UNTIL RECENT YEARS, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THERE WAS NO LAW TO RESTRICT THE SEARCHING OF PRISONERS, AND THAT JAIL OFFICIALS COULD DO AS THEY WISHED. WHILE RESTRICTIONS ARE STILL MINIMAL, AND PRISONERS GENERALLY HAVE NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, SOME OCCURRENCES HAVE PROMPTED THE COURTS TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF OFFICERS AND JAIL OFFICIALS SEARCHING PERSONS IN CUSTODY. THIS MEMORANDUM DISCUSSES PRISONERS AND THEIR CELLS, SEARCHES INCIDENT TO THE INITIAL TAKING INTO CUSTODY, SEARCHES OF VISTORS AND GUARDS, AND RELATED MATTERS SUCH AS EAVESDROPPING ON CONVERSATIONS OF PRISONERS AND TAKING THEIR CONFESSIONS. FOR MOST ISSUES COVERED IN THE PAPER, IT DOES NOT SEEM TO MATTER TO THE COURTS WHETHER A PRISONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED, OR IS ARRESTED AND AWAITING TRIAL. THE MEMORANDUM GENERALLY STATES THE MAXIMUM INTERFERENCE THE COURTS WILL ALLOW AND SUGGESTS THAT SOMETIMES THE BETTER POLICY IS TO GIVE THE INMATE MORE PROTECTION THAN REQUIRED. USING CASE STUDIES AND SUMMARIES OF PERTINENT LAW, THE MEMORANDUM DISCUSSES SEARCHES OF PRISONERS AND THEIR BELONGINGS WHEN FIRST TAKEN INTO CUSTODY; INTENSIVE SEARCHES OF PRISONERS; COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PRISONERS AND OTHERS; CONSENT TO SEARCH GIVEN WHILE IN CUSTODY; CONFESSIONS WHILE IN CUSTODY; AND SEARCHES OF PERSONS OTHER THAN PRISONERS. IT IS NOTED THAT PRISONERS HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, BUT THE COURTS DO LIMIT OFFICIALS WHEN THEIR ACTIONS MIGHT INTERFERE WITH OTHER RIGHTS OF THE PRISONER. (RFC)