REDWOOD CITY — San Mateo County has agreed to tweak its internal inmate email system to ensure privileged legal correspondence is protected from the prying eyes of correctional officers, after a group of criminal defense attorneys filed a federal lawsuit, according to court documents.
An agreement was reached earlier this month to settle the claims, with the county admitting no fault or liability for the alleged practice, but nonetheless promising a judge to establish a registry of attorneys to enforce the exclusion of attorney-client privileged communications from jail. review automation.
The lawsuit, filed in September on behalf of attorneys Curtis Briggs, Robert Canny and Matthew Murrillo, stated that the county sheriff’s office had not issued any notice or warning that it had the ability to see private communications between attorneys and inmates.
An initial response from the sheriff’s office stated that the system “clearly and specifically tells all inmates using it that it is not intended to communicate with attorneys. Furthermore, everyone else using it is clearly informed that emails can be monitored and are not private.
While denying any wrongdoing, the county has since reversed course, promising in the settlement agreement that it will “do its utmost to implement a professional registration option in SEM to enable detainees to communicate confidentially with their legal counsel.” ”
SEM refers to SmartInmate Electronic Messaging, a service of Florida-based Smart Communications Holding, Inc. which is contracted to operate the county jail’s messaging system through 2024.
The agreement also includes a mandatory joint public statement from the plaintiffs and defendants noting that the plaintiffs will not pursue legal fees so that “this settlement will not cost the taxpayer any money,” and that the plaintiffs are “grateful for the county’s recognition of the importance and integrity of the attorney-client relationship for prisoners and their counselors.”
Aba Jabagchourian, a lawyer who represented the prosecution, said he was pleased that the justice system moved to a solution so quickly.
“We weren’t there to make money. Our goal was to implement this change immediately,” said Jabagchourian. “They did the right thing, but they should have done it before we had to press charges. But when it became public, it became embarrassing and they gave us what we needed.”
A message left at the sheriff’s office was not immediately returned Friday.
Other grievances that some of the plaintiff’s attorneys — as well as civil rights activists — have with the county’s prison mail system remain unresolved. The smart system was approved and introduced in the province with little public fanfare, which they attribute to the fog of the pandemic.
What remains is a workflow in which personal mail sent to people in San Mateo County jails must first go to a smart communications mailbox in Seminole, Florida, where letters and other paper correspondence are electronically scanned, graded for content, and then entered in the prison system, where it can be viewed with the internal tablets. The actual paper material is shredded after 30 days, but electronic records are retained for at least seven years, according to the county’s contract with the seller.