.Ed.2d 765 (1969). When the door was opened Nelson stood before the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1965)
- Pub. Utils. Comm'n of the Dist. of Columbia v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1952)
- United States Ex rel. Milwaukee Soc. Democratic Publ'g Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1921)