## Facts

- At a federal correctional institution in Ashland, Kentucky, prison staff monitored an inmate telephone call in which inmate Arnold Pierce told a female caller to “bring the material” and that he would “have the money.”
- The next morning officers stopped and searched Pierce and found a $5 bill.
- That same morning Susan Paul came to the prison to visit Pierce; she was taken to the warden’s office and strip searched, but no contraband was found on her.
- Later that day, officers monitored another inmate call between inmate Bill Grimes and a woman identified as “Susan,” who said she had been taken to the warden’s office but had “ditched the stuff under the chair,” and staff “didn’t find anything on her.”
- Officers searched the warden’s office and found hashish under a chair.
- Paul and Pierce were charged and convicted of introducing contraband onto federal prison grounds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791.
- Prison regulations posted at the institution provided notice that inmate telephone calls might be monitored for security purposes.
- Defendants moved to suppress testimony about the monitored calls under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act; the district court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III applies to monitoring telephone calls to or from inmates in a federal prison.
2. If Title III applies, whether monitoring performed under prison regulations with notice to inmates violates Title III such that suppression is required.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and the denial of the motion to suppress.
- The court held that inmate telephone calls fall within Title III’s broad coverage of “wire communications.”
- The court concluded that the challenged monitoring did not violate Title III because it fit within statutory exceptions, including consent, where inmates had notice monitoring could occur and nonetheless used the phones.
- The court treated the appeal as purely statutory and noted defendants did not raise a Fourth Amendment claim.

## Legal Principles

- Title III is an independent statutory scheme and is not necessarily coextensive with Fourth Amendment limits on surveillance.
- Prison telephone conversations can be “wire communications” within the meaning of Title III.
- An interception does not violate Title III when one party consents; consent may be implied when an inmate has been notified calls may be monitored and chooses to use the prison telephone system.
- Monitoring carried out under published prison rules for institutional security purposes may fall within Title III’s exceptions, making suppression unavailable.

## Conclusion

Because the prison’s monitoring was conducted under posted regulations that warned inmates their calls might be monitored, the inmates’ use of the phones constituted consent for Title III purposes; therefore, the monitored-call evidence was admissible and the contraband convictions were affirmed.


United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115 (6th Cir. 1980)