Tuesday, June 23, 2026

Page 1

Pretrial Civil Detainee Has No Right Under First Amendment to Internet Access—C.A.

By a MetNews Staff Writer

A civil detainee at a state hospital who is facing possible commitment based on his sexual proclivities was not stripped of his First Amendment rights by virtue of being denied access to the Internet or use of electronic communications devices, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has held.

Justice Mark W. Snauffer authored the unpublished opinion, filed Friday, upholding §4350 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations which was invoked in denying plaintiff/appellant David Allen’s use of “[e]lectronic devices with the capability to connect to a wired…and/or a wireless…communications network to send and/or receive information.”

The regulation, applying to patients at state hospitals, was promulgated by the Department of State Hospitals (“DSH”). Allen is the subject of proceedings to declare him a as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”).

Appellant’s Argument

Challenging a judgment of dismissal that followed Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Y. Hamilton Jr.’s sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, Allen, in pro per, argued in a supplemental opening brief:

“Appellant alleges that respondents, deprived and continues to deprive appellant of a liberty interest to possess, acquire or use internet capable electronic devices to access the internet to receive information and ideas by requiring him to sign a Computer Access and Thumb Drive Agreement restricting his access to the internet and forbidding access to commercial and social media entirely.”

He continued:

“…Section §4350 outright prohibits appellant access to the internet/computer acquisition, possession or use to access all websites, that includes either a modem, an internet account, a mass storage device, or a writable, rewriteable CD rom…appellant has a First Amendment right to be able to email, blog, and discuss the issues of the day on the internet. To search for a job, or banking the internet is nearly essential….”

Allen, contended:

“This ban is as patently unconstitutional as a ban on a bookstore or library, since providing access to the internet or intranet is an expressive activity related to the provision of communication services and information.”

Snauffer’s Opinion

In his opinion affirming the judgment, Snauffer scoffed:

“We are unaware of any court that has found that an SVP has a First Amendment right to possess and use electronic devices or access the internet.”

He added that even if such a First Amendment right exists, in the abstract, “there is a reasonable connection” between banning electronic communications devices “and a legitimate government interest in ensuring the security of the public and the facility.”

The justice noted that aside from preventing the flow of child pornography into the state facilities, DSH has explained in updating the regulation that a ban is necessary because Internet access could provide “aerial views of DSH facilities, communication with victims” and “communication to create additional victims,” creating “danger for the public, the staff, and patients.”

Fourth Amendment

Allen also argued that implementation of the ban violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches because his electronic devices were confiscated and the content was viewed. Snauffer noted that Allen was given a choice between having the content looked at, with the prospect of the devices being forwarded to persons outside the hospital, or being destroyed without a search.

Because Allen “could have chosen destruction without a search” but didn’t, “the pleaded facts do not establish that his consent was coerced or that the hospital compelled a search,” the jurist wrote.

A substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment was also viewed as meritless. Snauffer said some SVPs at the hospital in Coalinga where Allen is confined “have used personally possessed electronic devices to access and share child pornography or engage in other illicit activities such as contraband trafficking,” remarking that the facility “has a legitimate interest in preventing such illicit activity.”

He declared that ban under §4350 “is reasonably related” to a “legitimate interest in curbing the institutional problem of patients using such devices to access and share child pornography and engage in other illegal activities.”

The case is Allen v. State of California, F089260.