AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Privacy
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Routine Strip Searches to
Combat Contraband, 2010
(4) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Cross Gender Strip Searches
of Prisoners -- Part One, 2010
(5) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Cross Gender Strip Searches
of Prisoners -- Part Two, 2010
(6) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law
Journal Article: Federal Appeals Court
Reexamines Cross-Gender Strip Searches, 2011 (2)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Articles: An Update on Jail Strip
Searches of General Population Detainees, 2013 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoners with HIV/AIDS. Part
2, 2014 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
A certified class action lawsuit asserted that in 2011 female inmates at an Illinois prison were subjected to strip searches during a training exercise for cadet guards. The women were compelled to stand nude, almost shoulder to shoulder with other prisoners in an area where they could be observed by others not conducting the searches, including male officers. Inmates who were menstruating allegedly had to remove their sanitary protection in front of others, were not given replacements, and some got blood on their bodies, clothing, and the floor. The naked inmates also were required to stand barefoot on a floor dirty with menstrual blood and raise their breasts, lift their hair, turn around, bend over, spread their buttocks and vaginas, and cough. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Fourth Amendment claims because prior Seventh Circuit precedent held that a visual inspection of a convicted prisoner is not subject to analysis under that amendment. A jury returned a defense verdict on an Eighth Amendment claim. Because the analysis under the Fourth Amendment is objective, while a successful claim under the Eighth Amendment depends on proof of a culpable state of mind, the plaintiffs argued on appeal that they could succeed on a Fourth Amendment theory despite the jury’s verdict. A federal appeals court affirmed, once again stating that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to visual inspections of convicted prisoners. Their convictions allow wardens to “control and monitor” prisoners’ lives, eliminating the rights of secrecy and seclusion. Henry v. Hulett, #16-4234, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 21009 (7th Cir.).
A detainee was in jail awaiting trial when an urgent medical condition required that he be taken to a hospital. Six deputy sheriffs allegedly walked him through the public areas of the hospital completely unclothed except for an orange pair of mittens. He sued, claiming that this violated his constitutional rights. Upholding a denial of qualified immunity, a federal appeals court held that the lawsuit alleged facts supporting the inference that the public exposure of his naked body was wholly unjustifiable and therefore sufficed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. “Whether the evidence supports those allegations is a question for further proceedings.” Colbruno v. Kessler, #18-1056, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19768, 2019 WL 2751434 (10th Cir.).
A woman arrested for drunk driving was taken first to one county’s police department and then to a second county’s jail. The second facility was informed that she was drunk, yelling, and spitting. A Cell Extraction Team met her upon arrival. She claimed that they roughly removed her from the vehicle and immediately applied a spit hood that nearly entirely obscured her vision. The Team then allegedly handcuffed her in a bent-over position, handled her forcefully, and threatened her with a Taser. The all-male team took her to a room where she was made to lie on her stomach and was strip-searched. Her pants were torn off her and an officer allegedly placed his hands on her genitals while a second allegedly groped her breasts. Following that, she asserted, she was made to walk to a cell wearing only her bra and the hood. The hood, she said, prevented her from attributing certain specific acts to specific officers. Her lawsuit asserted claims against four officers for excessive force. The officers’ motion for qualified immunity solely based on the argument that the plaintiff could not show each officer’s personal involvement in the alleged unconstitutional acts was denied. A federal appeals court ruled that a reasonable jury could find, based on the evidence in the record, that each defendant either committed or observed and failed to stop the allegedly unconstitutional acts. Fazica v. Jordan, #18-1457, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 17307, 2019 Fed. App. 0125P, 2019 WL 2417358 (6th Cir.).
A woman who was a former detainee at a city facility claimed that intake procedures there, including strip searches and mandatory delousing, violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court granted the plaintiff summary judgment in part and permanently enjoined the city from reinstituting its previous delousing method and from conducting group strip searches without installation of privacy partitions to obstruct the view of other inmates. A federal appeals court overturned this ruling, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief because she was not in custody when she filed suit and it must be assumed that she will not return to the facility. The fact that she actually returned to the facility three times after filing the complaint did not confer standing because the relevant question was whether she had a live, actionable claim for relief at the time she filed the lawsuit. The city had discontinued its delousing policy by when she returned to the facility. The court ruled that conducting strip searches in groups of two or three during busy periods was reasonably related to the city’s legitimate penological interest of expediting the intake procedure. Delousing detainees with a fine mist was reasonably related to its interest in maintaining the facility’s cleanliness and habitability. The need for delousing, the court found, outweighed the admittedly substantial invasion of personal rights. Williams v. City of Cleveland, #16-4237, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 31081, 2018 Fed. App. 0245P (6th Cir.).
A detainee claimed that two jail officials in Coffey County, Kansas, violated his constitutional rights by disclosing medical information about him that they had properly obtained. He was set to be extradited from Illinois to Kansas, and the Kansas jail requested that Illinois arrange for multiple medical examinations of him to determine whether he had suffered injuries after being tasered by U.S. Marshals. The Kansas official learned that the plaintiff had bone lesions and possibly cancer. This information was conveyed to the Coffey County Sheriff, who conveyed it to Coffey County Hospital, and then to the plaintiff's family and friends, without first obtaining his permission. A federal appeals court ruled that the defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity, as their actions did not violate any clearly established law, and dismissed the case. Leiser v. Moore, #17-3206, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 25284 (10th Cir.).
An Arizona former pre-trial detainee (and current convicted prisoner) claimed
that a county facility’s alleged policy allowing female guards to daily
observe male detainees showering and using the bathroom from four to five feet
away violated their constitutional rights to bodily privacy. The trial court
dismissed the complaint during screening, finding the claim precluded by prior
precedent. The federal appeals court disagreed, reinstating the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s
status a pre-trial detainee at the time of the incidents at issue was enough to distinguish his allegations from a precedent
concerning convicted prisoners; even if he was now a convicted prisoner. It
might be that the prison’s up close and personal policy of female guards
observing male pretrial detainees was necessary to ensure security and provide
equal work opportunities in the prison, but that was yet to be decided. Byrd v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
#15-16282, 845 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2017).
A female former inmate
at a correctional facility claimed that three female officers threw her to the
ground, lifted her smock, and forcibly opened her legs to allow a male officer
to visually inspect her genitalia for mattress cotton. A Fourth Amendment claim
regarding this visual body cavity search could go forward because the plaintiff
retained a limited right to bodily privacy and there were disputed issues of
fact concerning whether the search took place and the purported justification for
it. There appeared to be no evidence that the plaintiff was in such imminent
danger of harming herself that the search had to be conducted right away by the
male officer at the scene. An Eighth Amendment excessive force claim could also
go forward. Harris v. Miller, #14-2957, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 4701 (2nd Cir.).
A female former
inmate asserted privacy and other claims against New Jersey and correctional
officials and employees, asserting that without proper authorization they took
her from one place of confinement to another where they denied her clothing,
sanitary napkins, and potable water, as well as needed medications, and
subjected her to an unlawful body cavity search. They also allegedly required
her to go to the shower or otherwise be exposed while naked while male
employees and inmates were present. A federal appeals court found that she
failed to adequately show that the state Attorney General or Commissioner of
Corrections had adopted policies that led to the deprivation of her constitutional
rights or that one named correctional officer knew of these violations. Claims
against other, as yet unidentified, correctional employees with respect to
these alleged violations, however, could continue. Chavarriaga v. NJ Dep't of
Corrs., #14-2044, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 19854 (3rd Cir.).
An African-American inmate claimed that four
correctional officers violated his constitutional rights during a visual body
cavity search when he returned to a correctional facility from a school. He
said that he was told to remove his clothes, lift his genitals, and bend over
and spread his buttocks. He further complained that the search took place in
front of other prisoners and in the view of a security camera, so that female
correctional officers observed the search via video. He also claimed that one
of the officers subjected his to a racial slur by calling him a
"monkey." A federal appeals court found the plaintiff failed to
establish that any of this conduct violated his clearly established constitutional
rights. Story v. Foote, #13-2834, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 5719 (8th.).
A county was not entitled to summary judgment on male
deputies' federal and state sex discrimination challenge to a policy barring
them from supervising female inmates in jails. The county failed to show that
there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was entitled to a
"bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ) defense to the sex
discrimination claim. The BFOQ defense could not be established merely by deferring
to the sheriff's judgment. There were also factual issues as to whether the
sheriff arrived at the policy by engaging in a reasoned decision-making policy,
as well as whether the policy legitimately furthered important underlying
interests, such as protecting the safety of female inmates. Ambat v. City &
Cnty. of San Francisco, #11-16746, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 12512 (9th Cir.).
The highest court in New York overturned the
quashing of a subpoena duces tecum that the N.Y. State Commission of
Corrections issued to a hospital demanding that it produce its medical records
regarding the care and treatment of an inmate in the custody of New York City
who subsequently died. An exception to doctor-patient privilege was necessary
for the Commission to carry out its legislated responsibilities and powers to
investigate inmate deaths through its Medical Review Board. The disclosure of
the records was also not barred by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act privacy rules. Matter of New York City Health and Hospitals
Corp., #64, 19 N.Y.3d 239, 969 N.E.2d 765 (2012).
A pretrial detainee under an Illinois Sexually
Violent Person Act claimed that his constitutional privacy rights and rights
under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA),
Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996), were violated by the
"stigmatizing effects" of the stamp that the facility affixes to his
outgoing mail, which reads "sexually violent person treatment
center." Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court ruled that the
prisoner's claim was essentially for defamation, and that the prisoner's
"interest in his reputation, by itself, is not protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment." As to any claim under HIPAA, the trial court correctly found that
the statute does not provide for a private right of action. Carpenter v.
Phillips, #10-3176, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 9417 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A male prisoner's lawsuit claiming that a
strip search violated his Eighth Amendment rights should have survived summary
judgment when he asserted that guards stripped searched him in order to
humiliate him, that female civilian spectators and female staff members were
present during the search, and that the spectators were allowed to jeer at him
and engage in "sexual ridicule." May v. Trancoso, #09-3196, 2011 U.S.
App. Lexis 5275 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Inmates at a number of federal prisons are allowed to
have themselves photographed, either by themselves or with visitors, with the
photos paid for by the Inmate Trust fund. A number of them sued federal prison
authorities, claiming that a secret practice of retaining duplicate prints of
such photos for security related purposes (and charging the cost of these
prints to the Inmate Trust Fund) was improper and violated the inmates' rights
under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a. The plaintiffs failed to rebut
government affidavits stating that prison personnel did not intentionally or
willfully violate the Privacy Act, and that the retained photos were only used
for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Issues concerning the use of funds
from the Inmate Trust Account for the photo prints were now moot since the
plaintiffs were no longer in custody. Maydak v. U.S., #07-5352, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 26283 (D.C. Cir.).
In Byrd v.
Maricopa County Sheriff's Dep't, #07-16640, 583 F.3d 673 (9th Cir., 2009), a
three-judge federal appeals panel ruled that a pretrial detainee failed to show
that there was any discriminatory intent towards male detainees in subjecting
him to a partial strip search and pat down of his groin area by a female cadet
officer despite the nearby availability of male detention officers. The
detainee was clad only in pink boxer shorts made of very thin material. The
search was held to be reasonably related to legitimate objectives and there was
no showing of deliberate indifference to any pain the search might have caused
because of its cross-gender aspect. Under these circumstances, the court also
found, the search did not constitute "punishment." And it held that the
search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, rehearing the case en banc, by a 6-5 vote overturned this
ruling in part, finding that the scope of the intrusion in conducting this
non-emergency cross-gender strip search of the detainee's genital area
"far exceeded" the scope of searches previously allowed by the court,
and that the search was unreasonable as a matter of law. The court majority
also focused on the presence of onlookers and the fact that one of them
videotaped the searches. The court still rejected equal protection claims based
on the fact that such non-emergency cross-gender strip searches were allegedly
only conducted on males and not on female detainees and prisoners. It stated
that such an equal protection claim could have been further pursued, but that
essential elements of such a claim were not fully developed. The dissenting
judges would not have characterized the search that occurred as a strip search
at all, calling it a pat-down search in light of the fact that the detainee
kept on his boxer shorts. Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept., #07-16640,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 86 (9th Cir. en banc.).
Employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at a
medical facility sued the government under the Privacy Act and Federal Tort
Claims Act claiming that an employee roster with confidential personal
information was improperly disclosed to inmates and fellow employees.
Information in the roster included employees' names, addresses, Social Security
numbers, home telephone numbers, pay grades, and other personal information. A
federal appeals court ruled that the trial court did not erroneously conclude
that the "inadvertent" final act of disclosing the roster was
"willful" for purposes of the Privacy Act claim, given the
"entire course of conduct." The trial court also did not commit an
error in making a non-rebuttable inference of disclosure of the roster as a
sanction for the government's destruction of relevant evidence needed in the case.
The appeals court upheld the finding that a Privacy Act violation occurred and
the dismissal of Federal Tort Claims Act claims. It also ruled that the trial
court erred, in part, in limiting some plaintiffs to recovering only $1,000 in
statutory damages, as they might also be able to recover greater actual damages
for "lost time" spent "dealing with the disclosure." It
rejected, however, the assertion that the employees could recover damages for
"future protective measures." Beaven v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,
#08-5297, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19927 (6th Cir.).
A prisoner served sixteen years for crimes of
forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and kidnapping for the purpose of
committing rape. He was then sent to a state hospital for possible civil commitment.
He sued state officials and psychologists for violation of his constitutional
right to privacy in connection with their disclosure of his prison treatment
records. Rejecting these claims, a federal appeals court found that a
traditional Fourth Amendment right to privacy was "fundamentally
incompatible" with the continual and close scrutiny of prisoners and their
cells required for security reasons. Prisoners have no legitimate expectation
of privacy in their prison treatment records when there is a legitimate
penological interest in access to them. Access to such records is needed to
protect other inmates and staff members from violence and communicable
diseases, and to manage rehabilitation efforts. Whatever remaining
constitutional right to privacy the prisoner may have had in his medical
records, the California state law providing for a process for the civil
commitment of sexually violent predators fell outside of it. Seaton v. Mayberg,
#05-56894, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13335 (9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court held that an alleged
strip search of a male prisoner by a female guard in the absence of exigent
circumstances represented an arguable Fourth Amendment claim, so that a lawsuit
based on such allegations should not have been dismissed. The court also found,
however, that excessive force was not used against the prisoner. Hamer v.
Jones, #09-20431, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2688 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
A class action lawsuit claimed that a county
sheriff and his staff at the jail subjected persons detained there to
needlessly humiliating strip searches, including body cavity searches. The
trial court ruled that the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter
of law, since the lawsuit concerned the manner with which the searches were carried
out, rather than the fact of these searches, further noting that the defendants
were raising the contention that they were entitled to some form of immunity
for the first time even though the lawsuit had been pending for three years. A
jury returned a verdict in favor of the class of prisoners on liability, but
before the trial on the issue of damages could proceed, the defendants
appealed. The appeals court held that denial of the motion for judgment as a
matter of law was not immediately appealable, and further, was frivolous.
Mercado v. Dart, #09-3092, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 8788 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show a causal connection
between his transfer, his loss of his bed after he was taken to a hospital for
treatment, and his filing of a grievance over an incident in which he was
allegedly "yanked" out of a shower and "paraded" naked back
to his cell. The court therefore rejected his First Amendment retaliation
claim. The court also found that the defendant correctional employees were
entitled to qualified immunity on the prisoner's claim that the shower incident
violate his Eighth Amendment rights, as he had no clearly established right not
to have his naked body exposed in prison. Solan v. Ranck, #07-4571, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 9987 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A sheriff department's practice of conducting group
strip searches of detainees at the county detention facility violated the
Fourth Amendment. While the department, in seeking to justify the practice,
made general assertions concerning the argument that limited space and staffing
required group as opposed to individual strip searches, there was no apparent
effort made to carry out individualized searches or to take measures to
preserve individual privacy during the strip searches. There was also no
evidence presented that the group searches were more likely than individualized
strip searches to find contraband. The court also found that a policy of strip
searching or subjecting to a visual body cavity search all persons found
entitled to release from custody "could not be reconciled" with the
Fourth Amendment. Individual defendants, however, were entitled to qualified
immunity from liability. Lopez v. Youngblood, #1:07cv0474, 2009 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 28508 (E.D. Cal.).
A pretrial detainee failed to show that there was
any discriminatory intent towards male detainees in subjecting him to a partial
strip search and pat down of his groin area by a female cadet officer despite
the nearby availability of male detention officers. The search was reasonably
related to legitimate objectives and there was no showing of deliberate
indifference to any pain the search might have caused because of its
cross-gender aspect. Under these circumstances, the court also found, the
search did not constitute "punishment." Byrd v. Maricopa County
Sheriff's Dept., #07-16640, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10939 (9th Cir.).
A jail's clothing exchange procedure for newly
admitted inmates did not constitute a strip search violating the Fourth
Amendment and conducted without reasonable suspicion. The plaintiff inmates did
not allege that they were subjected to visual or manual body cavity searches
during the clothing exchange. They were merely required to remove all their
clothing while watched by an officer, in order to prepare to take a shower and
then put on jail clothes. The court noted that such clothing exchanges are
common practices in jails and prisons, as is the need for officers to be always
"vigilant." The procedure did not violate detainee privacy or constitute
a "strip search" The plaintiffs, further, admitted that methods were
available for them to prevent viewing of their private parts if they wanted to
do so. Kelsey v. Wright, #07-0893, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10985 (2nd Cir.).
Federal prisoner claimed that the Bureau of
Prisons based his transfer to a maximum security facility on "false and
fabricated" documents about him maintained in its records, and he sought
injunctive relief to undo the transfer. These claims, the court found, could
exclusively be addressed under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec 552a, authorizing
claims only against federal agencies. The court therefore dismissed the
prisoner's constitutional claims, and also dismissed all claims against
individuals in their individual capacities. Because the U.S. Department of
Justice has exempted the BOP Central Records System from Sec. 552a(d)'s access
and amendment provisions, and from Sec. 552a(g)'s civil remedies, the remainder
of the prisoner's claims were also dismissed. Lynn v. Lappin, Civil Action No.
08-0418, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 663 (D.D.C.).
While a prisoner sought damages for violation of
his civil rights on the basis that false disciplinary charges were filed
against him, this amounted to a claim for malicious prosecution, which does not
amount to a violation of constitutional rights. Williams v. Dretke, No.
07-11071, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 512 (5th Cir.).
An alleged violation of Ohio correctional rules
and regulations in informing a prisoner's mother that he had Hepatitis C did
not constitute negligence or any other viable claim for damages under Ohio
state law. The Ohio Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over any claim
concerning violation of the federal constitutional right of privacy based on
the improper disclosure of medical records. Petty v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehabilitation and Correction, Case No. 2007-07001, 2008 Ohio Misc. Lexis 206
(Oh. Ct. of Claims).
The use of male officers to remove a suicidal
prisoner from her cell and remove her clothing was based on staffing
exigencies. The clothing was removed so that it could not be used by the inmate
to injure herself. The court granted all defendants summary judgment, also
ruling that the prisoner's removal from her cell and placement in
administrative segregation did not violate her rights, since her past suicidal
threats and current conduct justified these actions. Graham v. Van Dycke, No.
05-3397, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53253 (D. Kan.).
A prisoner could pursue his privacy claim based
on a medical provider's alleged policy or custom of making him receive his
insulin shots in the waiting room of the prison medical department. The
prisoner claimed that this damaged his reputation and that other inmates
shunned him on the assumption that he had either Hepatitis C or was
HIV-positive. The prisoner could not, however, seek compensatory damages for
his emotional distress when he did not suffer any physical injuries, on the
basis of the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(c). Betrand v. Department of Corrections, No. 4:CV-07-859, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 28599 (M.D. Pa.).
Summary judgment was not appropriate for claims
under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
and the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) arising out of their alleged maintaining of inaccurate records concerning
a federal prisoner's citizenship. The prisoner was a U.S. citizen and claimed
that these records showed his nationality as St. Lucia, resulting in an adverse
impact on his custody and his classification as an alien subject to
deportation. Genuine issues existed as to whether the defendants' delay in
correcting their records was inexcusable. Claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief, however, were moot because the inaccurate records had been corrected,
so only the claim for damages remained. Baptiste v. Bureau of Prisons, No.
07-0959, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39479 (D.D.C.).
A New York prisoner failed to show that a nurse
administrator improperly disclosed his confidential medical information without
his consent and in retaliation for his past grievance concerning the alleged
failure to provide him with his prescribed medication. His past grievance had
been resolved in his favor, but an investigation of the grievance resulted in
the writing of a report that made an indirect reference to his medical
condition. That reference, the court found, did not violate his rights, because
the prisoner himself placed his medical condition at issue with his grievance.
Additionally, the prisoner failed to show that information about his medical
condition had been improperly distributed to persons outside of the grievance
process. Tatta v. State of New York, No. 503121, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 4372
(A.D. 3rd Dept.).
Trial court acted erroneously in dismissing the
entirety of a Texas prisoner's lawsuit alleging that his rights were violated
during a strip and cavity search conducted by an officer. The male prisoner
claimed that the search took place within the view of a female prison guard and
other prisoners, and that, during the search, the officer never accused him of
possession of contraband. If these allegations were true, his Fourth Amendment
rights would have been violated. The prisoner was barred from recovering compensatory
damages for emotional or mental injuries under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e) because
he did not claim he had suffered any physical injury, but this would not bar
him from recovering punitive or nominal damages. Hutchins v. McDaniels, No.
06-41733, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29755 (5th Cir.).
Correctional officers at a maximum security
correctional facility, housing male prisoners who pose an extreme escape risk
or who have a clearly demonstrated history of violent acts towards other
prisoners and staff, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit objecting to the
release of their birth dates and Social Security numbers to prisoners by the
Michigan Department of Corrections. The disclosure allegedly occurred in
connection with the prisoners' appeals of their disciplinary convictions, and
internal reports containing the information was inadvertently not removed
before documents were provided to the prisoners. The prisoners subsequently
allegedly taunted and threatened the officers, sometimes incorporating the
officers' Social Security numbers, which they had committed to memory, into the
taunts. The prisoners also allegedly used the numbers to obtain other
confidential information about the officers. A federal appeals court ruled that
two of the defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity from
liability, and that the hearing officer involved in the case was entitled to
absolute judicial immunity from liability. The appeals court found no
constitutional violation in the release of the information, quickly adding that
this did not mean that protection of the officers' privacy was not important,
but rather that the protection of the privacy right involved "must be left
to the states or the legislative process." Barber v. Overton, No. 05-2014,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18320 (6th Cir.).
Because the plaintiff prisoner had already
disclosed his consensual sexual relationship with another inmate, from whom he
allegedly contracted an HIV infection, he could not show that prisoner
personnel violated his right to privacy by disclosing that relationship to
others. Further, mental health professionals in a sexual offender program did
not violate his rights or any promise of confidentiality when they disclosed
his relationship to others who had a need to know. He claimed that the other
prisoner did not disclose that he was HIV positive. The prisoner also had no
claim against correctional officials for having contracted HIV since he
consented to the conduct that resulted in it, and concealed it from prison
officials. Boling v. Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, No. 2005-09901,
2007 Ohio Misc. Lexis 81 and 82 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
Male prisoner failed to show a violation of
Fourth Amendment privacy rights or 8th Amendment rights based on female
correctional officers' alleged intentional observation of him in the shower or
in his housing unit nude or in various undressed states, but the court ordered
further proceedings on his claims that he was subsequently "ogled"
multiple times in retaliation for his pursuit of grievances over the
observations. The court dismissed claims based on a correctional officers
alleged actions in informing inmates and staff members that the plaintiff was a
homosexual, child molester, and/or rapist. Morris v. Newland, No. CIV
S-00-2794, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15725 (E.D. Cal.).
Pennsylvania court rules that it did not violate
the privacy rights of detainees in police department holding cells for their
cells to be monitored from the mayor's home through the use of video
surveillance. The detainees had no legitimate expectation of privacy in their
cells, and the video images were not communicated to the public at large, or
distributed on an overly broad basis. DeBlasio v. Pignolia, No. 213 C.D. 2006,
2007 Pa. Commw. Lexis 113.
Federal Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Central Record
System is exempt from the provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552,
under which the plaintiff prisoner sought injunctive relief and money damages
based on the alleged failure to maintain accurate records and remove false
information. Scaff-Martinez v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 05-11119, 160
Fed. Appx. 955 (11th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court allows class action
challenging conditions of confinement for civilly committed "Sexually
Violent Predators" in California to proceed on most claims, including
claims involving procedural and substantive due process, privacy, excessive
force, access to courts, unlawful retaliation for grievances or lawsuits, and
forced medication in non-emergency situations. Hydrick v. Hunter, No. 03-56712,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13497 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
HIV positive prisoner could not pursue claim for
damages for alleged violation of Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a, based on
alleged disclosure of his medical records by dental hygienist to another
inmate, in the absence of a showing that his alleged mistreatment by other
prisoners and prison staff members was caused by the disclosure. In this case,
there was evidence that other prisoners knew about his HIV status already and
that his HIV-positive status could have been discovered by anyone observing the
medications he took, which he did not attempt to conceal. Clark v. Bureau of
Prisons, No. Civ.A. 03-0859, 407 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D.D.C. 2005). [N/R]
Male prisoner's claim that female guard made him
strip naked and masturbate for her enjoyment, if true, was a violation of his
privacy rights, but not "cruel and unusual punishment," since he only
suffered minimal injury. Prisoner also claimed he was retaliated against for
complaining about this treatment, in violation of his First Amendment rights.
Boxer X v. Harris, No. 04-13083, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 2008 (11th Cir.). [2006
JB Mar]
Connecticut prisoner's allegation that his
meetings with mental health staff at the prison were conducted on the cell
tier, within the hearing of other inmates, adequately stated a possible claim
for violation of his right to privacy concerning his mental health issues under
federal and state law. Hunnicutt v. Armstrong, No. 04-1565, 152 Fed. Appx. 34
(2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
New York prisoner could proceed with his claim
that he suffered mental, physical, and emotional harm because a hospital
employee informed a correctional officer of his HIV positive status. Hospital
employee had an obligation under state law to inform officer that unauthorized
further disclosure was prohibited, andthere was a factual issue as to whether
it was foreseeable that the officer would subsequently disclose the prisoner's
HIV status to other non-medical personnel at the correctional facility.
Melendez v. Strong Memorial Hospital, 804 N.Y.S.2d 626 (Sup. 2005). [N/R]
Unclothed body cavity search of male prisoner
during cell transfer in segregated housing violated his rights if it was
"needlessly intrusive," based on presence of female officer, which
the prisoner found "degrading and humiliating. Officer who conducted the
search, however, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability because
there was, at the time of the search, January 2, 2001, no clearly established
right of the prisoner to be free from the exposure of his body to officers of
the opposite gender. Lay v. Porker, No. CV02-01680, 371 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (C.D.
Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Alleged county jail policy of keeping all
pretrial detainees housed in administrative segregation completely naked
violated their due process and Fourth Amendment rights, and was not justified
by concerns about suicide and guard safety. Federal court was also troubled by
the use of guards of the opposite gender to remove clothing from such
detainees. Sheriff was, however, entitled to qualified immunity from liability,
as the law on the subject was not clearly established at the time the alleged
policy was implemented. Rose v. Saginaw County, #01-10337, 353 F. Supp. 2d 900
(E.D. Mich. 2005). [2005 JB May]
Corrections officer did not violate male
prisoner's constitutional right to privacy in his genitals by carrying out a
"routine" strip search during the intake process, even with the
presence of two female nurses. Medical personnel routinely examine patients of
the opposite sex and this practice does not violate their rights. Jackson v.
Wiley, 352 F. Supp.2d 666 (E.D. Va. 2004), affirmed per curiam, 103 Fed. Appx.
505, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15198 (4th Cir). [2005 JB May]
Female prisoner's claim that male jailer walked
by and saw her bare breasts while female officers were searching her in a
shower room did not establish a violation of her constitutional rights. Mills
v. City of Barbourville, No. 02-6404, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 23753 (6th Cir.
2004). [2005 JB Feb]
Michigan Department of Corrections' decision to
designate certain jobs in housing units at female prisons as "female
only," was valid. Gender is found to be a "bona fide occupational
qualification" for such jobs, in light of a past history of alleged sexual
abuse of female prisoners by male personnel. Everson v. Michigan Dep't. of
Corrections, No. 02-2028, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24905 (6th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB
Jan]
A private corporation that ran a prison under a
contract with a state entity was not a federal agent simply because a pretrial
detainee was incarcerated there while awaiting trial on federal charges.
Accordingly, the prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights claims against
the corporation and its employees under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which created a remedy
for the violation of constitutional rights by federal agents. The prisoner
could, however, pursue federal civil rights claims against the corporation and
its employees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, which creates a remedy for violations
of constitutional rights under color of state law, as the corporation and its
employees derived their authority over the prisoner from their contract with
the state. Federal trial court dismisses his claim that male prisoner's right
to privacy while he showered and performed bodily functions was violated by
female employees at the facility for procedural reasons. Lacedra v. Donald W. Wyatt
Detention Facility, C.A. No. 99-458L, 334 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D.R.I. 2004). [N/R]
Even if female prisoner's constitutional rights
were violated when she was allegedly strip searched by male guards at city jail
"without good cause," she did not claim that the city had a policy or
custom of allowing "baseless cross-gender strip searches," so that
the city could not be held liable. Further, the Constitution does not require
jails that house female detainees either to staff more than one jailer at a
time or to staff a female jailer. The appeals court also found that even if the
prisoner alleged a constitutional violation arising out of the misuse of the
jail's video system, she failed to show any basis for holding the city liable
on the basis of any of its customs or policies. Soto v. City of Haltom, No.
03-10650, 106 Fed. Appx. 903 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal prisoner could not be awarded damages
under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(g)(4) based on his allegation that
the Bureau of Prison's reliance on his criminal history, as reflected in a
pre-sentence investigation report, constituted the intentional maintaining of
inaccurate records. The prisoner did not challenge the accuracy of his past
drug conviction, but rather to the weight it should have been given in
determining his custody classification. Doyon v. U.S. Department of Justice,
304 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoners' claims against federal Bureau of
Prisons challenging an alleged practice of retaining second copies of photos
taken of prisoners and their visitors reinstated. Plaintiffs claimed that this
practice violated their rights under the Privacy Act as well as constituting a
misuse of Inmate Trust Fund money when the photos were paid for by the Fund.
Maydak v. U.S., No. 02-5168, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 7542 (D.C. Cir. 2004). [2004
JB Jun]
Even if three female inmates in a nearby cell
could have viewed a male prisoner on the toilet at times, he had no valid claim
for violation of his right to privacy when this was unknown to jail officials
and he did not complain to shift supervisors during fifty-one opportunities to
do so, prior to filing a formal grievance. Jail officials, upon notification of
the issue, promptly furnished a solution. Simpson v. Penobscot County Sheriff's
Department, 285 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D. Me. 2003). [2004 JB Apr]
Male prisoner's strip search in the presence of a
female sergeant was not a violation of his Eighth Amendment or privacy rights,
even assuming that the sergeant laughed at his nakedness. The search, conducted
in response to allegations of smoking marijuana, was reasonably related to
legitimate security concerns, and verbal insults of an inmate were not
violations of his constitutional rights. Roden v. Sowders, No. 02-6427, 84 Fed.
Appx. 611 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
New Jersey intermediate appeals court upholds
Merit System Board's decision that county was entitled to designation of eight
Juvenile Detention Officer positions as "male-only" on the basis of
"bona fide occupational qualification" because of privacy interest of
male juvenile detainees in not being viewed by female officers while showering,
using toilet, and being strip-searched. In the Matter of Juvenile Detention
Officer Union County, 837 A.2d 1101 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2003). [N/R]
Prison's conducting of visual body cavity
searches of sequestered, dangerous prisoners after they left a recreation area
was justified by legitimate security concerns and therefore did not violate
prisoners' rights. Practice of using only male staff members to conduct search
of male prisoners, and taking precautions to avoid unnecessary viewing of
prisoners by others not directly involved in the searches adequately protected
prisoners' privacy rights. Skundor v. McBride, 280 F. Supp. 2d 524 (S.D.W.Va.
2003). [N/R]
Assignment of female correctional officers to
supervise male prison living areas was not a violation of male prisoner's
First, Fourth, Eighth, or 14th Amendment (equal protection) rights. The
prisoner's privacy rights were minimal and the state had a legitimate interest
in providing equal employment opportunities to female officers and in
flexibility in personnel staffing. Sinclair v. Stalder, #03-30456, 78 Fed.
Appx. 987 (5th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Deputy's statement to prisoner, in front of other
inmates, revealing his HIV status did not violate his constitutional rights.
Federal trial court holds that there is no general fundamental constitutional
right to privacy for personal medical information and that any judgment about
whether such information should be protected must be left to legislative
action. Sherman v. Jones, 258 Fed. Supp. 2d 440 (E.D. Va. 2003). [2003
JB Sep]
Strip search of male prisoner in the presence of
female correctional officers could constitute cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment if female officers were, as prisoner alleged,
"invited spectators" and the search was carried out in a manner
designed to humiliate and demean him. Federal appeals court rules that provision
of Prison Litigation Reform Act barring claims for mental or emotional injuries
without a showing of physical injury did not apply, in this case, to bar claims
for nominal or punitive damages. Calhoun v. Detella, #98-2894, 319 F.3d 936
(7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Correctional employees actions in strip searching
a male prisoner in front of female employees was not cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Prisoner was strip searched
for his and the officers' safety after he did not respond to requests for his
attention. Dye v. Lomen, #01-3766, 40 Fed. Appx. 993 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Federal prisoner stated a possible claim against
the Bureau of Prisons for violation of federal Privacy Act based on a claim
that he was transferred and reclassified as a "special offender"
based on false accusations of misconduct against him in alleged retaliation for
his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons,
#00-5424, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Male and female prisoners were not
"similarly situated" for purposes of male prisoner's lawsuit
complaining that the female prisoners were given a greater degree of privacy in
toilets and showers than that afforded to males. Stronger security concerns
involving male prisoners justified surveillance of male prisoners in toilets
and showers by correctional officers, including female officers. Oliver v.
Scott, #00-10898, 276 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Apr]
Jail employees who participated in the restraint
of a prisoner who was suffering from a cocaine overdose and subsequently died
could not be awarded damages against the facility commander for violation of
their constitutional rights based on his alleged disclosure of their identities
to an "angry group" of the friends and family of the prisoner.
Nicholas v. Wallenstein, #99-36205, 266 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2001). [2002
JB Apr]
Dismissal of female detainee's federal civil
rights claim by federal trial court did not require it to also dismiss her
state law privacy and assault and battery claims against jail employee for
thoroughly examining her pubic hair for lice as she exited the county jail.
Skurstenis v. Jones, No. Civ.A. 98-AR-2295-S, 139 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (N.D. Ala.
2001). [N/R]
299:163 Federal appeals court rules that HIV-
positive prisoner had a federal constitutional right to privacy for his medical
records and condition, but that prison officials were entitled to qualified
immunity for conduct that allegedly disclosed his conditions to others in 1995,
since this right was not then clearly established. Doe v. Delie, #99-3019, 257
F.3d 309 (3d Cir. 2001).
296:122 Parole officers' release of parolee's
medical records to officers investigating serial rape case did not violate parolee's
Fourth Amendment or Eighth Amendment rights or his right to privacy. Webb v.
Goldstein, 117 F. Supp. 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
295:108 Michigan city reaches $31,500 settlement
with three detainees jailed completely naked for a number of hours as a suicide
prevention measure; prior court ruling found that removal of their underwear
and possible viewing of their bodies by female officers was not adequately
justified by suicide prevention concerns, and could violate privacy and due
process rights. Wilson v. City of Kalamazoo,127 F. Supp. 2d 855 (W.D. Mich.
2000).
294:91 Having male pretrial detainees strip to
their underwear as a suicide prevention measure if they refused to answer
intake questions about suicidal tendencies was reasonable and did not violate
their due process or privacy rights, even if done in the presence of female
correctional officers. Johnson v. City of Kalamazoo, 124 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (W.D.
Mich. 2000).
292:61 Spanish-speaking inmate had no right to a
"medically qualified" Spanish interpreter to communicate with medical
personnel; no violation of his privacy right was caused by the use of an inmate
interpreter. Cortes v. Johnson, 114 F. Supp. 2d 182 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
286:147 Alleged delay in providing
Spanish-speaking prisoner with AIDS medication was not a violation of the
Eighth Amendment when there was no claim that the failure to adequately advise
him of prison medical policies was deliberate; prisoner had no clearly
established right to Spanish-speaking medical personnel, so prison officials
were not liable for an "invasion of privacy" allegedly resulting from
inmate's need to use other prisoners as interpreters. Leon v. Johnson, 96 F.
Supp. 2d 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
280:55 Male prisoner's right to privacy was not violated
by correctional officials refusal to allow him to block cell observation window
with a piece of paper when he used the toilet, allowing female and male
correctional officers and prisoners passing by to observe him doing so.
MacDonald v. Angelone, 69 F. Supp. 2d 787 (E.D. Va. 1999).
280:62 Correctional officials were not liable to
female prisoners who were strip searched by female officers with male officers
and staff members present during emergency evacuation of women's correctional
facility because of flooding of nearby creek; no clearly established law
against viewing of unclothed female prisoners by male officers who did not
conduct searches or touch prisoners. Carlin v. Manu, No. 98-372-HU, 72 F. Supp.
2d 1177 (D. Or. 1999).
265:14 Assigning only female correctional
officers to certain posts where they were required to observe female inmates in
the showers and toilet areas was not sex discrimination; policy was reasonable
response to concerns over inmate privacy and allegations of abuse by male
officers. Robino v. Iranon, #97-16470, 145 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 1998).
» Editor's Note: For a similar ruling, see
Torres v. Wisc. Dept. of Health & Social Serv., 859 F.2d 1523 (7th Cir.
1988) (en banc).
270:93 Allegation that male prisoner was
subjected to repeated strip and body cavity searches by female officer under
non-emergency conditions while male officers were available to conduct the
search, and that purpose of searches was solely to "harass" and
intimidate him stated non- frivolous claim for Fourth Amendment violation.
Moore v. Carwell, #97-40840, 168 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1999).
251:169 Visual body cavity searches of male
inmate and observation of him in the shower by female prison guards did not
violate his right to privacy or against cruel and unusual punishment, despite
their alleged pointing at him, joking among themselves, and
"gawking." Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1997).
244:57 Co. pays $30,000 to woman who was
transferred from women's jail to men's jail after female prisoners complained
that she was male, was allegedly forced to disrobe before deputies and inmates
at men's jail, and was subsequently transferred back to women's facility after
it was determined that she was, in fact, female. Penn v. Los Angeles Co., U.S.
Dist. Ct., L.A., Calif., reported in The National Law Journal, p. A23 (Dec. 9,
1996).
245:76 Prison officials were entitled to
qualified immunity from claim that having female guards present during strip
search of male Muslim prisoner, and other incidents in which female guards
observed male prisoner naked, violated First Amendment right to religious
freedom. Canedy v. Boardman, 91 F.3d 30 (7th Cir. 1996).
235:107 Prisoner's assertion that he was
subjected to a body cavity search in front of 100 people, including female
correctional officers, secretaries, and case managers prompts federal appeals
court to overturn dismissal of his suit charging that his privacy rights were
violated. Hayes v. Marriott, 70 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 1995).
231:42 Federal appeals court finds that
"cross-sex" monitoring of naked prisoners does not violate any
constitutional right of privacy, constitute cruel and unusual punishment, or
violate due process; male prisoner's complaint that female guards could observe
him naked in jail was properly dismissed. Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144 (7th
Cir. 1995).
217:10 Female prisoner who claimed that she was
subjected to sexual harassment when housed in an all-male cell ward could not
collect damages from prison officials since any right not to be housed there
was not clearly established. Galvan v. Carothers, 855 F.Supp. 285 (D. Alaska
1994).
222:92 Isolated and occasional alleged instances
of male correctional employees viewing nude female prisoner in the shower did
not violate prisoner's privacy rights. Thompson v. Wyandotte Co. Detention, 869
F.Supp. 893 (D. Kan. 1994).
223:108 "Brief" presence of female
correctional officer during strip search of male prisoner being transferred
because of information about impending prisoner disturbance did not violate
prisoner's privacy rights; decision to strip search him again before placing
him in segregation at receiving facility was not unreasonable; transfer and
segregation were justified by belief that he was an "instigator" of
feared disturbance. Jones v. Harrison, 864 F.Supp. 166 (D. Kan. 1994).
225:140 Reading aloud of allegedly confidential
information from prisoner's presentence report in group therapy session as part
of domestic violence treatment program did not violate prisoner's
constitutional privacy rights. Taliaferro v. DiFrancesco, 871 F.Supp. 330 (E.D.
Wis. 1994). » Editor's Note: See also Taylor v. Miller, 853 F.Supp. 305
(W.D.Wis. 1994), holding that no privacy right was implicated by disclosure of
inmate's criminal history file to his girlfriend and mother, as his criminal
record was a matter of public record under Wisconsin state law.
Federal appeals court reinstate's inmate's
lawsuit complaining that female guards' observation of his nude body while
showering, using toilet, and during strip search violated his right to privacy.
Canedy v. Boardman, 16 F.3d 183 (7th Cir. 1994).
Federal court holds that female guards
observation of nude male inmate's body is not a constitutional violation as
long as guards " act professionally" and observation by male guards
would be proper. Canell v. Armenikis, 840 F.Supp. 783 (D. Or. 1993).
Two federal courts find that female officers'
observation of male inmates in the bathroom or shower did not violate privacy
rights, but one holds that bathroom and dormitory design which put inmates on
display to officers of both genders virtually 24 hours a day did constitute a
breach of privacy. Arey v. Robinson, 819 F.Supp. 478 (D. Md. 1992); Tensley v. Alexander,
822 F.Supp. 411 (E.D. Mich. 1993).
Federal appeals court reinstates suit in which
male inmates claimed female correctional officers solicited them to masturbate
and otherwise expose their genitals to them and then filed false disciplinary charges
against them. Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024 (11th Cir. 1993).
Putting female guards in work posts where they
could view nude male inmates using showers or toilets was not an actionable
violation of prisoner's constitutional right to privacy. Riddick v. Sutton, 794
F.Supp. 169 (E.D.N.C. 1992).
Inmate's privacy rights were not violated by
television cameraman videotaping him without his consent as he walked down
prison public corridor; administrative directive requiring inmate consent did not
create constitutionally protected liberty interest. Jones/Seymour v. LeFebvre,
781 F.Supp. 355 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
Male inmate's privacy rights were not violated by
female correctional officer's ability to view him in various conditions of
nudity while showering, using toilet or during strip searches, when he could
point to only one isolated example and no unprofessionalism by female officers
was indicated. Rodriguez v. Kincheloe, 763 F.Supp. 463 (E.D. Wash. 1991).
Jail officials were entitled to qualified
immunity from liability for placing female detainee in the same cell block as a
transsexual male prisoner. Crosby v. Reynolds, 763 F.Supp. 666 (D. Me. 1991).
Inmates' suit stated claim for violation of their
right to privacy when they were videotaped without their consent while
handcuffed and chained. Best v. District of Columbia, 743 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C.
1990).
Co. could be liable for alleged unnecessary
exposure of semi-nude female detainee, classified as suicidal, to members of
the opposite sex. Rushing v. Wayne Co., 436 Mich. 247, 462 N.W.2d 23 (1990).
Prison officials were entitled to qualified
immunity from damages for allowing female guards to patrol areas where they
might see male inmates naked. Csizmadia v. Fauver, 746 F.Supp. 483 (D.N.J.
1990).
Allowing female guards to do pat searches of male
inmates and to see male inmates nude and partially nude did not violate
prisoner's privacy interests; restrictions of guard assignments in a maximum
security unit to male guards did not violate civil rights of female guards;
provision of more privacy protections to female inmates did not violate equal
protection. Timm v. Gunter, 917 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir. 1990).
Prison inmate entitled to damages for invasion of
privacy after correctional officer made copies of his love letters to other
inmate's ex- wife. Jolivet v. Rasmussen, U.S. Dist., Ct., D. Utah, reported in
The Salt Lake Tribune, p. 16B (Sept. 16, 1990).
Prisoner has right to shield his naked body from
members of opposite sex; can sue on prison's use of see-through shower curtains
and open toilets; may also sue for violation of his right to practice
"Christian modesty." Lumpkin v. Burns, 702 F.Supp. 242 (D. Nev.
1988).
Inmate claiming improper disclosure of alleged membership
in terrorist group must exhaust administrative remedies before suing. Reyes v.
Supervisor of Drug Enforcement Admin., 834 F.2d 1093 (1st Cir. 1987).
Inmate not entitled to order preventing sheriff
from telling media he believed inmate was responsible for obscene letters.
Freshour v. Radcliff, 519 N.E.2d 395 (Ohio 1988).
Male prisoners did not suffer loss of privacy
because of presence of female guards. Johnson v. Pennsylvania Bureau of
Corrections, 41 CrL 2242 (U.S.D.C. W. Pa. 1987).
Monitoring and recording telephone calls between
inmates and private citizens from prison telephones not unconstitutional; tape
recordings of married inmates does not violate husband-wife privileges. United
States v. Clark, 651 F.Supp. 76 (M.D. Pa. 1986).
Electronic sound equipment must be removed from
chapel, rules California Supreme Court. In Re Arias, 230 Cal.Rptr. 505 (1986).
Inmate has no libel action against newspaper for
article entitled: "Inmate Files Suit Claiming State Official Raped Him."
Cofield v. Advertiser Company, 486 So.2d 434 (Ala. 1986).
Hospital's unauthorized release of prisoner's
medical records to sheriff requires state action, not federal. Dean v. Roane
General Hospital, 578 F.Supp. 408 (S.D. W. Va. 1984).
Court upholds female officers working in housing
unit after psychologist testifies women have a "softening effect."
Grummett v. Rushen, 587 F.Supp. 913 (N.D. Cal. 1984).
Inmate properly denied permission to appear on
national television show "Lie Detector." Arney v. Cir., Kansas State
Penitentiary, 671 P.2d 559 (Kan. 1983).
Pennsylvania court upholds prison rule
prohibiting telephone calls on the day prior to an inmate transfer; allows
civil rights action for assault to proceed. Mastrota v. Robinson, 534 F.Supp.
434 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
Inmate has a right to privacy and should not have
been filmed in cell without his consent. Smith v. Fairman, 98 F.R.D. 445 (C.D.
Ill. 1982).
Government must show that monitoring an
inmate-visitor conversation is necessary to prison security before such
conversation may be used at trial. People v. Maxie, 165 Cal.Rptr. 4 (App.
1980).
Inmate may be required to speak in English so
that prison officials may monitor his phone calls. Rodriguez v. Blaedow, 497
F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Wis. 1980).
Federal court upholds $7,000 awarded to two
Massachusetts inmates whose telephone conversations were monitored. Campiti v.
Walonis, 611 F.2d 387 (1st Cir. 1979). Privacy provision of California
Constitution states cause of action against county jail where electronic
surveillance system was used to routinely monitor conversations between
pretrial detainees and their visitors; jail must show compelling state interest
to continue. DeLancie v. Superior Court of State of Cal., 159 Cal.Rptr. 20
(App. 1979).
Emergency justified banning interviews with
deathrow inmates during pendency of death warrant, but willing inmates whose
death warrants are outstanding must be allowed access to media. Times Pub. Co.
v. Fla. Dept. of Corrections, 375 So.2d 307 (Fla. Ap. 1979).
Evidence obtained through jail telephone
monitoring is admissible at inmate's criminal trial. People v. Myles, 379
N.E.2d 897 (Ill. App. 1978).
News media has no absolute right to access to
county jail and its inmates. Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2588
(1978); see also Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 94 S.Ct. 2800 (1974).
For earlier case discussions see: Garrett v.
Estelle, 424 F.Supp. 468 (N.D. Tex. 1977); United States ex rel. Manicone v.
Corso, 365 F.Supp. 577 (E.D. N.Y. 1973); Seattle-Tacoma Newspaper Guild v.
Parker, 480 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1973); Washington Post Co. v Kleindienst, 375
F.Supp. 770 (D. D.C. 1972); Burnham v. Oswald, 342 F.Supp. 880 (W.D. N.Y.
1972); Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 451 F.2d 545 (1st Cir. 1971); Seale v. Manson, 326
F.Supp. 1375 (D. Conn. 1971).