Leo F. Feeley, IV v. George Sampson, Etc.

Judge,* CAMPBELL, Chief Judge. Circuit CAMPBELL, LEVIN H. Judge. Circuit Having recently questions considered re- garding the constitutional of sen- prisoners,1 tenced we ques- now confront tions relative to status of unconvicted (“detainees”) persons awaiting trial. This appeal by Hampshire county New officials judgment is from a of the district court ordering changes in the under conditions which detainees confined at the Rock- ingham (the Jail). changes Jail County bring are intended to under conditions which category prisoners confined with the conformity into Constitution. The Jail, structure, an elderly was transformed in 1961 from house of correction to its a present As well as await- status. detainees trial, ing men serving houses short misde- meanor sentences. The class action brought under U.S.C. § later, conviction, upon who went Hamp- on to serve his sentence in New joined shire State He Prison. has been * Helgemoe, (1st See Nadeau v. Of the States United Court of Customs and sitting by 1977). Appeals, designation. Patent sheets, beds, mattresses, pillows, detainees, bunk after dis- two other

plaintiff by response plain- blankets, single protected shelf and a covery proceedings partial judgment summary tiffs’ motion The third tier cells face win- light bulb. appeal- the order court entered the district feet across the tier. away, some 8V2 dows ed from. al- brought, suit was detainees were When on the X during day only out 36' lowed I They their cells. adjoining 4' walkway before the that were facts Some day to use Jail’s room were allowed concerning condition court district television, radio, games, ta- ping-pong In 1975 as follows: at the Jail are “library” (apparently assorted ble and stay a detainee’s length of average inmates), nor use left books behind How- days. seven the Jail was about equipment, participate recreational other ever, to months of from three four stay a meals were in work Their programs. and a few detainees was not uncommon tier, although or the in the cells on served nine as long eight were for as there in a dining inmates ate room. the sentenced 20-40 up made some months. Detainees three showers a permitted Detainees were on the which per population, cent to the Jail while those sentenced could week to the fifty. totalled about Prior average at reasonable time. any shower intervention, detainees court’s the district in a of place portion Visits the first took to in the third relegated were fourteen cells tier, partitioned thinly was to floor which often two a cell. benches on meshed steel screen with both persons accused consist of detainees could not sides. Inmates and their visitors offenses, degree of first unbailable were, one another. touch Conversations murder, either to make and those unable however, There were no not monitored. recogni- release on qualify bail or to for private facilities consultations between Although innocent presumptively zance.2 attorney and client. being held of crimes for which are trial, invariably detainees are almost sign A had to a statement con- far more serious charged with misconduct mail; if he senting to the of his censorship for which than the minor misdemeanors refused, him. mail was withheld from all in the serving are time convicted offenders mail, legal corre- Incoming except lawyer’s prob- they may pose security Jail. Thus the media and and letters to spondence mur- having lems, one recent occasion on officials, and scanned. opened was public regularly engaging guard and more dered Books, newspapers were and magazines arson, fights, and the in incidents such as mail, Outgoing ex- censored for content. of couple days” (Deposition like “every and cept legal correspondence letters drug or Sampson). Detainees with Sheriff officials, opened and public media and recently been having problems, only alcohol scanned. outside, said to removed from the problems. Because the con- special It was Jail without the custom the during work outside victed misdemeanants to in- hearing notice or whatever transfer with rather minimal day, apparently up “discipline” cells on mates who acted arrangements, easily is contraband “safe-keeping” cell the first or to the tier facility. inside the smuggled to detainees with connecting in Jail located a tunnel continued building. X X Confinement are small 5' another The detainees’ cells (T combination, 6V2') and contain a sink-toilet “the conduct problem until abate[d].” law, likely appear. NH RSA 597:6-a. degree Hampshire others and 2. New first Under charged any person August punishable death are Since murder and offenses may appeal local courts from NH RSA Release an offense non-bailable crimes. 597:1. required Superior in bail or for recognizance for a reduction personal Court on in misde- recognizance. personal NH RSA in if indi- meanors and is available felonies release not a himself or 597:6-b. vidual is deemed to be risk to wise, the virtually punishment The Jail was administered with- incarceration becomes out written or oral Correctional Due rules. offi- violation of the Process Clause cers were told to use commonsense disci- the Fourteenth Amendment”. In conclu- plining. Decisions who could about visit sion the court stated conditions “[t]he mail would be censored were left of pretrial confinement must be the least up to the individual officers. of achieving restrictive means the state’s end, legitimate presence

sole II restrictions, trial,” accused at that all constitutional, justified by had to be The district court summarized the issues necessity”. “compelling before it as follows: May subject applied principles court then these defendants de- grievances, ordering tainees harsher conditions of different extensive confine- than upon Only rulings, ment those relief. some these remedial imposed sentenced prisoners; altering improving conditions Jail, have been Officials have appealed. 2. Must defendants alter their visitation accepted the order that court’s practices; lodged single permitted and be ac- cells 3. Must provide plaintiffs defendants cess to the same and recreational exercise greater access to telephones; facilities prisoners; they as sentenced 4. Must defendants alter their mail cen- accepted some not all of but modifications sorship practices; visitation censorship practices; and mail 5. Must they have the court’s order permit plaintiffs accepted defendants possess personal regulations promulgat- various items written rules of and property; setting rights ed detainees’ and forth the 6. Must defendants promulgate and dis- obligations procedures and for infrac- the written, tribute objective and reasonable tions; accepted as- and certain governing rules operation the pects disciplinary proce- of court-ordered delineating rights and responsibil- orders, only those dures. We need consider inmates; ities below, appeal which an described from 7. Must adopt defendants certain disci- ex- turning specific taken. Before plinary procedures; ceptions, generally we shall consider 8. Must practices defendants alter their constitutional constraints the fourteenth concerning transfers of pretrial detainees imposes upon amendment state and local the New Hampshire Prison. State authorities in the treatment of unconvicted detainees. Before addressing each of ques- these

tions, the court undertook to set out the

principles it would It apply. said that de- Ill tainees are “presumptively innocent indi- At law pretrial common viduals” and that they therefore “retain all prison were from sentenced differentiated of free except citizens” that their ers. Blackstone said that mobility is necessarily curtailed and they subject must be trial], to certain “imprisonment awaiting limitations to those [of protect institutional security. said, custody, is only court as has been for safe felt under the equal protection therefore, punishment: clause and not for “any distinction between those between the com detained dubious interval and those free on trial, bond must be prisoner ought based mitment to be solely upon precautions the state must take to used with and nei humanity, the utmost assure the appearance of the fetters, accused at ther nor be loaded with needless Moreover, trial”. treatment of the as subjected hardships detain- than such to other ees had to be equal to or less onerous than absolutely requisite purpose that accorded offenders, convicted “other- . confinement . . .”

369 ensuring the Blackstone, *300. In serves” the state’s interest 4 W. Commentaries bail, eighth excessive prohibiting order presence, jail detainee’s confine- pretrial both limits amendment enti- accepted a consideration has been trial presence to situations where ment balancing the great weight when tled means other safe.ly assured cannot liberty interest against state’s interest confinement, see 342 Boyle, v. than Stack 565 F.2d Aytch, Main v. of detainees. Road 1, 1, (1951), and 72 96 L.Ed. 3 S.Ct. U.S. Shimp, 562 F.2d 1977); v. (3d 54 Cir. Smith acceptance tacitly indicates Founders’ 1977). (7th 423 Cir. practice confinement special cases. guarantees specific from Apart more Supreme yet While the Court has amendment, the constitu the first such as detainees, the status there is discussed and we commonly, provision tional most general least the four agreement among at detain protecting accurately, cited as think ruled that federal circuit courts that have of the four process clause ees is the due may constitutionally deprive the states de Duran g., v. e. teenth See: amendment. liberty only the extent neces tainees context, the Elrod, analogous supra. In an presence ensure their at trial.3 Du sary to least, due said, “At the has Supreme Court Elrod, 1976); (7th 542 F.2d Cir. ran v. 998 and dura the nature requires that process Tyrrell ex rel. v. 535 Speaker, United States some reasonable bear tion of commitment 823, (3d Mal 1976); Cir. Rhem v. F.2d which indi purpose relation to 333, colm, 1974); An (2d 507 F.2d Cir. Indiana, v. Jackson vidual is committed.” Nosser, 835, (5th v. 837-38 derson 1858, 1845, 715, 738, 406 U.S. S.Ct. 1972) (en banc) (modifying Cir. 438 F.2d 183 Director, (1972). McNeil L.Ed.2d 435 See (5th 1971)), denied, cert. 409 U.S. 245, 249-50, Institution, Patuxent 407 U.S. 34 L.Ed.2d (1972). S.Ct. (1972). 32 L.Ed.2d 719 Com These decisions consensus strong reflect Donaldson, pare O’Connor restrictions designed only to serve 573-75, 2486, (1975). 396 95 S.Ct. 45 L.Ed.2d irrelevant, some function or more burden- Restrictions or of confinement conditions necessary, some than to the detain- secure without relation to the that are reasonable presence ee’s trial constitutionally purpose confining state’s in a detainee —his However, impermissible. as the mainte- nance of institutional security “directly production process.4 at trial —violate due tradition). presumptively pre-trial 3. A further valid reason detention While a detainee is might possibly protect jailers innocent, require in some instances be to his not this status does individual, public against dangerous a but the As to act as if he were not a risk. the ground analysis as this would alter the or it, put has Third Circuit present, in the outcome cases like there is apparent- have “We note that some courts pursue it. no need to ly upon ‘presumption of innocence’ relied involving pretrial in detainees. How- cases not, however, spe- 4. Pretrial confinement a is ever, principle we do not serves believe confinement, illegal improper lacking cies of rights. the source for substantive seems, as those process. in due The lower court Rather, insisting presumption degree, allocates burden some to have so believed in evidence, proof. principle pretrial a . extended It is of . confinees had to be eighth rights comparable procedural acting The to those on bail. as the foundation for by necessary implication beyond contem- requirement proof amendment process a due plates pretrial appro- in the use of confinement ‘presump- If the reasonable doubt. ... priate A received due cases. detainee will have literally apply tion of innocence’ is read process probable in the form of some kind impossible pretrial procedures, all hearing; and he cause determination and a bail detention, justify both bail or right speedy v. has the trial. See Gerstein despite imposed upon which are the accused 103, 854, Pugh, 420 U.S. 95 43 L.Ed.2d 54 S.Ct. presumption.” 374, (1975); Hooey, v. 89 S.Ct. Smith 393 U.S. Officials, Hampton Holmesburg v. Prison 546 575, (1969); 21 L.Ed.2d 607 cf. Ierardi v. Gun- 1976) 1077, (3d n. [citations F.2d 1080 1 Cir. ter, (1st 1976); v. 528 F.2d 929 Greci Cir. omitted]. Birknes, (1st 1976) (due proc- 527 F.2d 956 Cir. requirements pursuant to ex- ess for detention 370 guidance purpose for which he is But imprisoned.

In the absence of further that, Supreme from the Court it is less clear concept equal this protection adds little specific guarantees aside from such as the anything process if to the due analysis. amendment, first provi other constitutional courts, including Those district the court sions Circuit has apply. Second held below, that have engaged equal protec the eighth apply amendment does not analysis usually adopted tion a “strict to pretrial detainees because are not scrutiny” approach, under which a state being pu&Iished. Glick, See Johnson v. 481 justifying every carries a burden of restric 1028, (2d denied, Cir.), F.2d 1032 cert. 414 upon an imposed tion inmate on basis of 1033, 462, U.S. 94 38 L.Ed.2d 32 S.Ct. interest”, “compelling and must further (1973); Nosser, cf. supra. Anderson v. See demonstrate that each measure taken is the 651, also Ingraham v. 430 Wright, U.S. 97 restrictive “least alternative”. The court 1401, (1977). S.Ct. 51 L.Ed.2d 711 Several erroneously below construed our decision in district courts have reached a different re County Inmates of Suffolk Jail v. Eisen sult, Lark, see e. g., F.Supp. Johnson v. 365 stadt, (1st Cir.), denied, 494 F.2d 1196 cert. (E.D.Mo.1973); Collins Schoon 42 L.Ed.2d 189 field, F.Supp. 257, (D.Md.1972); 264-65 (1974), endorsing analysis. as this form of Jones v. Wittenberg, 323 F.Supp. 99-100 questioning the correctness of the Without (N.D.Ohio 1971), aff’d, (6th 456 F.2d 854 judgments district court’s ultimate in Ei 1972). also See Anderson v. Nosser Cir. senstadt, (D.Mass.1973), F.Supp. we supra, 456 (Tuttle, J., F.2d at 842 dissent appeal observe that that case was ing). Like the Seventh Circuit we believe limited to issues unrelated entirely that whether or not the eighth amendment scrutiny. matter of strict This court ac is directly applicable, precedent under the cordingly pass never had occasion to on the eighth amendment is relevant per question. suasive in cases, Elrod, Duran v. supra, 542 F.2d at 999-1000. The proc due Helgemoe, As we indicated in Nadeau ess requires clause a state to play its limited (1st 1977), strict scrutiny F.2d custodial role in reasonable, and hence a has not Supreme found favor Court’s humane, manner. It is impossible to con cases; prisoner the state’s control and while ceive of situations where treatment so cruel purpose over detainees is for a more limited or barbaric as to violate eighth amend convicts, unpersuad- than that over we are ment if visited upon a prisoner sentenced approach ed that is viable even would satisfy a detainee’s due process detainees. Court has said that strict rights. Loading a detainee with chains and scrutiny legislative ap- classifications is placing him in a dungeon might, true, it is propriate only when “the classification im- further the state’s interest in ensuring his permissibly interferes with the exercise of a trial; presence at but as it is obvious that in fundamental or right operates pecu- virtually all cases purpose could be disadvantage liar suspect class.” Mass. promoted without such measures, harsh re Murgia, Board of Retirement v. 427 U.S. sort to them would ordinarily violate due 307, 312, 2562, 2566, 96 S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d 520 process. (1976) Detainees are [footnote omitted]. eighth suspect class,

While the not a and while amendment —whether confinement or directly not liberty, right, restricts a basic the applicable provides a Court has rele — standard, vant yet suggest, the role of in equal protec any way, that the dialec- tion clause in tic cases between ques liberty trig- is more confinement and tionable. gers strict scrutiny analysis. state must Id. at n. 3. In Classifications basis, have a rational prisoner and to that involving extent the cases first amendment equal protection clause may rights be said to forti it is most clear that even —where fy a detainee’s right, already protected prisoners un sentenced retain important consti- der the process clause, due to be protections treated in tutional Court has declined —the a manner rationally related to the limited to shift the justification wholly burden of Rather, say in means of the state? Who is to

the state. Jones v. North Caroli- Union, Inc., security precautions “compelled” Labor are rather na Prisoners’ U.S. (1977), merely prudent? than We do not think 53 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. requires, that the Constitution or indeed appropriate posture described the Court desirable, or that it would be feasible judicial review: judges to make decisions as to all de- showing “Without a that these beliefs [in life, jail overriding judgments, tails of unreasonable, it danger security] were reasonable, jail legislators if of both was error for the District Court to con- authorities. that needed to show clude [the officials] particular, more. In the burden was not adopted The court below as a yard to show affirmatively on officials] [the measuring rights, pre stick for detainees’ that the Union would be ‘detrimental sumptive rule that it is unconstitutional proper penological objectives’ or would any particular treat a detainee less well in ‘present danger constitute a to security than a sentenced inmate. But while the and order.’ . . . Rather con- ‘[s]uch treatment of other is relevant prisoners are peculiarly prov- siderations within the being whether or not a detainee is treated professional expertise ince and of correc- restrictiveness, unnecessary is not officials, and, tions in the absence of sub- jail conclusive. Facilities for short-term stantial evidence in the record to indicate prisoners comprehensive need not be as have exaggerated officials their all respects provided as those for one serv considerations, to these response courts ing a term of A detainee with a years. ordinarily expert should defer to their notorious record as a bank robber ” judgment in such matters.’ be entitled to conditions as lenient 127-28, 2539, quoting Id. at Pell S.Ct. as someone a misdemeanor sen serving Procunier, 817, 827, S.Ct. rights tence. Constitutional cannot be (1974). 41 L.Ed.2d 495 See also comparisons defined in terms of literal Smith, 817, 832-33, Bounds v. 430 U.S. Indeed, comparisons relying this nature. (1977). 52 L.Ed.2d 72 prisoner’s to establish the level of a convicts, every to make While detainees are not could leave the state free practical same Nadeau judicial reasons that counsel one’s lot worse instead of better. restraint at 417. second-guessing Helgemoe, supra, correctional of ficials dictates restraint in second-guessing analy- In rejecting equal protection strict jails. the authorities who run Main See sis, we do not the role of courts in denigrate Road v. Aytch, supra, 565 F.2d at 57. We enjoining to be inhumane conditions found proper believe that which standard upon or irrational. Restrictions to review the actions of lawfully those en merely that serve no but proper purpose, custody trusted with the of detainees energy reflect the lack imagination or normally employed reviewing adminis officials, subject local are properly trative actions: whether the actions of correction; judicial so too are conditions authorities arbitrary capricious; are which, reason, fall below mini- whatever lacking whether in a reasonable decency. humanity mum standards of relationship purpose to the limited unappealed suggested It is not confinement; and whether are other court, bringing about orders of the district not in wise accordance with law. Jail, might not be improvements at We do supportable proper grounds. review would have the scrutiny

Strict hold, however, in a case judicial review far-reaching substituting effect of “the val- under the standard proceed ues like this should judgment and of a court for the values deference to proper we have described judgment legislature and and judgments and local legislative be accorded Helgemoe, administration”. Nadeau v. su- security the area of within pra, especially in say 561 F.2d at 417. Who is to what is the Jail. the “least within the without restrictive alternative” ones and friends is a specific questions commonly accepted We now turn to the Jail; privilege; recognized has been at the appeal. raised implicates, in the case of detainees es- IV pecially, communicative as well as associa- protected values by tional the first amend- 1. Visitation refusal, therefore, ment. A to allow the litigation, Prior to this visitation was ordinary any detainee visitation privileges, permitted twice a week between 1 and 3 laying capricious or the down of limitations m., p. with visits to last a maximum of one- justified jail not considerations of by securi- half hour each. The court found that order, ty and would be unconstitutional. theoretically had a total of “[e]ach Martinez, Procunier v. See U.S. visiting four per hours week”. Detainees 411-12, (1974). 94 S.Ct. 40 L.Ed.2d 224 were not visitors, allowed to touch their not, however, does require Constitution who were separated from them by a mesh every that visitation be allowed on day screen. The limitation of visits to spe two the week. days What and hours and cir- cific days from 1 to 3 p. m. was altered by are is largely cumstances reasonable for the during administration the pendency of in- local authorities to decide in first these proceedings, so that visits are now stance, subject only to limited court review times”; allowed “at all however, reasonable where their Except for arbitrariness. deci- the administration did not indicate how arbitrary, must normally sions court many visits allowed, would be and plaintiffs judgment jail defer to the authorities. complain that in failing to specify limits the Jones, supra. administration meant to retain arbitrary control of instance, visits on an ad hoc basis. In the district court undertook to clarify matters order court could conclude that is was arbitrary ing that each detainee authorities, capricious allowed three for Jail after hours of visits a day. It rule, also abolishing twice-weekly ordered that the restrictive prisoners be allowed to have physical a new general con to issue rule rules of tact and communication with their application clarifying visitors. amount of visit The authorities complain that ing permitted. three- would be No valid security hour rule will “produce severe presented denying overcrowd reason was ing to the detriment security and and their relatives and friends a set of visitation conditions”. They also are of the standards enabling plan them to visits. view that the opportunities for conveying The situation which the properly court contraband or taking a hostage are sought too to correct was one that left each great to allow contact visits. detainee at the unfettered discretion or whim of the sheriff and his assistants.

Visitation rights, besides having to meet the previously described due process However, stan- if the authorities decline dard, reflect values, first amendment promulgate most although rule invited to clearly the right of so, association. The Su- do or insist upon patently inadequate preme Court has recently said, one, in the case should courts promulgate their own of convicts, that the “associational rights rules. The Jail is entitled to decide how the First Amendment protects many feasible, outside hours a week of visits are of prison walls” are “the most taking obvious of account physical both of the limita- the First Amendment rights that are neces- tions of the Jail and the reasonable internal sarily curtailed Jones, confinement”. and external needs of the institu- supra, 125-26, at tion. The authorities should have a further This said, however, in the context of an opportunity light opinion of this to initi- asserted right prisoners to unionize —a ate a rule which the court may reject then novel assertion posing an obvious threat if it should be capricious or otherwise un- prison administration. For detainees justified. to re- We vacate the three-hour re- ceive visits at regular intervals from quirement loved and proceed- remand for further long court as it is rationally supportable. allow the Jail authorities to

ings which will review, establish, humanity possible soothing and the court further to and effect rule. specific suitable visitation qualities of contact visits are that Jail offi- properly cials should consider in passing on visits, As for contact we can discover desirability. their But whatever the wis- guarantee that such visits no constitutional reject dom of a decision to these benefits in place. question simply take is may regimen detainees, favor of a harsher of Jail security whether considerations and say we cannot that the choice is unsupport- for the authorities order make it reasonable able. The term of confinement at the Jail ordering In to refuse visits of this nature. very many often brief—in cases a visits over the wishes of Jail authori week or less—and a substantial number of ties, on the fact that con the court relied only recently detainees have been removed Hamp visits at the New tact were allowed drug from or alcohol habits. Consequently factor rele shire Prison. That is a State we reverse the order of the district court to whether the exclusion of deciding vant the extent it requires contact visits at the practice, visits is an but it arbitrary contact If Jail. the Jail officials have found that bemay is not conclusive. That institution experience their under the court order has so that contact visits are more constructed eased some of their fears about contact other manageable, may or there factors visits and demonstrated benefits to the de- visits feasible there. There making such tainees, them, open it is of course as a differences of may legitimate opin even be choice, matter of practice. to continue the among ion state and local authorities as to practices particu are safe within their Telephone Privileges lar institutions. the denial of con Unless found, grounds tact visits on can be security The district court ordered Jail au record, on the basis of permit evidence and with thorities to inmates a reasonable reasonable expertise calls, deference to the of Jail number of daily telephone social authorities, “exaggerated” to be an re to exceed ten minutes each. The court officials, Jones, sponse by supra, justified Jail see by comparing order the status district court should not have its substituted of detainees to that of bailees: judgment as to needs for that of security “Persons freed on bail have full and free the officials. telephones anyone access to call to discuss matter any having without finding We do not believe such a can account for the reasons for the call. This be made on this visits record. Contact of, court does not know and defendants unique opportunity passing forward, put have not why reason contraband, including weapons drugs, accused, plaintiffs, as incarcerated should into the suggested Jail. The district court not be allowed the same access.” guard against that authorities could danger by searching both visitors and de This standard is incorrect both because tainees, only highlights but this observation wrongly compared court the freedom of the difficulty substituting detainees, of outsiders their those on bail and of and because judgment as to how a should be run for the court wrongly placed the burden of that of responsible those for the justification entirely upon institution. By state. Visitors and might resent thor applying demanding too a standard to the ough intrusive, authorities, searches as too and Jail actions of the Jail the court might officials believe contraband could failed consider whether limitations slip still through spite telephone reasonably legiti- of the most exten use reflected precautions. sive responsible That the au about the apprehensions mate time, thorities have chosen one method order of the Jail. At the same evidence suf- countering a conceded threat to the se Jail officials did not introduce Jail, other, curity ought and not some assess the reasonableness of their ficient to on social calls reviewing complete to be a decision sustained assertion that a ban 374 any correspondence. less of surveillance of their concerns. necessary satisfy proper to numer- The discounted apparently

The is not free from doubt: court the state’s matter of because question argument ous have confronted the visits were limited courts and, relatively al- small number of telephones by approved access to detainees to a persons, presented of re- less of a though many used a standard believe exacting view than that we more risk. the consensus has been fa- appropriate, the passed The Court has on Supreme Compare Dil- vor of at least some access. question of the closely related first amend- 1225, Pitchess, 1240 F.Supp. 399 lard v. with ment of those who rights correspond (C.D.Cal.1975); Inmates of the Suffolk Martinez, Procunier v. prisoners. convicted Eisenstadt, Jail 360 supra, County supra. the Court held that There censor- 690; Schoonfield, su- Collins v. F.Supp. at mail ship prisoner greater of could no 279; v. Ma-

pra, F.Supp. Brenneman necessary protection par- than to the F.Supp. (N.D.Cal.1972); digan, 343 involved, ticular interest se- governmental Wittenberg, supra, F.Supp. Jones v. curity recognized one of the state being (N.D.Ohio 1971), with Inmates of interests. 416 U.S. at 1800. Petersen, County Jail Milwaukee here, however, right The state asserts not a (E.D.Wis.1973). Al- F.Supp. to but only right withhold mail the to moni- Jail though permitted the detainees to re- clearly recognized tor. Martinez such ceive calls from their restric- attorneys, the power officials as a inci- necessary tion was so limit the all-encompassing to exercising appropriate dent of an censor- of a detainee ability investigate pre- the ship Id. We do not believe function. pare Smith, his defense. Cf. Bounds v. first amendment of those who corre- supra. detainees, spond or with of detainees them- we district Consequently believe the selves, necessarily are any greater. Rather portion court should reconsider this of its Circuit, the we concur with Seventh which light legitimate order in ex- concerns recently observed: pressed by regard Jail authorities judicial fact “We take notice of the (cid:127) other, security. Evidence as to how similar opportunity an for secret problem facilities handle the to what and as lengthy communication between a detain- security risks exist at the Jail would be sub- ee and his friends or relatives would might useful. Jail officials and the court stantially enlarge opportunity his for suc- ways accommodating consider reasonable escape. cessful We have no doubt interests detainees with those of the persons over the course of time some Jail, as by making access to a tele- advantage opportuni- would take of that phone contingent recognition of the au- ty.” guards thority of to monitor the conversa- Shimp, supra, 562 To Smith v. F.2d at 426. particular tions. regulat- formula for Hampshire extent New disavows ing telephone use should be left counsel, scanning intention of mail sent officials, subject sound discretion Jail officials, media, public or the news sur- guard review the district court veillance procedures employed were against unreasonable restrictions. We Shimp. same as those sustained in here, ac- permit procedures must these Privileges Mail portion of district cordingly the court’s concerning district upheld outgoing court au order mail is reversed. incoming remand, of Jail officials to district court will thority inspect On be free necessary, mail but ruled that mail sent should it be question, address opened might required should not be war to ensure steps without search e., practices rant. It reasoned that because at the Jail —i. censorship detainees’ unmonitored, plans withholding visits went escape communica- “drops” regard plotted contraband could be to Martinez. tions—conform one, were a fair the contrast in comparison Belongings 4. Personal employed would be evi- the restrictions Jail au The district court ordered possible arbitrariness of the dence of personal prop a list of prepare thorities to personal property, total ban on but Jail’s cells, keep inmates could in their erty that not conclusive. that in effect at the using as its standard us, light In of the record now before we The court Prison. Hampshire New State complete prohibi- are unable to hold that a mandated this equal protection held that at Jail personal belongings tion of ruling: to the asserted reasonably would be related not a con- plaintiffs may “While security state interests in and order. At right to have a television stitutional time, of approved the same the list items jail, in it is a personal property other by the court seems far too exten- ordered requisite constitutional that defendants light appropriate sive in of the standard of justify absolutely necessary the rule review. we Accordingly, ques- remand all at the personal property that forbids tion district court to afford Jail offi- I Rockingham County highly Jail. find opportunity cials an to determine in the significant Hampshire that the New personal first instance what items could be Hampshire Prison and another New State allowed in cells without unduly detainees’ jail allow inmates to have a varie- county hampering the officials to efforts of the items, ty personal unlikely of and it is maintain order and security. approved the introduction of such that Rockingham County items at the personal Proceedings at Disciplinary Counsel security Jail create undue risks at would not posed place completely that institution that are at In of the unstruc Further, privilege disciplinary program others. denial of this tured then in effect at Jail, Rockingham County Jail detainees con- the district court substituted a rules, equal protection system incorporated published stitutes a denial of when that charges, convicted inmates and de- advance written notice of an im both finder, witnesses, jails prisons per- power tainees at other and are fact to call partial approved mitted to have items.” personal permitted and a detainee to retain counsel. appeal only part The defendants the last The items held be admissible included order, arguing presence televisions, radios, tape cassette players, requirements counsel exceeds the of due food, clothing, The Jail offi- tobacco. process imposes bur an unreasonable cials that some of items protest these can be court, upon den to the con Jail. fires, weapons used as or to start while all trary, presence found that the of counsel of items facilitate concealment of con- and, impose security would not a burden to by cluttering traband the cells and create a dangers to the extent such were causing risk of conflicts inmates among circumstances, exclu permitted property disputes. Jail upon showing by sion of counsel comparison, Even as a the district court’s existed. officials that a threat inasmuch as it over- argument was flawed Supreme has addressed the Court looked differences in both the facilities and regard pris- counsel issue with to convicted other A populations inmate institutions. McDonnell, In Wolff v. oners. quantity personal possessions might (1974), 41 L.Ed.2d 935 larger be tolerable in one cells Court said: might amount to intolerable clutter at the indicated, Jail. An the fact that variety inmate’s need for a we have “[A]s personal might greater prisoners rights effects at an retain under the Due average stay implies institution where the way Process Clause no rights subject restrictions lengthy high than at a local with a rate these Furthermore, population. imposed by regime of turnover in its of the nature above, lawfully as we have indicated even if the which commit- they have been to the same extent as in those cases. Con- disciplinary pro- Prison . . . ted. a criminal we cannot hold that detainees part prose- sequently, are not ceedings cases, retain counsel in all cution, panoply right full due have a and the especially light already does not elaborate proceedings a defendant in such sum, safeguards In there must to which Jail officials procedural ... apply. due accommodation between institu- have acceded. We do not believe that mutual objectives provi- process requires greater participation by and the tional needs re- gen- proceedings that are of counsel in these than that sions of the Constitution in the application.” quired by eral McDonnell and Baxter context, those accused prisoner namely that 556, 94 at 2975. With Id. S.Ct. infractions obtain some disciplinary regard presence prison- of counsel in illiteracy or legal counselling form of where the ob- proceedings, er Court disciplinary the makes it un- complexity of the issues served, adequately the be able likely detainee will the disci- “The insertion of counsel into We re- apprehend the case unassisted. inevitably give the plinary process would this to the dis- portion mand of the order adversary a more cast and proceedings trict court for modification. appropriate utility to reduce their as a means to tend goals. There would further correctional 6. Transfers delay very practical problems also Anno- Hampshire New Revised Statutes in sufficient num- providing counsel provides: tated 623:3 § place hearings at the time and where bers Any person are to be held. . “Transfer State Prison. awaiting felony who is confined trial on a involved, “Where an illiterate inmate is charge, may be transferred to the state however, where of the complexity the prison, county jail from the or house of unlikely issue makes it the inmate correction, upon the recommendation will present be able to collect and the sheriff, approval the and with the of the necessary adequate evidence for an com- county county.” commissioners of said case, prehension of the he should be free inmate, to seek the aid of a fellow or if case, Before the district court’s order in this forbidden, adequate is to have sub- pursuant Jail officials transferred detainees from the help stitute aid the form of to this section whenever believed sufficiently competent staff or from a Among pur- to be other transfer desirable. inmate staff.” designated by poses, these transfers enabled the officials court, The district overcrowding. to relieve 570, Id. at 94 at 2981. S.Ct. however, that the transfers occasioned held and the process concept, Due is a flexible in- hardships substantial for the transferees court must in each case focus on the com- of confinement asmuch as the conditions Gagnon of the peting parties. interests See respects were in some more onerous at 778, 790, 1756, Scarpelli, v. U.S. S.Ct. distinguished prison. state The court two (1973); LeBrit- Downing L.Ed.2d 656 v. involving the Supreme recent Court cases ton, 689, (1st 1977). We process rights due of convicts transferred are not with criminal dealing proceed- here Fano, among prisons, Meachum v. 427 U.S. 308, ings. Palmigiano, Baxter v. 425 U.S. 215, 2532, (1976); 96 S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d 451 316, (1976). 96 S.Ct. 47 L.Ed.2d 810 Haymes, Montanye S.Ct. interests, Looking to the we state’s note (1976), 49 L.Ed.2d 466 and held both the risk of delay heightened and the process rights applied various due proceeding adversarial stance of the caused transfers. presence of counsel. Unlike agree do not that Meachum procedures involved in Baxter and McDon- We nell, distinguishable. are It is goals” Montanye no “correctional as such are con here, prisoners convicted have been implicated very but the state’s real true that liberty, and stitutionally deprived interests in are of their order and only liberty that therefore the interests re- ment that it can reasonably relate to its require protection tained that of due institutional concerns safety and order process those created state law. But where they are incarcerated. Through logic it is true equally “necessity” that detainees also have initial principle court’s legiti- been confined for transformed to constitutionally include farthest limits of mate administrative purposes. state A mere relative wors- rationality. ening in the conditions of this confinement trigger interest, does not any constitutional I some appreciate implicit and ex- long as the “nature and duration” of the plicit premises which have led the court to new form of incarceration does not exceed this conclusion. There is a clear lack of original purpose for which the detainee commitment on part of the body politic committed, Indiana, supra, Jackson to provide significantly funding increased 406 U.S. at 1845. And as the for correctional facilities. gener- Courts in quoted clear, above plaintiffs statute makes al and federal courts in particular are natu- have no claim grounded in state law to rally reluctant to intrude into the adminis- process which due may According- attach. government tration of state and local activ- ly, we reverse the order of the district court ity. pretrial While detainees are presump- inasmuch as it specified procedural certain tively innocent of charges against them, prerequisites to transfer of detainees. they well dangerous individuals pose who security risks for custodial author- The order of the district court is vacated ity. and remanded in part, and part. reversed in

Indeed, the court’s formulation and anal- COFFIN, Judge Chief (dissenting). ysis would comport perfectly with a consti- guaranteed tution that that “no citizen may opinion, court’s while obviously be deprived liberty of his without proc- due thoughtful and responsive to understanda- ess of except law for encroachments concerns, ble seems to me proceed to from by legislative deemed or administrative false constitutional premises reject and to judgments to relationship bear a reasonable virtually all of the affecting pre- case law legitimate societal interests.” Such trial detainees. The court begins, soundly coherent; guarantee entirely would be enough, by recognizing that detainees have respect majoritarian would decisions as to not been yet tried and guilty found funding priorities, support institutional effi- that current authority allows their liberty ciency, minimize federal court intru- to be taken “only the extent necessary to sions in state and local affairs. But this is ensure their presence at trial.” When the not our constitution. analysis end, however, reaches its we find only that those restrictions which are inhu- Nor does the overwhelming majority of man, serve no proper purpose, or are arbi- the many courts which have considered the trary capricious in that “merely rights of pretrial detainees so view the con reflect the lack of imagination or energy of stitution. I attempt to marshal the author local officials” may be judicially corrected. these, ities considering below. But before I path the court takes following: is the do not wish appear to do a disservice to (1) encroachment on a detainee’s liberty is the authorities relied on by the court. Per permitted it; only if necessity requires (2) court, haps most in pertinently suggest orderly and secure prisons necessary ing a new standard which to evaluate trial; assure the presence (3) detainee’s conditions pretrial of confinement of de tainees, deference to local authority requires that a quotes Supreme language Court “ state need meet only least, a minimal burden to requires that ‘At the due process establish the nexus between the treatment the nature and duration of commit goals detainees and the prison securi- ment bear some reasonable relation to ty. Therefore, the may impose state on purpose for which the individual is commit pretrial any condition Indiana, of confine- ted.’ Jackson v. reasonable or limited not be avoided 1845, 1858, (1972).” 32 L.Ed.2d 435]

[92 Id. at 426. means, yield.” is tak latter must quotation in which that The context Jackson, involving the a case the obvious —that simply en from in states This rule incompe person of a indefinite commitment de- unreasonable uphold will not the courts trial, it clear that to stand makes tent of detainees and that part on the mands the nature of the referring Court their civil rational limits on there must be may in through which a state proceeding It is to be maintained. custody liberties if indefinitely and that person carcerate a “reasonable” indicate that does met had not proceeding question the state will deprivation imposed by process. of due most minimal standards whether sufficient irregardless of upheld nothing about conditions of says The case and order could be maintained under which confinement or standards Indeed, the court less restrictive means. evaluated. they should be may assume specifically, states this “We pretrial I have found three un- practice would be the defendants’ support for appear provide cases which jail security constitutional if the interest Manson, majority’s standard. Seale by less burdensome protected could be (D.Conn.1971) focused on F.Supp. means.” Id. at 426. detainees, both of two case, Aytch, Road v. The third Main whom were accused of serious criminal 1977), (3d does not detail F.2d However, it is clear that the rea- offenses. which to evaluate the specific standard with sonable relation standard utilized Seale de- of confinement of conditions Circuit, see longer no the law of the Second tainees, au- suggest but it does Malcolm, (2d 336-37 Rhem v. defer- given should be considerable thorities 1974); Brooklyn Detainees of House Cir. to maintain attempts ence in their Malcolm, 392, Men 520 F.2d Detention for v. prisoners both for convicted prisons (2d 1975); ex rel. 397 Cir. United States detainees alike. It is difficult pretrial 1243, Levi, 1247 F.Supp. Wolfish v. 406 analysis tell how much of the court’s (S.D.N.Y.1976). general conditions of apply meant case, Elrod, Duran v. 542 F.2d The second pretrial confinement of detainees and how (7th 1976), appears present 998 Cir. sev- much of it was limited to the facts of standards, which, eral one of “that as a being adjudicated. case process, pre matter due trial detainees Third Circuit was confronted with mixed may suffer no more restrictions than are con- plaintiff pretrial class of detainees and reasonably necessary pres- to ensure their large majori- (although victed criminals trial”, ence at is consistent with the court’s detainees); the district court had ty were in the lan- opinion present case. Other groups the two under governing found that guage suggests protective in Duran a more feasible; separate regulations would not be rights. opinion spe- view of detainee’s privileges receive fewer detainees did not cifically permits present detainees to evi- counterparts; convicted than their can be privileges dence as to whether their suit, in the privilege sought while the jeopardizing increased “without the securi- conferences, was group press hold right to requiring of the institutions or unreason- ty denied, other forms of communication expenditures.” able A later Seventh Cir- inter- as mail and individual press such depriva- strongly suggests cuit case extent permitted. views were To the tions must imposed pretrial detainees equivalent Third would extend Circuit rigorous receive some sort In scrutiny. whether deference to authorities (7th v. 562 423 Shimp, Smith F.2d Cir. criminals or they holding were convicted 1977), the court discusses Duran without in most cir- custody mentioning necessary” ever a “reasonably cumstances, described simply those Instead, standard. it states that “if conflict above, the court’s provides support it jail security between the state’s interest case. opinion and the civil liberties of the detainees can- in the

379 applied. Often gether when are characterize these authorities I would not that, of thumb practical is the rule source for a “reasona results being a doctrinal as least, its event, provide state cannot at relationship” test. In ble condi- with less tolerable pretrial detainees authority is in almost universal state than privileges tions of confinement and disagreement analy with the court’s stark criminals. Indeed, makes available to convicted rigorous standard of scruti sis. Speaker, v. 535 Tyrrell ex rel. described the district court below has United States ny 823, (3d 1976); Rhem v. Mal- 827 Cir. approved aspects. Depriva been in both its F.2d 336; Campbell v. colm, F.2d at imposed legit supra, tions on detainees for 507 McGruder, (D.C.D.C.1975); 100 F.Supp. 416 purposes imate institutional securi Jimenez, supra, v. 409 justified Rodriguez if such ty only deprivations by Martinez 593; Carson, see, Miller v. 401 at “compelling necessity”, g., F.Supp. e. Detainees 839, 835, (M.D.Fla.1975); Dil- F.Supp. of Detention for Men v. 864 Brooklyn House 1235; Pitchess, Malcolm, supra, F.Supp. 399 at (2d 1975); 397 lard v. 520 F.2d Cir. Malcolm, County Jail v. Eisen- (2d Rhem v. 507 F.2d 336 Inmates of Suffolk Cir. 686; v. Jimenez, stadt, F.Supp. 360 at 1974); Rodriquez supra, Martinez 409 Smith 272; F.Supp. at Conk- (D.P.R.1976); Sampson, supra, ex 349 F.Supp. 582 United States Hancock, 1119, 1121-22 F.Supp. 334 Levi, lin v. F.Supp. rel. Wolfish v. 406 1247 (D.N.H.1971). (S.D.N.Y.1976); 74 Cleary, Manicone C. (E.D.N.Y.1975); Brenneman v. Madi appealing has the benefit of This “rule” (N.D.Cal.

gan, F.Supp. 138-39 to the serious criti- open but it is simplicity, ; 1972) Wittenberg, F.Supp. Jones v. low a floor for the provides that it too cism (N.D.Ohio 1971) (“absolute in requisite” Brenneman v. Ma- of detainees. See of compelling necessity), stead aff’d sub 137-40; Hamil- supra, F.Supp. at digan, nom., (6th Metzger, Jones v. 456 F.2d 854 1191; Love, at supra, F.Supp. ton v. 1972), is the least deprivation Cir. or if the Wittenberg, supra, F.Supp. Jones v. restrictive alternative available to maintain on a theoretical 100. This seems obvious see, g., order and e. Miller v. Car security, right has lost level. While the detainee son, 1977); (5th Cir. Smith v. citizen, not been he has fully free (7th Shimp, 1977); 562 F.2d at 426 which he of an offense guilty found Malcolm, 337; Rhem 507 supra, v. F.2d at constitutionally appro- punished by bemay Untreiner, F.Supp. (N.D. Mitchell v. 421 886 seriously no one Since priate procedures. 1976); Florida United States ex rel. Wolfish crimi- for convicted prisons that maintains 1247; Levi, v. supra, F.Supp. 406 at Mani puni- and devoid solely custodial nals Pitchess, cone v. v. Cleary, supra; Dillard dimensions, conditions equate the to tive F.Supp. (C.D.Cal.1975); 399 1225 Cudnik v. may be confined under which a 1974); (N.D.Ohio Kreiger, F.Supp. 392 305 criminal on a convicted imposed with those Reame, 1236 F.Supp. Wilson v. 380 appro- more is irrational and unfair. County (E.D.N.Y.1974); Inmates of Suffolk equate the would be to priate analogy Eisenstadt, (D.Mass. F.Supp. 360 676 Jail v. a that of detainee with treatment of a ; 1973) Sampson, F.Supp. v. 349 Smith of the addi- proviso with the obvious bailee Madigan, Brenneman v. (D.N.H.1972); 271 safely keep necessary to deprivations tional 138; 343 at Hamilton v. supra, F.Supp. See, g., e. Patter- custody. the detainee in Love, (E.D.Ark.1971); F.Supp. 328 1182 (4th Morrisette, 1110 1109 at son v. Travisono, Palmigiano F.Supp. v. 317 776 House of 1977); Brooklyn Detainees of (D.R.I.1970). Malcolm, 520 supra, Detention for Men v. 397; Dime- Rodriguez v. compelling necessity standard is of- F.2d at Martinez 594; v. Miller nez, at equal protection analy- supra, F.Supp. ten derived from an 409 856-57; Carson, at Cud- supra, F.Supp. while least 401 concept sis restrictive 331; F.Supp. at Kreiger, 392 process supra, alternative is rooted in due doctrine. nik v. Peter- Jail v. However, County Inmates of Milwaukee regardless their doctrinal sen, (E.D.Wis.1973). F.Supp. source the two standards tend to meld to- By looking prison. a the vision of constitution- Unfortunately, the courts tempered by prisons, harsh in other arrangements must be al theoreticians that thing say It is one evaluate claims that the denial realities. can better as courts punished not be may security. If of a is essential privilege held, v. see Mitchell Un- repeatedly avail- privilege make that other institutions 894; v. treiner, F.Supp. at Miller supra, 421 suffering any without to their inmates able 867; 839-40, Carson, at F.Supp. supra, courts consequences, significant adverse Pitchess, supra, F.Supp. Dillard v. view of reject the unsubstantiated should 1234; County Jail Inmates of Suffolk privilege is a authorities that 685-86; Eisenstadt, F.Supp. at supra, 360 existence of a In effect the security risk. Jail v. Peter- County Inmates of Milwaukee raises a prison facility in another privilege 1160; sen, Brenneman at supra, F.Supp. detain- that it be offered presumption 136; at Madigan, supra, F.Supp. secur- institutional jeopardizing without ees Hancock, supra, F.Supp. Conklin v. rebutted, may be presumption That ity. 1191; supra, 323 Wittenberg, Jones v. convincing evidence. clear and only by but 100; F.Supp. at it is another to insist quite must be using the rule that detainees By principle such a enforced. It rigidly convicted crimi- treated at least as well as impossible, would be without fast playing nals, and avoid limit their discretion courts and loose English language, with the a judg- value temptation imposing court to examine the conditions of confine- are not mandated society ments on ment under which detainees are incarcerat- very This is the result constitution. ed, relief, even judicial after extensive opinion court’s insists a more deferential conclude that their custody puni- was not The rule to achieve. necessary standard is tive in effect if not in intent. Yet there are abstract unfair detainees under practical scope limits to the of remedial justice. permits It the innocent theory relief available to the courts which make lumped to be to be punished, the accused such results unavoidable. a together adjudged guilty by with those If courts did not look to the conditions of strict, court of applied law. Still if criminals, confinement of convicted minimum with the benefit of the doubt would be adrift between two almost limit- detainees, given to the I believe it is major less absolutes. The reason that de- workable, practical, just most rule are subject tainees to harsh conditions of develop courts can at this time. nothing confinement has safety do with it is Of course the rule has its defects and requirements. society It is because has not subject manipulation. to some extent provide made available sufficient funds to However, safe and applied spirit comfortable custodial environment if it is in the de- Indeed, above, for them. once a detainee has been scribed can problems these be sur- guarantee incarcerated presence, his example, argued mounted. For it is that justification, there would seem to be no legislatures may simply quality reduce the than lack funding, denying other of him of conditions of confinement across the life; given of the amenities of enough board to the lowest common denominator. resources any privilege given almost can be all, they certainly First of could take such detainees consistent with security standard; action under a lesser and an ab- Thus, concerns. one reason for courts look- flexi- may progressive solute standard stifle ing to the treatment of convicted criminals prevent potential in an effort to back- bility it guidance gives is that them some Second, that there is no indication sliding. general acceptable sense of con- minimally manner responded have in this legislatures of society ditions confinement which is will- judicial commands that condi- in reaction to ing to support. Indeed, improved. detainees be tions for or appealed have not at all many states

The other reason is that almost any depri- of the remedies appealed only part a small explained by vation can be or defended Third, are not justification it courts. courts improves security by that of ordered approxi- rooms abysmally small housed in tempo- the standard in a expected apply ' justifi- If a is no geographical privilege ral or vacuum. X 5 in size. There 7' mately existed and was not a threat to institutional needs security institutional on cation based security past, in the there is no reason to conditions of confine- for these to account problem it will be a in the future assume argues that because Yet the court ment. is no offered simply longer because it to the rooms smaller than the their rooms are population. Similarly, convicted criminal if criminals, detainees to convicted available safely a can be offered in a privilege major- many permitted to have may not be states, ity require courts should hard belongings as convicted personal similar evidence as to it would why safety create might belongings criminals because particular in a problems institution. this form of their rooms. Under “clutter” problem

Another and one floor to the conditions analysis, raised opinion court’s is that comparisons between on a detainee would imposed confinement the detainee population and the criminal contrary I gross inhumanity. be believe population are inexact as to safety needs. physical the case. If the structure be This may indeed be the case. A detainee way there is no is such that particular awaiting trial for murder may be more of a offered to convict- privileges routinely threat and require stringent more security pre- available to ed criminals can be made precautions than a convicted car I thief. detainees, prohibits the constitution trial harbor no popula- illusions that the detainee incarcerating detainees in the state from risks, tion may include serious security facility. although I might also note that de- many suggest the standards I Applying tainees differ from bailees in their solely appeal in the issues inability to finance their by post- freedom case, with the court’s con- disagree I would ing However, bail. just sys- as correctional of them. On on most but not all clusions tems routinely differentiate between mini- issues, I believe the district some while mum, medium, and security maximum risks than the con- may gone court further among criminals, convicted nothing there is argue that requires, stitution I would stop them from making similar distinc- relief than greater are entitled to plaintiffs tions, supported evidence, if between On other majority permit. here would detainees. Not all detainees need be treat- the district court’s issues I would affirm unacceptable ed alike. What is is imposing entirety. in their analysis and conclusions reserved for restraints maximum security I However, of evaluation since the standard population risks on the entire of detainees has not requires contend the constitution are detainees. simply because court, point been I see little adopted by the argued differences Finally, ap- in detailing exactly my how standard’s pris- of different physical in the structure plication altogether would differ from the privileges comparison exact ons make an different The fo- analysis my brothers. evaluate which to poor guide by my cus of dissent is the basic framework this is true. some extent requirements. To rights, not the nuances of these take account I believe a court could judges might different apply particular how for com- grouping privileges differences by standards. pris- one Thus, structure of parison. if the could of visitors that on limited number accommodated, expand it could

safely

some other associational or communication

privilege telephone such as access to com-

pensate visiting more limited hours.

However, totally unacceptable is

the view that deprivation one needless can

be used to justify deprivation. a further

Thus, in the instant case detainees are

Case Details

Case Name: Leo F. Feeley, IV v. George Sampson, Etc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Jan 18, 1978

Citation: 570 F.2d 364

Docket Number: 76-1508

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.