Part III
STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW, JAILS, JUVENILES,
PRIVATIZATION, AND OTHER SPECIAL
ISSUES IN CORRECTIONS
Chapter 20 – Jails

Introduction: This chapter looks at
holdings and standards that apply
to jails, focusing on those peculiar
to the main jail population – pretrial
detainees
Chapter Outline

Constitutional Rights of Jail Inmates:
Bell v. Wolfish




Other Constitutional Issues in Jails
Using Excessive Force and Failure to
Train
Other Jail Issues and Cases
Removing the Sheriff
Constitutional Rights of Jail
Inmates: Bell v. Wolfish (1979)

Bell v. Wolfish (1979) – leading case on
constitutional requirements for jail
conditions – standards set in Bell



Because of due process protections, a
pretrial inmate may not be punished
He may not be deprived of his liberty
without due process of law
Question becomes how to tell if the inmate
is being punished
Constitutional Rights of Jail
Inmates: Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d

Court held that the test is
 “If a particular condition or restriction of
pretrial detention is reasonably related
to a legitimate governmental objective,
it does not, without more, amount to
‘punishment’”
 Ordinarily, the objective is security or
good order
Constitutional Rights of Jail
Inmates: Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d

Court held that crowding, with doublebunking of inmates in single cells and
even sleeping in non-bed areas did not
amount to punishment
Constitutional Rights of Jail
Inmates: Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d

Conditions other than the number of inmates
and the square footage of cells are important
 Length of time inmates are held at the jail
 Amount of time spent in cells
 Are there activities for them outside their
cells
 Does the large number of inmates adversely
affect the delivery of other important
services, such as food, sanitation, and
health care
Constitutional Rights of Jail
Inmates: Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d

Jail inmates also are protected when
other rights, protected by other
constitutional provisions, are
implicated – but all may be limited by
security concerns
Constitutional Rights of Jail
Inmates: Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d
Permissible for jail officials to limit
incoming publications to publisher-only
mailings (First Amendment)
 For searches, the Court upheld jail
practices of doing cell searches without
the inmate being present
 And conducting visual (body cavity)
searches after contact visiting (Fourth
Amendment)

Constitutional Rights of Jail
Inmates: Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d

Jails, along with pretrial inmates, may hold:



Those with short sentences (e.g., a year or
less), with exceptions made as needed, such as
for a disruptive inmate, or an escape risk
Those awaiting transfer to a state prison – stay
may be extended due to crowding at the prison
Those sentenced prisoners who have been
returned to court to be tried on additional
charges, to challenge their convictions by appeal
or by collateral attack, or to testify in another
case
Constitutional Rights of Jail
Inmates: Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d



Those who are ordered back to consult with
counsel or be present for a hearing
Those who have been arrested as probation or
parole violators and are being held locally pending
revocation hearings
Jails may also house “cadre” for maintenance and
other work


May have somewhat more than a one year sentence
May volunteer to stay at the jail in order to be closer to
home or in some cases to have better living conditions
Constitutional Rights of Jail
Inmates: Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d

Constitutional rights of convicted persons
held in jails are the same as those for
inmates in prisons or correctional
institutions


In Bell, Court found that the mail and search
issues were governed by the same security and
good order concerns
Government policies and practices were valid
both for the convicted and sentenced jail
inmates and for the pretrial detainees
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails

Visiting – In Block v. Rutherford (1984),
the Court held it was permissible for a
jail to limit visiting to non-contact

There was a legitimate governmental
objective – preventing the introduction of
contraband
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

In Houchins v. KQED (1978), the Court
said a TV station did not have any right
of access to come into a jail to film a
story on a jail suicide

Court restated its holding in Pell v.
Procunier (1974) and Saxbe v. Washington
Post (1974)
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

Grabowski v. Jackson County Public
Defenders Office (1995) dealt, in part,
with jail conditions

Grabowski claimed a § 1983 violation when
his visiting privileges with his girlfriend
were revoked and when denied telephone
and recreation privileges while a pretrial
detainee
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d



Girlfriend also was an inmate at the jail
Privileges were revoked when Grabowski
got into a shouting match with a paralegal
and called her a racial slur in the presence
of other (mostly black) inmates
Jail officials saw behavior as disruptive and
not in accord with special visitation
privileges he had been given
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d


Lower court held no constitutional rights
violated in the revocation of visiting
privileges - action was reasonably related
to maintenance of jail security and order
The court held that the evidence showed
that the loss of other privileges were taken
for his own safety and not for punishment
(not allowed for pretrial detainee)
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d



Following incident with paralegal, Grabowski
was involved in altercations with other inmates
(mostly black), a fire was set in his cell, and he
was threatened
He was moved into protective custody where
the privileges were not available
Lower court found good justification for actions
of prison officials – institutional security and
order, and safety of Grabowski
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

Loss of telephone privileges was upheld
in Valdez v. Rosenbaum (2002)


Inmate had been identified as the leader of
a drug smuggling conspiracy – was being
held in pretrial detention, initially in the
jail’s general population
In this setting, he had access to 4
telephones
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

Government prosecutor asked that
inmate’s telephone privileges be suspended
as new indictments were being issued, with
five new defendants named, as well as
Valdez


The five new defendants were not in custody
Prosecutor wanted to curtail Valdez’s ability to
communicate with these persons
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d


Inmate was placed in administrative
segregation and he was allowed one
attorney call each day; visits were not
curtailed
Remained in this status for four and a half
months while other defendants were being
arrested
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d


Returned to population, at prosecutor’s
request, following release of one of the coconspirators
Following conviction (given a 30-year
sentence), Valdez filed a § 1983 suit
alleging the phone restrictions violated his
constitutional rights to due process and
freedom of speech
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

Appeals court held no violation



Preventing Valdez from tipping off his coconspirators was a legitimate governmental
interest, and not for punishment
Valdez retained the right of communication
through such means as visiting and
correspondence
To allow phone access would have required
prison officials to allocate additional resources
for monitoring
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

Inmate Suicides



The problem of suicides is one that is at least as
pressing in jails as it is in prisons
Constitutional standard for liability - deliberate
indifference to the needs of the inmate
Staff must be on the lookout for suicidal
tendencies and take preventive steps when
indications of suicidal risks are clear, based on the
circumstances of the individual case
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d



A lower court found liability when there is a
“strong likelihood, rather than a mere possibility”
that failure to take certain action would result in
harm to the inmate (Matje v. Leis (1983)
Liability also found in Heflin v. Stewart County
(1992), where a deputy sheriff didn’t cut down an
inmate who was hanging himself – the deputy
wanted to wait for emergency medical staff
No liability was found in Freedman v. City of
Allentown (1988) where officers did not realize
there was a suicide risk because of observable
scars on the inmate’s wrists and neck
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

In Logue v. United States (1973), the
Supreme Court held federal officials
couldn’t be held liable for the negligence of
local jail officials who were holding a
federal prisoner who committed suicide


The county jail staff were not agents or
employees of the federal government
Could be tort liability if the federal agent
placing the inmate in the jail knew there were
suicidal problems and failed to notify jail staff
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

Searches


As noted previously, in Bell, Supreme Court held
room searches at the jail were an appropriate
security measure – and that, for similar reasons,
the inmate did not have the right to be present
during the search of his cell
Court also upheld necessity of conducting body
cavity searches after inmate contact visits, finding
these to be reasonable under the Constitution
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

In Shain v. Ellison (2001), a federal
appeals court considered whether the law,
in 1995, clearly established a bar against
searching a person arraigned on
misdemeanor charges, absent reasonable
suspicion that the person possessed
contraband or weapons
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d




Shain was arrested for first degree harassment,
spent the night in custody, and appeared the
next day before a family court judge
He was remanded to the Nassau County
Correctional Center (NCCC) without bond
He was strip-searched upon arrival at the NCCC
and the next morning prior to his appearance
in family court
Shain filed suit, claiming the strip search
was unconstitutional
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

The appeals court held for Shain


Distinguished Bell as it dealt with “after
contact” visiting
Arrestees ordinarily don’t have notice they’re
about to be arrested, and thus don’t have an
opportunity to conceal something
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d


Appeals court, based on prior cases requiring
reasonable suspicion, held the law against strip
searching persons charged with misdemeanors
absent reasonable suspicion was clearly
established
Sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

Courts have held there is no privacy to be
expected in jail visits, so it is permissible
for authorities to monitor and tape
conversations between inmates and their
visitors; examples include

Lanza v. New York (1962) – where the
Supreme Court upheld the use at hearings of a
taped jail visit conversation between an inmate
and his brother – privacy is lost in a jail
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

United States v. Hearst (1977) – federal
appeals court upheld the use at Hearst’s trial of
an intercepted conversation during visiting that
Hearst had had at the county jail

Held a valid governmental purpose existed to
monitor and record visiting room conversations, and
the tapes from such monitoring could be provided to
law enforcement officials for their use
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

Legal Access

An appeals court (Strickler v. Waters,
1993) held for the government against an
inmate’s claim that the jail law library was
inadequate, and that one hour per week of
access time was also inadequate

Appeals court found materials were sufficient
for the time the inmate was held at the jail
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

A second appeals court (Walker v. Navarro
County Jail, 1993) held for the government
against the civil rights claim of a pretrial
detainee who said his incoming legal mail
was opened and read

The court held that opening and checking
incoming mail, without censoring it, was not a
constitutional violation
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d

Personal Injury

The Supreme Court held in Daniels v.
Williams (1986) that, in a suit based on
allegations of government negligence
causing an inmate to fall on a stairway,
mere negligence did not state a
constitutional claim against jail officials
Other Constitutional Issues in
Jails: cont’d


For a constitutional (Fourteenth Amendment)
violation, an abuse by government officials of
their powers would have to be shown
Negligence by government officials would
support a common law tort claim
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train

In Davis v. Mason County (1991) , an
appeals court held the county and the
sheriff liable for failure to set up an
adequate training program for deputy
sheriffs
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d

Supreme Court set the training
requirement standard in City of Canton
v. Harris (1989)

City or county may be held liable upon a
showing that their failure to train amounts
to “deliberate indifference to the rights of
persons” with whom officials come into
contact
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d

Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada (2002)
dealt with officers pulling Gibson over, after
observing his strange behavior


Prescription medications found in his car
Gibson, unknown to the officers, had an “Attempt
to Locate” notice out on him by the police

Gibson suffered from manic depressive disorder, did not
like police, and according to his physician, should be
taken to the hospital for emergency commitment
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d

Gibson was taken to the jail, and the
medication was given to the jail duty nurse


Nurse told one officer the medication was used
to stabilize a person suffering from mental
illness
The record doesn’t show that this information
was further shared
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d


Twice during evening, Gibson slipped out
of waist chain
Staff ordered he be moved to a special
watch cell after the second occasion

Gibson resisted, and force was used – Gibson
suffered a heart attack and died
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d

Wife filed a § 1983 suit against the county
and several officials, citing three causes of
action



Individual deputies used excessive force
Showed deliberate indifference to Gibson’s
serious mental health needs
The deputies’ actions resulted from policies,
practices, or customs of the sheriff’s
department which caused or contributed to the
death
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d



Appeals court affirmed lower court finding
that no excessive force was used and that
deputies were not deliberately indifferent
to Gibson’s medical needs
Appeals court reversed and remanded to
the lower court on the issue of county
liability
Citing City of Canton, the appeals court
said a plaintiff must show three things in
order to impose liability:
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d



First, must show a violation of Gibson’s rights by a
county employee – court felt jury could find that the
nurse was deliberately indifferent to Gibson’s special
medical conditions
Second, that the county had customs or policies that
amounted to deliberate indifference – court felt jury
could find this by the lack of a policy requiring the nurse
to take action based on what a particular medication
might indicate
Third, that the county could have prevented the violation
if it had had an appropriate policy
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d

Warner v. Grant County (1995) concerned a §
1983 action brought by two female plaintiffs,
alleging constitutional violations when they
were strip-searched following arrest for
possessing marijuana


Suit was against the police officer, a private citizen
assisting the police, the sheriff, and the county
The private citizen was given qualified immunity –
had served as an officer’s agent
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d

Arresting officer also given qualified immunity – in
directing strip search be done, he had acted in
accordance with the law established at the time



Strip search could be done based on reasonable
suspicion suspect possessed drugs or other contraband
Or if suspect was to go into the jail general population
Arresting officer had reasonable suspicion that the two
suspects possessed additional drugs
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d

Sheriff and county were sued, based on
allegations they had a policy and custom of
not adequately training officers on
constitutional arrest and search standards

Appeals court found for sheriff and county –
Grant County had a clear policy there would be
no warrantless strip searches of temporary
detainees
Using Excessive Force, and
Failure to Train: cont’d



That policy, conveyed to all officers, barred conducting
strip searches on female detainees, because all female
arrestees who required confinement were taken to a
separate location, and were not kept in Grant County
No female arrestees had been held in Grant County for
over five years
No reason for sheriff or county to think there would be
any female strip searches, when policy said there would
be none for temporary detainees, and that policy had
been consistently followed
Other Jail Issues and Cases

State appeals court overturned an award of
$100,000 to the family of a detainee who
died in jail from a drug overdose – Brown v.
Lee (1996)


Detainee when arrested for drunken driving,
denied drug use, and was presenting only the
symptoms of intoxication
Appeals court held it would be unreasonable to
require the sheriff to provide medical treatment to
every intoxicated inmate in his custody
Other Jail Issues and Cases:
cont’d

A major federal appellate decision, Anderson
v. County of Kern (1995), held severely
austere conditions did not amount to
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment (or
Eight Amendment for sentenced persons),
when it was used for short-term confinement
of severely disturbed inmates

Jail had a 10’ by 10’ safety cell, covered with
rubberized foam padding and a pit toilet with a
grate covering
Other Jail Issues and Cases:
cont’d



Cell was used on occasion for the temporary
holding of suicidal and mentally disturbed
inmates when they became very disruptive or
threatening
Policy required regular 15 to 30 minute staff
checks of inmates
Placement reviewed every four hours by the
supervisor
Other Jail Issues and Cases:
cont’d


Even though the evidence showed conditions in
the cell could be unsanitary, and conceded it was
a very severe environment, the court found it was
needed to deal with very serious safety concerns
The appeals court in Anderson also approved the
jail’s use of administrative segregation, where the
inmates were not allowed to exercise together,
because of the jail’s concerns for their safety
Other Jail Issues and Cases:
cont’d


The court found that while conditions in
isolated segregation confinement were not
pleasant, they did not show deliberate
indifference to inmate needs and the conditions
were needed for safety and security reasons
The court did require the jail to have a
non-inmate translator to assist non-English
speaking inmates at medical and mental
health interviews
Other Jail Issues and Cases:
cont’d

Other jail cases dealing with claims of
improper health care turned on the courts’
conclusions of whether staff had shown
deliberate indifference to the serious medical
complaints of inmates

In Bryant v. Maffucci (1991), the court of appeals
held there was no deliberate indifference when an
inmate was not promptly scheduled for an
abortion and when the physician had made an
error in estimating her gestational age
Other Jail Issues and Cases:
cont’d


The court held the fact that jail officials delayed
her letter to the physician requesting the
abortion appointment only showed negligence
At most, any error in reading the inmate’s
gestational age was also negligence
Other Jail Issues and Cases:
cont’d

In Cooper v. Dyke (1987), a detainee
suffered a gunshot wound during chaotic
conditions of a jail disturbance



Inmate examined by a paramedic shortly after
incident, but the wound was not revealed
Inmate made repeated pleas for medical
attention
Police said they relied on paramedic’s
examination, that this showed no deliberate
indifference
Other Jail Issues and Cases:
cont’d


Appeals court did not agree – held it was
permissible for the jury to find § 1983 liability,
that the police were not justified in relying on
the paramedic when the exam had been done
under riotous conditions
Repeated complaints of the detainee should not
have been ignored
Other Jail Issues and Cases:
cont’d

In Frohmader v. Wayne (1992), an inmate alleged
constitutional violations because jail officials were
deliberately indifferent to his complaints of
claustrophobia and agoraphobia


The court held even if there was indifference to these
complaints, no serious medical need had been shown
This is another aspect of the standard that the inmate
must show to sustain an Eighth or Fourteenth
Amendment claim with respect to medical care
Removing the Sheriff

In Beck v. County of Santa Clara
(1988), a California court upheld the
sheriff’s removal from running the
county jail due to repeated difficulties
at the jail, including adverse court
decisions and other legal problems

The removal was made by action of the
county board of supervisors and approved
by county voters in a referendum