AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Clothing
Monthly Law Journal Article: Religious Freedom in Correctional Facilities (II) --Appearance and Apparel 2007 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoner Clothing: Selected Legal Issues, 2019 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
A woman arrested for domestic battery refused to exit the vehicle transporting
her to the jail. She shouted obscenities, exhibited slurred speech, and was
extremely combative. She tested positive for cocaine and cannabinoids, and
later claimed that she had been experiencing a “post‐traumatic
stress disorder flashback.” Refusing to change into a jail uniform, two
female and three male officers restrained her, placed her on her stomach, held
her arms over her head, and lifted off her shirt. She responded by banging her
head against the floor while shouting, “They’re going to rape
me.” The officers removed her clothing, draped a jail uniform over her
body, and left her in a cell. She then had a seizure and was hospitalized. She
sued under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Her lawsuit claimed that
the jail had a “widespread practice” of using excessive force
during strip searches, and failing to reasonably accommodate people
experiencing emotional distress during such searches. Other prisoners joined
her lawsuit to challenge a policy requiring female detainees to wear either
white underwear or no underwear at all. The strip search claims were properly
rejected, as there was insufficient evidence of such a custom or practice.
Summary judgment was inappropriate as to detainees' claim that the jail's
policy requiring female detainees to wear white underwear or no underwear
violated the Fourteenth Amendment because the record did not show the policy
was within any correctional mainstream, irregular enforcement created the
potential for abuse, and the detainees alleged a credible harm to dignity
interests. Mulvania v. Rock Island County Sheriff, #16-1711, 850 F.3d 849 (7th
Cir.).
A civilly detained sexually
dangerous person who declined to cooperate with intake procedures at a
treatment facility and threatened guards was taken to a secure infirmary room
with large windows and denied clothing. He spent eight days there without
clothes, but was given clothing on the ninth day after he started cooperating,
and was then moved to the general population. A federal appeals court
overturned summary judgment for the defendants on their due process claims. The
detainee's eight days without clothes in a fan-blown stream of chilled air,
imposed without a hearing was not justified as a part of the penalty for a
crime, since he was not a prisoner convicted of a crime. Further, even for a
convicted prisoner, that treatment might not be proper when it was for the goal
of gaining cooperation in posing for a picture as part of the facility's
procedures. Bell v. McAdory, #15-1036, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7764 (7th Cir.).
A mentally disturbed
man arrested for assaulting an officer was forcibly dressed in pink underwear
at the county jail, and yelled out that he was being "raped" (which
was not the case). Following his release on bail, and hearing that there was a
warrant for his arrest for spitting on an officer during the dress out, he ran
away from his home, fearing another arrest. Running four or five miles, he died
the next day from acute cardiac arrhythmia. A federal appeals court found that
his estate validly stated a federal civil rights claim, and that testimony was
properly offered to show that the decedent experienced a "sense of
humiliation at being forced to wear pink." With no explanation or defense
offered for the practice of dressing detainees in pink, the practice
"appears to be punishment without legal justification." The trial
court acted properly, however, in excluding testimony by the plaintiff's expert
that the dress-out procedure was "probably" the cause of his death.
That testimony failed to take into account "generally accepted facts"
that cardiac arrhythmia occurred at a generally higher rate among
schizophrenics, and explain how that and the fact that stress could render the
condition fatal were enough to pinpoint the specific incident that caused the
death. Family members should not have been barred from testifying about what
the decedent told them about his experiences, for the purpose of showing his
state of mind in reaction to it. Wagner v. County of Maricopa, #10-15501, 2012
U.S. App. Lexis 4721 (9th Cir.).
A prison's denial of an inmate's demand that he
be allowed to wear his own shoes was justified by legitimate penological
objectives including security concerns over the possibility of increased
fighting among inmates and the possible appearance of favoritism to particular
individuals. Wolfenbarger v. Black, No. CIV S-03-2417, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
71050 (E.D. Cal.).
An Oregon prisoner claimed that he was improperly
placed in suicide watch status and then deprived of clothing other than
underwear, in violation of a state administrative rule. The appeals court found
that the trial court, in granting the defendant correctional officers qualified
immunity, failed to properly determine that there was no constitutional
violation, so that further proceedings were required. Howard v. Klicka, No.
05-35795, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14255 (9th Cir.). Editor's Note: In two prior
decisions, the courts addressed the issue of deprivation of clothing under the
Oregon administrative rule. The court ruled in LeMaire v. Maass, 745 F. Supp.
623, 639 (D. Or. 1990), that deprivation of clothing and property is
unconstitutional when misuse does not present a serious risk to safety, and a
federal appeals court then ruled on appeal in LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444
(9th Cir. 1993), that the state's rules are constitutional as written.
Prisoner's lawsuit did not properly show an
unconstitutional policy or practice relating to how prison laundry was cleaned
or exchanged, but rather only asserted "generic complaints" about the
handling of his clothing/laundry. He also failed to show that he was caused to
wear pants and shirts that aggravated a skin condition, in violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights. Court grants him permission, however, to file a
further amended complaint to attempt to make out a viable claim. Wilson v.
Director of the Division of Adult Institutions, No. CIV S-06-0791, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 32067 (E.D. Cal.).
Prisoners have a due process liberty
interest in choice of clothing, but prison restrictions on wearing of certain
civilian clothing did not violate due process; rule was designed to help
prevent escapes. In re Alcala, 271 Cal.Rptr. 674 (Cal.App. 1990).