Prison Litigation Update – Inmate Marriages and Strip Search Policies
Written By: David L. Schwalm, Esquire
Prison inmates, whether convicted or pre-trial detainees, can provide a multitude of legal issues that are both challenging and interesting. County officials need to be aware of recent court decisions relating to prison litigation because prison inmates, whether they represent themselves or are represented by counsel, will certainly be aware of those cases. After the filing of a significant court opinion relating to such issues, county officials can be sure that inmates will refer to those decisions whether or not applicable to their specific circumstances. The purpose of this article is to alert you to two specific issues that may arise in the near future with respect to your county’s prison litigation.
I. Inmate’s Constitutional Right to Marry
On April 19, 2004, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a decision in the case of In re: Appeal of Alfie Coats, 2004 PA Super 125, 2004 Pa. Super. LEXIS 655 (2004), involving an indigent inmate, who wanted to obtain a marriage license. At that time, he was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy located in Schuylkill County. Coats, however, had a problem because state law requires that marriage license applicants appear in person. The State Department of Corrections had stopped its practice of transporting inmates to the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court Office to obtain a license. The Schuylkill County Clerk did not travel to prisons to issue marriage licenses. Furthermore, the Schuylkill County Sheriff’s Department required payment to cover the expenses of transporting the inmate to and from the prison if it was requested to provide such a service. The inmate sought a court order compelling the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court to show why he should not be allowed to apply for a marriage license other than by his personal appearance.
Although the constitutional right to marry even survives imprisonment, restrictions can be placed upon a prisoner’s right to marry under certain circumstances. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987). The United States Supreme Court determined that permitting inmates to marry was significant because such marriages were an expression of emotional support and public commitment between two people, recognition of the spiritual significance of marriage, based upon the expectation that the marriage will ultimately be consummated, and a pre-condition to the receipt of government benefits and other tangible benefits. That right, however, is not absolute and can be limited under certain circumstances if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. For example, in Roemer v. Oestreich, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 28377 (7th Cir. 1994), the Court upheld the cancellation of an inmate wedding on the morning of the ceremony when there was fear for the bride-to-be’s safety since the prison had obtained information that the bride was marrying the inmate out of fear. Although the Court disapproved of the prison’s actions as to bride’s choice of spouses, it did not find that a constitutional violation had occurred. Delaying the marriage in light of the last minute information was a reasonable precaution at that time.
The inmate in In re: Appeal of Alfie Coats attempted to pursue his constitutional right further by requiring the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court to travel to the prison to issue a license. Although the Court of Common Pleas in Schuylkill County denied the inmate’s request, the Superior Court vacated the Order. While not making a determination as to how to proceed, the Superior Court suggested various solutions to this problem. First, the Department of Corrections could change its policies and provide transportation of state inmates to the Clerk’s office. Alternatively, the state legislature could amend the statute and waive the personal appearance requirement for inmates who are unable to personally appear. Third, the Court suggested that the Orphans’ Court could deputize employees at a state prison to issue marriage licenses. In concluding, the Superior Court stated:
The search for a solution requires that we remand this matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the least costly method to achieve the necessary face to face interview. Considerations should include, but are not limited to, the viability of videoconferencing, deputization of prison personnel to conduct the marriage license interview, or the assignment of a clerk or district magistrate to travel to the various correctional facilities within the county for the purpose of conducting the required interview. Each of these methods has been applied successfully in other jurisdictions, and with a degree of cooperation and willingness to accommodate the general intent of constitutional mandates, a solution is available.
Obviously, many of these solutions impose additional costs upon counties, which the state should bear for its own inmates. Furthermore, consideration should be given to the potentially dehumanizing effect of compelling employees of Clerks’ Offices to submit to the search procedures that are often required when entering a state prison. At this time, a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been filed on behalf of Alfie Coats. All county officials should be anxiously awaiting the outcome of this case to determine what steps counties may need to follow when an inmate seeks to be married in accordance with his constitutional rights.
II. Constitutionality of Strip Search Policies
Another area of significant prison litigation across the country relates to strip search policies for pre-trial detainees. Numerous cases have been filed in numerous jurisdictions within the past several years have certified class actions in which plaintiffs are challenging a policy or custom of conducting strip searches of pre-arraignment detainees without evaluating for reasonable suspicion. Tardiff v. Knox County, ____ F.3d ____, 2004 WL 758407 (1st Cir. 2004); Blihovde v. St. Croix County, ___ F.R.D. ____, 2003 WL 23139401 (W. D. Wis. 2003); Bynum v. District of Columbia, 217 F.R.D. 27 (D. D.C. 2003); Dodge v. County of Orange, 209 F.R.D. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 2002). In light of this apparent increase in cases involving strip searches, counties should review their strip search policies to determine whether they meet constitutional muster.
One problem in dealing with strip search policies is that the term “strip search” can mean various things to various people. Some Courts have determined that a strip search does not require a complete undressing of the detainee. The observation of an inmate while using the bathroom can be considered a “strip search” even if the officer did not ask the inmate to undress. Even observation of a detainee when changing into or out of a prison-issue uniform can be considered a strip search. Courts will look at the intent of the correctional officer in deciding whether a search was intended by the conduct.
Another key element with respect to all of these cases is that individualized reasonable suspicion must exist in order to conduct a strip search. Generally, no reasonable suspicion has been found when detainees are being held on only minor offenses. When establishing a prison policy regarding strip search procedures, prisons must consider:
1. The nature of the criminal charge (drug charges or crimes involving violence are usually sufficient to justify a strip search);
2. The characteristics of the detainee (signs of recent drug use, gang membership, secretive actions or prior attempts to smuggle contraband could create reasonable suspicion); and
3. The circumstances of the arrest (location of the arrest, observation of the suspect’s actions, interactions with other persons may form reasonable suspicion for strip search).
These are just several of the areas of your policy that you need to examine. As suggested above, county officials should review their strip search policies to ensure that they satisfy constitutional requirements in their entirety.
III. Conclusion
These types of constitutional issues will continue to arise in the prison setting. You can be sure that many of your county inmates will be aware of these issues and will file civil actions pursuing such claims. Counties can best avoid litigation in these areas and the legal costs related to such civil actions by reviewing their policies to ensure that they satisfy constitutional requirements, training and educating personnel about these policies, and also ensuring that prison administration and staff comply with the policies. While inmates will continue to file many frivolous claims regardless of what actions you may take, we should still attempt to avoid such claims whenever we can.
David L. Schwalm is a partner in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP. He has represented PCoRP members for approximately 15 years. If you have any questions concerning these issues, please contact him at (717) 255-7643 or dschwalm@tthlaw.com.