Inmates Fourth Amendment rights

Document Type:Research Paper

Subject Area:Criminology

Document 1

Hudson conducted a "shakedown search" without first seeking consent from Palmer. Palmer later claimed that the search was meant to harass him. The Court of Appeal had ruled that prisoners have a limited right to privacy in their housing and thus had to be protected from searches that were meant to solely harass or humiliate them after reversing a previous ruling by the District Court. The District Court had ruled that inmates did not have privacy rights in their cells. However, from the case, prison officials were permitted to conduct cell searches with few restrictions. A prisoner's expectation of privacy in his or her prison cell is the not the kind of expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

Sign up to view the full document!

This is because they are offenders who have secluded from the rest of society due to their mistakes and they are been punished for these mistakes. One of the best ways to deliver punishment is to deny their privacy so they can reform. Thus, their moral and ethical standards do not match those of other people in society. As earlier mentioned inmates can use their privacy in the cells to continue, illegal undertakings such as drug trade as well as hide weapons, which could be used to harm other prisoners. The inmates at the facility were complaining of being double-bunked awaiting trial which they termed as unconstitutional. Moreover, the inmates made other claims against other policies at the facility including "undue length of confinement, improper searches, inadequate recreational, educational, and employment opportunities, insufficient staff, and objectionable restrictions on the purchase and receipt of personal items and books.

Sign up to view the full document!

" however, the court decided that none of the concerns raised by the inmates was unconstitutional as all the security restrictions and practices was not a "punishment" that violated the rights of pretrial detainees as stipulated in Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the restrictions, as well as practices, were reasonable responses that Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) officials had to undertake since the pretrial detainees only stayed in the facility for a limited duration of time. For instance, the double-bunking practice did not take away the right of pretrial detainees as stipulated under the Fifth Amendment. Some inmates may get extra property such as blankets, towels, sheets and even uniform, which can be used, for illegal activities in the prison such as committing suicide of hiding other contraband items such as weapons and drugs ("Prison Searches, Shakedowns & Contraband in Prison | ZPR", 2018).

Sign up to view the full document!

From $10 to earn access

Only on Studyloop

Original template

Downloadable