by forwarding Romano’s letter to law enforcement officials. Romano and Rida claim that their reasonable expectations of privacy were violated in contravention of the Fourth Amendment. They do not dispute the fact that Gardner employees had the right to open and read the letter, but simply contend that the act of forwarding a copy of the letter to law enforcement officials violated their reasonable expectations of privacy. Because the initial reading of the letter by Gardner employees was a valid “entry” in constitutional terms, the “plain view” doctrine applies to justify the copying and forwarding of the letter to law enforcement officials. United States v. Baumgarten, 517 F.2d 1020, 1028 (8th Cir.1975). Cf. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (<HOLDING>); State v. Dunn, 478 So.2d 659, 663
holding that society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy holding that prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy and that the fourth amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells holding that individuals have no expectation of privacy in their license registration or insurance documents and citing outofstate cases that have held that individuals do not have a privacy interest in their registration records holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building