Block v. Rutherford
1984 U.S. LEXIS 145, 82 L. Ed. 2d 438, 468 U.S. 576 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause does not require that pretrial detainees be allowed contact visits or be permitted to observe shakedown searches of their cells when prison administrators, in their sound discretion, determine that these practices would jeopardize institutional security.
Facts:
- The Los Angeles County Central Jail, the primary facility for male pretrial detainees in the county, housed over 5,000 inmates.
- Jail policy prohibited all pretrial detainees from having physical contact visits with their spouses, relatives, children, and friends.
- Detainees were permitted non-contact visits in a partitioned area where they were separated from visitors by a clear glass panel and communicated via telephone.
- The jail conducted irregular, unannounced 'shakedown' searches of inmate cells to find contraband and other impermissible items.
- These shakedown searches were conducted while the inmates were absent from their cells, such as during meals or recreation periods.
- A group of pretrial detainees, led by Rutherford, were subject to these policies during their confinement while awaiting trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Pretrial detainees at the Los Angeles County Central Jail filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the County Sheriff and other jail administrators.
- The District Court found the policies denying contact visits and prohibiting inmate observation of cell searches unconstitutional and issued orders mandating changes.
- The jail administrators appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the intervening Supreme Court decision in Bell v. Wolfish.
- On remand, the District Court reaffirmed its prior orders, finding them consistent with the principles of Bell v. Wolfish.
- The jail administrators again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require jail officials to allow pretrial detainees contact visits or permit them to observe shakedown searches of their cells when officials prohibit these practices for security reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Due Process Clause does not require that pretrial detainees be allowed contact visits or be permitted to observe shakedown searches of their cells when administrators prohibit these practices for security reasons. Under the standard established in Bell v. Wolfish, if a condition of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not amount to unconstitutional punishment. Courts must accord wide-ranging deference to the judgment of correctional officials regarding institutional security. The prohibition on contact visits is rationally related to the legitimate goal of preventing the introduction of weapons and contraband into the facility. Similarly, the issue of observing cell searches was decided in Wolfish, which held that conducting searches outside the inmate's presence is a reasonable response to security concerns, such as preventing inmates from distracting guards, moving contraband, or causing friction. Jail administrators are not required to employ the least restrictive means to achieve their security objectives.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The jail's policies are unconstitutional. The majority misapplies Bell v. Wolfish by failing to recognize that the ban on contact visits infringes upon the fundamental right to maintain family relationships, which requires a more stringent standard of review than mere reasonableness. A complete ban on contact visits is an exaggerated response to security concerns, especially when less restrictive alternatives, as ordered by the District Court for low-risk detainees, are feasible. Regarding cell searches, the claim is not one of punishment under substantive due process, but a violation of procedural due process. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge test, the detainees' possessory interest in their meager property is significant, the risk of erroneous destruction by guards is high, and the procedural safeguard of allowing observation imposes only a minimal burden on the institution, making the current practice unconstitutional.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. While the result is correct, the majority's reasoning is flawed. The Court's invocation of 'deference' to prison administrators is inappropriate when the core of the constitutional claim challenges the officials' punitive intent and good faith. The proper inquiry is simply whether the restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate goal, which it is here. Deference is unnecessary and risks returning to a 'hands off' judicial approach to prison conditions. Regarding cell searches, the majority misconstrues the claim as substantive when it is procedural. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the government's strong interests in preventing friction between inmates and guards and, crucially, preventing inmates from learning how to better hide contraband in the future, outweigh the detainees' property interests. Therefore, the procedure is constitutional.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the highly deferential standard of review for prison administration policies established in Bell v. Wolfish. It empowers correctional officials by confirming that their security-based judgments will receive minimal scrutiny from the judiciary, even when those judgments significantly impact pretrial detainees' interests. By rejecting the 'least restrictive alternative' analysis in this context, the Court makes it substantially more difficult for detainees to challenge conditions of confinement. The case reinforces that as long as a restriction is rationally related to a legitimate, non-punitive goal like security, it will likely be upheld as constitutional.
