The Legal Rights of Offenders

1
Chapter 10

• The Legal Rightsof Offenders

2
Legal Rights of Offenders

• Inmate access to courts
• Growth of court intervention in prison
  administration
• Constitutional bases of inmate rights
• 1st, 4th, 8th and 14th amendments
• Inmate lawsuits and their control

3
Inmate Access to Courts

• 1941 Ex Parte Hull prisons cannot censor inmate
  petitions to courts
• No enforcement of decision until 1969
• Johnson v. Avery state can limit but not ban
  activities of jailhouse lawyers
• Slaves of state doctrine (Ruffin v. Commonwealth,
  1871) in VA Supreme Court justified hands-off era

4
Inmate Lawsuits

• Section 1983 of Civil Rights Act of 1971
• Habeas Corpus you have the body challenges
  legality of imprisonment
• Monroe v Pape, 1961 prisoners can bypass state
  courts if constitutional rights involved
• Bounds v Smith, 1977 legal assistance must be
  provided to inmates

5
Limitations on Inmate Lawsuits

• Lewis v. Casey, 1996 law libraries, etc., not
  required by Bounds
• Prisoners must show actual harm to sue
• Security concerns can limit access
• O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 1999 state courts must
  hear suits before federal courts are accessed

6
The Demise of the Hands-Off Era

• Holt v. Sarver, 1971 court took over Arkansas
  Prisons series of 8th amendment suits followed
• Cruelties of building tenders violated 8th
  amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment
• Pugh v Locke, 1976 Totality of Conditions
• Hutto v. Finney, 1978 added two conditions
• Each factor creating the conditions must be
  listed
• Steps to correct each must be specified

7
Ruiz v. Estelle, 1981

• Overcrowding a violation of 8th amendment
• Federal court took over Texas system for almost
  12 years
• Use of building tenders banned
• These cases had little impact on state spending
  funds use and practices changed
• Reports of violence increased as building tenders
  lost control to CO's

8
The End of the Hands-On Era

• Bell v. Wolfish, 1979 permitted wide use
  ofstrip searches and double celling
• Restrictions must serve a legitimate government
  purpose, cannot be merely punitive
• Rhodes v. Chapman, 1981 8th amendment violated
  if
• pain was inflicted unnecessarily or wantonly, or
• was grossly disproportionate to crime

9
One-Hand On, One-Hand Off Era

• Slaves of State, other hands-off era doctrines
  rejected
• Court micro-management of prisons ceased
• Limited prisoner rights upheld
• State security, budgetary concerns supported

10
First Amendment Protections

• Freedom of religion, especially beliefs
• Freedom of speech, especially political and legal
• Freedom of the press limited press access
  (rights of press, not inmates)
• Right to assemble security issues virtually
  eliminate right to assemble, form unions

11
Inmate Religious Freedoms

• Discrimination based on religion illegal
• Legitimacy of groups judged on basis of
• Sincerity of believers
• Age of doctrines
• Similarity of other religions
• Financial and security costs of practices

12
Limitations on Religion

• Threatens security or discipline
• Interferes with legal powers of discretion
• Contradicts a reasonable rule
• Poses an excessive financial burden
• These leave religious practices largely in the
  hands of institutional authorities

13
Speech

• Libel, conspiracy, threats, obscenity always
  illegal
• Speech that causes undue alarm can be punished
• Mail restricted and inspected unless addressed to
  lawyer or court

14
Turner v. Safley, 1987

• (Began as a mail case) A rule is reasonable if
• It has a valid connection to the government
  interests used to justify it
• Inmates have other means to access the right in
  question
• The right significantly impacts staff, resources
  or inmates and
• There are no alternative means of achieving the
  goals of the rule

15
Freedom of the Press

• Political statements cannot be censored
• Other publications cannot be banned unless they
  threaten security, safety
• Topics that threaten treatment can be prohibited
• No right to profit from stories of crime
• Proceeds usually go to state treasury or victims'
  funds

16
Fourth Amendment Rights

• Privacy rights set by balance of
• Expectations of privacy in a particular situation
  or setting
• Government need to conduct the search
• Reasonable suspicion required unless search is
  a universal practice for place or group punitive
  use of searches prohibited

17
Reasonableness of a Search

• Privacy expectations and location of search
• Level of justification(reasonable suspicion vs.
  probable cause)
• Manner in which search is conducted
• Routine nature of search vs.singling out a
  specific person
• Latter requires reasonable suspicion

18
Probation andParole Applications

• Greater than prison but restricted expectations
  still apply
• Written agency policy or condition of liberty can
  permit routine (warrant less) searches of homes,
  cars and persons by PO's(Griffiths v. Wisconsin,
  1987)
• Police searches of probationers/parolee'sand
  their homes permitted with reasonable suspicion

19
Eighth Amendment Rights

• Illegal conditions of confinement
• Shock the conscience of the court or violate
  public standards of decency
• Wantonly inflict unnecessary pain(use of force)
• Are grossly disproportionate to crime
• Demonstrate deliberate apathy to basic human
  needs (safety and medical care)

20
Obligation to Protect

• Detention, custody restrict or remove personal
  power to protect self
• State and its officials become responsible for
  safety
• Specific threats to particular persons and
  general conditions
• Injury must result from neglect to justify a
  Section 1983 suit

21
Medical Care

• Estelle v. Gamble, 1976 Suits must show
  deliberate indifference to needs by officials
• Wilson v. Seiter, 1991 Suit must show culpable
  state of mind
• These decisions made it very hard to sue over
  medical care and health effects of ventilation,
  and so on

22
Use of Force

• Officials can apply only the minimal reasonable
  force required to accomplish legitimate goal
• Whitley v Albers, 1986 good faith defense
• Hudson v. Macmillan, 1992 malicious and sadistic
  acts justify suit even without lasting injury

23
Fourteenth Amendment Rights

• Suits based on 1st, 4th, and 8th Amendments often
  use 14th as well
• Two clauses in 14th Amendment
• Due process under law standard procedures
  required to deny liberty
• Equal Protection for all regardless of race,
  gender, ethnicity, religion

24
Punishment ofDisciplinary Violations

• Due process required
• Written notice of charge(s), evidence
• Hearing by impartial person or group
• Written justification required if inmate's
  request to call witnesses are denied
• No right to jury
• Right to counsel only for mentally impaired or
  those who cannot understand proceedings

25
Due Process Issues

• Confidential informants can remain unnamed if
  authorities can demonstrate their trustworthiness
• Minor violations carry less need for due process
• Justifications of process and decisions must be
  made to courts not inmates
• Classification and transfers not grounds for
  suits
• State created liberty interests can extend beyond
  federally enforced rights, tested in state courts

26
Forcing Medications

• Applies mainly in psychiatric cases
• Authorities must show that
• The inmate is dangerous to self or others
• Use of the medication is in inmate's best
  interests
• Due process has been followed and case reviewed
  by experts

27
Equal Protection under Law

• Group memberships not based on behavior cannot be
  used to justify differential treatment
• Parity, or substantial equivalence, required for
  men and women as well as inmates at different
  security levels

28
Controlling Inmate Suits

• Retaliation for legal action always illegal
• Access to courts can be limited ONLY by the court
  itself or the legislature
• Legal costs can be charged to plaintiff if court
  finds suit to be frivolous
• Courts can impose fees, other conditions on
  inmates to limit suits

29
Prison LitigationReform Act of 1996

• Filing fees required for all federal suits
• Limits attorney's fees and damage awards
• Bars suits for psychological harm in absence of
  physical injuries
• Forces judges to screen suits, block frivolous
  ones
• Encourages use of video, telephone links