Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-40166-RWZ
March 31, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Keith Phillips, a participant in the Department of Corrections sex offender program at the Massachusetts Treatment Center, alleges that his cell was unlawfully searched, a manuscript was seized, and he was transferred to Old Colony Correctional Center. On November 26, 2001, he filed a Complaint against various defendants in connection with this incident, which he subsequently amended. Count Three of his Amended Complaint contends that defendants Rick Potter and Roger Anyon, who were state prisoners employed by prison officer Tod Baptista, searched his cell in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and his rights under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Defendants Anyon and Potter filed their Answers to the Complaint with Counterclaims and Request for Dismissal of the Claims, which this Court will treat as Motions to Dismiss. In response, plaintiff filed a "Reply and Motion To Dismiss Defendants' Counter-claim."
Plaintiff cannot maintain his claims under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that "society is not prepared to recognize as legitimate any subjective expectation of privacy that a prisoner might have in his prison cell and that, accordingly, the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell." Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525-526, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3200 (1984).
Moreover, the facts do not suggest that the search in this case violated the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Nothing in the Complaint suggests that the search was anything but routine or that defendant was singled out for special treatment. Furthermore, "[i]n determining whether a search in a prison setting is reasonable or unreasonable we are enjoined to accord substantial deference to the judgment of the prison authorities as to what is necessary to preserve internal order and discipline." Commonwealth v. McCollins, 503 N.E.2d 55, 57 (Mass.App.Ct. 1987) (prisoner did not have a legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker because he gave the key to a fellow prisoner). Although "there may be instances in which art. 14 of the Declaration of Rights will call for greater protection of individual rights than that which is afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution[,]" the present case comes nowhere near the circumstances in the two cases cited by the McCollins court. Id. See Commonwealth v. Upton, 476 N.E.2d 548, 556 (Mass. 1985) (concluding "that art. 14 provides more substantive protection to criminal defendants than does the Fourth Amendment in the determination of probable cause."); Commonwealth v. Ford, 476 N.E.2d 560, 564-565 (Mass. 1985) (holding "that art. 14 of the [Massachusetts] Declaration of Rights requires the exclusion of evidence seized during a storage search not conducted pursuant to standard police procedures."). Therefore, plaintiff's article 14 claims also fail.
Defendants Anyon and Potter each filed counterclaims in the amount of $35 on the ground that plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous and is an abuse of process. Because these contentions are meritless, plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the counterclaims is allowed.
Accordingly, defendants Anyon and Potter's Motions to Dismiss are ALLOWED and plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss defendants' counterclaims is ALLOWED.