The following is the text of a letter acquired by BlackCommentator.com from one of the attorneys representing Rev. Edward Pinkney to L. Paul Bailey, Sheriff of Berrien County Sheriff’s Department in St. Joseph, Michigan. Click here to read background information on the Rev. Pinkney case.

Dear Sheriff Bailey:

This letter concerns the “shakedown” of the cell/block conducted by your officers involving the Reverend Edward Pinkney’s cell on Friday, March 21, 2008. This letter is written as a result of two telephone conferences which I had with Judge Butzbaugh and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Vigansky on March 25, 2008.

At Judge Butzbaugh’s direction, Vigansky apparently consulted with you regarding the claims that you had taken or interfered with Reverend Pinkney’s legal papers during and after the shakedown.

According to Vigansky, you told him that it was a routine shakedown carried out on an rotating basis of the various sections of the jail. You indicated to Vigansky that you found one legal pleading (presumably sent to Pinkney by his attorneys which had a staple in it, which was removed for security purposes).

You further indicated that you found certain notes made by Pinkney during a disqualification hearing before Judge Wiley and, somehow believing them to be
contraband, threatening, violation of probation or otherwise significant, seized them and placed them with Pinkney’s personal belongings. You further copied them and delivered them to Judge Wiley, who subsequently forwarded them to Judge Butzbaugh.

According to our information, you also took legal papers prepared by Kelly Flint, one of Pinkney’s attorneys and notes which Pinkney keeps at my direction of conditions in the jail and his treatment there. All seized papers should be returned. Our position is that the seizure of the papers was arguably in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Regarding the First Amendment, you may believe, as others do, that Pinkney was incarcerated for violation of probation for writing criticisms of the Berrien County criminal justice system, including your department. That is not true. Judge Butzbaugh specifically found on December 20, 2007 that Pinkney’s writing calling the court racist, corrupt and dumb was protected by the First Amendment. What remains is whether or not Pinkney’s specific invocations of biblical prophecies that God will punish those who practice injustice was a threat against Judge Butzbaugh. That issue is pending and unresolved. Consequently, no matter what writings you find in Pinkney’s papers, so long as they do nothing more than express his opinion about the police, courts, judges, jail, etc., even in terms most offensive to you, they are protected expression and cannot be the subject of penalty or confiscation.

Further, under the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures of persons or property, although constitutional rights are diminished during incarceration, they are not completely abrogated.

Under the First and Fourth Amendments, you had a right to look through Pinkney’s papers for contraband, but not to read them for content. To then seize some of them as a result of your belief that they contained improper content was a violation of the Fourth, as well as the First Amendment.

Next, the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. Pinkney is charged with a probation violation relating to his alleged written threats against Judge Butzbaugh or others. His written notes or thoughts during the conduct of court hearings cannot be used against him as evidence of some further violation of probation, which implicates his liberty interest in a criminal (probation violation) hearing.

Your act of copying the notes and delivering them to Judge Wiley, who is at present assigned to hear the probation violation hearing, pending a ruling by Judge Butzbaugh on the disqualification of Judge Wiley or the entire Berrien County criminal court bench is particularly troubling. Pinkney made notes before, during and after our hearing before Judge Wiley specifically at the request and direction of counsel (me). Those communications are privileged and either reading them or seizing them, invades the Sixth Amendment attorney-client privilege and right to counsel.

For you to copy them and send them to Judge Wiley smacks of obstruction of justice and improper unilateral communications with the Court. I am confident that, if you had consulted with Mr. Vigansky, he would have informed you that the papers should be returned to Reverend Pinkney and should under no circumstances be submitted to the Court without his permission.

I do not comment on all of the complaints which have been received regarding your treatment of Reverend Pinkney since December 14, 2007. I only indicate that your actions regarding these papers were facially violative of a number of constitutional rights. You cannot read, search or seize materials relevant to Pinkney’s defense to either the main charges against him or the pending probation violation without violating his right to free speech and access to the courts. It also implicates his right to be free from unreasonable seizures, the prohibition against self-incrimination and his right to counsel.

I request a response from you, the Prosecutor or civilian counsel for the County, and urge you to return the papers and make no further seizures.

(End of letter)

Note: Supporters of Rev. Pinkney have endorsed a petition protesting the stolen Benton Harbor election and Pinkney’s false prosecution.