Correctional Law & Use of Force
Knowledge Assessment Test-Graded A
Giles v Ackerman (1984) - ANS-This was a case that determined that strip searches are
reasonable under the 4th Amendment where the security needs of the local jail
outweigh the privacy interests of the arrestees subject to strip searches.
Estelle v. Gamble (1976) - ANS-This was a critical case under the 8th Amendment that
established the term "deliberate indifference". Deliberate indifference is simply ignoring
a situation known to exist. It is a conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences
of one's acts or omissions. Deliberate indifference is relevant in failure to protect cases
and cases where inmates complain of not even having basic needs met such as
medical care as seen in this case.
Bell v Wolfish (1979) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court found that it was not a
violation of the 4th Amendment to conduct intrusive body searches on pre-trial
detainees. It also held that the "double bunking" practice does not deprive pretrial
detainees of their liberty without due process of the law. The courts held that the
possible innocence of pre-trial detainees should not prevent corrections officials from
taking necessary steps to maintain their facility.
Williams v Fitch (2001) - ANS-In this case the United States Supreme Court upheld that
"Random" pat down searches within an institution are reasonable.
Hudson v McMillian (1992) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court decided based on
a 7-2 vote that the use of excessive force against a prisoner may constitute "cruel and
unusual punishment" even though the inmate does not suffer any serious Injury. From
this case, a 5 pronged test was created to evaluate use of force cases.
Hudson v Palmer (1984) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court decided that officials
within a correctional institution do not need probable cause or reasonable suspicion to
conduct a cell search, as long as the search is not done solely to harass the inmate.
Therefore, the 4th Amendment does not apply to cell searches.
Wolff v. McDonnel (1974) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court held that although a
prisoners Constitutional rights are diminished upon conviction, and while jails and
prisons can and must curtail rights to maintain discipline and control for security and
protection of all, not all rights are given up at the prison gate.
Hughes v Rowe (1980) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court held that a district
court should not award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant unless the exacting
, standards in which the complaint is meritless in the sense that it is groundless or without
foundation. The courts decided that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
affords a prisoner certain minimum procedural safeguards before disciplinary action
may be taken. Segregation of a prisoner without a prior hearing may violate Due
Process if the postponement of procedural protections is not justified by apprehended
emergency conditions.
Lee v Washington (1968) - ANS-This case came out of Alabama where they were
segregating their jails, juvenile jails and prisons based on race. The United States
Supreme Court upheld a decision made by the Court of Appeals, to forbid segregation
of public prisons based on race. It was finally decided that Institution authorities have
the right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take in account
racial tensions in maintaining safety, security, discipline and order. This would be the
case that ultimately put an end to the "Hands Off Era".
Turner v Safley (1987) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court had to make a
decision, which involved the constitutionality of two prison regulations. Both prisoners
had different circumstances and distinct claims involved in their case, but it related to
the fundamental right to marry. The Courts ruled and upheld a regulation that allowed
prison officials to prohibit inmates at one facility from corresponding with inmates at
another facility in certain cases. The Courts declined the regulation prohibiting inmates
from marrying without the permission of the warden, finding it unreasonable as it
impermissibly burdened their right to marry. Marriage is a fundamental right protected
by the liberty element of the Due Process clause and the 1st Amendment. From this
case as well as the O'lone v Estate of Shabazz case, a new standard would arise in
balancing which is greater; an inmates rights or the institutions need to restrict that right.
Kingsley v Hendrickson (2014) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court found that in
order to prove an excessive force claim, a pre-trial detainee must show that the officers
use of that force was objectively unreasonable. He or she does not need to show that
the officers were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable. This
decision creates a crucial new protection against police abuse. Before this case, there
was not much clarity on which constitutional protections pre-trial detainees were
afforded. As the 8th Amendment applies to convicted prisoners, and the 4th
Amendment applies those mistreated by police outside of prisons, this case filled in the
gray area in dealing with pre-trial detainees. After the decision, any "objectively
unreasonable" use of force against pre-trial detainees is seen as unconstitutional, as
they cannot be punished at all.
Graham v. Connor (1989) - ANS-This was a United States Supreme Court case that
determined all excessive force claims by law enforcement officials - deadly or not - in
the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are
properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard,
rather than under a substantive due process standard. Factors in evaluating future
cases would arise from this case such as the courts looking at the severity of the
Knowledge Assessment Test-Graded A
Giles v Ackerman (1984) - ANS-This was a case that determined that strip searches are
reasonable under the 4th Amendment where the security needs of the local jail
outweigh the privacy interests of the arrestees subject to strip searches.
Estelle v. Gamble (1976) - ANS-This was a critical case under the 8th Amendment that
established the term "deliberate indifference". Deliberate indifference is simply ignoring
a situation known to exist. It is a conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences
of one's acts or omissions. Deliberate indifference is relevant in failure to protect cases
and cases where inmates complain of not even having basic needs met such as
medical care as seen in this case.
Bell v Wolfish (1979) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court found that it was not a
violation of the 4th Amendment to conduct intrusive body searches on pre-trial
detainees. It also held that the "double bunking" practice does not deprive pretrial
detainees of their liberty without due process of the law. The courts held that the
possible innocence of pre-trial detainees should not prevent corrections officials from
taking necessary steps to maintain their facility.
Williams v Fitch (2001) - ANS-In this case the United States Supreme Court upheld that
"Random" pat down searches within an institution are reasonable.
Hudson v McMillian (1992) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court decided based on
a 7-2 vote that the use of excessive force against a prisoner may constitute "cruel and
unusual punishment" even though the inmate does not suffer any serious Injury. From
this case, a 5 pronged test was created to evaluate use of force cases.
Hudson v Palmer (1984) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court decided that officials
within a correctional institution do not need probable cause or reasonable suspicion to
conduct a cell search, as long as the search is not done solely to harass the inmate.
Therefore, the 4th Amendment does not apply to cell searches.
Wolff v. McDonnel (1974) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court held that although a
prisoners Constitutional rights are diminished upon conviction, and while jails and
prisons can and must curtail rights to maintain discipline and control for security and
protection of all, not all rights are given up at the prison gate.
Hughes v Rowe (1980) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court held that a district
court should not award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant unless the exacting
, standards in which the complaint is meritless in the sense that it is groundless or without
foundation. The courts decided that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
affords a prisoner certain minimum procedural safeguards before disciplinary action
may be taken. Segregation of a prisoner without a prior hearing may violate Due
Process if the postponement of procedural protections is not justified by apprehended
emergency conditions.
Lee v Washington (1968) - ANS-This case came out of Alabama where they were
segregating their jails, juvenile jails and prisons based on race. The United States
Supreme Court upheld a decision made by the Court of Appeals, to forbid segregation
of public prisons based on race. It was finally decided that Institution authorities have
the right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take in account
racial tensions in maintaining safety, security, discipline and order. This would be the
case that ultimately put an end to the "Hands Off Era".
Turner v Safley (1987) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court had to make a
decision, which involved the constitutionality of two prison regulations. Both prisoners
had different circumstances and distinct claims involved in their case, but it related to
the fundamental right to marry. The Courts ruled and upheld a regulation that allowed
prison officials to prohibit inmates at one facility from corresponding with inmates at
another facility in certain cases. The Courts declined the regulation prohibiting inmates
from marrying without the permission of the warden, finding it unreasonable as it
impermissibly burdened their right to marry. Marriage is a fundamental right protected
by the liberty element of the Due Process clause and the 1st Amendment. From this
case as well as the O'lone v Estate of Shabazz case, a new standard would arise in
balancing which is greater; an inmates rights or the institutions need to restrict that right.
Kingsley v Hendrickson (2014) - ANS-The United States Supreme Court found that in
order to prove an excessive force claim, a pre-trial detainee must show that the officers
use of that force was objectively unreasonable. He or she does not need to show that
the officers were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable. This
decision creates a crucial new protection against police abuse. Before this case, there
was not much clarity on which constitutional protections pre-trial detainees were
afforded. As the 8th Amendment applies to convicted prisoners, and the 4th
Amendment applies those mistreated by police outside of prisons, this case filled in the
gray area in dealing with pre-trial detainees. After the decision, any "objectively
unreasonable" use of force against pre-trial detainees is seen as unconstitutional, as
they cannot be punished at all.
Graham v. Connor (1989) - ANS-This was a United States Supreme Court case that
determined all excessive force claims by law enforcement officials - deadly or not - in
the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are
properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard,
rather than under a substantive due process standard. Factors in evaluating future
cases would arise from this case such as the courts looking at the severity of the
