Reference no: EM133415364
Assignment:
The case is located at the here Answer the following questions:
Block v. Rutherford
The leading case on inmate visiting, Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984), arose from the Los Angeles County Jail. The sheriff had a policy that allowed only noncontact visits by pretrial detainees with their spouses, relatives, and friends. A group of detainees brought a class action suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, challenging that policy. The district court found that denying inmates the right to embrace their spouses or children (which they are not allowed to do in noncontact visiting) during the weeks or months they were awaiting trial was an impermissible burden. That court (and the court of appeals in affirming) found that the loss of some contacts during visitation was punitive and an exaggerated response to security concerns of jail officials. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' actions.
Because the case involved pretrial detainees and not prison inmates, the courts used the standard set out in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). From Bell, the standard set by the Supreme Court is whether the challenged practice or condition amounts to punishment of the inmate: "A court must decide whether the disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate governmental purpose." (In practical and legal effect, the same outcome can be expected in prison cases, because both jails and prisons use the same process to detect unconstitutionality. They must determine whether there is a legitimate government interest, usually related to security, that justifies the restriction on otherwise permissible and even constitutionally protected activity.) The Supreme Court in Block said:
The question before us, therefore, is narrow: whether the prohibition of contact visits is reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives.
The Court determined there was "a valid, rational connection between a ban on contact visits and internal security of a detention facility." Even the lower courts acknowledged that contact visits open an institution to the introduction of drugs, weapons, and other contraband. Visitors could conceal contraband items and transfer them during the close contact that is permitted in contact visiting. The fact that unconvicted, pretrial detainees rather than convicted prisoners were involved did not persuade the Supreme Court (although this was a factor that influenced the decisions of lower courts on this and many other pretrial issues). As in Bell, the Court concluded that there was no reason to conclude "that pretrial detainees pose any lesser security risk than convicted inmates." Although the Court conceded that visits from family and friends are important to inmates, it drew the following conclusion:
The Constitution does not require that detainees be allowed contact visits when responsible, experienced administrators have determined, in their sound discretion, that such visits will jeopardize the security of the facility.
What the Supreme Court did not decide was whether inmates have the right under the Constitution to have visits in the first place. Stated another way, could visits be banned altogether?
Why did you choose this case? What interests you most about the case you have chosen?
How does the case relate to the following Essential Questions or Big Ideas of the course?
- Why do prisoners have rights?
- How do Constitutional laws protect prisoners?
- Why is it important for corrections officers to understand the court process?
- How have prisoners rights evolved?
- How do statutory laws protect prisoners?
- How do prisoner rights affect prison policy?
Big Ideas - Prisoner Rights, Courts, Prison Management