Cheryl Simpson v. County of Cape Girardeau, 879 F.3d 273

Cape Girardeau County Jail changed its incoming non-privileged mail rule (Jan. 1, 2014) to a postcard-only policy (standard 5"x7" white postcards; stamps removed; ten-postcard cell limit). Policy justified by reducing contraband risk and saving officer time.
Before the change, inmates received multi-page letters with no length limits; plaintiff Cheryl Simpson frequently sent lengthy letters to her son, inmate Trey Simpson.
After the rule, Simpson's communications were limited to postcards, which she says fragmented and exposed private content and sometimes prevented an inmate from keeping more than ten postcards at once.
Simpson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the policy violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; bench trial followed.
District court applied the Turner v. Safley factors, excluded evidence of other institutions’ mail policies as irrelevant, and upheld the postcard-only rule. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of other institutions’ incoming-mail policies was reversible error	Simpson: those policies show ready, low-cost alternatives and are relevant to Turner’s fourth factor	Cape Girardeau: evidence irrelevant, Simpson failed to preserve/prove prejudice, and Rule 403/time-waste grounds	Exclusion, if error, was harmless because Cape Girardeau’s prior policy (admitted) was materially the same and supplied necessary comparison; no prejudice
Whether postcard-only policy violates inmates’/outsiders’ First Amendment rights under Turner	Simpson: policy suppresses expression, alternatives exist, and jail offered insufficient proof of security/efficiency benefits; other feasible alternatives exist at de minimis cost	Cape Girardeau: policy is neutral and rationally related to legitimate penological interests (security, efficiency); alternatives (postcards, visits, phone) remain; reverting to letters would impose more-than-de minimis costs and security risks	Policy upheld: all Turner factors weigh for jail—policy is neutral and rationally related to security/efficiency; alternatives exist; accommodating letters would cause significant ripple effects and more-than-de minimis security costs

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; four-factor test)
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (Turner analysis applies to outsiders; content-neutral security distinctions permissible)
Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (alternatives need not be ideal; deference to prison judgments)
Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979 (institutional security as paramount penological interest)
Murchison v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882 (prison may act to prevent harm that has yet to occur)
Herlein v. Higgins, 172 F.3d 1089 (rational relationship—no requirement of proof that policy will actually further interest)
Ortiz v. Fort Dodge Corr. Facility, 368 F.3d 1024 (visits and phone calls can be adequate alternatives to written letters)