Santibanez

Appellant appeals his conviction following a plea of nolo contendere to violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (e) — participating in an act of oral copulation while confined in the Kern County jail. Appellant’s sole contention is that the statute is unconstitutional in that it violates his fundamental right of sexual privacy, denies him equal protection of the law, and imposes cruel and unusual punishment. For the reasons to be explained, we hold that the statute withstands these constitutional challenges.

Appellant argues that the constitutional right to privacy in the area of family and sexual matters (Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 147 , 93 S.Ct. 705 ]; Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) 405 U.S. 438, 453 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 349, 362 , 92 S.Ct. 1029 ]; Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479, 485-486 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 510, 515-516 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 ]) should be extended to those persons confined in state prison or county jail so as to legitimize consensual sexual conduct between adult prisoners. However, it is clear that prisoners have no cognizable right to sexual privacy in a jail cell. In People v. Frazier (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 630 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 447 ],…