Inmate Postal Services

The purpose of Order 642 is to establish how inmate mail is collected, inspected, delivered, and sent from JSO correctional facilities.

The policy begins by stating that JSO encourages written correspondence between inmates and their family and friends. There is no approved list of correspondents, and there is no limit on the amount of mail an inmate may receive. There is also no limit on outgoing mail when the inmate pays the mailing cost.

Special-management inmates are allowed to send and receive mail on the same basis as inmates in the general population. Indigent inmates may also request writing materials through the commissary process.

Mail is normally delivered each weekday that the United States Postal Service delivers mail. Excluding weekends and holidays, incoming and outgoing letters cannot normally be held for more than 48 hours. Packages cannot normally be held for more than 72 hours.

These provisions generally follow the Florida Model Jail Standards. The standards require inmates to have access to incoming and outgoing mail without unnecessary delay and prohibit approved-correspondent lists or limits on the amount of mail an inmate may send or receive.

Order 642 separates mail into several categories.

General correspondence includes letters, cards, and postcards from family, friends, businesses, and other ordinary correspondents.

Privileged correspondence includes mail from attorneys, courts, news media, and public officials.

The policy also addresses reading materials, absentee ballots, packages, and correspondence between inmates.

Incoming general mail is opened to check for money and physical contraband. Afterwards, the correspondence is electronically scanned and delivered to the inmate through a facility tablet. The physical mail is retained for 14 days and then destroyed.

Mail suspected of containing controlled substances may also be scanned using a drug-detection system. A positive result is not treated as the end of the process. The item must be scanned again individually. Afterwards, the result is documented, a supervisor is notified, the mail is secured, and the Security Unit or Corrections Intelligence Unit takes possession for additional testing. An Incident Report is also required.

Privileged correspondence is handled differently.

The inmate's identity is verified before delivery. The correspondence is opened and inspected in the inmate's presence. The number of pages is counted and disclosed to the inmate.

Afterwards, however, JSO photocopies the contents of the privileged correspondence. The copies are provided to the inmate, and the original correspondence is shredded in the inmate's presence after the inmate verifies that the copies are complete and legible.

The policy also establishes procedures for rejected correspondence.

When JSO refuses incoming or outgoing mail, the reason is placed on the returned item and a Denied Correspondence Report is completed. The inmate receives a copy of the report and another copy is placed in the inmate's institutional file.

Finally, the policy governs outgoing mail. Ordinary outgoing mail may be inspected for security purposes. When the mail is suspected of involving a prohibited act, the inspection occurs in the presence of a supervisor and an Incident Report is completed. Privileged outgoing mail may also be inspected in the inmate's presence before it is sealed.

One strength of Order 642 is that inmate correspondence begins from a relatively open position.

JSO does not require inmates to maintain an approved list of people with whom they may correspond. It also does not establish a general limit on the amount of mail an inmate may receive or send when the inmate can pay the mailing cost.

This follows the Florida Model Jail Standards, which prohibit approved-correspondent lists and volume limits.

The policy also establishes delivery deadlines.

Letters generally cannot be held for more than 48 hours, and packages generally cannot be held for more than 72 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. The policy also directs employees to deliver mail without unnecessary delay.

Special-management inmates retain the same mail rights as inmates in the general population.

This is important because mail can become more important when other forms of contact are restricted.

The drug-detection procedure also contains several useful safeguards.

The scanner may only be operated by trained personnel.

The policy recognizes that overlapping mail can create false-positive results and instructs employees to separate and rescan mail that initially produces a positive result.

Afterwards, the detection is documented. A supervisor is notified. The mail is sealed. Another unit takes possession for further testing. An Incident Report is completed.

Therefore, the first scanner result does not automatically become the final conclusion.

Order 642 also provides stronger protections for privileged correspondence than it provides for ordinary mail.

Privileged mail must be opened in the inmate's presence.

The policy states that only the signature and letterhead may be read for the purpose of determining whether the correspondence qualifies as privileged mail.

That portion of the policy follows the Florida Model Jail Standards. The standards allow privileged mail to be opened in the inmate's presence to verify its status and inspect for contraband, but state that staff cannot read the privileged communication itself.

The Eleventh Circuit has also recognized the importance of opening properly marked attorney mail in the inmate's presence. In Al-Amin v. Smith, the court explained that opening attorney correspondence in the inmate's presence protects confidential communication and reduces the fear that correctional employees are reading the contents.

The mail-denial procedure also contains a useful documentation requirement.

When correspondence is refused, JSO completes a Denied Correspondence Report. The inmate receives a copy, and another copy becomes part of the institutional file.

This creates a record showing that the correspondence was rejected and why.

Finally, more intrusive inspection of outgoing general correspondence requires additional documentation. When outgoing mail is suspected of involving a prohibited act, the mail is opened in the presence of a supervisor and the incident is documented in an Incident Report.

The largest weakness involves privileged correspondence.

Order 642 begins by stating that only the signature and letterhead of incoming privileged mail may be read.

However, the policy then requires the Postal Services Officer or Mail Coordinator to place the contents of the privileged correspondence into a copier and make a copy of the entire mailing.

The inmate receives the copies rather than the original correspondence.

Afterwards, the original is shredded.

The policy does not state that the employee may read the contents while copying them. Therefore, the copying requirement should not be described as proof that JSO employees are reading attorney communications.

However, requiring employees to handle and copy every page creates an additional opportunity for confidential information to be exposed.

It also goes beyond what the Florida Model Jail Standards require.

The standards permit privileged mail to be opened and inspected in the inmate's presence for contraband, but specifically state that staff cannot read the privileged communication.

Federal special-mail rules provide an even clearer comparison. Properly identified special mail may be opened in the inmate's presence and inspected for contraband, but the correspondence may not be read or copied.

Florida's state-prison legal-mail rule also requires incoming legal mail to be opened in the inmate's presence and states that only the signature and letterhead may be read.

Because of this, JSO should explain why photocopying the complete contents of privileged correspondence is necessary when less intrusive inspection methods are available.

Destroying the original correspondence creates a separate problem.

An original legal document can contain signatures, handwriting, seals, markings, or other physical characteristics that may not be fully preserved in a photocopy.

Order 642 does not create a general exception for original legal documents that the inmate may need to preserve.

The policy already recognizes this issue in limited situations. Evidentiary photographs received through privileged correspondence are placed into inmate property instead of being destroyed. Subpoenas are also copied while the original is returned to the inmate.

Therefore, the policy already contains examples where the original document is treated as important.

There is no similar general procedure for other original legal documents.

Another weakness involves the rejection of correspondence.

Order 642 does a good job documenting the original decision. The inmate receives a Denied Correspondence Report and the reason for rejection is recorded.

However, the policy does not establish a procedure for challenging the denial.

The Eleventh Circuit has explained that when correctional officials censor or withhold correspondence, procedural safeguards include notice, a reasonable opportunity for the author to protest the decision, and review by an official other than the person who originally rejected the correspondence.

Order 642 does not contain those additional steps.

A separate JSO grievance policy may provide some or all of them. Because that policy is not currently available for this review, Order 642 alone does not establish whether an inmate or sender has a meaningful way to appeal the decision.

The electronic delivery of ordinary mail also creates a smaller records problem.

The physical correspondence is retained for only 14 days after the electronic copy is delivered.

However, Order 642 does not establish a specific procedure for an inmate to report that a page is missing, unreadable, incomplete, or incorrectly scanned before the original is destroyed.

Therefore, a scanning error may become permanent after the 14-day retention period.

The policy also does not explain what alternative is used when an inmate cannot access the electronic copy because of a disability, tablet malfunction, housing restriction, or another circumstance.

That does not establish that JSO has no alternative delivery method.

It means Order 642 does not identify one.

Mail between inmates is another area where the policy provides broad discretion.

Correspondence from an inmate in a JSO facility or another correctional institution is not accepted unless the facility Security Lieutenant has approved it in advance.

Restrictions on inmate-to-inmate correspondence can serve legitimate security purposes.

However, Order 642 does not explain what criteria the Security Lieutenant should use when deciding whether correspondence will be allowed.

It also does not require a written explanation for approval or denial or establish a review process.

Because of this, two similar requests could receive different results without the policy requiring an explanation for the difference.

The reading-material provision also cannot be completely evaluated from Order 642 alone.

The policy states that only approved reading materials are accepted and refers to Orders 614 and 643 for additional restrictions.

Those orders are not currently available for review.

Therefore, Order 642 does not provide enough information to determine exactly how JSO decides which publications are approved or prohibited.

Finally, outgoing privileged mail may be inspected in the inmate's presence before it is sealed.

The Florida Model Jail Standards permit inspection of privileged outgoing correspondence, but place authorization with the Officer-in-Charge and continue to prohibit reading the communication itself.

Order 642 does not clearly state the same authorization requirement in its outgoing-mail section.

The privileged-mail procedure could be changed so that employees inspect the correspondence for physical contraband in the inmate's presence without photocopying the contents.

After the inspection is complete, the original correspondence could be given directly to the inmate.

This would preserve the original document while reducing the number of times correctional employees handle confidential material.

If JSO believes copying is necessary for a particular security reason, the policy could identify the specific circumstances that justify copying instead of making it the normal procedure for every privileged letter.

The policy could also state clearly that privileged correspondence cannot be read during inspection or copying.

A separate procedure could protect original legal documents.

When the correspondence contains an original signed document, seal, evidentiary item, or another document whose original form may matter, the inmate could be allowed to retain the original or have it securely stored with the inmate's property.

The correspondence-denial process should also include a review procedure.

When mail is refused, the inmate and sender could receive notice explaining the specific reason.

The inmate or sender could then request review within a defined period.

The review should be performed by someone who did not make the original decision.

This would build the protections described by the Eleventh Circuit directly into Order 642 rather than requiring an inmate or sender to determine whether another JSO policy provides them.

The electronic-mail procedure could also include a short quality-control period.

Because JSO already retains the physical correspondence for 14 days, an inmate could be allowed to report that the electronic copy is incomplete, unreadable, or missing pages during that period.

Afterwards, staff could compare the electronic copy with the retained original and correct the problem before the original is destroyed.

The policy could also identify an alternative method of delivery for inmates who cannot reasonably use the tablet system.

For inmate-to-inmate correspondence, the policy could identify the factors the Security Lieutenant should consider.

The decision could be based on identifiable concerns such as escape planning, threats, gang activity, introduction of contraband, witness intimidation, or another documented security risk.

When correspondence is denied, the reason could be written down and subject to the same review process used for other denied mail.

Outgoing privileged-mail inspections could also require documented authorization from the Officer-in-Charge or another identified supervisor.

Finally, Order 642 could cross-reference the exact provisions of Orders 614 and 643 that govern reading materials.

That would make it easier to determine what conduct or material causes a publication to be rejected and how the decision can be challenged.

Order 642 generally recognizes that inmate correspondence should continue during incarceration.

The policy permits broad personal correspondence, establishes delivery deadlines, protects special-management inmates from losing ordinary mail access, and requires documentation when correspondence is denied.

Because of this, the main concern is not that JSO prohibits inmate communication.

The main concern is how the policy handles the communications that require the greatest amount of protection.

Privileged correspondence is supposed to remain confidential.

Order 642 recognizes this by requiring the inmate to be present when the mail is opened and by stating that only the signature and letterhead may be read.

However, the same policy then requires the employee to place every page of the privileged communication into a copier and destroy the original after the copy is delivered.

Therefore, the procedure creates additional handling of the exact material the policy is attempting to protect.

The destruction of the original also means that an inmate may permanently lose the physical document even when the document came from an attorney, court, public official, or another privileged correspondent.

The second concern involves rejected correspondence.

JSO creates a written record of the denial.

That is useful.

However, documentation only tells us that the decision happened.

It does not provide a method for correcting a wrong decision.

Without a defined protest and independent-review procedure in Order 642, an employee can reject correspondence and create the required paperwork while the underlying decision remains incorrect.

This becomes more important when the rejected correspondence involves political speech, criticism of the facility, legal assistance, news media, family contact, or another form of protected communication.

The same general issue appears in inmate-to-inmate correspondence.

The Security Lieutenant has authority to approve or deny the correspondence, but the policy provides little guidance for how that discretion should be exercised or reviewed.

Therefore, the policy contains several places where the original decision is documented but the quality of the decision itself receives less review.

Order 642 is strongest when it establishes a sequence of steps.

The drug-scanner procedure is a good example.

The first result is checked again. The event is documented. A supervisor is notified. Another unit receives the item for additional testing.

A similar structure would improve the portions of the policy dealing with privileged correspondence and denied mail.

The remaining question is not whether JSO has the authority to inspect inmate mail.

It does.

The question is whether the inspection and rejection procedures contain enough safeguards to protect confidential communication and correct a decision when an employee gets it wrong.