There's a lot to be said for this opinion. But, to be honest, there's probably a lot to be said for the other side as well.
It's a prison drug smuggling case. There are lots of those. Moreover, the facts here probably happen a dozen or more times a day.
Someone send a package to a California inmate using a fake return address. Why the fake return address? Because the package contains drugs. (In this case, Suboxone.) Prison packages all get inspected (duh), and the person sending it clearly knows that, so the drugs are concealed. But prison officials discover the drugs notwithstanding the attempted concealment.
They can't prosecute the person who sent the package because they don't know who it is and really have no way to find out (as long as they, smartly, left no fingerprints or DNA).
So they charge the inmate. Not criminally, but with a rules violation. The guy -- Mr. Banks -- loses 180 days of custody credits, plus loses some privileges.
He files a habeas corpus petition. His position is a fairly straightforward one: I didn't do it.
There you pretty much have it. There's no direct evidence that Banks asked for the narcotics to be sent to him. Pretty much obviously, because (1) we don't know who sent 'em, and (2) Banks says (duh) he didn't do it.
But is the circumstantial evidence enough?
Most people don't unilaterally send drugs to inmates. That's just not really a thing, honestly. It's pretty much honestly a two-way street the overwhelming majority of the time.
But, hey, maybe some people do. At least sometimes. Maybe it's a birthday thing. Maybe they're just being nice. Just because you get something in the mail doesn't necessarily mean you asked for it.
Or, conversely, maybe the sender hates the recipient. Is trying to actively get 'em into trouble. I'm sure that happens at least sometimes.
So what do you think? Is the circumstantial evidence enough?
The Court of Appeal says: Nope. You gotta have more. Just getting drugs addressed to you in prison doesn't mean you were involved.
Which, as I said, in some ways, I understand. It could definitely be the unilateral act of someone who likes (or dislikes) you. That's a definite possibility, so I can see why the Court of Appeal comes out the way it does.
But, in truth, if this is indeed, the law, then man, people are definitely going to start sending a ton more drugs to prison. Because why not? It's easy to use a fake address, and at least sometimes, the officers will not discover the stuff. So you'll 100% get away with it. And if the inmate can't be charged either, it's a total no-brainer. Give it a shot.
Sure, don't be a moron. Don't use your own name. Use a fake return address. Hide the stuff as best you can. Wear gloves. Don't lick the stamp -- use water. And don't be an idiot and talk to the inmate about this on the (recorded) jail house phone. Just do it.
And, presto, the inmate has an immensely valuable jailhouse commodity. Or an easy-ish high himself.
Personally, if the drugs were concealed -- as they were here -- I'd normally find that fairly powerful (albeit circumstantial) evidence that the inmate was in on it. Because if they were successfully hidden from the officers, then unless the inmate was in on it, they'd likely be hidden from the inmate and well, which sort of defeats the purpose of the whole endeavor.
That said, I totally get the flip side as well. If this counts as sufficient evidence, then people should definitely send "hidden" drugs to inmates they hate. Because then the officers will (hopefully) discover them and, boom, add another half-year to the guy's sentence.
It seems to me like both options here have really big downsides. But you're pretty much forced to select one or the other as your controlling legal principle.
Because this kind of thing likely happens, I suspect, a lot. I have little doubt that, most of the time, it's the product of an express or implied agreement involving the inmate.
But not all the time.
So what solution?
It's a toughie.
For now, at least, the answer is: No punishment.
So ship away. Largely with impunity.
