block
rutherford
argued
march
decided
july
respondents
pretrial
detainees
los
angeles
county
central
jail
brought
class
action
federal
district
county
sheriff
officials
challenging
due
process
grounds
jail
policy
denying
pretrial
detainees
contact
visits
spouses
relatives
children
friends
jail
practice
conducting
random
irregular
shakedown
searches
cells
detainees
away
meals
recreation
activities
district
sustained
challenges
ordered
low
risk
detainees
incarcerated
month
allowed
contact
visits
detainees
allowed
watch
searches
cells
area
searches
conducted
appeals
affirmed
held
alleged
pretrial
detainee
deprived
liberty
without
due
process
dispositive
inquiry
whether
challenged
practice
policy
constitutes
punishment
reasonably
related
legitimate
governmental
objective
bell
wolfish
considering
whether
specific
practice
policy
reasonably
related
security
interests
courts
play
limited
role
since
considerations
peculiarly
within
province
professional
expertise
corrections
officials
pp
central
jail
blanket
prohibition
contact
visits
entirely
reasonable
nonpunitive
response
legitimate
security
concerns
consistent
fourteenth
amendment
contact
visits
invite
host
security
problems
open
detention
facility
introduction
drugs
weapons
contraband
moreover
expose
others
detainees
often
case
awaiting
trial
serious
violent
offenses
prior
convictions
carries
risks
safety
innocent
individuals
jeopardized
totally
disallowing
contact
visits
excessive
relation
security
interests
stake
many
justifications
denying
contact
visits
entirely
rather
attempting
difficult
task
establishing
program
limited
visits
imposed
nothing
constitution
requires
detainees
allowed
contact
visits
responsible
experienced
administrators
determined
sound
discretion
visits
jeopardize
security
facility
persons
pp
central
jail
practice
conducting
random
irregular
shakedown
searches
cells
absence
cell
occupants
also
reasonable
response
jail
officials
legitimate
security
concerns
bell
wolfish
supra
also
matter
lodged
sound
discretion
officials
pp
burger
delivered
opinion
white
powell
rehnquist
joined
blackmun
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
marshall
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
stevens
joined
post
frederick
bennett
argued
cause
filed
briefs
petitioners
alvin
bronstein
argued
cause
respondents
brief
edward
koren
fred
okrand
solicitor
general
lee
assistant
attorney
general
reynolds
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
peggy
davis
filed
brief
new
york
city
board
correction
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
chief
justice
burger
delivered
opinion
granted
certiorari
decide
whether
pretrial
detainees
right
guaranteed
constitution
contact
visits
observe
shakedown
searches
cells
prison
officials
los
angeles
county
central
jail
one
seven
principal
facilities
operated
sheriff
los
angeles
county
jail
complex
located
downtown
los
angeles
largest
jail
country
capacity
inmates
primary
facility
los
angeles
county
male
pretrial
detainees
vast
majority
remain
facility
days
weeks
await
trial
respondents
pretrial
detainees
central
jail
brought
class
action
county
sheriff
certain
administrators
central
jail
county
board
supervisors
challenging
various
policies
practices
jail
conditions
confinement
respondents
challenges
policy
jail
denying
pretrial
detainees
contact
visits
spouses
relatives
children
friends
jail
practice
permitting
irregularly
scheduled
shakedown
searches
individual
cells
absence
cell
occupants
district
sustained
challenges
rutherford
pitchess
supp
cd
cal
district
agreed
respondents
ability
man
embrace
wife
children
time
time
weeks
months
awaiting
trial
matter
great
importance
yet
recognized
unrestricted
contact
visitation
add
greatly
security
problems
jail
ibid
ultimately
concluded
however
danger
permitting
low
security
risk
inmates
physical
contact
loved
ones
sufficiently
great
warrant
deprivation
contact
ibid
striking
believed
reasonable
balance
twin
considerations
prison
security
constitutional
rights
inmates
tentatively
proposed
order
contact
visitation
inmates
received
high
risk
classification
incarcerated
two
weeks
ibid
respect
cell
searches
district
concluded
allowing
inmates
watch
distance
cells
searched
allay
inmate
concerns
personal
property
unnecessarily
confiscated
destroyed
concluded
uture
shakedowns
made
respective
inmates
remain
outside
cells
near
enough
observe
process
raise
answer
relevant
inquiry
district
viewed
proposed
orders
least
restrictive
alternatives
consistent
purpose
respondents
incarceration
district
withheld
judgment
respondents
complaints
pending
evidentiary
hearings
supplemental
memorandum
following
additional
hearings
acknowledged
many
factors
strongly
militate
allowing
contact
visits
app
pet
cert
least
establishment
program
contact
visits
increase
importation
narcotics
jail
despite
safeguards
precautions
emphasized
inmates
allowed
contact
visits
great
burden
imposed
jail
authorities
public
ibid
modification
existing
visiting
areas
additional
facilities
necessary
new
procedures
processing
visitors
possibly
including
interviews
personal
searches
searches
packages
carried
visitors
required
strip
searches
inmates
following
contact
visits
needed
found
hardship
detainees
unable
embrace
loved
ones
days
weeks
justify
imposition
substantial
burdens
however
believed
factors
rendering
contact
visitation
impracticable
detainees
incarcerated
short
periods
considerably
less
compelling
detention
prolonged
reasoned
scope
burden
dangers
program
contact
visitation
substantially
diminished
contact
visitation
limited
detainees
uninterrupted
custody
month
determined
drug
oriented
escape
risks
ceiling
imposed
total
number
contact
visits
jail
must
provide
emphasis
added
limitations
suggested
contact
visitation
program
require
odest
alteration
existing
facility
ibid
alternatively
said
sheriff
build
occupy
new
facility
contact
visits
transport
inmates
back
forth
necessary
district
also
reaffirmed
supplemental
memorandum
earlier
conclusion
inmates
allowed
observe
cell
searches
believed
interests
inmates
protecting
meager
possessions
outweigh
ed
small
increase
burden
upon
petitioners
appeal
appeals
ninth
circuit
remanded
case
district
consideration
light
intervening
decision
bell
wolfish
noting
among
things
rejected
wolfish
suggestion
existence
less
restrictive
means
achievement
security
objectives
proof
exaggerated
response
security
concerns
app
pet
cert
district
remand
reaffirmed
prior
orders
finding
nothing
bell
wolfish
render
ed
inappropriate
challenged
orders
although
acknowledged
central
jail
authorities
consciously
motivated
desire
punish
reiterated
belief
practices
policies
question
excessive
relation
underlying
security
objectives
characterized
petitioners
rejection
proposals
contact
visitation
stem
med
unreasonable
fixation
upon
security
district
conceded
wolfish
invalidated
similar
order
requiring
detainees
allowed
observe
searches
cells
went
identify
several
factors
thought
distinguished
order
wolfish
petitioner
second
appeal
appeals
affirmed
district
orders
requiring
certain
detainees
allowed
contact
visits
inmates
allowed
watch
searches
cells
rutherford
pitchess
appeals
held
district
order
contact
visitation
fits
harmoniously
within
pattern
federal
cases
following
wolfish
recogniz
ing
important
security
interests
penal
institution
time
recogniz
ing
psychological
punitive
effects
prolonged
loss
contact
visitation
upon
detainees
suggested
blanket
prohibition
contact
visits
detainees
unreasonable
exaggerated
response
security
concerns
ibid
appeals
also
rejected
petitioners
contention
wolfish
precluded
order
pretrial
detainees
permitted
observe
cell
searches
appeals
district
identified
significant
differences
order
invalidated
wolfish
entered
district
granted
certiorari
importance
issue
administration
detention
facilities
conflict
among
federal
courts
appeals
reverse
ii
administration
seven
separate
jail
facilities
metropolitan
area
seven
million
people
task
monumental
proportions
housed
facilities
annually
persons
awaiting
trial
confined
unable
meet
requirements
release
bail
generalizations
little
value
one
familiar
even
barest
outline
problems
administration
prison
jail
administration
criminal
justice
fail
aware
ease
one
obtain
release
bail
personal
recognizance
fact
nonrelease
pending
trial
thus
significant
factor
bearing
security
measures
imperative
proper
administration
detention
facility
four
terms
ago
bell
wolfish
considered
first
time
light
security
concerns
scope
constitutional
protection
must
accorded
pretrial
detainees
respondents
wolfish
challenged
numerous
conditions
confinement
pretrial
detention
facility
new
york
city
various
policies
practices
institution
held
alleged
pretrial
detainee
deprived
liberty
without
due
process
dispositive
inquiry
whether
challenged
condition
practice
policy
constitutes
punishment
due
process
clause
detainee
must
punished
prior
adjudication
guilt
accordance
due
process
law
omitted
addressing
particular
challenges
wolfish
carefully
outlined
principles
applied
evaluating
constitutionality
conditions
pretrial
detention
specifically
observed
must
decide
whether
disability
imposed
purpose
punishment
whether
incident
legitimate
governmental
purpose
citation
omitted
absent
proof
intent
punish
noted
determination
generally
turn
whether
alternative
purpose
restriction
may
rationally
connected
assignable
whether
appears
excessive
relation
alternative
purpose
assigned
ibid
quoting
kennedy
concluded
particular
condition
restriction
pretrial
detention
reasonably
related
legitimate
governmental
objective
without
amount
punishment
conversely
restriction
condition
reasonably
related
legitimate
goal
arbitrary
purposeless
permissibly
may
infer
purpose
governmental
action
punishment
may
constitutionally
inflicted
upon
detainees
qua
detainees
citation
omitted
heed
warning
uch
considerations
peculiarly
within
province
professional
expertise
corrections
officials
absence
substantial
evidence
record
indicate
officials
exaggerated
response
considerations
courts
ordinarily
defer
expert
judgment
matters
quoting
pell
procunier
rison
administrators
accorded
deference
adoption
execution
policies
practices
judgment
needed
preserve
internal
order
discipline
maintain
institutional
security
citing
cases
iii
petitioners
first
contention
error
conclude
even
low
risk
detainees
incarcerated
month
constitutionally
entitled
contact
visits
friends
relatives
petitioners
maintain
throughout
proceedings
interest
institutional
public
security
within
discretion
officials
detention
facility
impose
absolute
prohibition
contact
visits
district
find
appeals
suggest
purpose
petitioners
policy
denying
contact
visitation
punish
inmates
contrary
district
found
petitioners
fully
cognizant
possible
value
contact
visitation
commended
petitioners
conscientious
efforts
accommodate
large
numbers
inmates
central
jail
question
us
therefore
narrow
whether
prohibition
contact
visits
reasonably
related
legitimate
governmental
objectives
particularly
dispute
internal
security
detention
facilities
legitimate
governmental
interest
inquiry
simply
whether
petitioners
blanket
prohibition
contact
visits
central
jail
reasonably
related
security
facility
valid
rational
connection
ban
contact
visits
internal
security
detention
facility
obvious
warrant
extended
discussion
district
acknowledged
much
contact
visits
invite
host
security
problems
open
institution
introduction
drugs
weapons
contraband
visitors
easily
conceal
guns
knives
drugs
contraband
countless
ways
pass
inmate
unnoticed
even
vigilant
observers
items
readily
slipped
clothing
innocent
child
transferred
visitors
permitted
close
contact
inmates
contact
visitation
poses
dangers
detention
facility
well
detainees
definition
persons
unable
meet
bail
often
awaiting
trial
serious
violent
offenses
many
prior
criminal
convictions
exposure
type
person
others
whether
family
friends
jail
administrators
necessarily
carries
risks
safety
innocent
individuals
jeopardized
various
ways
may
example
taken
hostages
become
innocent
pawns
escape
attempts
answer
course
deal
restrictions
pretrial
detainees
rather
convicted
criminals
observed
wolfish
context
basis
concluding
pretrial
detainees
pose
lesser
security
risk
convicted
inmates
indeed
said
may
certain
circumstances
detainees
present
greater
risk
jail
security
order
ibid
district
appeals
held
totally
disallowing
contact
visits
excessive
relation
security
interests
stake
reject
characterization
many
justifications
denying
contact
visits
entirely
rather
attempting
difficult
task
establishing
program
limited
visitation
imposed
unreasonable
assume
instance
low
security
risk
detainees
enlisted
help
obtain
contraband
weapons
fellow
inmates
denied
contact
visits
additionally
identification
inmates
propensities
violence
escape
drug
smuggling
difficult
impossible
task
chances
mistaken
identification
substantial
burdens
identifying
candidates
contact
visitation
glossed
district
made
even
difficult
brevity
detention
constantly
changing
nature
inmate
population
complete
prohibition
reasonably
thought
necessary
selectively
allowing
contact
visits
even
feasible
well
create
tension
allowed
contact
visits
wolfish
sustained
fourth
amendment
challenge
practice
conducting
routine
body
cavity
searches
following
contact
visits
even
though
one
reported
attempt
smuggle
contraband
facility
body
cavity
purpose
cavity
searches
wolfish
discover
deter
smuggling
weapons
contraband
found
byproduct
contact
visits
given
security
demands
need
protect
inmates
also
facility
personnel
regard
full
body
cavity
searches
excessive
petitioners
flat
prohibition
contact
visits
considered
excessive
response
security
objectives
see
event
emphasized
unwilling
substitute
judgment
difficult
sensitive
matters
institutional
administration
security
persons
actually
charged
trained
running
facilities
sum
conclude
petitioners
blanket
prohibition
entirely
reasonable
nonpunitive
response
legitimate
security
concerns
identified
consistent
fourteenth
amendment
district
acknowledged
many
factors
strongly
militate
allowing
contact
visits
app
pet
cert
appears
accepted
petitioners
testimony
contact
visits
significantly
increase
possibility
breaches
security
safety
others
placed
jeopardy
noted
despite
safeguards
precautions
program
contact
visitation
inevitably
increase
importation
narcotics
jail
take
judicial
notice
unauthorized
use
narcotics
problem
plagues
virtually
every
penal
detention
center
country
explicitly
acknowledging
security
risks
inhere
even
limited
program
contact
visitation
district
nonetheless
invalidated
petitioners
practice
denying
contact
visitation
record
must
conclude
district
simply
misperceived
limited
scope
judicial
inquiry
wolfish
district
found
many
factors
counseled
contact
visits
inquiry
ended
balancing
resulted
impermissible
substitution
view
proper
administration
central
jail
experienced
administrators
facility
wolfish
plain
opinions
lower
courts
simply
disagreed
judgment
jail
officials
extent
security
interests
affected
means
required
interests
rejecting
district
order
sense
denigrate
importance
visits
family
friends
detainee
intend
suggest
contact
visits
might
factor
contributing
ultimate
reintegration
detainee
society
hold
constitution
require
detainees
allowed
contact
visits
responsible
experienced
administrators
determined
sound
discretion
visits
jeopardize
security
facility
petitioners
practice
facilities
conduct
irregular
random
shakedown
searches
cells
detainees
detainees
away
meals
recreation
activities
respondents
dispute
need
searches
challenge
searches
extent
detainees
permitted
observe
petitioners
respond
method
conducting
cell
searches
security
measure
virtually
identical
challenged
wolfish
see
agree
described
practice
wolfish
follows
mcc
staff
conducts
unannounced
searches
inmate
living
areas
irregular
intervals
searches
generally
formal
unit
shakedowns
inmates
cleared
residential
units
team
guards
searches
room
nmates
permitted
watch
searches
respondents
attempt
distinguish
wolfish
principally
ground
district
order
invalidated
wolfish
rested
fourth
amendment
district
order
predicated
holding
searches
absence
detainees
violate
rights
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
hold
wolfish
room
search
rule
challenged
violate
fourth
amendment
also
explicitly
rejected
contention
room
search
rule
including
feature
rule
prohibiting
observation
searches
detainees
violated
detainees
due
process
rights
think
four
mcc
security
restrictions
practices
described
part
iii
supra
one
rule
permitting
room
searches
absence
detainees
constitute
punishment
violation
rights
pretrial
detainees
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
omitted
thus
contrary
respondents
suggestion
previously
considered
fourth
amendment
challenge
also
due
process
challenge
room
search
procedure
almost
identical
used
central
jail
sustained
practice
scores
reason
reconsider
issue
identical
arguments
made
respondents
advanced
respondents
wolfish
security
concerns
held
justified
restriction
wolfish
see
less
compelling
moreover
clearer
holding
wolfish
matter
lodged
sound
discretion
institutional
officials
reaffirm
proper
deference
informed
discretion
prison
authorities
demands
courts
make
difficult
judgments
reconcile
conflicting
claims
affecting
security
institution
welfare
prison
staff
property
rights
detainees
accordingly
judgment
appeals
reversed
ordered
footnotes
search
procedures
effect
searches
cells
contraband
impermissible
items
conducted
irregularly
inmates
away
cells
district
ordered
petitioners
make
available
contact
visit
week
pretrial
detainee
held
jail
one
month
concerning
indication
drug
escape
propensities
provided
however
fifteen
hundred
visits
need
allowed
one
week
app
pet
cert
nmates
general
area
shakedown
inspection
cells
undertaken
permitted
sufficiently
proximate
respective
cells
may
observe
process
respond
questions
make
requests
circumstances
may
indicate
unlike
cell
search
procedure
ordered
wolfish
said
procedure
ordered
allow
inmates
frustrate
search
distracting
personnel
moving
contraband
one
room
another
ahead
search
team
app
pet
cert
quoting
wolfish
second
appeals
wolfish
failed
specify
constitutional
provision
relied
upon
invalidate
cell
search
rule
review
case
contrast
district
noted
specifically
found
refusal
allow
inmates
observe
cell
searches
violates
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
appeals
reversed
third
order
issue
directed
jail
officials
reinstall
transparent
windows
cells
removed
district
case
said
appeals
addressed
concerns
jail
officials
ignored
district
wolfish
inmates
frustrate
search
efforts
distracting
personnel
relocating
contraband
ahead
search
team
district
order
allowed
officials
remove
inmates
cells
detain
dayroom
cell
row
searched
bring
individually
observe
search
respective
cells
additionally
order
wolfish
rested
exclusively
district
conclusion
searches
unreasonable
fourth
amendment
district
order
case
based
largely
upon
fourteenth
amendment
guarantee
due
process
least
five
circuits
held
pretrial
detainees
constitutionally
entitled
contact
visits
see
jordan
wolke
ramos
lamm
cert
denied
inmates
allegheny
county
jail
pierce
feeley
sampson
oxendine
williams
per
curiam
ninth
circuit
case
second
fifth
circuits
held
constitution
require
contact
visits
detainees
least
certain
contexts
see
marcera
chinlund
vacated
remanded
sub
nom
lombard
marcera
jones
diamond
cert
granted
sub
nom
ledbetter
jones
cert
dism
cf
west
infante
per
curiam
campbell
mcgruder
app
occasion
address
specifically
issue
contact
visitation
wolfish
suggest
however
prohibiting
contact
visitation
might
well
represent
permissible
alternative
admittedly
intrusive
body
cavity
searches
challenged
subsequently
vacated
remanded
consideration
light
wolfish
second
circuit
decision
holding
denial
contact
visits
unconstitutional
marcera
chinlund
vacated
remanded
sub
nom
lombard
marcera
issue
presented
review
jones
diamond
supra
however
case
ultimately
dismissed
pursuant
rule
wolfish
characterized
maintenance
security
internal
order
discipline
essential
goals
times
require
limitation
retraction
retained
constitutional
rights
government
said
must
able
take
steps
maintain
security
order
institution
make
certain
weapons
illicit
drugs
reach
detainees
see
also
pell
procunier
reasonableness
petitioners
blanket
prohibition
underscored
costs
financial
otherwise
alternative
response
ordered
district
jail
personnel
district
recognized
free
complicated
expensive
process
es
interviewing
searching
processing
visitors
app
pet
cert
reassigned
perform
tasks
perhaps
requiring
hiring
additional
personnel
intrusive
strip
searches
contact
visits
necessary
finally
district
noted
least
modest
improvements
existing
facilities
required
accommodate
contact
visitation
program
county
purchase
build
new
facility
elsewhere
substantial
costs
facility
administrators
might
reasonably
attempt
avoid
petitioners
also
note
district
order
case
indistinguishable
material
respect
invalidated
wolfish
essentially
correct
although
order
limited
requires
detainees
general
vicinity
cells
time
shakedowns
detainees
allowed
observe
search
cells
context
however
deference
institutional
administrators
touchstone
administrators
required
employ
least
restrictive
means
available
differences
constitutional
magnitude
district
appeals
also
sought
distinguish
order
entered
wolfish
ground
order
case
accommodated
institutional
concern
inmates
distract
personnel
search
succeed
moving
contraband
guards
arrive
particular
cell
factual
distinction
without
legal
significance
effect
order
merely
attempts
impose
officials
least
restrictive
means
available
accomplishment
security
objectives
reaffirm
administrative
officials
obliged
adopt
least
restrictive
means
meet
legitimate
objectives
wolfish
extent
respondents
brief
read
raise
procedural
due
process
challenge
petitioners
procedure
claim
made
wolfish
reject
challenge
governmental
interests
conducting
search
absence
detainees
see
wolfish
supra
complex
undertaking
optimal
conditions
institution
exceed
whatever
possessory
interests
detainees
might
implicated
search
moreover
believe
risks
erroneous
deprivations
property
petitioners
procedure
minimal
justice
blackmun
concurring
judgment
agree
neither
policy
policy
issue
case
violates
respondents
due
process
rights
fourteenth
amendment
write
separately
however
believe
adequately
addressed
gravamen
respondents
constitutional
claims
disagree
treatment
issue
chiefly
view
invoked
principles
judicial
deference
administrative
judgment
place
present
litigation
made
clear
bell
wolfish
reaffirms
pretrial
detainee
challenges
conditions
confinement
ground
amount
punishment
violation
due
process
clause
must
show
conditions
product
punitive
intent
see
nn
ante
detainee
attempts
demonstrate
existence
punitive
intent
either
direct
proof
motive
demonstration
challenged
conditions
reasonably
related
legitimate
governmental
objective
necessarily
calling
question
good
faith
prison
administrators
circumstances
seems
somewhat
perverse
insist
assessing
rationality
particular
administrative
practice
must
accord
prison
administrators
deference
adoption
execution
policies
practices
judgment
needed
preserve
internal
order
discipline
maintain
institutional
security
ante
quoting
bell
wolfish
requirement
boils
command
confronted
charge
administrative
bad
faith
must
evaluate
charge
assuming
administrative
good
faith
constitutional
challenge
prison
conditions
necessarily
places
good
faith
prison
administrators
issue
regard
improper
make
plaintiff
prove
case
twice
requiring
defer
administrators
putative
professional
judgment
instead
think
sufficient
rest
substantive
due
process
standard
announced
bell
wolfish
absent
direct
proof
punitive
intent
permissibly
may
infer
purpose
challenged
governmental
action
punishment
action
reasonably
related
legitimate
goal
requirement
prison
policies
reasonably
related
legitimate
goal
hardly
stringent
one
many
reasons
given
ante
doubt
requirement
met
record
presented
therefore
mystified
insistence
invoking
principles
judicial
deference
since
principles
inappropriate
entirely
unnecessary
result
case
generally
concerned
apparent
willingness
substitute
rhetoric
judicial
deference
meaningful
scrutiny
constitutional
claims
prison
setting
see
rhodes
chapman
opinion
concurring
judgment
courts
unquestionably
reluctant
prison
administrators
opinions
need
security
measures
constitutional
standards
look
whole
part
effectiveness
administrative
practices
administrative
judgments
entitled
substantial
weight
fact
particular
measures
advance
prison
security
however
make
ipso
facto
constitutional
cf
bell
wolfish
recognize
constitutional
challenges
prison
conditions
like
similarly
expansive
challenges
workings
institutions
pose
danger
excessive
judicial
intervention
time
however
careless
invocations
deference
run
risk
returning
us
passivity
several
decades
ago
barbarism
squalor
many
prisons
met
judicial
blind
eye
hands
approach
recognized
bell
wolfish
fact
initial
responsibility
nation
prisons
vested
prison
administrators
mean
constitutional
rights
scrupulously
observed
satisfied
policy
satisfies
standard
due
process
clause
join
judgment
treatment
policy
misconstrues
respondents
claim
assumes
respondents
challenging
exclusion
cell
searches
substantive
due
process
grounds
hence
decision
bell
wolfish
dispositive
ante
quite
clear
however
respondents
challenging
policy
procedural
due
process
grounds
see
tr
oral
arg
procedural
due
process
issue
rather
issue
freedom
punishment
matter
substantive
due
process
brief
respondents
essence
respondents
arguing
cell
searches
result
deprivation
personal
property
process
due
fourteenth
amendment
includes
opportunity
observe
cell
searches
order
minimize
erroneous
deprivations
address
procedural
due
process
claim
bell
wolfish
something
must
said
support
judgment
case
mathews
eldridge
adequacy
governmental
procedures
accompany
deprivations
property
normally
depends
balance
three
factors
private
interest
affected
official
action
risk
existing
procedures
result
erroneous
deprivation
probable
value
additional
procedural
safeguards
governmental
interest
relying
challenged
procedures
dispute
private
interests
stake
cell
searches
potentially
significant
see
hudson
palmer
ante
opinion
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part
possible
maintain
pretrial
detainee
presence
never
contribute
avoidance
erroneous
deprivations
noted
bell
wolfish
prevent
ion
theft
misuse
conducting
search
conceivable
beneficial
effect
allowing
detainees
observe
cell
searches
district
judge
case
witnessed
search
prisoner
able
prevent
mistaken
seizure
two
magazines
cell
explaining
complied
prison
regulations
app
pet
cert
countervailing
governmental
interests
conducting
cell
searches
outside
presence
pretrial
detainees
however
substantial
enough
persuade
appeals
erred
due
process
determination
first
reason
think
friction
inmates
security
guards
bell
wolfish
less
likely
result
presence
detainees
bell
wolfish
second
significant
detainees
may
well
learn
hide
contraband
allowed
watch
searches
cells
result
although
requirement
detainee
presence
course
search
may
prevent
seizure
contraband
search
cf
pearson
yacht
leasing
may
frustrate
future
searches
detainee
cell
quite
apart
security
concerns
moreover
undoubtedly
administrative
burdens
entailed
additional
substitute
procedural
requirement
mathews
eldridge
example
petitioners
point
jail
required
dedicate
increased
number
guards
task
accompanying
detainee
holding
area
cell
search
conducted
different
exigencies
excused
requirement
predeprivation
hearings
contexts
see
commissioner
shapiro
phillips
commissioner
north
american
cold
storage
chicago
considerations
tip
balance
de
facto
predeprivation
hearing
pretrial
detainees
reason
join
judgment
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
case
marks
fourth
time
recent
years
turned
deaf
ear
inmates
claims
conditions
confinement
violate
federal
constitution
see
rhodes
chapman
bell
wolfish
hudson
palmer
ante
guided
unwarranted
confidence
good
faith
expertise
prison
administrators
pinched
conception
meaning
due
process
clauses
eighth
amendment
majority
increasingly
appears
willing
sanction
prison
condition
majority
imagine
colorable
rationale
matter
oppressive
condition
fact
upholds
two
policies
force
los
angeles
county
central
jail
one
pretrial
detainee
permitted
physical
contact
members
family
regardless
long
incarcerated
pending
trial
slight
risk
abuse
visitation
privilege
detainees
allowed
observe
searches
cells
despite
fact
searches
frequently
result
arbitrary
destruction
confiscation
detainees
property
view
neither
policies
comports
constitution
bell
wolfish
supra
established
set
principles
defining
constitutionally
permissible
treatment
incarcerated
persons
convicted
crimes
years
since
wolfish
abandoned
view
decision
case
fundamentally
misconceived
see
marshall
dissenting
however
even
thought
doctrine
enunciated
wolfish
defensible
abide
manner
majority
construes
applies
doctrine
dispose
respondents
challenge
jail
rule
contact
visitation
one
premises
principal
holding
wolfish
plaintiffs
claims
implicate
fundamental
liberty
interests
delineated
roe
wade
eisenstadt
baird
stanley
illinois
griswold
connecticut
meyer
nebraska
aside
right
punished
prior
adjudication
guilt
general
interest
asserted
plaintiffs
wolfish
contended
desire
free
discomfort
comparatively
unimportant
nature
interest
made
possible
adopt
deferential
legal
standard
particular
condition
restriction
pretrial
detention
passes
muster
due
process
clause
long
reasonably
related
legitimate
governmental
objective
today
reiterates
relies
foregoing
test
ante
however
ignores
crucial
difference
interests
stake
wolfish
case
unlike
wolfish
plaintiffs
respondents
point
fundamental
right
abridged
jail
policy
namely
freedom
engage
prevent
deterioration
relationships
families
importance
right
asserted
respondents
acknowledged
district
ability
man
embrace
wife
children
time
time
weeks
months
awaiting
trial
found
matter
great
importance
rutherford
pitchess
supp
denial
contact
visitation
concluded
traumatic
treatment
app
pet
cert
substantial
evidence
record
supports
district
findings
william
nagel
expert
field
corrections
testified
contact
visitation
crucial
allowing
prisoners
maintain
familial
bonds
tr
similarly
terry
kupers
psychiatrist
testified
denial
contact
visitation
contributes
breakup
prisoners
marriages
generally
threatens
mental
health
secondary
literature
buttresses
assertions
conclusions
reached
courts
significant
injury
familial
relations
wrought
jail
policy
denying
contact
visitation
means
policy
must
tested
legal
standard
constraining
rule
announced
wolfish
cases
leave
doubt
persons
freedom
enter
maintain
cultivate
familial
relations
entitled
constitutional
protection
santosky
kramer
among
relationships
expressly
shielded
state
interference
bonds
spouses
see
zablocki
redhail
parents
children
see
wisconsin
yoder
stanley
illinois
supra
special
status
relationships
constitutional
scheme
derives
several
considerations
fact
traditionally
regarded
sacrosanct
important
role
played
fostering
diversity
pluralism
culture
centrality
emotional
life
many
persons
determination
exactly
doctrine
established
aforementioned
cases
bears
upon
ban
contact
visitation
pretrial
detainees
difficult
one
hand
argued
withdrawal
limitation
many
privileges
rights
necessarily
accompanies
incarceration
price
johnston
combined
fact
inmates
familial
bonds
altogether
severed
ban
means
something
less
compelling
government
interest
suffice
legitimate
impairment
inmates
rights
hand
two
factors
suggest
important
public
purpose
sustain
policy
first
even
persons
lawfully
incarcerated
convicted
crimes
retain
important
constitutional
rights
presumptively
innocent
persons
surely
entitled
less
second
previously
insisted
upon
persuasive
justifications
government
regulations
significantly
prohibitively
interfered
exercise
familial
rights
arguably
similarly
stringent
test
control
however
sensitive
balancing
competing
considerations
unnecessary
resolve
case
us
minimum
petitioners
prevail
required
show
jail
policy
materially
advances
substantial
government
interest
petitioners
made
record
make
demonstration
emphasized
petitioners
must
defend
reluctance
allow
unlimited
contact
visitation
rather
refusal
adopt
specific
reforms
ordered
lower
courts
district
order
recalled
carefully
circumscribed
commencing
ninety
days
following
date
order
defendants
make
available
contact
visit
week
pretrial
detainee
held
jail
one
month
concerning
indication
drug
escape
propensities
provided
however
fifteen
hundred
visits
need
allowed
one
week
event
number
requested
visits
week
exceeds
fifteen
hundred
higher
number
sheriff
voluntarily
undertakes
accommodate
reasonable
system
rotation
priorities
may
maintained
lengths
visits
shall
remain
discretion
sheriff
app
pet
cert
first
petitioners
contend
ban
contact
visitation
necessary
prevent
introduction
jail
drugs
weapons
must
admitted
legitimate
important
goal
however
petitioners
fail
show
realization
materially
impaired
adoption
reforms
ordered
district
indeed
evidence
adduced
trial
establishes
contrary
several
witnesses
testified
security
procedures
implemented
make
importation
contraband
difficult
among
precautions
effectively
used
institutions
searches
prisoners
visits
dressing
prisoners
special
clothes
visitation
examination
prisoners
visitors
metal
detectors
fluoroscopes
exclusion
parcels
visiting
area
rejection
visitors
comply
visiting
rules
continuous
observation
visiting
area
guards
tr
nagel
testified
procedures
prevent
everything
except
extreme
methods
introducing
drugs
institution
protection
transmission
contraband
visitors
inmates
provided
district
restriction
order
inmates
classified
low
risk
short
reason
think
compliance
lower
courts
directive
result
negligible
increase
flow
drugs
weapons
jail
second
petitioners
contend
allowance
contact
visitation
endanger
innocent
visitors
placed
near
proximity
dangerous
detainees
though
importance
objective
apparent
nexus
jail
current
policy
indicated
district
order
applies
detainees
unlikely
try
escape
security
measures
employed
petitioners
make
difficult
inmates
hurt
take
advantage
visitors
see
supra
finally
administrators
institutions
long
permitted
contact
visits
inmates
families
testified
trial
violent
incidents
resulting
visitation
rare
apparently
inmates
value
visitation
privileges
highly
majority
seeks
shore
petitioners
two
arguments
miscellaneous
subsidiary
claims
effort
discredit
limitations
district
order
majority
argues
determination
inmates
sufficiently
low
propensity
misbehave
difficult
especially
light
brevity
detention
constantly
changing
nature
inmate
population
ante
contention
rebutted
district
finding
inmate
incarcerated
month
jail
officials
considerable
information
regarding
background
behavior
patterns
evidence
record
jail
already
classification
system
modification
improvement
used
evaluate
detainees
propensities
escape
drug
abuse
app
pet
cert
next
majority
contends
compliance
district
order
expensive
ante
district
findings
decisive
found
modest
changes
jail
facilities
required
app
pet
cert
fundamentally
desire
run
jail
cheaply
possible
legitimate
reason
abridging
constitutional
rights
occupants
finally
majority
suggests
district
order
might
cause
dissension
jail
inmates
denied
visitation
privileges
resent
granted
privileges
ante
evidence
whatsoever
record
support
speculative
observation
sum
neither
petitioners
majority
shown
permitting
pretrial
detainees
incarcerated
month
occasionally
contact
visits
spouses
children
frustrate
achievement
substantial
state
interest
visitation
significantly
alleviate
adverse
impact
jail
current
policies
upon
respondents
familial
rights
deprivation
violates
due
process
clause
ii
majority
brusquely
rejects
respondents
challenge
jail
policy
refusing
permit
detainees
observe
searches
cells
ground
respondents
claim
foreclosed
decision
wolfish
respondents
claim
indeed
identical
presented
wolfish
plaintiffs
vote
affirm
issue
reasons
stated
dissenting
opinion
wolfish
see
fact
however
two
cases
differ
crucial
respect
difference
provides
independent
ground
sustaining
judgment
wolfish
held
policy
adopted
metropolitan
correctional
center
allowing
pretrial
detainees
observe
searches
cells
violate
fourth
amendment
constitute
punishment
violative
due
process
clause
respondents
case
make
quite
different
claim
assert
central
jail
policy
searching
cells
confiscating
destroying
personal
possessions
found
therein
without
allowing
inmates
observe
searches
deprives
inmates
property
without
due
process
law
record
us
think
respondents
claim
meritorious
one
purposes
due
process
clause
reduce
incidence
error
deprivations
life
liberty
property
see
fuentes
shevin
one
ways
error
reduced
turn
allowing
persons
whose
interests
may
affected
adversely
government
decisions
participate
decisions
mathews
eldridge
identified
complex
considerations
helpful
determining
whether
constitution
mandates
participation
particular
contexts
dentification
specific
dictates
due
process
generally
requires
consideration
three
distinct
factors
first
private
interest
affected
official
action
second
risk
erroneous
deprivation
interest
procedures
used
probable
value
additional
substitute
procedural
safeguards
finally
government
interest
including
function
involved
fiscal
administrative
burdens
additional
substitute
procedural
requirement
entail
sum
seems
classic
instance
established
state
procedure
distinguished
random
unauthorized
act
state
employee
effect
causing
unnecessary
deprivations
private
property
compare
logan
zimmerman
brush
hudson
palmer
ante
parratt
taylor
view
ease
petitioners
implement
alternative
procedure
reduce
incidence
wanton
destruction
inmates
possessions
affirm
judgment
courts
jail
current
practice
violates
due
process
clause
respectfully
dissent
wolfish
plaintiffs
assert
various
rights
challenging
specific
conditions
prison
see
first
amendment
fourth
amendment
consider
particular
interests
formulating
general
standard
relies
today
determining
constitutionality
due
process
clause
treatment
pretrial
detainees
see
stressed
jail
inmates
detained
brief
periods
time
thus
covered
district
order
detained
substantial
periods
example
plaintiffs
rutherford
taylor
held
jail
pending
trials
months
months
respectively
app
see
zemans
cavan
marital
relationships
prisoners
crim
note
prisoners
parenting
preserving
tie
binds
yale
see
jones
diamond
cert
granted
sub
nom
ledbetter
jones
cert
dism
boudin
thomas
supp
sdny
pointing
inter
alia
inmate
child
young
talk
denial
contact
visitation
equivalent
denial
visitation
whatsoever
rhem
malcolm
supp
sdny
aff
see
bellotti
baird
plurality
opinion
meyer
nebraska
see
moore
east
cleveland
plurality
opinion
pierce
society
sisters
see
smith
organization
foster
families
stanley
illinois
cf
schall
martin
marshall
dissenting
suggesting
test
strength
state
interest
needed
legitimate
statute
depend
upon
degree
statute
encroaches
upon
fundamental
rights
emphasis
original
citation
omitted
bell
wolfish
marshall
dissenting
see
procunier
martinez
freedom
speech
lee
washington
per
curiam
equal
protection
laws
cf
wolff
mcdonnell
iron
curtain
drawn
constitution
prisons
country
cf
bell
wolfish
supra
pretrial
detainees
unlike
sentenced
inmates
may
punished
see
zablocki
redhail
invalidating
statute
applied
persons
seriously
intruded
upon
abrogate
right
marry
cleveland
board
education
lafleur
striking
administrative
regulations
imposed
heavy
burden
teachers
right
children
respondents
contend
even
case
controlled
standard
enunciated
wolfish
prevail
petitioners
advanced
even
legitimate
governmental
objective
support
jail
policy
manner
approach
case
need
address
respondents
argument
score
majority
implies
intrusiveness
measures
provides
additional
justification
petitioners
refusal
allow
contact
visitation
see
ante
possible
inmates
visitors
might
decide
forgo
visitation
rather
submit
procedures
surely
choice
left
pointed
drugs
weapons
enter
jail
significant
quantities
several
routes
see
tr
cf
describing
similar
problems
institutions
thus
mistake
think
jail
currently
free
contraband
small
amounts
might
enter
facility
contact
visitation
infect
facility
first
time
example
arnett
gaston
warden
new
york
city
men
house
detention
riker
island
testified
significant
physical
confrontations
largely
absent
facility
lloyd
patterson
superintendent
deuel
vocational
institution
years
testified
recall
three
four
incidents
period
nagel
drawing
years
experience
new
jersey
prison
system
visits
institutions
corroborated
observations
lieutenant
thomas
lonergan
testified
trial
present
identities
backgrounds
inmates
ascertained
within
three
weeks
admission
feasibility
limited
contact
visitation
program
ordered
district
suggested
number
institutions
similar
programs
approximately
inmates
california
prison
system
permitted
contact
visitation
appears
current
policy
federal
bureau
prisons
allow
visitation
privileges
convicted
inmates
pretrial
detainees
see
new
york
city
except
identifiably
dangerous
pretrial
detainees
permitted
contact
visits
families
indeed
agency
oversees
operation
city
detention
facilities
filed
brief
contending
contact
visitation
feasible
denial
must
deemed
punitive
brief
new
york
city
board
correction
amicus
curiae
cf
hudson
palmer
ante
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part
personal
letters
snapshots
family
members
souvenir
deck
cards
hobby
kit
perhaps
diary
training
manual
apprentice
new
trade
even
bible
variety
inexpensive
items
may
enable
prisoner
maintain
contact
part
past
eye
possibility
better
future
last
finding
based
part
district
judge
visit
jail
limited
observation
mentioned
memorandum
february
revealed
instance
upon
opportunity
prisoner
make
plea
explanation
behalf
resulted
saving
property
confiscation
obvious
fact
meant
good
deal
believe
incident
justifies
significant
generalization
app
pet
cert
see
district
described
procedure
compared
jail
present
policy
follows
method
involved
searching
cells
row
inmates
remained
day
room
manner
searches
currently
conducted
method
men
occupying
particular
cell
brought
day
room
stood
outside
cell
searched
search
completed
men
locked
cell
remaining
cells
searched
successively
manner
methods
unsatisfactory
expensive
comment
concerning
indicated
according
statistics
reported
defendants
methods
take
substantially
amount
time
slightly
expensive
due
need
utilize
deputies
escort
prisoners
insure
assault
upon
deputies
engaged
searching
cell
see
tr
testimony
deputy
sheriff
lombardi
brief
petitioners
object
method
one
ground
press
relying
single
comment
made
trial
deputy
sheriff
lombardi
petitioners
contend
detainees
allowed
observe
cell
searches
learn
hide
contraband
impunity
deputy
lombardi
offered
substantiation
prediction
indeed
summarizing
petitioners
objections
method
consider
point
important
enough
even
mention
see
especially
absence
finding
issue
district
petitioners
bald
contention
seems
entitled
little
weight
cf
hudson
palmer
ante
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part
observing
holding
hudson
cover
cases
contended
established
prison
procedures
create
unreasonable
risk
prisoners
unjustifiably
deprived
property