injunction which prohibited the sheriff from streaming live internet images of arrest the simply child detainees in america county where copa county jail onto the internet  think they used to do some of those reality t v shows to actually provide the proper size bandwidth to accommodate the web site crime dot com went out of business and the site was shut down on april twenty sixth two thousand and two images off the internet now the reason that the district court stated the stated reason as to why the injunction was granted is that under bell versus wolfish is the screening of the images of arrestees onto the internet constituted punishment the court gave short shrift or completely ignored the reasons that were given necessarily deterrence of crime but trying to prove the the manner in which  knowing that in addition to the security cameras that were in place that were monitored by corrections detention officers that there were people on the internet watching what was going on and the sheriff believe that that would be  an additional way in which to maintain discipline and order within the jail the sheriff also wanted to expose the general to be for cameras were set up in the intake area which can hold one of the one of the cameras actually pointing into a holding mail holding cell a portion of it and then they can be in those cells for you know up to two to four days generally they're not generally they're processed quickly but this was that at least in the  sheriff i gave the general public an idea of what goes on particularly in the intake area of the horseshoe that they call that they call it at the maricopa county jail the cameras themselves there were four one was pointed in through a holding cell another was in the area where fingerprinting and photographing the mug shots were taken another was in an area where pat sometimes violent activity takes place because generally when you know people are arrested and they might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol there might be more struggles that take place in that intake area not everybody goes into a more of a long term type housing area in fact a small percentage of people do in terms of the public's concern is that in jail operations that sorts of issues that have been raised with regard to maricopa county  of concern about how particular cases were handled in the intake area which is where these cameras were located which was one of the reasons why the sheriff put the cameras  is it is the sheriff's physician that under bill versus wolfish these are the reasons that were set forth to the district court is why the injection was put in place were adequate it is not is there any reason these are the three principal read those are the three main reasons that's correct or any other there in terms of this is the an order i think i mentioned that there was also a concern or or the hope that that it an officer might not brings up a good point the i guess what you call them or at least the plaintiffs call them watchdog groups were spending most of the time watching what was going on and would from time to time contact the sheriff's office and say  believe that this particular officer is strip searching more african americans than lying officers or white people and we believe that this officer is being a little rough in that sense i mean it did  mentioned earlier there is a there is a screen it's about a six foot six foot five screen if the officer determines that he needs to strip search somebody the person that's taken behind the screen you can actually and the sheriff's admits that all three of those reasons are not arbitrary nor are they purposeless they are all legitimate non punitive governmental interest and therefore the court was incorrect finding that the the that security was the old number one it security was the only reason why the sheriff put them in and that it was redundant because they were already internal security cameras in place  probably not the correct standard for the court to use that he should have used fourth amendment which he looked at and decided that there was no fourth amendment violation that there is no expectation of privacy for that publication which is very similar to what's actually happening here these individuals have no idea for well it the fact that the information that is in a place that it's not so much the public not usually walking but it's but it's not highly personal or type of information that is normally protected under the under the fourteenth amendment such hundred sixty two lancet case where the courts surveillance is always been the order of the day in jail and that means that none of the attributes of privacy within homes exist in the jail people can tour the individual was a paralegal of middle ground who the sheriff determined to be a potentially disruptive force if entering his jail given the fact that their whole purpose is to file  who he lowered to the level of do animals and in so doing this he aligned his jail operation clearly with internet pornography they don't mask masochistic has taken these personal matters and he has put them on the internet and he's allowed this and i think the court needs to consider the fact of what the via violation that has occurred this su of the case which is yeah that happened but it's not happening now and we have no idea and the next time it comes on the internet if it ever danced on the internet in circumstances it's going to go on we don't know wolfish the court set out fighting the older mendoza standard of what is punishment in your honour's have already discussed this with my opponent that being a major issue of deterrence humiliation davis the official act on a raft is can be published this is much more this is people sleeping this is people eating this is people taking to the level of being a zoo animal  form of punishment under balbus wolfish quote the purpose behind the installation of the internet cameras were deterrence of crime sheriff arpaio also believe that the images of inmates depicted in the early hours of custody might ca reasonably infer and and clearly judge carol did that to the what was happening here by judge or by sheriff arpaio was a form of punishment humiliation being humiliated being that is not a purpose of being arrested because that person was arrested maybe innocent but having the stigma of a felony conviction there is punishment being in prison and saying i was in prison for thirty years or whatever it is punishment how being humiliated before the world is punishment and it's clearly an exaggerated response to any legitimate needs of the sheriff i'm sorry  be seen and in areas of undress and being on various states of dress and undress watching them sleep seeing them exposed in this way watching them scratch and eat for twenty four hours a day is clearly not enough visual act the official act is over once you say this person was arrested as we stand every person who is arrested is on their website that issue is not here but sheriff joe arpaio has got a picture of everybody that's arrested and he publishes it for about two or three weeks and what they were arrested for that's not what we're here about we're here about the exaggerated response to any humiliation that you started your analysis who that's just the first the next issue which was not addressed in oral argument by my opponent is whether or not this violates a constitutional right even if it was a prisoner and that would be the turner versus after the analysis and you're and again that w what judge carroll decided but as was pointed out by my opponent the as a whole not by my opponent in this court cannot hold an injunction for any reason not just the reason that was cited by judge carol so i think it's important that perhaps we take a look at is this cruel and unusual punishment is there a violation of a constitutional right and under and and i think that would eight somebody in this way not just saying that joe smith has been a convicted murderer of a violent crime and that he's going to incarcerate him for thirty years but to show a prisoner in their daily activities eating sleeping doing whatever being subjected to all the humiliations and the indignities that we've alleged in our complaint seems to me rank them much harder argument in your first one when you want to get and it's the shortest distance between two points i interest or to justify what we're saying here is is is going to a valid connection between deterrence and doing this well your honour's the people who are seeing this in the thousands of hits they wanted to see abuse you know again the people who wanted to see this stuff where the people at you know whites only dot com and the boy are sites and so there is no valid connection between legitimate there is no court doesn't want to entertain that but i do not believe that that was argued in in the briefs at length by both by both parties as to what was the justification for drugs carol and  amendment of a person's image and identity they cannot take a person's image and identity and seize it at this length that belongs to that person and that is the seizure of their image in their eyes and their identity way beyond what would be permissible under the constitution and showing a mug shot for example all of these could be constitutional violations and again all of the four factors there is no legitimate logical interest and that's clearly an exaggerated response to to any perceived reason that the sheriff has for doing this this year for real reason is the shortest distance between in a limit ating this because the court doesn't have to determine whether or not there's a constitutional violation to inmates and prisoners the court just determines that it is a violation of the judge carroll says i viewed it and right next to these internet cameras where the closed circuit cameras time he's saying that that list of the security needs are met and they'll take into consideration the other that would not be punishment or that which has been permissible and detaining these these picture all detainees and there's other factors whether you know look at whether or not historically the sanction is regarded as polished whether or not the operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment retribution in the terms whether the behavior would apply it is already a crime whether an alternative purpose to which it may be rationally connected is assignable that's a that one clearly implies an alternative purpose being a closed circuit the closed circuit and also the fact that people can that there or that the act of their arrest can also be punishment but the main one is whether or not