Merrick v. Penzone
1 CA-CV 16-0505
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 23, 2017Background
- Anthony Merrick, an inmate, claimed his religion required confidential, unmonitored telephone confessions and requested unrecorded calls with a church elder outside the jail.
- Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) policy records or monitors all personal/non-legal inmate calls; MCSO offered alternatives (clergy visits, written correspondence, jail clergy) which Merrick rejected.
- Merrick sued under Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA), seeking relief for an alleged substantial burden on his religious exercise.
- The superior court denied Merrick’s summary judgment motion and granted MCSO’s cross-motion; Merrick appealed both rulings.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of Merrick’s motion but vacated the grant to Defendants, finding the record insufficient to show, as a matter of law, that recording calls is the least restrictive means to further jail security.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Merrick’s requested relief was motivated by a sincerely held religious belief and substantially burdened exercise | Merrick: calls are religiously required and must be private; monitoring substantially burdens practice | Defendants: offered alternatives; disputed burden and sincerity | Court: triable facts exist on sincerity and motivation; summary judgment for Merrick properly denied |
| Whether MCSO demonstrated a compelling governmental interest in recording/monitoring non-legal calls | Merrick: compelling interest exists but must be pursued by least restrictive means | MCSO: jail security and crime prevention justify recording all non-legal calls | Court: jail security is compelling; Defendants met this showing on the record |
| Whether recording/monitoring is the least restrictive means under FERA (RFRA standard) | Merrick: less-restrictive alternatives exist (treat religious calls like legal calls) | MCSO: asserted recording is least restrictive but provided little evidence rejecting alternatives | Court: record inadequate to show, as a matter of law, MCSO used least restrictive means; summary judgment to Defendants vacated and remanded |
| Whether the superior court abused discretion by denying Merrick’s motion to compel discovery | Merrick: discovery sought evidence relevant to least-restrictive-means analysis | Defendants: objections of relevance, overbreadth, burdensomeness | Court: no abuse of discretion; superior court’s factual findings supported denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (prison security is a compelling state interest)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (least-restrictive-means standard under RFRA is exceptionally demanding)
- Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir. 1994) (telephone access for inmates subject to security-based limitations)
- Strandberg v. City of Helena, 791 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1986) (prisoner phone access may be limited by security concerns)
- Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1976) (jail security is a substantial or compelling governmental interest)
- State v. Hardesty, 222 Ariz. 363 (2009) (interpretation of Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act and burden-shifting framework)