1:06-cr-00089
D.D.C.Aug 2, 2019Background
- Nizar Trabelsi, charged with terrorism-related offenses, has been held pretrial under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) since 2013 that restrict inmate contact and communications.
- The 2018 SAMs bar telephone contact with his wife, Asma Berrou (religiously married by phone), limit contact with other inmates, and permit only pre-authorized non-legal communications.
- Trabelsi moved to modify SAMs to allow phone/video contact with Berrou and contact with other inmates; he separately sought a dedicated laptop and other facility-condition relief at Northern Neck Regional Jail (NNRJ).
- He also alleged mistreatment and overcharged phone calls at his prior facility, Rappahannock Regional Jail (RRJ), and requested leave to subpoena RRJ.
- The government documented instances of Trabelsi attempting to circumvent SAMs and a recent threat against staff; NNRJ officials described current medical, shower, and laptop access practices.
- The court denied the motions but ordered the government to reevaluate the telephone restriction with Berrou in 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SAMs' ban on telephone contact with Berrou violates First Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights | Trabelsi: ban is not reasonably related to government interest; harms ability to prepare and participate in defense | Government: restriction prevents dissemination of messages to third parties and addresses substantial risk of violence; alternative means (mail, monitored calls with others, mental-health visits) exist | Denied; SAMs are reasonably related to security interests; gov't must reevaluate ban in 90 days |
| Whether SAMs' limitation on contact with other inmates is unreasonable | Trabelsi: isolation infringes constitutional rights and is unnecessary | Government: guards risk that Trabelsi will pass messages via other inmates; past attempts to do so justify limits | Denied; restriction meets Turner factors and is narrowly tied to security concerns |
| Whether NNRJ must provide a dedicated laptop for defense review of discovery | Trabelsi: communal laptop insufficient, risks inadequate review and disclosure of classified/privileged material | NNRJ: communal dedicated laptop available on request; security practice prevents per-inmate storage; deference to prison security | Denied; facility provides access and security practices are reasonable |
| Whether to allow subpoena to RRJ for alleged past mistreatment and phone overcharges | Trabelsi: alleged prior abuse at RRJ bears on reasonableness of current SAMs and merits investigation | Government/court: allegations uncorroborated, unrelated to current SAMs because Trabelsi is no longer at RRJ; other remedies available | Denied; subpoena not justified for SAMs modification and government already investigated allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (pretrial detainees may be subject to facility restrictions so long as they are not punitive)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (prison regulations that impinge constitutional rights are valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Hatim v. Obama, 760 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (emphasizing judicial deference in prison-administration judgments)
- Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1974) (consideration of institutional security and staff burdens in assessing restrictions)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2003) (alternative means to exercise rights need not be ideal)
- Ruiz v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1246 (U.S. 2017) (dissent noting harms of prolonged solitary confinement)
- Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (U.S. 2015) (concurring opinion discussing human toll of isolation)