Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 438 › Houchins v. KQED, Inc.
The First Amendment does not provide a right of access to the media to interview certain prisoners that goes beyond the general public right of access to a county jail.
KQED reported news related to prisons and jails in the San Francisco area through its television and radio stations. During its report on the suicide of a prisoner in the Santa Rita jail, it included statements by a psychiatrist there that prisoners were suffering because of the conditions in the facility. As a result, KQED sought permission from County Sheriff Houchins to enter the facility for inspection and photographing. It appealed his denial on First Amendment grounds.
The First Amendment does not provide the media with automatic access to all information within the government's control. There are other ways to bring the public's attention to problems in prisons, such as by publishing letters from inmates, interviewing lawyers for prisoners, or seeking interviews from former inmates, visitors, public officials, and staff.
If restrictions on access lack a sufficient justification for impeding the effective reporting of the news, they may be unreasonable with regard to journalists who are trying to convey information that individual visitors can see. The media outlet should have received a preliminary injunction.
Other facilities have granted access to the same media outlet for inspection and photographing. This has not disrupted their ability to function properly. The First Amendment requires the government to refrain from undermining the free flow of information, which requires access by the press in situations like these.
The Court relied on pointing out that the press had other, less intrusive ways to cover the story and present the information that the public needed to receive. Transmitting information to the public does not require unlimited access, and courts should not be placed in the position of overruling the legislature in granting this access.
After respondent broadcasting company, KQED, had been refused permission to inspect and take photographs at a portion (Little Greystone) of a county jail where a prisoner's suicide reportedly had occurred and where conditions were assertedly responsible for prisoners' problems, respondents brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioner, who supervised the jail, claiming deprivation of their First Amendment rights. Thereafter petitioner announced a program of regular monthly tours open to the public, including media reporters, of parts of the jail (but not including Little Greystone). Cameras or tape recorders were not allowed on the tours, nor were interviews with inmates. Persons, including members of the media, who knew a prisoner at the jail could visit him. The District Court preliminarily enjoined petitioner from denying KQED news personnel and responsible news media representatives reasonable access to the jail, including Little Greystone, and from preventing their using photographic or sound equipment or from conducting inmate interviews. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded. Pp. 438 U. S. 8-16; 438 U. S. 16-19.
546 F.2d 284, reversed and remanded.
or sources of information within the government's control. The news media have no constitutional right of access to the county jail, over and above that of other persons, to interview inmates and make sound recordings, films, and photographs for publication and broadcasting by newspapers, radio, and television. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817; Saxbe v. Washington Post 417 U. S. 843. Pp. 438 U. S. 8-16.
(a) The public importance of conditions in penal facilities and the media's role of providing information afford no basis for reading into the Constitution a right of the public or the media to enter those institutions, gather information, and take pictures for broadcast purposes. The First Amendment does not guarantee a right of access to sources of information within government control. Grosjean v. American Press, 297 U. S. 233, Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, and other cases relied upon by respondents, concerned the freedom of the press to communicate information already obtained, but neither Grosjean nor Mills indicated that the Constitution compels the government to provide the press with information. Pp. 438 U. S. 8-12.
(b) Whether the government should open penal institutions in the manner sought by respondents is a matter for legislative, not judicial, resolution. Pp. 438 U. S. 12-16.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, while agreeing that the Constitution does no more than assure the public and the press equal access to information generated or controlled by the government once the government has opened its doors, concluded that terms of access that are reasonably imposed on individual members of the public may -- if they impede effective reporting without sufficient justification -- be unreasonable as applied to journalists who are at a jail to convey to the general public what the visitors see. KQED was thus clearly entitled to some preliminary relief from the District Court, but not to an order requiring petitioner to permit reporters into the Little Greystone facility and requiring him to let them interview randomly encountered inmates. In those respects, the injunction gave the press access to areas and sources of information from which persons on the public tours had been excluded, thus enlarging the scope of what had been opened to public view. Pp. 438 U. S. 16-19.
BURGER, C.J., announced the Court's judgment and delivered an opinion, in which WHITE and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 438 U. S. 16. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 438 U. S. 19. MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joined.
The question presented is whether the news media have a constitutional right of access to a county jail, over and above that of other persons, to interview inmates and make sound recordings, films, and photographs for publication and broadcasting by newspapers, radio, and television.
Petitioner Houchins, as Sheriff of Alameda County, Cal., controls all access to the Alameda County Jail at Santa Rita. Respondent KQED operates licensed television and radio broadcasting stations which have frequently reported newsworthy events relating to penal institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area. On March 31, 1975, KQED reported the suicide of a prisoner in the Greystone portion of the Santa Rita jail. The report included a statement by a psychiatrist that the conditions at the Greystone facility were responsible for the illnesses of his patient-prisoners there, and a statement from petitioner denying that prison conditions were responsible for the prisoners' illnesses.
(NAACP) filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that petitioner had violated the First Amendment by refusing to permit media access and failing to provide any effective means by which the public could be informed of conditions prevailing in the Greystone facility or learn of the prisoners' grievances. Public access to such information was essential, they asserted, in order for NAACP members to participate in the public debate on jail conditions in Alameda County. They further asserted that television coverage of the conditions in the cells and facilities was the most effective way of informing the public of prison conditions.
"excluding KQED news personnel from the Greystone cells and Santa Rita facilities and generally preventing full and accurate news coverage of the conditions prevailing therein."
On June 17, 1975, when the complaint was filed, there appears to have been no formal policy regarding public access to the Santa Rita jail. However, according to petitioner, he had been in the process of planning a program of regular monthly tours since he took office six months earlier. On July 8, 1975, he announced the program and invited all interested persons to make arrangements for the regular public tours. News media were given notice in advance of the public, and presumably could have made early reservations.
Six monthly tours were planned and funded by the county, at an estimated cost of $1,800. The first six scheduled tours were filled within a week after the July 8 announcement. [Footnote 1] A KQED reporter and several other reporters were on the first tour on July 14, 1975.
Greystone," the scene of alleged rapes, beatings, and adverse physical conditions. Photographs of some parts of the jail were made available, but no cameras or tape recorders were allowed on the tours. Those on the tours were not permitted to interview inmates, and inmates were generally removed from view.
In support of the request for a preliminary injunction, respondents presented testimony and affidavits stating that other penal complexes had permitted media interviews of inmates and substantial media access without experiencing significant security or administrative problems. They contended that the monthly public tours at Santa Rita failed to provide adequate access to the jail for two reasons: (a) once the scheduled tours had been filled, media representatives who had not signed up for them had no access, and were unable to cover newsworthy events at the jail; (b) the prohibition on photography and tape recordings, the exclusion of portions of the jail from the tours, and the practice of keeping inmates generally removed from view substantially reduced the usefulness of the tours to the media.
In response, petitioner admitted that Santa Rita had never experimented with permitting media access beyond that already allowed; he did not claim that disruption had been caused by media access to other institutions. He asserted, however, that unregulated access by the media would infringe inmate privacy, [Footnote 2] and tend to create "jail celebrities," who, in turn, tend to generate internal problems and undermine jail security. He also contended that unscheduled media tours would disrupt jail operations.
Petitioner filed an affidavit noting the various means by which information concerning the jail could reach the public. Attached to the affidavit were the current prison mail, visitation, and phone call regulations. The regulations allowed inmates to send an unlimited number of letters to judges, attorneys, elected officials, the Attorney General, petitioner, jail officials, or probation officers, all of which could be sealed prior to mailing. Other letters were subject to inspection for contraband, but the regulations provided that no inmate mail would be read.
With few exceptions, [Footnote 3] all persons, including representatives of the media, who knew a prisoner could visit him. Media reporters could interview inmates awaiting trial with the consent of the inmate, his attorney, the district attorney, and the court. Social services officers were permitted to contact "relatives, community agencies, employers, etc.," by phone to assist in counseling inmates with vocational, educational, or personal problems. Maximum security inmates were free to make unmonitored collect telephone calls from designated areas of the jail without limit.
"from preventing KQED news personnel and responsible representatives of the news media from utilizing photographic and sound equipment or from utilizing inmate interviews in providing full and accurate coverage of the Santa Rita facilities. "
"demonstrated irreparable injury, absence of an adequate remedy at law, probability of success on the merits, a favorable public interest, and a balance of hardships"
On interlocutory appeal from the District Court's order, petitioner invoked Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, 417 U. S. 834 (1974), where this Court held that "newsmen have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded to the general public." He contended that the District Court had departed from Pell and abused its discretion because it had ordered that he give the media greater access to the jail than he gave to the general public. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's argument that Pell and Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843 (1974), were controlling. It concluded, albeit in three separate opinions, [Footnote 4] that the public and the media had a First and Fourteenth Amendment right of access to prisons and jails, and sustained the District Court's order.
government-controlled sources of information. This right, they contend, compels access as a constitutional matter. Respondents suggest further support for this implicit First Amendment right in the language of Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 297 U. S. 250 (1936), and Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 384 U. S. 219 (1966), which notes the importance of an informed public as a safeguard against "misgovernment" and the crucial role of the media in providing information. Respondents contend that public access to penal institutions is necessary to prevent officials from concealing prison conditions from the voters and impairing the public's right to discuss and criticize the prison system and its administration.
We can agree with many of the respondents' generalized assertions; conditions in jails and prisons are clearly matters "of great public importance." Pell v. Procunier, supra at 417 U. S. 830 n. 7. Penal facilities are public institutions which require large amounts of public funds, and their mission is crucial in our criminal justice system. Each person placed in prison becomes, in effect, a ward of the state for whom society assumes broad responsibility. It is equally true that, with greater information, the public can more intelligently form opinions about prison conditions. Beyond question, the role of the media is important; acting as the "eyes and ears" of the public, they can be a powerful and constructive force, contributing to remedial action in the conduct of public business. They have served that function since the beginning of the Republic, but, like all other components of our society, media representatives are subject to limits.
functions, each complementing -- and sometimes conflicting with -- the other.
The public importance of conditions in penal facilities and the media's role of providing information afford no basis for reading into the Constitution a right of the public or the media to enter these institutions, with camera equipment, and take moving and still pictures of inmates for broadcast purposes. This Court has never intimated a First Amendment guarantee of a right of access to all sources of information within government control. Nor does the rationale of the decisions upon which respondents rely lead to the implication of such a right.
In discussing the importance of an "untrammeled press," the Court in Grosjean readily acknowledged the need for "informed public opinion" as a restraint upon misgovernment. 297 U.S. at 297 U. S. 250. It also criticized the tax at issue because it limited "the circulation of information to which the public [was] entitled." Ibid. But nothing in the Court's holding implied a special privilege of access to information as distinguished from a right to publish information which has been obtained; Grosjean dealt only with government attempts to burden and restrain a newspaper's communication with the public. The reference to a public entitlement to information meant no more than that the government cannot restrain communication of whatever information the media acquire -- and which they elect to reveal. Cf. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829, 435 U. S. 838 (1978).
"as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by governmental officials and as a constitutionally chosen means for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all the people whom they were selected to serve."
Id. at 384 U. S. 219. As in Grosjean, however, the Court did not remotely imply a constitutional right guaranteeing anyone access to government information beyond that open to the public generally.
confidence would violate the First Amendment by deterring news sources from communicating information. Id. at 408 U. S. 680. There is an undoubted right to gather news "from any source by means within the law," id. at 408 U. S. 681-682, but that affords no basis for the claim that the First Amendment compels others -- private persons or government to supply information.
"the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally,"
"[n]ewsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded,"
id. at 408 U. S. 684-685.
Pell v. Procunier and Saxbe v. Washington Post Co. also assumed that there is no constitutional right of access such as the Court of Appeals conceived. In those cases, the Court declared, explicitly and without reservation, that the media have "no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public," Pell, 417 U.S. at 417 U. S. 834; Saxbe, 417 U.S. at 417 U. S. 850, and, on that premise, the Court sustained prison regulations that prevented media interviews with inmates.
"[T]here are few restrictions on action which could not be clothed by ingenious argument in the garb of decreased data flow. For example, the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen's opportunities to gather information he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country is being run, but that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information."
The right to receive ideas and information is not the issue in this case. See, e.g., Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748 (1976); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. at 416 U. S. 408-409; Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 408 U. S. 762-763 (1972). The issue is a claimed special privilege of access which the Court rejected in Pell and Saxbe, a right which is not essential to guarantee the freedom to communicate or publish.
The respondents' argument is flawed not only because it lacks precedential support and is contrary to statements in this Court's opinions, but also because it invites the Court to involve itself in what is clearly a legislative task which the Constitution has left to the political processes. Whether the government should open penal institutions in the manner sought by respondents is a question of policy which a legislative body might appropriately resolve one way or the other.
who volunteered or received commissions to visit penal institutions and make reports. See T. Eriksson, The Reformers 32-42, 69 (Djurklou translation 1976); W. Crawford, Report on the Penitentiaries of the United States vii-viii, xiii-xv, 111, App. 9 (1969 ed.); B. McKelvey, American Prisons 52-56, 193 (1936). Citizen task forces and prison visitation committees continue to play an important role in keeping the public informed on deficiencies of prison systems and need for reforms. [Footnote 6] Grand juries, with the potent subpoena power -- not available to the media -- traditionally concern themselves with conditions in public institutions; a prosecutor or judge may initiate similar inquiries, and the legislative power embraces an arsenal of weapons for inquiry relating to tax-supported institutions. In each case, these public bodies are generally compelled to publish their findings and, if they default, the power of the media is always available to generate public pressure for disclosure. But the choice as to the most effective and appropriate method is a policy decision to be resolved by legislative decision. [Footnote 7] We must not confuse what is "good," "desirable," or "expedient" with what is constitutionally commanded by the First Amendment. To do so is to trivialize constitutional adjudication.
best qualified persons for the task of discovering malfeasance in public institutions. But that assumption finds no support in the decisions of this Court or the First Amendment. Editors and newsmen who inspect a jail may decide to publish or not to publish what information they acquire. Cf. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 412 U. S. 124 (1973); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); Note, The Rights of the Public and the Press To Gather Information, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1505, 1508, 1513 (1974). Public bodies and public officers, on the other hand, may be coerced by public opinion to disclose what they might prefer to conceal. No comparable pressures are available to anyone to compel publication by the media of what they might prefer not to make known.
There is no discernible basis for a constitutional duty to disclose, or for standards governing disclosure of or access to information. Because the Constitution affords no guidelines, absent statutory standards, hundreds of judges would, under the Court of Appeals' approach, be at large to fashion ad hoc standards, in individual cases, according to their own ideas of what seems "desirable" or "expedient." We, therefore, reject the Court of Appeals' conclusory assertion that the public and the media have a First Amendment right to government information regarding the conditions of jails and their inmates and presumably all other public facilities such as hospitals and mental institutions.
"There is no constitutional right to have access to particular government information, or to require openness from the bureaucracy. [Citing Pell v. Procunier, supra.] The public's interest in knowing about its government is protected by the guarantee of a Free Press, but the protection is indirect. The Constitution itself is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act."
at least in some instances, through carefully drawn legislation. For the rest, we must rely, as so often in our system we must, on the tug and pull of the political forces in American society."
Stewart, "Or of the Press," 26 Hastings L.J. 631, 636 (1975).
Petitioner cannot prevent respondents from learning about jail conditions in a variety of ways, albeit not as conveniently as they might prefer. Respondents have a First Amendment right to receive letters from inmates criticizing jail officials and reporting on conditions. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. at 416 U. S. 413-418. Respondents are free to interview those who render the legal assistance to which inmates are entitled. See id. at 416 U. S. 419. They are also free to seek out former inmates, visitors to the prison, public officials, and institutional personnel, as they sought out the complaining psychiatrist here.
Moreover, California statutes currently provide for a prison Board of Corrections that has the authority to inspect jails and prisons and must provide a public report at regular intervals. Cal.Penal Code Ann. §§ 6031-6031.2 (West Supp. 1978). Health inspectors are required to inspect prisons and provide reports to a number of officials, including the State Attorney General and the Board of Corrections. Cal.Health & Safety Code Ann. § 459 (West 1970). Fire officials are also required to inspect prisons. 15 Cal.Admin. Code § 1025 (1976). Following the reports of the suicide at the jail involved here, the County Board of Supervisors called for a report from the County Administrator; held a public hearing on the report, which was open to the media; and called for further reports when the initial report failed to describe the conditions in the cells in the Greystone portion of the jail.
Post Co., supra, until the political branches decree otherwise, as they are free to do, the media have no special right of access to the Alameda County Jail different from or greater than that accorded the public generally.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
According to petitioner, the initial public interest in the tours has now subsided, and there is no longer a waiting list.
It is true that inmates lose many rights when they are lawfully confined, but they do not lose all civil rights. See, e.g., Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 555-556 (1974), and cases cited therein. Inmates in jails, prisons, or mental institutions retain certain fundamental rights of privacy; they are not like animals in a zoo, to be filmed and photographed at will by the public or by media reporters, however "educational" the process may be for others.
Persons who were on parole or had been released from a state prison could not visit without the approval of the commanding officer. Persons released from the Santa Rita or the courthouse jail within a certain period of time were also required to obtain approval to visit from the commanding officer.
See 546 F.2d 284 (CA9 1976).
The Court relied upon Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 283 U. S. 713-716 (1931). More recently, in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415 (1971), these concepts were reaffirmed. See also Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539 (1976); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974).
See, e.g., Behind the Bars, ABA Report of Young Lawyers Section on Prison Visitation Program 1970-1975; Case, Citizen Participation: An Experiment in Prison-Community Relations, 30 Federal Probation 18, 19-21 (Dec.1966); Final Report of the Ohio Citizens' Task Force on Corrections A28 (1071); Report of the Illinois Subcommittee on Penal Institutions of the Legislative Comm'n To Visit and Examine State Institutions (1969); Massachusetts, Governor's Task Force on Correctional Industries, Final Report (Sept.1970); California Correctional System Study, Final Report, California Board of Corrections (July 1971).
The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1976 ed.), for example, is the result of legislative decisions.
I agree that the preliminary injunction issued against the petitioner was unwarranted, and therefore concur in the judgment. In my view, however, KQED was entitled to injunctive relief of more limited scope.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not guarantee the public a right of access to information generated or controlled by government, nor do they guarantee the press any basic right of access superior to that of the public generally. The Constitution does no more than assure the public and the press equal access once government has opened its doors. * Accordingly, I agree substantially with what the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE has to say on that score.
We part company, however, in applying these abstractions to the facts of this case. Whereas he appears to view "equal access" as meaning access that is identical in all respects, I believe that the concept of equal access must be accorded more flexibility in order to accommodate the practical distinctions between the press and the general public.
Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 381 U. S. 539. See Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 384 U. S. 219; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 297 U. S. 250.
That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively. A person touring Santa Rita jail can grasp its reality with his own eyes and ears. But if a television reporter is to convey the jail's sights and sounds to those who cannot personally visit the place, he must use cameras and sound equipment. In short, terms of access that are reasonably imposed on individual members of the public may, if they impede effective reporting without sufficient justification, be unreasonable as applied to journalists who are there to convey to the general public what the visitors see.
by allowing.reporters to sign up for tours on the same terms as the public. I think he was mistaken in this assumption, as a matter of constitutional law.
The District Court found that the press required access to the jail on a more flexible and frequent basis than scheduled monthly tours if it was to keep the public informed. By leaving the "specific methods of implementing such a policy . . . [to] Sheriff Houchins," the court concluded that the press could be allowed access to the jail "at reasonable times and hours" without causing undue disruption. The District Court also found that the media required cameras and recording equipment for effective presentation to the viewing public of the conditions at the jail seen by individual visitors, and that their use could be kept consistent with institutional needs. These elements of the court's order were both sanctioned by the Constitution and amply supported by the record.
In two respects, however, the District Court's preliminary injunction was overbroad. It ordered the Sheriff to permit reporters into the Little Greystone facility and it required him to let them interview randomly encountered inmates. In both these respects, the injunction gave the press access to areas and sources of information from which persons on the public tours had been excluded, and thus enlarged the scope of what the Sheriff and Supervisors had opened to public view. The District Court erred in concluding that the First and Fourteenth Amendments compelled this broader access for the press.
equitably the constitutional role of the press and the institutional requirements of the jail.
* Forces and factors other than the Constitution must determine what government-held data are to be made available to the public. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, 403 U. S. 728-730 (concurring opinion).
The Court holds that the scope of press access to the Santa Rita jail required by the preliminary injunction issued against petitioner is inconsistent with the holding in Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, 417 U. S. 834, that "newsmen have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public," and therefore the injunction was an abuse of the District Court's discretion. I respectfully disagree.
Respondent KQED, Inc., has televised a number of programs about prison conditions and prison inmates, and its reporters have been granted access to various correctional facilities in the San Francisco Bay area, including San Quentin State Prison, Soledad Prison, and the San Francisco County Jails at San Bruno and San Francisco, to prepare program material. They have taken their cameras and recording equipment inside the walls of those institutions and interviewed inmates. No disturbances or other problems have occurred on those occasions.
"shocking and debasing conditions which prevailed [at Santa Rita] constituted cruel and unusual punishment for man or beast as a matter of law. [Footnote 2/1]"
in the Greystone facility were responsible for illnesses of inmates. [Footnote 2/2] Petitioner's disagreement with that conclusion was reported on the same newscast.
KQED requested permission to visit and photograph the area of the jail where the suicide occurred. Petitioner refused, advising KQED that it was his policy not to permit any access to the jail by the news media. This policy was also invoked by petitioner to deny subsequent requests for access to the jail in order to cover news stories about conditions and alleged incidents within the facility. [Footnote 2/3] Except for a carefully supervised tour in 1972, the news media were completely excluded from the inner portions of the Santa Rita jail until after this action was commenced. [Footnote 2/4] Moreover, the prison rules provided that all outgoing mail, except letters to judges and lawyers, would be inspected; the rules also prohibited any mention in outgoing correspondence of the names or actions of any correctional officers.
"from excluding KQED news personnel from the Greystone cells and Santa Rita facilities and generally preventing full and accurate news coverage of the conditions prevailing therein."
and the photographs which the county offered for sale to tour visitors omitted certain jail characteristics, such as catwalks above the cells from which guards can observe the inmates. [Footnote 2/10] The tours provided no opportunity to question randomly encountered inmates about jail conditions. Indeed, to the extent possible, inmates were kept out of sight during the tour, preventing the tour visitors from obtaining a realistic picture of the conditions of confinement within the jail. In addition, the fixed scheduling of the tours prevented coverage of newsworthy events at the jail.
"from denying KQED news personnel and responsible representatives of the news media access to the Santa Rita facilities, including Greystone, at reasonable times and hours,"
"from utilizing photographic and sound equipment or from utilizing inmate interviews in providing full and accurate coverage of the Santa Rita facilities."
The court, however, recognized that petitioner should determine the specific means of implementing the order and, in any event, should retain the right to deny access when jail tensions or other special circumstances require exclusion.
case, the Court of Appeals and the District Court were wrong, and the injunction was an abuse of discretion. If, on the other hand, the holding in Pell is to be viewed as impliedly limited to the situation where there already existed substantial press and public access to the prison, then Pell and Saxbe are not necessarily dispositive, and review by this Court of the propriety of the injunction, in light of those cases, would be appropriate, although not necessary."
For two reasons, which will be discussed separately, the decisions in Pell and Saxbe do not control the propriety of the District Court's preliminary injunction. First, the unconstitutionality of petitioner's policies which gave rise to this litigation does not rest on the premise that the press has a greater right of access to information regarding prison conditions than do other members of the public. Second, relief tailored to the needs of the press may properly be awarded to a representative of the press which is successful in proving that it has been harmed by a constitutional violation and need not await the grant of relief to members of the general public who may also have been injured by petitioner's unconstitutional access policy, but have not yet sought to vindicate their rights.
This litigation grew out of petitioner's refusal to allow representatives of the press access to the inner portions of the Santa Rita facility. Following those refusals and the institution of this suit, certain remedial action was taken by petitioner. The mail censorship was relaxed, and an experimental tour program was initiated. As a preliminary matter, therefore, it is necessary to consider the relevance of the actions after March 31, 1975, to the question whether a constitutional violation had occurred.
even if there .would not have been any constitutional violation had the access policies adopted by petitioner following commencement of this litigation been in effect all along, it was appropriate for the District Court to decide whether the restrictive rules in effect when KQED first requested access were constitutional.
constitutional scrutiny. [Footnote 2/15] Indeed, Pell itself strongly suggests the contrary.
that the Court considered the constitutionality of the single restraint on access challenged in Pell.
their constitutional claim is inseparable from the question whether petitioner's policies unduly restricted the opportunities of the general public to learn about the conditions of confinement in Santa Rita jail. As in Pell, in assessing its adequacy, the total access of the public and the press must be considered.
Here, the broad restraints on access to information regarding operation of the jail that prevailed on the date this suit was instituted are plainly disclosed by the record. The public and the press had consistently been denied any access to those portions of the Santa Rita facility where inmates were confined, and there had been excessive censorship of inmate correspondence. Petitioner's no-access policy, modified only in the wake of respondents' resort to the courts, could survive constitutional scrutiny only if the Constitution affords no protection to the public's right to be informed about conditions within those public institutions where some of its members are confined because they have been charged with or found guilty of criminal offenses.
Thus, in Procunier v. Martinez, supra, the Court invalidated prison regulations authorizing excessive censorship of outgoing inmate correspondence because such censorship abridged the rights of the intended recipients. See also Morales v. Schmidt, 489 F.2d 1335, 1346 n. 8 (CA7 1973). So here, petitioner's prelitigation prohibition on mentioning the conduct of jail officers in outgoing correspondence must be considered an impingement on the noninmate correspondent's interest in receiving the intended communication.
or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
For that reason, information gathering is entitled to some measure of constitutional protection. See, e.g., Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 681; Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. at 417 U. S. 833. [Footnote 2/23] As this Court's decisions clearly indicate, however, this protection is not for the private benefit of those who might qualify as representatives of the "press," but to insure that the citizens are fully informed regarding matters of public interest and importance.
"to the heart of the natural right of the members of an organized society, united for their common good, to impart and acquire information about their common interests."
"[I]n the adoption of the [taxes,] the dominant and controlling aim was to prevent, or curtail the opportunity for, the acquisition of knowledge by the people in respect of their governmental affairs. . . . The aim of the struggle [against those taxes] was . . . to establish and preserve the right of the English people to full information in respect of the doings or misdoings of their government. Upon the correctness of this conclusion the very characterization of the exactions as 'taxes on knowledge' sheds a flood of corroborative light. In the ultimate, an informed and enlightened public opinion was the thing at stake."
Id. at 297 U. S. 247.
"[S]ince informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern. The tax here involved is bad . . . because, in light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device . . . to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties."
Id. at 297 U. S. 250.
have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public." Pell v. Procunier, supra at 417 U. S. 834. In Pell, it was unnecessary to consider the extent of the public's right of access to information regarding the prison and its inmates in order to adjudicate the press claim to a particular form of access, since the record demonstrated that the flow of information to the public, both directly and through the press, was adequate to survive constitutional challenge; institutional considerations justified denying the single, additional mode of access sought by the press in that case.
Here, in contrast, the restrictions on access to the inner portions of the Santa Rita jail that existed on the date this litigation commenced concealed from the general public the conditions of confinement within the facility. The question is whether petitioner's policies, which cut off the flow of information at its source, abridged the public's right to be informed about those conditions.
our own conferences, [and] the meetings of other official bodies gathered in executive session. . . ." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. at 408 U. S. 684; Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. at 417 U. S. 834. [Footnote 2/26] In addition, some functions of government -- essential to the protection of the public and indeed our country's vital interests -- necessarily require a large measure of secrecy, subject to appropriate legislative oversight. [Footnote 2/27] In such situations, the reasons for withholding information from the public are both apparent and legitimate.
"[r]espondents do not assert a right to force disclosure of confidential information or to invade in any way the decisionmaking processes of governmental officials. [Footnote 2/28]"
in ensuring that unconvicted citizens are treated in accord with their status.
The preliminary injunction entered by the District Court granted relief to KQED without providing any specific remedy for other members of the public. Moreover, it imposed duties on petitioner that may not be required by the Constitution itself. The injunction was not an abuse of discretion for either of these reasons.
Nor is there anything novel about injunctive relief which goes beyond a mere prohibition against repetition of previous unlawful conduct. In situations which are both numerous and varied, the chancellor has required a wrongdoer to take affirmative steps to eliminate the effects of a violation of law even though the law itself imposes no duty to take the remedial action decreed by the court. [Footnote 2/37] It follows that, if prison regulations and policies have unconstitutionally suppressed information and interfered with communication in violation of the First Amendment, the District Court has the power to require, at least temporarily, that the channels of communication be opened more widely than the law would otherwise require in order to let relevant facts, which may have been concealed, come to light. Whether or not final relief along the lines of that preliminarily awarded in this case would be "aptly tailored to remedy the consequences of the constitutional violation," Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267, 433 U. S. 287, it is perfectly clear that the court had power to enter an injunction which was broader than a mere prohibition against illegal conduct.
The Court of Appeals found no reason to question the specific preliminary relief ordered by the District Court. Nor is it appropriate for this Court to review the scope of the order. [Footnote 2/38] The order was preliminary in character, and would have been subject to revision before the litigation reached a final conclusion.
See Brenneman v. Madigan, 343 F.Supp. 128, 132-133 (ND Cal.1972). Based on a personal visit to the facility, Judge Zirpoli reached tho "inescapable conclusion . . . that Greystone should be razed to the ground."
The psychiatrist was discharged after the telecast.
Access was denied, for example, to cover stories of alleged gang rapes and poor physical conditions within the jail, Tr. 208, and of recent escapes from the jail, id. at 135-136.
A previous sheriff had conducted one "press tour" in 1972, attended by reporters and cameramen. But the facility had been "freshly scrubbed" for the tour, and the reporters were forbidden to ask any questions of the inmates they encountered, App. 16-17.
"special concern with conditions at . . . Santa Rita, because the prisoner population at the jail is disproportionately black [and the members of the NAACP] depend on the public media to keep them informed of such conditions so that they can meaningfully participate in the current public debate on jail conditions in Alameda County."
Complaint, 3. Since no special relief was requested by or granted to the NAACP, the parties have focused on the claim of KQED.
"opinion, based on my education and experience in law enforcement and jail administration, that such programs make an important contribution to public understanding of jails and jail conditions. In my opinion, jails are public institutions, and the public has a right to know what is being done with their tax dollars being spent on jail facilities and programs."
In contrast to the floodgate concerns expressed by petitioner, the Information Officer at San Quentin testified that, after the liberalization of access rules at that institution, media requests to enter the facility actually declined. Tr. 152. This testimony may suggest that the mere existence of inflexible access barriers generates a concern that conditions within the closed institution require especially close scrutiny.
The tour did not include Little Greystone, which was the subject of reports of beatings, rapes, and poor conditions, or the disciplinary cells.
There were also no photos of the women's cells, of the "safety cell," of the "disciplinary cells," or of the interior of Little Greystone. In addition, the photograph of the dayroom omits the television monitor that maintains continuous observation of the inmates and the open urinals.
"Sheriff Houchins admitted that, because Santa Rita has never experimented with a more liberal press policy than that presently in existence, there is no record of press disturbances. Furthermore, the Sheriff has no recollection of hearing of any disruption caused by the media at other penal institutions. Nevertheless Sheriff Houchins stated that he feared that invasion of inmates' privacy, creation of jail 'celebrities,' and threats to jail security would result from a more liberal press policy. While such fears are not groundless, convincing testimony was offered that such fears can be substantially allayed."
"As to the inmates' privacy, the media representatives commonly obtain written consent from those inmates who are interviewed and/or photographed, and coverage of inmates is never provided without their full agreement. As to pretrial detainees who could be harmed by pretrial publicity, consent can be obtained not only from such inmates, but also from their counsel. Jail 'celebrities' are not likely to emerge as a result of a random interview policy. Regarding jail security, any cameras and equipment brought into the jail can be searched. While Sheriff Houchins expressed concern that photographs of electronic locking devices could be enlarged and studied in order to facilitate escape plans, he admitted that the inmates themselves can study and sketch the locking devices. Most importantly, there was substantial testimony to the effect that ground rules laid down by jail administrators, such as a ban on photographs of security devices, are consistently respected by the media."
"Thus, upon reviewing the evidence concerning the present media policy at Santa Rita, the Court finds the plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable injury, absence of an adequate remedy at law, probability of success on the merits, a favorable public interest, and a balance of hardships which must be struck in plaintiffs' favor."
Moreover, along with the power to decide the merits, the court's power to grant injunctive relief survives the discontinuance of illegal conduct.
"It is the duty of the courts to beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform, especially when abandonment seems timed to anticipate suit, and there is probability of resumption."
United States v. Oregon Medical Soc., 343 U. S. 326, 343 U. S. 333. When the District Court issued the preliminary injunction, there was no assurance that the experimental public tours would continue beyond the next month. Thus, it would certainly have been reasonable for the court to assume that, absent injunctive relief, the access to the inner portions of the Santa Rita facility would soon be reduced to its prelitigation level.
Thus, when this suit was filed, there existed no opportunity for outsiders to observe the living conditions of the inmates at Santa Rita. And the mail regulations prohibited statements about the character of the treatment of prisoners by correctional officers.
I cannot agree with petitioner that the inmates' visitation and telephone privileges were reasonable alternative means of informing the public at large about conditions within Santa Rita. Neither offered an opportunity to observe those conditions. Even if a member of the general public or a representative of the press were fortunate enough to obtain the name of an inmate to visit, access to the facility would not have included the inmate's place of confinement. The jail regulations do not indicate that an inmate in the minimum security portion of the jail may enlist the aid of Social Service officers to telephone the press or members of the general public to complain of the conditions of confinement. App. 38. Even if a maximum security inmate may make collect telephone calls, it is unlikely that a member of the general public or representative of the press would accept the charges, especially without prior knowledge of the call's communicative purpose.
Although sentenced prisoners may not be interviewed under any circumstances, pretrial detainees may, according to petitioner, be interviewed with the consent of the inmate, defense counsel, and prosecutor, and with an order from the court. Not only would such an interview take place outside the confines of the jail, but the requirement of a court order makes this a patently inadequate means of keeping the public informed about the jail and its inmates.
Finally, petitioner suggests his willingness to provide the press with information regarding the release of prisoners which, according to petitioner, would permit interviews of former prisoners regarding the conditions of their recent confinement. This informal offer was apparently only made in response to respondents' lawsuit. Moreover, it too fails to afford the public any opportunity to observe the conditions of confinement.
Hence, the means available at the time this suit was instituted for informing the general public about conditions in the Santa Rita jail were, as a practical matter, nonexistent.
"The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information."
"We do not question the significance of free speech, press, or assembly to the country's welfare. Nor is it suggested that news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection; without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated."
Both statements imply that there is a right to acquire knowledge that derives protection from the First Amendment. See id. at 408 U. S. 728 n. 4 (STEWART, J., dissenting).
"The Department of Corrections regularly conducts public tours through the prisons for the benefit of interested citizens. In addition, newsmen are permitted to visit both the maximum security and minimum security sections of the institutions and to stop and speak about any subject to any inmates whom they might encounter. If security considerations permit, corrections personnel will step aside to permit such interviews to be confidential. Apart from general access to all parts of the institutions, newsmen are also permitted to enter the prisons to interview inmates selected at random by the corrections officials. By the same token, if a newsman wishes to write a story on a particular prison program, he is permitted to sit in on group meetings and to interview the inmate participants."
417 U.S. at 417 U. S. 830.
"The constitutional guarantee of a free press "assures the maintenance of our political system and an open society," Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 385 U. S. 389 (1967), and secures "the paramount public interest in a free flow of information to the people concerning public officials," Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 379 U. S. 77 (1964). See also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964). By the same token, "[a]ny system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.'" New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, 403 U. S. 714 (1971); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415 (1971); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 372 U. S. 70 (1963); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). Correlatively, the First and Fourteenth Amendments also protect the right of the public to receive such information and ideas as are published. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762-763; Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 394 U. S. 564 (1969)."
"In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972), the Court went further and acknowledged that 'news gathering is not without its First Amendment protections,' id. at 408 U. S. 707, for 'without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated,' id. at 408 U. S. 681."
Id. at 417 U. S. 832-833.
See, e.g., Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 425 U. S. 764-765; Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 379 U. S. 77; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 376 U. S. 266-270; Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 326 U. S. 20; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 297 U. S. 250. See also Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 726 n. 2 (STEWART, J., dissenting).
See also Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301; Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 395 U. S. 390; Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 394 U. S. 564; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141; Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501.
"What is at stake here is the societal function of the First Amendment in preserving free public discussion of governmental affairs. No aspect of that constitutional guarantee is more rightly treasured than its protection of the ability of our people, through free and open debate, to consider and resolve their own destiny. . . . It embodies our Nation's commitment to popular self-determination and our abiding faith that the surest course for developing sound national policy lies in a free exchange of views on public issues. And public debate must not only be unfettered; it must also be informed. For that reason, this Court has repeatedly stated that First Amendment concerns encompass the receipt of information and ideas, as well as the right of free expression."
Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843, 417 U. S. 862-863 (POWELL, J., dissenting).
"Just so far as . . . the citizens who who are to decide an issue are denied acquaintance with information or opinion or doubt or disbelief or criticism which is relevant to that issue, just so far the result must be ill-considered, ill-balanced planning, for the general good. It is that mutilation of the thinking process of the community against which the First Amendment to the constitution is directed."
"the protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from . . . abridgement those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful. . . . The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers."
Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. at 381 U. S. 308 (BRENNAN, J., concurring). It would be an even more barren marketplace that had willing buyers and sellers and no meaningful information to exchange.
"No less important to the news dissemination process is the gathering of information. News must not be unnecessarily cut off at its source, for without freedom to acquire information, the right to publish would be impermissibly compromised. Accordingly, a right to gather news, of some dimensions, must exist."
Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., supra at 417 U. S. 864 (POWELL, J., dissenting) .
"There is nothing novel about governmental confidentiality. The meetings of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were conducted in complete privacy. 1 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. xi-xxv (1911). Moreover, all records of those meetings were sealed for more than 30 years after the Convention. See 3 Stat. 475, 15th Cong., 1st Sess., Res. 8 (1818). Most of the Framers acknowledged that, without secrecy, no constitution of the kind that was developed could have been written. C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 134-139 (1937)."
"'(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.'"
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S. 677, 356 U. S. 681-682, n. 6, quoting United States v. Rose, 215 F.2d 617, 628-629 (CA3 1959).
"the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests, to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."
418 U.S. at 418 U. S. 705.
Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. at 417 U. S. 861 (POWELL, J., dissenting) .
The Court in Saxbe noted that "prisons are institutions where public access is generally limited.'" Id. at 417 U. S. 849 (citation omitted). This truism reflects the fact that there are legitimate penological interests served by regulating access, e.g., security and confinement. But concealing prison conditions from the public is not one of those legitimate objectives. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U. S. 589, decided this Term, does not suggest a contrary conclusion. The effect of the Court's decision in that case was to limit the access by the electronic media to the Nixon tapes to that enjoyed by the press and the public at the time of the trial. That case presented "no question of a truncated flow of information to the public." Id. at 435 U. S. 609.
"The administration of these institutions, the effectiveness of their rehabilitative programs, the conditions of confinement that they maintain, and the experiences of the individuals incarcerated therein are all matters of legitimate societal interest and concern."
Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., supra at 417 U. S. 861 (POWELL, J., dissenting).
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. . . ."
"The right to a public trial is not only to protect the accused, but to protect as much the public's right to know what goes on when men's lives and liberty are at stake. . . ."
"The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power."
In fact, conditions within the Greystone portion of the Santa Rita facility had been found to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Brenneman v. Madigan, 343 F.Supp. at 132-133. The public's interest in ensuring that these conditions have been remedied is apparent. For, in final analysis, it is the citizens who bear responsibility for the treatment accorded those confined within penal institutions.
"Incarceration after conviction is imposed to punish, to deter, and to rehabilitate the convict. . . . Some freedom to accomplish these ends must, of necessity, be afforded prison personnel. Conversely, where incarceration is imposed prior to conviction, deterrence, punishment, and retribution are not legitimate functions of the incarcerating officials. Their role is but a temporary holding operation, and their necessary freedom of action is concomitantly diminished. . . . Punitive measures in such a context are out of harmony with the presumption of innocence."
Anderson v. Nosser, 438 F.2d 183, 190 (CA5 1971).
When fundamental freedoms of citizens have been at stake, the Court has recognized that an abridgment of those freedoms may follow from a wide variety of governmental policies. See, e.g., American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233.
Moreover, the relief granted to KQED will redound to the benefit of members of the public interested in obtaining information about conditions in the Santa Rita jail. The press may have no greater constitutional right to information about prisons than that possessed by the general public. But when the press does acquire information and disseminate it to the public, it performs an important societal function.
"In seeking out the news, the press therefore acts as an agent of the public at large. It is the means by which the people receive that free flow of information and ideas essential to intelligent self-government. By enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process, the press performs a crucial function in effecting the societal purpose of the First Amendment."
Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. at 417 U. S. 863-864 (POWELL, J., dissenting). See also Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. at 408 U. S. 726-727 (STEWART, J., dissenting) .
In the context of fashioning a remedy for a violation of rights protected by the First Amendment, consideration of the role of the press in our society is appropriate.
For an extensive discussion of this practice in the context of desegregation decrees, see the Court's opinion last Term in Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267.
It should be noted, however, that the District Court was presented with substantial evidence indicating that the use of cameras and interviews with randomly selected inmates neither jeopardized security nor threatened legitimate penological interests in other prisons where such access was permitted. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 416 U. S. 414 n. 14.


text:
These General Terms and Conditions of Contracts hereinafter referred to as “GTC” apply to all forwarding, transport, sale and delivery contracts concluded by SKL PLUS Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością with registered office in Poznań (61-608) at ul. Błażeja 70E, REGON 301067675, NIP 9721195168, entered into the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register under number 0000334391, whose registration documents are in the District Court Poznań – Nowe Miasto and Wilda, VIII Business Division of the National Court Register, hereinafter referred to as “SKL”, as a forwarder, carrier, vendor, or supplier.
The GTC constitute a standard contract formulated and applied by SKL in the understanding of art. 384 § 1 of the Civil Code.
The GTC constitute an integral part of the contract concluded by SKL, regardless of the contents of documents confirming the conclusion of the contract, and in particular bills of lading, transport orders and other commercial documents prepared in writing, as a document or electronic document.
The contractual provisions, individually agreed and confirmed in a written, documentary or electronic form, shall take precedence over the provisions of the GTC in the scope in which they contain regulations different from those of the GTC.
The GTC are applicable if the other party to the contract, hereinafter referred to as “the other Party”, is a business person within the meaning of the Civil Code.
The GTC are posted on the SKL website and are made available at the moment of executing a contract.
The GTC in the electronic form are attached to commercial correspondence conducted by means of electronic mail (e-mail) as a PDF file.
The GTC exclude the use of other standard contracts, in particular those used by the other Party.
Information regarding services and products offered by SKL presented in catalogs, price lists, folders, press materials, as well as posted on the SKL website is only of advertising nature, it does not constitute an offer within the meaning of the Civil Code and does not form a part of any executed contract.
The date of payment of the amount due by the other Party to SKL is 14 days, unless a longer payment period is indicated on the invoice issued by SKL.
Filing a complaint does not release the other Party from the obligation to make payments to SKL in due time.
In case of late payment by the other Party, SKL shall be entitled to the maximum interest for delay established in accordance with Article. 481 §21 of the Civil Code.
SKL and the other Party are obliged to keep confidential all information that they learned in connection with the execution and performance of the contract regarding its conditions. The maintenance of confidentiality does not apply to the obligation to disclose information required by the mandatory provisions of the law or necessary for the performance of the contract. The obligation of secrecy also lasts after the end of the contract and is not limited in time.
The contract is concluded in Polish. The Polish language is the basis for interpretation of the contract regardless of the country of residence or origin of the other Party.
In the case of concluding an agreement with the other Party being a natural person, SKL as the controller will process personal data of that person pursuant to art. 6 par. 1 points b, c and f of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016, on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation), in particular to the extent necessary to perform the contract, process complaints, assert claims, and meet tax obligations.
Common courts of the Republic of Poland will be competent in all matters arising from the contract concluded by SKL with the other Party. Conclusion of a contract with GTC as its integral part is tantamount to the conclusion of the agreement on choosing jurisdiction referred to in art. 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
The obligations arising from the contract concluded by SKL with the other Party are governed by the Polish law. Conclusion of a contract with GTC as its integral part is tantamount to the conclusion of a contract regarding the choice of law within the meaning of art. 3 of the Regulation of the European Parliament and Council (EC) of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
The provisions of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, drawn up in Vienna on 11 April 1980 (Journal of Laws of 1997 No. 45 item 286), do not apply to the contract concluded by SKL with the other Party.
All disputes arising from the contract concluded by SKL with the other Party shall be settled by common courts locally competent for SKL.
Any changes and additions to the contract concluded by SKL with the other Party shall require the form in which the contract was concluded, under pain of nullity.
External damage to the packaging should be reported in the presence of a courier or driver on their form.
Internal damage resulting from delivery can be reported in writing to the Customer Service Desk by 16:00 hrs of the business day following the date of receipt.
In both cases, a photograph of the damage should be taken and delivered to the Customer Service Desk.
A failure to comply with the above-mentioned principles in this point 21 releases SKL from its liability for damages resulting from transport.

matches:
art. 384
§ 1
§21
art. 6
art. 25
art. 3


text:
ALMEIDA, FERNANDA; SERIBELLI, AMANDA APARECIDA; CAZENTINI MEDEIROS, MARTA INES; RODRIGUES, DALIA DOS PRAZERES; DE MELLOVARANI, ALESSANDRO; LUO, YAN; ALLARD, MARC W.; FALCAO, JULIANA PFRIMER. Phylogenetic and antimicrobial resistance gene analysis of Salmonella Typhimurium strains isolated in Brazil by whole genome sequencing. PLoS One, v. 13, n. 8 AUG 13 2018. Citações Web of Science: 1.
CAMPIONI, FABIO; CAO, GUOJIE; KASTANIS, GEORGE; LEON, MARIA SANCHEZ; MORATO BERGAMINI, ALZIRA MARIA; RODRIGUES, DALIA DOS PRAZERES; ALLARD, MARC WILLIAM; FALCAO, JULIANA PFRIMER. Draft Genome Sequences of 256 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Serovar Enteritidis Strains Isolated from Humans, Food, Chickens, and Farm Environments in Brazil. MICROBIOLOGY RESOURCE ANNOUNCEMENTS, v. 5, n. 28 JUL 2017. Citações Web of Science: 1.
FRAZAO, MILIANE R.; ANDRADE, LEONARDO N.; DARINI, ANA L. C.; FALCAO, JULIANA P. Antimicrobial resistance and plasmid replicons in Yersinia enterocolitica strains isolated in Brazil in 30 years. Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, v. 21, n. 4, p. 477-480, JUL-AUG 2017. Citações Web of Science: 6.
IMORI, PRISCILLA F. M.; PASSAGLIA, JAQUELINE; SOUZA, ROBERTO A.; ROCHA, LENALDO B.; FALCAO, JULIANA P. Virulence-related genes, adhesion and invasion of some Yersinia enterocolitica-like strains suggests its pathogenic potential. Microbial Pathogenesis, v. 104, p. 72-77, MAR 2017. Citações Web of Science: 1.
ALMEIDA, FERNANDA; MEDEIROS, MARTA INES CAZENTINI; RODRIGUES, DALIA DOS PRAZERES; ALLARD, MARC W.; FALCAO, JULIANA PFRIMER. Molecular characterization of Salmonella Typhimurium isolated in Brazil by CRISPR-MVLST. Journal of Microbiological Methods, v. 133, p. 55-61, FEB 2017. Citações Web of Science: 12.
ALMEIDA, FERNANDA; CAZENTINI MEDEIROS, MARTA INES; RODRIGUES, DALIA PRAZERES; PAYNE, JUSTIN; TIMME, RUTH E.; ALLARD, MARC W.; FALCAO, JULIANA PFRIMER. Draft Genome Sequences of 40 Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium Strains Isolated from Humans and Food in Brazil. MICROBIOLOGY RESOURCE ANNOUNCEMENTS, v. 4, n. 5 SEP-OCT 2016. Citações Web of Science: 2.
ALMEIDA, F.; MEDEIROS, M. I. C.; KICH, J. D.; FALCAO, J. P. Virulence-associated genes, antimicrobial resistance and molecular typing of Salmonella Typhimurium strains isolated from swine from 2000 to 2012 in Brazil. Journal of Applied Microbiology, v. 120, n. 6, p. 1677-1690, JUN 2016. Citações Web of Science: 13.
ALMEIDA, FERNANDA; CAZENTINI MEDEIROS, MARTA INES; RODRIGUES, DALIA DOS PRAZERES; FALCAO, JULIANA PFRIMER. Genotypic diversity, pathogenic potential and the resistance profile of Salmonella Typhimurium strains isolated from humans and food from 1983 to 2013 in Brazil. Journal of Medical Microbiology, v. 64, n. 11, p. 1395-1407, NOV 2015. Citações Web of Science: 9.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
In a semiconductor package which includes a plurality of semiconductor chips of different kinds, some of the chips are bonded to die bonding pad by means of a conductive adhesive, while the other chips are bonded by means of a non-conductive adhesive that contains highly insulating beads. Encapsulation of the package is by a molding compound. A nitride film or an organic insulating film is disposed on a back side of the chips bonded by the non-conductive adhesive to improve the withstand voltage between these chips and the die pad.
5182628 January 1993 Izawa et al.
5349240 September 1994 Narita et al.
5389817 February 1995 Imamura et al.
5497033 March 1996 Fillion et al.
5629566 May 1997 Doi et al.
5756207 May 1998 Clough et al.
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Bushnell, Esq.; Robert E.
This application makes reference to, incorporates the same herein, and claims all benefits accruing under 35 U.S.C. .sctn.119 from two applications both entitled STRUCTURE OF A SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE, both filed in the Korean Industrial Property Office on the 20th day of August 1996 and there duly assigned Ser. Nos. 34490/1996 and 34491/1996, copies of which applications are annexed hereto.
e) said insulating adhesive comprising a plurality of insulating beads having a predetermined diameter to improve the withstand voltage between said at least one second semiconductor chip and said die pad by controlling the thickness of said insulating adhesive.
2. The semiconductor package of claim 1, the composition of alkaline elements in the insulating beads being less than 5%.
3. The semiconductor package of claim 1, said plurality of insulating beads comprising boron silicate glass.
4. The semiconductor package of claim 2, said plurality of insulating beads comprising boron silicate glass.
5. The semiconductor package of claim 1, said at least one first semiconductor chip comprising a MOSFET.
6. The semiconductor package of claim 1, said insulating adhesive comprising an epoxy resin adhesive.
d) a nitride film disposed on a back side of said at least one second semiconductor chip to improve the withstand voltage between said at least one second semiconductor chip and said die pad.
8. The semiconductor package of claim 7, the thickness of said film being 2.about.5 .mu.m.
9. The semiconductor package of claim 7, said insulating adhesive comprising an epoxy resin adhesive.
10. The semiconductor package of claim 8, said insulating adhesive comprising an epoxy resin adhesive.
e) said insulating adhesive comprising a plurality of insulating beads having a predetermined diameter to improve the withstand voltage between said at least one said semiconductor chip and said die pad by controlling the thickness of said insulating adhesive.
12. The semiconductor package of claim 11, said plurality of insulating beads comprising boron silicate glass.
13. The semiconductor package of claim 11, said plurality of insulating beads comprising pure SiO.sub.2.
14. The semiconductor package of claim 11, the composition of alkaline elements in said plurality of insulating beads being less than 5%.
15. The semiconductor package of claim 11, said organic film comprising a benzo-cyclo-butene film.
The present invention relates to a structure of semiconductor package, and more particularly, relates to a semiconductor package which includes a plurality of semiconductor chips of different kinds. In the package, some of the chips are bonded to die bonding pad by means of a conductive adhesive, while other chips are bonded by means of a non-conductive adhesive that contains highly insulating beads. Encapsulation of the package is by a molding compound.
Nowadays, a trend in the electronic production is to produce smaller and lighter products. In order to meet the trend, manufacturers are continuously making a progress on producing electronic components with high packaging density. A switching mode power supply (SMPS) is one of the examples of such a development. This method involves combining a semiconductor IC (integrated circuit), which consumes a large amount of electricity and produces much heat, and a control IC together. For instance, a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET), which is used as a power transistor, and its control IC are combined into one encapsulated package.
First of all, in order to accomplish the task, a switching element and the control IC should be designed to be able to communicate with each other inside the package through wire bonding. Secondly, it should be designed to enable the functions of peripheral components to be combined into the control IC. Finally it should also be designed such that both the switching element and the control IC are included in one package.
Especially, in the development of a package, in order to avoid a short-circuit between the control IC and the switching element, such as a MOSFET drain, an insulating adhesive should be used.
In such a package as mentioned above, a control IC and a power IC, which has a MOSFET or a bipolar IC structure, are located on a pad of a lead frame. Since the back side of the power IC is used as a drain, the power IC is bonded to the die pad by means of an electrically conductive medium, such as a solder adhesive. On the other hand, since the control IC needs to be electrically separated from the die pad, an insulating resin adhesive must be used for die bonding. When the power IC, such as a MOSFET, is in operation, a voltage of about 800 V flows into the drain and the die pad which is electrically connected to the power IC. In order to sustain the insulation between the die pad and the control IC under such a high voltage, a highly insulation adhesive is required. Due to the importance of the insulation considerable effort has been made to improve the withstand voltage of the insulating adhesive.
Inner leads, the power IC, and the control IC are interconnected by wire bonding, which is followed by molding and trimming processes to complete the package.
Generally, a conventional method to improve a withstand voltage is to control the thickness of the insulating adhesive layer. A semiconductor die according to U.S. Pat. No. 5,012,322 to Raul A. Guillotte et al., issued Apr. 30, 1991 , uses such a conventional method.
A silicon die is bonded to a metal supporting substrate. Insulating resin layers are formed on the backside of silicon die, which is bonded to the metal substrate by means of an epoxy adhesive. The silicon die is a silicon integrated circuit comprised of a plurality of semiconductor devices formed on the major surface of die. One of these devices is a standard double diffused NPN transistor formed in one of the N-type epitaxial pockets.
Another semiconductor chip is also provided. This chip may be a discrete power transistor. A bottom face thereof is used as a boundary of a collector of the transistor. A layer of solder bonds the die to the substrate.
The insulating resin layers are formed by coating one or more dielectric resins successively on the back face of the die. This is accomplished by pouring liquid resin on the horizontally held wafer and spinning the wafer to render the film uniformly thin.
According to Guillotte et al., a withstand voltage can be improved up to 200 V or more by adding a number of insulating resin layers. However, although the withstand voltage is proportional to the thickness of the insulating resin layers, in reality, the thickness of the layers has its limit in forming process.
In order to form the insulating resin layer according to above mentioned method, liquid resin is spin-coated on the wafer. The spin coating of liquid resin on the back side of wafer needs some extra attention and caution to prevent such problem as resin dripping during the coating process. In addition, since controlling the insulating layer thickness precisely is becomes difficult, controlling the range of withstand voltage also becomes difficult. As a result, the reliability of semiconductor chip becomes unpredictable. For example, when trying to form an insulating resin layer having 1.0 mil thickness, the actual margin for error is 1.0 .+-.0.5 mil. As a result, the withstand voltage may range from 500 V to 3000 V.
In case of the MOSFET as mentioned above, when the voltage reaches 800 V, there is a possibility of an insulation breakdown which doesn't occur frequently, but the fact it can happen, raises a serious doubt as to its reliability. In other words, in terms of the reliability of the semiconductor chip, even if an insulation breakdown only occurs rarely, the fact that it can happen, raises a serious doubt as to its reliability. Only when there is no insulation breakdown at 800 V and under any exterior circumstances, is a semiconductor chip considered to be reliable.
While the following patents each disclose features in common with the present invention, they do not teach or suggest a semiconductor package utilizing insulation beads added to an insulating adhesive and an insulation film of nitride or an organic substance as is in the present invention: U.S. Pat. No. 5,539,218 to Takahama et al., entitled Semiconductor Device And Resin For Sealing A Semiconductor Device, U.S. Pat. No. 5,526,867 to Keck et al., entitled Methods Of Forming Electronic Packages, U.S. Pat. No. 5,483,106 to Echigo et al., entitled Semiconductor Device For Sensing Strain On A Substrate, U.S. Pat. No. 5,480,957 to Muroi et al., entitled Spherical Curing Agent For Epoxy Resin, Curing Agent Masterbatch For Epoxy Resin And Their Preparation, U.S. Pat. No. 5,434,357 to Belcher et al., entitled Reduced Semiconductor Size Package, U.S. Pat. No. 5,293,511 to Poradish et al., entitled Package For A Semiconductor Device, U.S. Pat. No. 5,252,888 to Topel et al., entitled Lamp Capsule Support Base, U.S. Pat. No. 5,159,750 to Dutta et al., entitled Method Of Connecting An IC component With Another Electrical Component, U.S. Pat. No. 5,113,241 to Yanagida et al., entitled Semiconductor Device Mounted Upon An Insulating adhesive With Silicon Dioxide And Nickel Chromium Steel Filling Particles, U.S. Pat. No. 5,008,734 to Dutta et al., entitled Stadium-Stepped Package For An Integrated Circuit With Air Dielectric, U.S. Pat. No. 5,001,542 to Tsukagoshi et al., entitled Composition For Circuit Connection, Method For Connection Using The Same, And Connected Structure Of Semiconductor Ships, U.S. Pat. No. 4,940,623 to Bosna et al., entitled Printed Circuit Board And Method Using Thermal Spray Techniques, U.S. Pat. No. 4,888,634 to Lai et al., entitled High Thermal Resistance Bonding Material And Semiconductor Structures Using Same, U.S. Pat. No. 4,092,487 to Imai, entitled Resin-Sealed Electrical Device, U.S. Pat. No. 3,670,097 to Jones, entitled Stereoscopic Television System And Apparatus, U.S. Pat. No. 3,568,012 to Ernst, entitled A Microminiature Circuit Device Employing A Low Thermal Expansion Binder, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,293,519 to Knappenberger et al., entitled METHOD FOR POTTING AND ENCAPSULATING ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS.
An object of the present invention is to provide a semiconductor package in which the thickness of insulating adhesive layer can be easily controlled. Another object of the present invention is to provide a low cost semiconductor package which has a high withstand voltage and a good reliability.
According to the first embodiment of the invention, the package includes at least one semiconductor chip, which is attached to a die pad by means of a conductive adhesive, and the inner leads which are connected to the semiconductor chips by bonding wires. In the present invention, insulating beads of a predetermined size are added to the insulating adhesive in order to gain an expected withstand voltage between chips and the die pad. Ideally, the insulation beads should have a small amount of alkaline element or no alkaline element. Specifically, the ideal amount of alkaline element is less than 5%. The beads can be made of pure silica, boron silicate glass, or soda lime glass, etc.
According to another embodiment of the present invention, the package comprises: at least one semiconductor chip and a die pad which is attached to a die pad by means of conductive adhesive; at least one semiconductor chip which should be electrically insulated from the die pad by using insulating adhesive; and the inner leads which are connected to the semiconductor chips by bonding wires. Insulation beads having predetermined sizes are added to the insulating adhesive in order to gain a uniform withstand voltage between the chip and the die pad. In addition, the back side of the chip which needs an insulation includes a nitrified film or benzo-cyclo-butene (BCB) film. The ideal thickness of the film is 2.about.5 .mu.m.
FIG. 1 is a plane view of a semiconductor package that has two types of IC.
FIG. 2 is a crosssectional view of a conventional semiconductor package.
FIG. 3 is a view of semiconductor package according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
FIGS. 4 and 5 are views of semiconductor packages according to other preferred embodiments of the present invention.
FIG. 1 is a plan view of a semiconductor package having two types of IC as discussed in the Description of the Related Art above.
In FIG. 1, a control IC 2 and a power IC 1 are located on a pad 5 of a lead frame. The power IC 2 is bonded to the die pad 5 by an electrically conductive medium such as a solder adhesive 4 while the control IC is bonded to the die pad by an insulating resin adhesive 3. Inner leads 7, the power IC 2, and the control IC 1 are interconnected by wire bonding which is followed by molding and trimming processes to complete the process.
FIG. 2 is a view of a semiconductor die according to U.S. Pat. No. 5,012,322, discussed in detail above.
In FIG. 2, a silicon die 10 is bonded to the metal supporting substrate 12 and insulating resin layers 14, 15, and 16 are formed on the back side of the silicon die 10 which is bonded to the metal substrate 12 by means of an epoxy adhesive 20. The silicon die 10 is a silicon integrated circuit formed on the major surface 22 of the die 10. The semiconductor devices comprising the silicon integrated circuit is a standard double diffused transistor formed in one of the N-type epitaxial pockets 28.
Another semiconductor ship 29 is also provided and this chip may be a discrete power transistor. A bottom face 34 is used as a boundary of a collector 33 of the transistor and a layer of solder 35 bonds the die to the substrate 12.
The preferred embodiment herein described is intended to explain better about the present invention. By relating to actual experiments and the enclosed drawings, the present invention's object, uniqueness, and advantages will clearly be served.
It is almost impossible to precisely control the thickness of liquid insulating epoxy resin. Therefore, in order to precisely control the thickness, a spacer, which has a certain size, is needed. The spacer, which has a quality of a solid, should be added to the insulating epoxy resin. If the thickness of liquid insulating epoxy resin can be precisely controlled, then the thickness can be controlled to have enough withstand voltage. In turn, a reliable IC can be produced.
Beads, which have little or no alkaline element can be added to the insulating epoxy resin adhesive to act as the spacer. The main reason for refraining from using an alkaline element is that when a high voltage flows to an alkaline element, then the alkaline element ionizes. Due to the ionization, electric conduction occurs, which decreases the withstand voltage and mechanical integrity of the beads. As a result, the bead itself may breakdown, and an insulation breakdown can occur in the package.
FIG. 3 is a view of the package according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
The power IC 2, such as a MOSFET or a bipolar IC, and control IC 1 are located on the top of the die pad 5 of the lead frame. At this time, the back side of the power IC 2 is used as a drain. Therefore, a conductive adhesive, such as solder 4, is used to bond the power IC 2 to the die pad 5. On the other hand, the control IC 1 should be electrically isolated from the die pad 5. Therefore, the insulating epoxy adhesive 3 is used to attach the control IC 1 to the die pad 5.
Furthermore, insulating beads 9 are added to the epoxy adhesive which connects the control IC 1 to the die pad 5. By adding the beads, the thickness of the epoxy adhesive can be precisely controlled. Therefore, it is possible to render a precise thickness to accomplish the necessary withstand voltage.
The following describes the insulating bead in specific detail.
In general, the epoxy adhesive is composed of 40% epoxy, 50% SiO.sub.2 filler, and other elements. The beads are often made of SiO.sub.2 which is a component of the epoxy adhesive to make the easier process of adding the beads. For this matter, soda lime glass, which usually includes SiO2, is used to make a bead with a uniform diameter. Afterwards, the finished bead will be added to the epoxy adhesive. Next, the epoxy resin with the insulating bead is used to connect the control IC 1 to the die pad 5. The package is finally completed after the molding process.
Three epoxy adhesives were prepared for the breakdown voltage (B/V) test in the room temperature. The first adhesive contained no bead, and the last two adhesives contained a bead having 1 mil and 3 mil respectively. The results are presented in <Table 1>.
The result indicates that the effect of insulation breakdown is directly correlated to the thickness of the epoxy resin. The epoxy adhesive which included the bead having a 3 mil diameter showed the highest voltage range from 1800 V to over 5000 V. The thickness of the epoxy adhesive was approximately 44.about.84 .mu.m. The epoxy adhesive without a bead showed the lowest voltage range of from 500 V to 3800 V. In case of the adhesive having no bead, since the withstand voltage of MOSFET should be at least 800 V, there is a chance of insulation breakdown, and the reliability definitely becomes questionable. In the experiment, the epoxy adhesive was cured at 150.degree. C. for an hour. Based on the result, it can be concluded that the ideal diameter for the insulating bead is more than 1 mil. In this experiment, although a glass bead was used, other insulating beads, such as a ceramic bead can be used.
In the present invention, since the thickness of the insulating epoxy adhesive can be precisely can be controlled by means of adding the insulating beads, it is possible to predict a range of withstand voltage. Moreover, since the glass bead itself is dielectric, as mentioned, the withstand voltage is improved, and the reliability of package is greatly improved as well.
In the present invention, in order to improve the reliability, the insulating bead should be made of insulating substances. The substances should have little or no alkaline elements.
The use of the insulating beads can produce a relatively reliable package with high withstand voltage. However, it is difficult to conclude that it is reliable under any extreme condition, such as the high temperature reverse bias (HTRB) test, in which the temperature was raised from the room temperature to 125.degree. C., and the samples were left for 500 hours at 800 V. After the test, incase of the bead of having 3 mil or 5 mil diameter, there was an insulation breakdown in about 5% of the total sample. However, in case of the bead having 1 mil diameter, there was a significant number insulation of breakdowns. In other words, there is a strong possibility of an insulation breakdown under some extreme condition.
The fact that there was an insulation breakdown of the package with the beads having 3 mil and 5 mil diameter, it was concluded that there might be other factors causing the breakdown. In other words, an insulation breakdown may not just be correlated to the insulating bead's diameter.
The beads used in the experiment were made of soda lime glass, which includes such components other than SiO2 as Na2O, K2O, CaO, and MgO etc. These components usually include alkaline elements which have the atomic valence of 1 or 2 when a high voltage flows into the beads, those alkaline elements will be ionized. As a result, electric conduction through the beads occurs, and in turn, the withstand voltage and mechanical integrity of the epoxy adhesive decrease. Consequently, since the beads break down, there occurs an insulation breakdown in the package as a whole.
Soda lime glass usually contains 14% alkaline element and has the insulation breakdown at about 5.about.20 KV/mm. Therefore, in order to improve the reliability of semiconductor package, the insulating beads should be made of the substance that has little or no alkaline elements.
As shown in <Table 2>, boron silicate glass is one of the substances that has little or no alkaline elements. In comparison to soda lime glass, it is highly pure; it contains only about 3% alkaline elements. Moreover, pure SiO2 glass was also considered for the beads.
Boron silicate glass beads were prepared and added to an epoxy resin adhesive. The epoxy adhesive with the boron silicate glass beads was is used to attach the control IC 1 to the die pad. After a molding process, the packages were prepared and tested under HTRB condition.
Insulation breakdown occurred at approximately 20.about.35 KV/mm. In the HTRB test, the package was put at 640 V, and the temperature was raised from the room temperature to 125.degree. C. for 500 hours. Subsequently, there was no insulation breakdowns. Similarly, in case of the pure SiO2, bead in the epoxy adhesive, the insulation breakdown did not occur at all, either. Therefore, it can concluded that the ideal amount of alkaline elements in a bead is less than 5%.
FIG. 4 is a view of another embodiment of the present invention.
As illustrated, a nitride (Si.sub.x N.sub.y) film 8 with a certain thickness is formed on the back side of control IC 1. The ideal thickness is approximately 2.about.5 .mu.m. For instance, the film, such as Si.sub.3 N.sub.4, is applied to the back side of wafer to yield a thickness of 2.about.5 .mu.m. One application usually yields about 1 .mu.m. Therefore, Si.sub.3 N.sub.4 is applied several times to produce a desirable thickness.
The next step is to saw the wafer to separate individual control ICs, and the control IC 1 is bonded to die pad 5 using the insulating resin adhesive. The MOSFET (power IC) 2 is attached by means of solder adhesive. The inner leads are interconnected to the two IC's by using bonding wires. Finally, the package is completed after molding and trimming process.
The withstand voltage of the package with a nitride layer was measured. The result indicates that the withstand voltage varied according to the thickness of nitride film. For example, when only 1 .mu.m was applied, the withstand voltage was about 600 V. However, when 2 .mu.m was applied, the withstand voltage increased to about 1000 V. As a result, considering the cost factor, the effective thickness of a nitride film in the present invention is 2.about.5 .mu.m. It should be mentioned that instead of the nitride film, an organic insulating film, such as benzo-cyclo-butene (BCB), can be applied.
Silicon nitride was applied twice on the back side of the wafer. Package samples were made using the epoxy adhesive which contains 5 mil bead. FIG. 5 illustrates such an embodiment. The B/V test of the sample was performed at the room temperature and at 125.degree. C. The result was that the sample with silicon nitride showed a higher B/V than the sample without silicon nitride.
According to the present invention, the withstand voltage is increased by applying a nitride film on the back side of IC. Since the film is formed by vapor deposition, there is no danger of dripping.
In sum, the present invention relates to a semiconductor package in which a number of chips in different kinds are included. In the package, some of them are bonded to a die bonding pad through a conductive adhesive. The other chips are bonded by means of an insulating adhesive that contains highly insulating beads. These differently bonded chips are encapsulated into a package by molding compounds. By adding the insulating bead to the insulating adhesive, the thickness of the adhesive layer can be precisely controlled, and the withstand voltage of the package is greatly improved. Moreover, by selecting beads which have little or no alkaline elements, the withstand voltage further increases, and the reliability of the package is, overall, enhanced.
The preferred embodiments described above are intended to explain the principles of the invention. It application and practical use may be altered or changed in a several ways by others skilled in the art without violating this invention's claim area. For example, a nitride film or BCB can be spin-coated on the back side of a control IC. Then the epoxy adhesive with an insulating bead can be used. Furthermore, an insulating bead having little or no alkaline elements can be used as well. Because of the insulating nature of IC itself, the withstand voltage may increase. The increase in the withstand voltage allows the thickness of the resin adhesive to be thinner, and the beads that having a high amount of alkaline elements can be used without degrading the reliability of the package.
It should be understood that the present invention is not limited to the particular embodiment disclosed herein as the best mode contemplated for carrying out the present invention, but rather that the present invention is not limited to the specific embodiments described in this specification except as defined in the appended claims.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V.