U.S. v. Shaw

In prosecution on charge of possession of heroin while in federal prison, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress heroin contained in his pocket, after prison authorities confronted defendant after having received anonymous tip via prison phone hotline. Under Hudson, 468 US 517, defendant’s claim to privacy rights generally cannot be reconciled with concept of incarceration and needs of penal institution, and defendant removed heroin from his pocket pursuant to prison personnel directive before any search had occurred. Moreover, defendant could claim 4^th Amendment violation only if he could show that prison authority’s search involved invasion of his body. Also, defendant was not entitled to learn identity of tipster, where: (1) govt. has limited privilege to shield identity of confidential informant from criminal defendant; (2) there was no indication that tipster had participated in underlying charged offense; and (3) inmate tipsters need anonymity to allay fears of reprisal. Additionally, Dist. Ct. did not hamper defendant’s pro se defense of instant charge by denying defendant’s request for hard copy of responses to his discover requests, even though defendant claimed that he had limited access to prison computer room to view electronic discovery responses, where record showed that defendant had sufficient opportunities to view electronic responses, and where defendant had opportunity to view hard copies of discovery requests at courthouse.