second case for argument this morning is why it is against dark good morning may please the court the plaintiffs in this case brought a first amendment challenge to a policy in the cook county jail limiting inmates possession of books and magazines in particular there's a policy set forth in the cook county jails in information handbook which prohibits inmates at the jail from having more than three total books and or magazines that are not deemed to be religious materials the district court declined to rule on the constitutionality plaintiffs first amendment challenge to this policy because she found that neither plaintiffs had standing to proceed on their first amendment claims that decision was in error and rask in the court to correct that error today the plaintiffs have standing for each form of relief face turning first to mr koch gregory koger was an inmate in the county jail for approximately three months in two thousand and thirteen during that time he received another forty bucks from friends on the outside who sent them to him through the mail but pursuant to the jails policy all but three of those books were confiscated from him by correctional officers in the jail does the jail have a policy about what happens to the confiscated it does not and the record here shows that mr koger doesn't know what happened to his box all he knows is that they were taken from him during a cell search when he was out of his cell and he never saw them again and they were never returned to have policy views we did ask that question and there isn't a policy concerning this matter is that what they said in response to the iraq retore this is what they are thirty six representative concerning policy stated in his deposition procedural due process claim for a wrongful deprivation of his property whether intentional or negligent that occasioned by the random unauthorized act of a state official if i'm so long as the person has an particular mr kolker does not allege that the deprivation of his box was occasioned by any random or an authorised act now it's obvious that there is a policy limiting the number of books to three if there is no policy at all about what happens to excess will it's hard to see how they're now anything is either random an authorised or completely authorised without any legal support why wouldn't that come with an perrette that is not mr koger is claim here the gravel min of his complaint is that deprivation of his books was a violation of his first amendment rights his first amendment right you know you know look i don't want to confuse the how many you can have in the cell with what happens to the books afterward a lot of the briefing in this case seems a confuse those two things well without regard to what happens to the books eventually whether he could eventually get them back or not which we know he could and i don't know that we know he couldn't isn't really with the deprivation of his property it's with the consequential interference with his first amendment right to read to receive information and communicate with his friend carline to send him the if this is just a claim about no more than three books in the so regardless of what happened to the books after then it seems clear that perec has nothing to do with it since the epoch there is a three book sole policy but then this suit is dead on arrival those  policy we have to look at it under turner versus safley and the jail has asserted various institutional interests that are served or allegedly served by a restriction of three box however there is a lot of evidence in the record that undermines the rationale is that the jail has given for its policy in particular it allows inmates to possess without any numerical limitation an unlimited number school books religious books books about substance abuse classes they may be taking illegal materials loose leaf paper and writing pads so it's difficult to see how policy would have anything more than its a minimalist impact on the amount of paper materials that could potentially pose problems in the jail or the jail already has a method of limiting inmates possession of property and in particular they require inmates to store all of their personal property other than their shoes and something called a property bag which is a soft plastic bag in which inmates are expected to store everything including books and magazines so i think that defendant's own expert confirmed that the jails policy was redundant of the numerical limitation or of the volume limitation that's placed on all books and magazines in the moreover i would say that this part has repeatedly recognized that restriction short of an outright ban on reading or restrictions short of a complete interference with the first amendment interest still raced substantial first amendment concerns with regard to mr koger he seeks both nominal damages and it's clarity or a judgment as well as compensatory damages to both compensate him for the loss of his first amendment freedom to read to receive information and to communicate with books we're back in the world of perrette you really have to pick you can't play both ends against the middle well when the deprivation of the books happens pursuant to a policy that violates the first amendment i think it's different and i think it's outside of her at and also want to turn to ms lyons claim ms lyons is ace who is here in court copies of the policy limiting the number of books in their soul to three while she only became aware of it after the book she had sent to mr koger were confiscated from him and as a result of that campus cation not only were her first amendment rights to communicate with mr koger interfered with but she is currently on an ongoing basis shelter exercising her first amendment rights due to fear that the books that she sends will not make it to just back to the validity of the policy right now if it's just a valid policy then it doesn't violate anybody else's rights to send but you can send as many books as you want the prisoner just has to be careful not to have more than plaintiff could proceed on their claims here so it never that i understand and i understand why you want to argue for both players and of course you you beat the parappa problem if you limit your claim to the policy of three but if you're complaining about the destruction of the books you're just you're digging a hole for yourself well i mean just focusing on the first amendment issue that's raised here mr cole her was an avid reader while he was in prison and it was his lifeline to the outside world from the books that he received from ms lyons were very important to him as he did this time that he served in the cook county jail so he did suffer a serious deprivation of his first amendment interest  reading access to information and communication with outsiders due to the jail's policy so we're asking that the court reversed the district court with regard to mr coulter's claim for declaratory rel and at least nominal damage as if not also compensatory damages for the loss of his first amendment freedoms likewise with regard to ms lyons were asking this court reversed the decision of the district court finding that she lacked standing to proceed goodness the court cook county jail has a policy that requires detainees to keep their cells and living areas clean and orderly as a part of that policy detainees face limits on the kind amount of specific pieces of personal property m they were launched into low earth orbit or something like that and you know no longer has the books how can he not have standing well your honor and apologies if our briefing is a little bit unclear on this there are kind of two issues here and they reminding right he also wants damages croaks have market value correct and to the damages claim it is not a claim for for lack of standing but rather the court ruled on the merits that mr kroger could not bring that due process claim procedural due process plan because of the existence of state court remedies and how is that well first that's not a matter of second i don't understand help harat could apply to a challenge to the policy korat deals with random and authorized deviations from policies but the core of this suit is a challenge to a policy and by its terms pierrette doesn't apply to such a challenge so how could parappa require the dismissal of the whole lawsuit it might require some claims to be trimmed off ruling to those damages claims of mr coburn and purab has nothing to do with standing as you just said thirty seconds ago it's a decision about the merits that for a random unauthorized violation the process you do  opportunity to sue in state court and get money damages that's a merits decision it's not a standing six correct your honor and the district the district court ruled on the merits that because of the existence of the state court remedies mr cover could not  seek damages and but that just can't be right with respect to the policy limiting the number of books to thrity well but it's because that's not a random an implementation of that policy is not random and authorize and the court then did look to the point your honor was it was bringing up as to the issue being what happened to those books afterwards and the lack of the return of those books to mr koger and that distinction between the taking and that and the lack of return and the policy in question deals with what detainees are permitted to happen yourselves the policy in question does not i gather i'm really trying to pin down this suit is about but it sounds to me like there were two decisions by the sheriff's office that are contested here one is the decision to limit the number of books to three and the second is the decision to let the guards do anything they please with books they confiscate they can take them home and read them selves they can throw them on a bonfire they can launch them into orbit right the sheriff has chosen to let the guards do what they want and i take it that you agree that that's the sheriff's policy because there is no formal policy about what happens to the confiscated ball so you're out i would say at this point i think we may go in a little back i was of the record that you're correct that that issue of what happens to the books at the end of the day has not really been brought up in the course of litigation you know look ms nicholas said she served in iraq dettori demanding to know the sheriff's posse and got a response that said there any well that's the same thing that that's the sheriff's formal fishel statement that the guards can do whatever they want and i don't believe that it's in the record and i also believe that that's entirely not john or i think an answer to the i is there a policy about what happens to confiscated books confiscated books would count as contraband so you think his nicholas was just not either correctly answering my question or the tree just wasn't understanding the meaning of the answer to the iraq atory i believe so it would have been very helpful to us had you put policy in the brief told us what you think the policy  three and they they took my books and never returned them that's a policy or lack of policy about what happens and a policy to let the guards do what they want is a poli don't i don't know if the policy simply let the guards do what they want with a policy delay believe the excess books is contraband that seems to be were it goes and they could be contraband drugs cigarettes and not well situated to prevail while you're out i would say that the policy at issue doesn't look at the substance of any kind of the books simply the fact this property is books to not automatically transform this case and to it's a first amendment case of it's followers of first amendment case it might be one or it might be last but it is for a first amendment case and the issue with these books and the issue that the policy at issue is trying to prevent is that the books can be misused not for the content of what's in the books but for their their physical capabilities are you asking us does your brief ask us to affirm on the merits by saying that the policy of no more than three is valid or that the policy of we can do anything with the books we want is valid i read your brief as asking us to affirm a conclusion that the plaintiffs lack standing rather than to decide the case on the merits are you asking us to decide on the merits you are are that this court is entitle to affirm and i'm not asking what we're entitle to do i'm asking you what you are contending that the district court properly decide the case below we ask you to affirm that plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge to seek equitable remedies and to the extent that they seek damages that are you asking us to  therefore the judgment should be affirmed is that your position or do you want us to modify the judgment so that it deals with americans now of course modifying the judgment might have required cross  appeal we would like you to firm the judgment below i would admit that the briefing our briefing is is a little bit and accurate there in that in addition a little late to change or bring in addition to the standing issue if you contend that the court ruled on the merits as to the due process time funny that we you contend that the policy at issue is valid and constitutional and that if you with you wish to rule on the this is the policy is in line with turner thank you and if i could turn to you turner the supreme court in terms of the sleep suit safely set forth four factors to consider when determining whether or not a prison policy is constitutional the first is that there must be a valid rational relationship between the policy at issue and the legitimate government of interest the legitimate governmental interest in this case is the security safety sanitation of other detainees prison guards staff the facility itself as as in the record as the briefing sets forth there are myriad ways that books and magazines can be misused at cook  jail and that the goal is to limit the amount of property that can be misused to either hurt other detainees staff or the facility the second attorney factor looks at whether or not individuals have alternative avenues of exercising the right question in terms of a more generalized right to receive information and to communicate with individuals on the outside detainees can make phone calls they can receive video visitors and then the policy itself does allow for detainees to have a few free books or magazines so detainees certainly do have other avenues of exercising their right the third turner factor look to the impact that in combination  would have on the facility and other inmates and and jail staff as the record states were detainee's permitted to have additional books and magazines those are additional books and magazines that would need to be  fourth turner factor we look to the question of whether or not the jails the jails policy is an exaggerated response to the concern and the key thing the key aspect of turner is the question this is not a least of the least restrictive alternative tests but rather whether or not the jails response to the concern is exaggerated throughout the briefing and at summary judgment plaintiffs have conceded that some limit on certainly not a exaggerated response and now we've spent a lot of time discussing up plaintiff koger as to plaintiff lyons plaintiff lyons has never been in into a county jail the policy at issue is not a mail room policy it does not regulate what individuals can send to  has claimed that she's been chilled by this policy the fact is that there's an objective test when looking at whether or not someone has in fact been chilled think of lines is not subject to the policy she's never been threatened by any sanction for violating the policy she's not aware of any aid any detainees she sent materials to that have been punished or threatened with punishment for violating the policy and then lastly plaintiff lance testified in her deposition that she only s books or magazines to individuals a county jail when they've requested that they be sent to her no one other than plaintiff koger has ever requested that anyone that any books or magazines be sent to them meaning the plaintiff last simply has not been chilled by the policy at issue and she therefore lack standing to challenge the policy at issue is the only one more than three books that i'm sorry are apparently he wanted more than three books at a time i'll just respond briefly to a few points that were raised by counsel for the jail first with regard to the issue of whether yes with regard to the issue of whether this courtroom on the merits of the constitution policy under the first amendment is not properly before this court because the district court didn't enter a decision on it the district or its decision has not been appealed by defendants and it's not before the courts we are asking for  with regard to mr culver even if this court finds that he cannot pursue a claim for compensatory damages for the loss of his box either because of  declaratory relief and nominal damages finally with regard to ms lines while it is true that this policy does not directly restrict what a person outside the jail can send to an inmate the unavoidable consequence of the policy is that it forks a consequential restriction on ms lyons speech rights it is not speculative to say that she wants to send more than three blocks to inmates in the jail she's done that  past occasions as well and thoroughly documented in this case ms lines regularly seeks out new people to correspond with who are impressed and and she's testified at length about how important she perceives reading books and communicating with the outside world is to rehabilitation so on that basis we ask that the score reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for consideration on the merits of plaintiff's first amendment claim