ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

Federal appeals court rules inmate strip searches constitutional

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

ADVERTISEMENTS
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday that strip searching all incoming inmates does not violate the Fourth Amendment and is necessary to prevent illegal substances from entering prisons. San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey had enacted the policy to strip search new inmates in response the rising amount of drugs and weapons being brought into jails. The court found the policy to be reasonable, considering the nature of US prison system and the documented evidence of illegal materials entering prisons. The court ruled:e conclude that San Francisco's policy requiring strip searches of all arrestees classified for custodial housing in the general population was facially reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. ... Because the policy did not violate plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights, we reverse the district court's denial of Sheriff Hennessey's motion for summary judgment.The decision overturned a 1984 decision by the Ninth Circuit that limited searches to inmates accused of violent or drug-related crimes.The court's willingness to overturn its previous decision highlights the growing problems association with drugs and US prisons. The large number of arrests for drug-related crimes has led to prison overcrowding throughout the country, but particularly in California. Last month, a panel of federal judges approved a revised plan filed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for reducing the prison population. The CDCR filed the plan in November after the panel rejected the first plan because it did not comply with a federal court order to reduce the prison population. The original plan did not include the legislative enactments but provided various ways of reducing overcrowding, including transferring more prisoners to out-of-state prisons, GPS monitoring of inmates who violate parole, commuting sentences of inmates who are eligible for deportation, and building new facilities or converting unused space.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on February 10, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0161 secs (new cache)