Standard 2-5328 requires clear and convincing evidence to justify "limitations for reasons of public safety or facility order and security" on the volume, "length, language, content or source" of mail which an inmate may send or receive.
586 F. [482 As the Court of Appeals acknowledged, Martinez did not itself resolve the question that it framed. Because there was "no evidence" that officials had exaggerated their response to the security problem, the Court held that "the considered judgment of these experts must control in the absence of prohibitions far more sweeping than those involved here." 434
[ Thus, our conclusion that there is a logical connection between security concerns identified by petitioners and a ban on inmate-to-inmate correspondence, see supra, at 91-92, becomes, in JUSTICE STEVENS' hands, a searching examination of the record to determine whether there was sufficient proof that inmate correspondence had actually led to an escape plot, uprising, or gang violence at Renz. An inmate can write to whomever they please." 433 See also id., at 187. 1500 (2018). The first of the challenged regulations relates to correspondence between inmates at different institutions.
432 (1974). The superintendent at Renz, petitioner William Turner, testified that in his view, these women prisoners needed to concentrate on developing skills of self-reliance, 1 id., at 80-81, and that the prohibition on marriage furthered this rehabilitative goal. First, in the preceding year a male inmate had escaped from a minimum security area and helped a female inmate to escape and remain at large for over a week. See ante, at 97. Consequently, Appellant's conviction was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. a prison forum." Id., at 550. Even if such a difference is recognized in literature, history, or anthropology, the text of the Constitution more clearly protects the right to communicate than the right to marry. Proc. Although not urged by respondents, this implication of the interests of nonprisoners may support application of the Martinez standard, because the regulation may entail a "consequential restriction on the [constitutional] rights of those who are not prisoners."
furnishes no license for this Court to reverse with another unnecessarily broad holding. 3 id., at 168. Superintendent Turner was unable to offer proof that prohibiting inmate-to-inmate correspondence prevented the formation or dissemination of escape plots. Indeed, there is a logical connection between prison discipline and the use of bullwhips on prisoners; and security is logically furthered by a total ban on inmate communication, not only with other inmates but also with outsiders who conceivably might be interested in arranging an attack within the prison or an escape from it. [ 159, 4 id., at 42-43, and consequently there would be an appreciable risk of missing dangerous messages. Pell thus simply teaches that it is appropriate to consider the extent of this burden when "we [are] called upon to balance First Amendment rights against [legitimate] governmental interests." See 777 F.2d 1307, 1308 (CA8 1985). See Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, His assertion that an open correspondence
Footnote 11
protected right. 1. U.S. 396 Witnesses stated that the Missouri Division of Corrections had a growing problem with prison gangs, and that restricting communications among gang members, both by transferring gang members to different institutions and by restricting their correspondence, was an important element in combating this problem. U.S., at 823 To the extent that this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals, I concur in its opinion.
infirm. ] Superintendent Turner had not experienced any problem with gang warfare at Renz. Prison officials testified that it would be impossible to read every piece of inmate-to-inmate correspondence, 3 Tr. * Brief for Petitioners 32-34.
We hold that a lesser standard of scrutiny is appropriate in determining the constitutionality of the prison rules. The court, relying on Procunier v. Martinez,
See id., at 405. Inmates brought suit over a Missouri Corrections regulation that permitted inmates to marry only with permission of the prison superintendent and allowed for approval only when compelling reasons exist.
2 id., at 75-77; 3 id., at 266-267; 4 id., at 226. Footnote * This is not a "least restrictive alternative" test: prison officials do not have to set up and then shoot down every conceivable alternative method of accommodating We uphold the facial validity of the correspondence regulation, but we conclude that the marriage rule is constitutionally We are aware of no place in the record where prison officials testified that such ready alternatives would not fully satisfy their security concerns. As Pell acknowledged, the alternative methods of personal communication still available to prisoners would have been "unimpressive" if offered to justify a restriction on personal communication among members of the general public. So I think we're all basically in agreement that even though it is a problem to have open correspondence, the reason that we don't do it is simply staff time." In view of her acknowledgment that no gang problem had developed in Kansas despite its open correspondence rule, id., at U.S. 78, 117].
[ ACA, Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities xiii (2d ed. Finally, there are no obvious, easy alternatives to the policy adopted by petitioners. U.S. 519 The second regulation permits an inmate to marry only with the prison superintendent's permission, which can be given only when there are "compelling reasons" to do so. U.S. 396, 413 In the marriage context expert speculation about the security problems associated with "love triangles" is summarily rejected, while in the mail context speculation about the potential "gang problem" and the possible use of codes by prisoners receives virtually total deference. . Id., at 76.
34. U.S. 78, 82]
U.S. 483 Footnote 2 U.S. 953 As the Martinez Court acknowledged, "the problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree."
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of regulations promulgated by the Missouri Division of Corrections relating to inmate marriages and inmate-to-inmate correspondence. When Ms. Halford was asked why the prison officials did not read all of the inmate mail, she gave this response: [ . Footnote 3
2d 64, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2362, 55 U.S.L.W.
Jim Mattox, Attorney General of Texas, Mary F. Keller, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and F. Scott McCown and Michael F. Lynch, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of Texas as amicus curiae. The facility originally was built as a minimum security prison farm, and it still has a minimum security perimeter without guard towers or walls. Nevertheless, they were relevant in determining the scope of the burden placed by the regulation on inmates' First Amendment rights. of Justice, Prison Gangs: Their Extent, Nature and Impact on Prisons 64-65 (1985) - logically is furthered by the restriction on prisoner-to-prisoner correspondence. Most of the female inmates were medium and maximum security offenders, while most of the male inmates were minimum security offenders. Id., at 551. In Missouri prisons, the danger of such coordinated criminal activity is exacerbated by the presence of prison gangs. The risk of missing dangerous communications, taken together with the sheer burden on staff resources required to conduct item-by-item censorship, see 3 Tr. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court properly used strict scrutiny in evaluating the constitutionality of the Missouri correspondence and marriage regulations. [482
Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters.
417
Id., at 404-405. The question was do you realize the plaintiffs in this case accept the rights of the Division of Corrections to read all their mail if the Division wants to?
Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint. . The email address cannot be subscribed. [482
The rehabilitation concern appears from the record to have been centered almost exclusively on female inmates marrying other inmates or exfelons; it does not account for the ban on inmate-civilian marriages. Testimony indicated that generally only a pregnancy or the birth of an illegitimate child would be considered "compelling." In the necessarily closed environment of the correctional institution, few changes will have no ramifications on the liberty of others or on the use of the prison's limited resources for preserving institutional order. U.S. 78, 113] *150 David M. Reilly, Jr., for the appellant (defendant). cabined.
U.S. 78, 97]
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results. The Hotel Law Blog focuses on legal issues that affect the hospitality industry. in order to uphold a general prohibition against correspondence between unrelated inmates.
These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals. . Procunier v. Martinez, Respondents brought this class action for injunctive relief and damages in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. 777 F.2d 1307, 1308 (CA8 1985). [482 TURNER v. SAFLEY(1987) No.
Footnote 4 See 777 F.2d, at 1310-1312. . In four cases following Martinez, this Court has addressed such "questions of `prisoners' rights.'" First, in requiring refusal of permission absent a finding of a compelling reason to allow the marriage, the rule sweeps much more broadly than can be explained by petitioners' penological objectives.