Constitutional legal issues
“In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, decided Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, #10-945, 132 S. Ct. 1510, 2012 U.S. Lexis 2712. It changed the landscape, abandoning a focus on the need for a detailed analysis of the presence or absence of reasonable suspicion to justify the carrying out of a strip search. For the Court’s majority, the focus shifted to a less murky dividing line, based on whether an incoming detainee, regardless of what they are charged with or whether there is reasonable suspicion concerning them, is about to enter the general population of the jail or other detention facility. This article examines the facts and reasoning of that decision in some detail, including both the majority and dissenting approaches. It will also try to briefly spell out what the Court’s decision did not decide, and some of the considerations that may enter into deciding the search policy for a facility in light of the new legal landscape on the subject” (p. 301). Sections of this article include: introduction; facts of the case; Florence majority ruling; dissenting opinion; remaining concerns; and some suggestions.
"The prison setting imposes greater than normal restrictions on liberty, privacy, and communication. As a result, the prison comes under greater legal scrutiny regarding extent of the restrictions and deprivations of those restrictions and deprivations. Within the prison setting, the placement of inmates in restrictive housing or administrative segregation generates even greater judicial scrutiny due to the level of restriction, reasonableness of the placement and the indeterminate length of the segregation. Even with the proper policies in place, the conditions and programming in restrictive housing require careful review and attention for any correctional facility. In the past few decades, prisoners and prisoner right advocates have successfully challenged many departments on the use of restrictive housing. The following presents a brief overview of the areas in which departments have faced legal challenges" (p. 1). Constitutional challenges regarding restrictive housing in the recent past have been made based on First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The issue of cross-gender pat searches is bound to impact a correctional agency. What is unique about this article is that it takes a detailed look at the conflict between the rights of inmates not to be subjected to pat frisks by a member of the opposite sex and the right of correctional staff not to be discriminated against in regards to their gender and opportunities for employment. This Note is divided into four parts that address: cross-gender pat searches and various prisoners’ rights—the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); Title VII and the of female corrections officers; comparing rights and whether one set takes precedence over the other; and solutions to the problem. “Ultimately, this Note argues that an inmate’s rights, including Constitutional rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, take precedence, and therefore, cross-gender pat searches should only be performed during emergencies. There are solutions, however, that respect inmate rights while preserving employment opportunities for both male and female correctional staff. To the extent possible, these solutions must be pursued prior to implementation of a bona fide occupational qualification, thereby preserving the rights of both prisoners and corrections officers” (p. 572).
The Constitution protects inmates in jails and prisons, and this paper discusses the continuing challenge of deciding what those protections mean in practice and the struggle to assure that inmate rights are met. "Condition cases" have resulted in courts reducing jail populations and have a great impact on facility design and operation and the cost of operating a jail. Legal issues whose impact are primarily operational are also highlighted. The title: Jails and the Constitution: An Overview (#022570) supersedes this title.
This publication "reviews the history of correctional law and summarizes the results and effects of major court decisions" (p. 4). Sections comprising this document include: introduction; history of court involvement; corrections and the Constitution in a new century; the Constitution and the physical plant; understanding Section 1983 lawsuits; how courts evaluate claims -- the balancing test; the First Amendment; the Fourth Amendment; the Eighth Amendment -- overview; the 8th Amendment -- use of force; the 8th Amendment -- medical care; the 8th Amendment -- conditions of confinement; the Fourteenth Amendment; consent decrees; some final thoughts; glossary; and selected cases.
This meeting focused primarily on topics related to the role of the jail in the local criminal justice system. Contents include: meeting highlights; justice system coordination and cooperation -- how the jail benefits and the system is improved; criminal justice coordination and cooperation; issues in defining and re-defining the jail's mission; role of the jail in contributing to the efficiency of the local criminal justice system; community oriented policing; roundtable discussion of implications for large jails of the presentations made; legal issues update; and future meeting topics. Appendixes include materials referred to in the meeting summary, meeting agenda, and meeting participants.
A monograph "intended to help prisons operate ultra-high-security facilities in a way that minimizes liability in litigation" is presented (p. v). Section contained in this manual include: executive summary; introduction; supermax and case law background; mental health; medical services; other conditions of confinement; use of force; the 14th Amendment due process and placement; access to the courts; the First Amendment religion, speech, and the press; and closing thoughts.