Fontroy v. Beard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the inmate requests and the attorney fails or refuses to apply for a control number, it is not the attorney who is affected.[ [1] ] It is the inmate whose constitutional right is infringed through nothing he has or has not done. This method is not a reasonable alternative to opening the mail in the inmate's presence. If someone working in an attorney's office or a court was determined to use the guise of legal or court mail to introduce contraband into the prison, the control number procedure would not be an impediment. That person has access to the employer's control number and could use it on legitimate legal or court envelopes. Thus, even at the cost of infringing inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation would not accomplish its stated goals of preventing the attempted introduction of contraband into the prisons.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. PA Department of Corrections

2. “The [DOC's] policy and its purported rationale overlook the obvious. All legal and court mail, with or without a control number, is still opened and inspected by the staff. If there is contraband, it will be discovered. The difference is where [the mail is inspected] — in the mail room if there is no control number, or on the housing units if there is a control number. In either event, a proper inspection is conducted. The risk of any dangerous contraband, such as escape tools or drugs, eluding the inspection process is minimal compared to the significant infringement of the inmate's constitutional rights resulting from opening the inmate's mail elsewhere.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. PA Department of Corrections

3. “Mail room staff now must check the control number on the envelope against a master list to verify authenticity — a step that is unnecessary when all legal mail is opened in the inmate's presence. . . . Any cost involved in opening the mail in the inmate's presence is de minimis . . . . [I]t takes fifteen seconds to open a piece of mail, fan through the pages, reinsert it in the envelope and reseal the envelope. There is no reallocation of personnel and financial resources required. Correctional officers are opening mail on housing units now. Hence, there is no real impact on other inmates and staff by accommodating the inmates' First Amendment rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. PA Department of Corrections