Bazzetta v. McGinnisBazzetta v. McGinnis
SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION
On September 4,1997, this Court affirmed certain limitations on prisoner visitation imposed by the district court. See
The Department’s brief оn appeal contains the following clearly expressed and significantly emphasized statement:
It is important to note that the visitation restrictions at issue involve limitations on contact visitation between members of the public, including minor children, and convicted felons.
There was nothing new or novel in this definition of the issue. The Department took the same position in the district court. In its
It is important to emphasize that the challenged visitation policies. at issue in this case concern limitations on contact visitation. Since contact visitation involves personal, face-to-face contact by convicted/incareerated felons with members of the public, the sheer volume of visitations alone (2300 contact visits each day, averaging 69,000 visits each month, fоr about 820,000 visits annually) must be restricted for reasons of security and administrative concerns related to maintaining internal order and discipline throughout all MDOC prison facilities. There can be no dispute that 820,000 visits annuаlly presents a very difficult penological problem for MDOC with regard to the scheduling, screening, supervisiоn and monitoring of contact visitation.
The Department continued:
Although MDOC is mindful of the close familial relationships that exist between a father and/or mother with their children, significant security and related administrative concerns caused by the high volume of contact visitation mandate a more narrow definition of the minor children (children, steрchildren and grandchildren) that are allowed contact visitation at MDOC facilities. Given MDOC’s legitimate penological interest in maintaining order and security at its prison facilities and the real dangers involved whеnever children participate in contact visits, these visitor restrictions are a reasonable response to important competing interests.
The evidence submitted by the Department was addressed to the issue of contact visitation, and this too was referred to in the above-mentioned resрonse:
As the attached affidavits of Deputy Director Bolden, Warden Burke and Warden Langley reveal, contact visitation between minor children and incarcerated felons presents a continuing рroblem for MDOC with regard to the security of its prison facilities and the safety of the minor children at these facilities.
The Department’s motion for summary judgment also addressed the issue as that of contact visitation:
Limiting the number of minor children who are involved in contact visitation with incarcerated felons will enablе MDOC to more closely monitor these visits to insure that no abuse or smuggling occurs as a result of contact visitation.
... Plaintiffs also argue that the visitor restrictions are unconstitutional because the restrictions limit thе right of members of the public to visit incarcerated felons. However, because members of the рublic have alternate methods to communicate with incarcerated felons, restrictions on сontact visits between members of the public and inmates are not unconstitutional.
When the litigation movеd to this Court, contact visitation was the obvious concern expounded in the Department’s brief. At page 9 of its brief, the Department said “[cjontact visits invite a host of security problems,” and then procеeded to describe them. At page 13, the Department said that “because members of the public hаve alternate methods to communicate with incarcerated felons, restrictions on contаct visits between members of the public and inmates are not unconstitutional.” On page 14, it said that “[IJimiting the number of minor children who are involved in contact visitation with incarcerated felons will enable MDOC to more closely monitor these visits to insure that no abuse or smuggling occurs as a result of contact visitation.”
It is nоt surprising, therefore, that we held that “[t]he visits at issue are ‘contact visits,’ i.e., visits that customarily take plaсe in a ‘visitation room’ or other area set aside for this purpose and permit innocent-only physical contact between prisoner and visitor.”