State v. Justice

Court of Appeals of Washington

State v. Justice

629 P.2d 454, 29 Wash. App. 460, 1981 Wash. App. LEXIS 2397

CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington

DecidedMay 26, 1981

DocketNo. 4006-2-III

StatusPublished

This text of 629 P.2d 454 (State v. Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Justice, 629 P.2d 454, 29 Wash. App. 460, 1981 Wash. App. LEXIS 2397 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Munson, J.

Defendant Douglas Justice appeals his conviction for being a prisoner in possession of a weapon.

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress a knife found in a Kleenex box during a routine search of defendant's cell at the Washington State Penitentiary.

The reasonableness of a routine prison search, i.e., one conducted without probable cause or even a suspicion, must be determined by balancing the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 560, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (1979). In State v. Baker, 28 Wn. App. 423, 623 P.2d 1172 (1981), this court held that a routine patdown for weapons conducted within a state penitentiary is reasonable because the security interest of the institution outweighs the minimal intrusion into the inmate's privacy. That rule applies with equal force to an [461]*461inmate's cell. See Olson v. Klecker, 642 F.2d 1115 (8th Cir. 1981).

Judgment affirmed.

Roe, A.C.J., and Green, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Munson, J.

Defendant Douglas Justice appeals his conviction for being a prisoner in possession of a weapon.

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress a knife found in a Kleenex box during a routine search of defendant's cell at the Washington State Penitentiary.

The reasonableness of a routine prison search, i.e., one conducted without probable cause or even a suspicion, must be determined by balancing the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 560, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (1979). In State v. Baker, 28 Wn. App. 423, 623 P.2d 1172 (1981), this court held that a routine patdown for weapons conducted within a state penitentiary is reasonable because the security interest of the institution outweighs the minimal intrusion into the inmate's privacy. That rule applies with equal force to an [461]*461inmate's cell. See Olson v. Klecker, 642 F.2d 1115 (8th Cir. 1981).

Judgment affirmed.

Roe, A.C.J., and Green, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

629 P.2d 454, 29 Wash. App. 460, 1981 Wash. App. LEXIS 2397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-justice-washctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack