Can a search of a person's belongings in jail actually be illegal?

Question

Can a search of a person's belongings in jail actually be illegal? Or is this only the case of privileged individuals?

This question stems from the recent findings in the case of artist P. Diddy. An article at msn.com writes about this as follows:

Diddy, 55, is currently incarcerated at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center while he awaits trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Days after prosecutors claimed in a Friday, November 15, legal motion that Diddy tried to obstruct an investigation by contacting witnesses while in jail, Diddy's lawyers fired back.

"Defense counsel has recently learned that the prosecutors are in possession of attorney client privileged material, including the defendant's own written notes. This search and seizure are in violation of Mr. Combs' Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights," lead attorney Marc Agnifilo argued in a letter submitted on Monday, November 18.

Answer 1

There aren't many privacy protections that are retained while someone is incarcerated, but the attorney-client privilege is one of them. See, e.g., here (responding to federal prison policies that appear to infringe these rights).

Answer 2

united-states The constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and the Eighth Amendment protecting against cruel and unusual punishment, is still in force for prison inmates. That said, the courts resolved the obvious tension between an inmate's constitutional rights and the government's interest in running prisons smoothly and safely very much in favor of the government. A paper by Congress exploring this tension quotes rulings which allowed blanket cell searches without particular reason as well as routine cavity searches of incoming prisoners.

Thus, even though it is still principally in force, the Fourth Amendment in practice offers little to no protection for prison inmates. The most promising recourse against searches of inmates' residence and body is the Eight Amendment. In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), an appeals court held (p. 538):

A court must decide whether the disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate governmental purpose. They cannot be used to inflict additional, unusual or cruel punishment.

Presumably, an example for a violation of the Eighth Amendment would be frequent cell and body searches which were conducted not in order to keep the prison running but in order to keep an inmate from sleeping, only because the prison personnel hate them or think the sentence is too lenient.

---

germany For comparison: The constitution in Germany takes a very different approach to government. In the aftermath of Fascism, human and personal rights (the famous "inviolable dignity") were made the foundation and commitment of all government authority. Consequently, the Constitutional Court found that routine cavity searches without specific reason violate the constitutionally protected rights of the prisoner. While it is a bit embarrassing that it needed the Constitutional Court to stop the Bavarian (the German equivalent to Texas, if you want) administration and lower courts in their authoritarian ways, it is also a reminder of the wisdom and foresight of the "parents" of the West German post-war constitution which continues to structure and restrain government work.