Constitutional Rights of Inmates Chapter 11 Additional Litigation

1. Constitutional Rights of Inmates Chapter 11 Additional Litigation

2. Classification • Classification - assessment of inmate • Personality • Background • Potential

3. Classification • Assignment of inmate to specific status or institutional setting consistent with assessment • Purpose of classification is for rehabilitative and security assignment • Classification is an administrative function

4. Classification • Assessment and classification is performed by committee • At initial intake, classification function is to assist inmate in adjusting to incarceration. • Classification must be reviewed periodically due to behavioral changes

5. Classification • Courts held classification changes require some level of procedural due process • Kirby v. Blackledge, court held informal hearing procedure used to assign inmates to maximum security cellblocks violated due process. • Inmates who were illiterate or otherwise disadvantaged should be allowed assistance of another inmate or a staff member.

6. Classification • Cardopoli v. Norton – since classification of inmate as a special offender has impact on eligibility for furloughs, work release, transfer to community treatment center, and early parole, changes in inmate status constitutes a risk of “grievous loss” and should not be imposed without basic elements of due process

7. Classification • Inmate should have 10 days notice in writing of the classification that is being considered • Notice should include reasons for proposed change and evidence to be relied upon • Inmate should be given personal hearing before a neutral decision-maker • Inmate allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence • If hearing officer finds change in classification in justified, written findings should be provided to inmate within reasonable time

8. Classification • Inmate placed in lockup status for protection of other inmates and staff, and not for punitive reasons, was not found to violate due process, and hearing requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell did not apply (McDonald v. McCracken)

9. Classification • Classification based upon age and gender is permissible • Classification based upon race / religion not allowed • Classification based upon security is reasonable • Security classifications are purely discretionary with administration

10. Administrative Segregation -Pre-trial Detainees • Zarnes v. Rhodes, inmate placed in lockdown after verbal confrontation with other inmates over TV • Inmate given no reason for move • Held in lockdown for 19 days • Jail had policy of putting inmates in administrative segregation for protection of inmate or another • Officer said Zarnes in lockdown to protect him from other inmates who were mad • Court held that officer was acting within jail’s policy which was reasonable, and thereby constitutional

11. Administrative Segregation • Anderson v. County of Kern, • jail had “safety cells” (padded cell) which were used to hold suicidal and mentally disturbed inmates • Used to temporarily confine violent or suicidal inmates • Claim was considered under the 8th Amendment • To be an 8th Amendment violation, confinement would have to inflict pain or deprive inmate of basic human needs, such as food, clothing, sanitation, shelter, medical care

12. Administrative Segregation Anderson v. County of Kern, • If so, was deprivation unnecessary and wanton • Court found that cells were used only as temporary measure until inmate calmed down • It was a reasonable measure

13. Administrative Segregation • Administrative segregation is a necessary placement option for administrators • Such confinement is within what is contemplated by original sentence • Assignment to ad-seg is within discretion of institution officials

14. Transfer • Classification of inmate may result in transfer • Within institution or to different institution • Transfer may be punitive or for institutional order and security • Courts have held result to inmate is the same

15. Transfer • Appropriateness of transfer may depend on whether allegation of misconduct is accurate • U.S. Supreme Court held inmate not entitled to due process hearing before transfer • Exception, if state has regulation or practice that inmate will not be transferred unless guilty of misconduct • Transfer must only be within limits of sentence • Inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will not be transferred

16. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976)

17. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980)

18. Transfer • Inmate does not have right to hearing prior to transfer • Inmate will have Civil Rights Act claim if he can prove that transfer was in retaliation for exercise of constitutional rights

19. Detainers • Detainer – legal order that requires a state that is incarcerating an inmate to hold inmate at end of sentence for another state to answer charge in other state

20. Detainers • Interstate Agreement on Detainers • Sets out uniform procedures for filing and executing detainers • State that obtains custody of inmate for purpose of trial must try him within 120 days • If state returns inmate to original place of confinement before trial, then charges are dismissed with prejudice • This provision has been upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

21. Extradition • Article IV, Section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides: • Person charged in one state with a crime; and • Flees from that state: and • Is found in another state; • On demand of executive authority of state from which he fled • Shall be delivered up to state having jurisdiction of crime

22. Extradition - Case Law • If governor grants extradition a reviewing court, in habeas action, • Can only decide whether; • Extradition documents are, on their face, in order • Whether petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state • Whether petitioner is the person who is charged • Whether petitioner is a fugitive

23. Extradition • Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86 (1952) • Inmate claimed he fled demanding state because of abuses in demanding state’s prison system. • Court held it would be impractical for the demanding state to send witnesses to the custodial state to defend the allegations

24. International Prisoners • Convention on Transfer of Sentenced Persons • Provides for return of convicted persons to home nation for service of sentences • Has been ratified by U.S., U.K. and others

25. International Prisoners • Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons • Discretionary on part of participating nations • Nation may consider effect of transfer on rehabilitation of offender; seriousness of offense; prior record; medical condition; strength of connections to the transferring and receiving nations • U.S. and Mexico have treaty that does essentially the same thing, and is also discretionary on the same grounds.

26. Search and Seizure • Prisoner retains no reasonable expectation of privacy in his person or his cell. • 4th Amendment has no application in prison and jail • Institutional goals of security and discipline could not function without right to search at will without probable cause or reasonable suspicion • Random searches are one of most effective means to keep contraband out of institution.

27. Search and Seizure • Search and seizure of certain materials may violate other rights • Legal materials • Bonner v. Coughlin, inmate awarded damages for seizure of his trial transcript • Religious materials • Inmate has no right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, but does have rights regarding certain property

28. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)

29. Conditions of Pre-Trial Confinement • Effect of pre-trial detention is same whether it is for public safety or to insure appearance • Jailed defendants are legally innocent

30. Conditions of Pre-Trial Confinement • Pre-trial detainees suffer same deprivations as convicts • Loss of liberty • Loss of privacy • At mercy of institution for nutrition, shelter • Deprived of contact with family and friends • Thrown in with dangerous people • Looks and feels just like punishment

31. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)

32. Inventory of Personal Property • Jail officials have right to conduct administrative inventory of inmate property • Reasonable to search personal effects as part of booking process • Justification for search is not based on probable cause

33. Inventory of Personal Property • Justification is based upon: • Police administration • Protection of inmate’s personal property • Deterrence of false claims of theft against police • Jail security • Identification of suspect

34. Inventory of Personal Property • Inventory is proper only if suspect is to be jailed after booking. • No justification for inventory search if suspect is to be released.

35. Cross Gender Searches • Prisoners may be subjected to search by member of opposite sex • Pat-downs are through clothing • Non-sexual in nature • May be impractical for all searches to be conducted by same-sex guard • Spontaneous search more effective • May not have sufficient staff for same-sex search

36. Overcrowding • Overcrowding of prisons and jails is major problem • Overcrowding has not be held unconstitutional • Has been found to be a factor that considered with other problems may amount to unconstitutional conditions • Contributes to problems with sanitation • Aggravates violence • Spreads medical facilities too thin

37. Overcrowding • Bell v. Woolfish, double-bunking not unconstitutional • Rhodes v. Chapman, double-celling at max-security prison not unconstitutional • For conditions of confinement to be cruel and unusual punishment, they must involve wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, or be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime • Overcrowding does not reach this test

38. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981)

39. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

40. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)

41. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993)