Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/517/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:53:07+00:00

Document:
Respondent, an inmate at a Virginia penal institution, filed an action in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioner, an officer at the institution, alleging that petitioner had conducted an unreasonable "shakedown" search of respondent's prison locker and cell and had brought a false charge, under prison disciplinary procedures, of destroying state property against respondent solely to harass him; and that, in violation of respondent's Fourteenth Amendment right not to be deprived of property without due process of law, petitioner had intentionally destroyed certain of respondent's noncontraband personal property during the search. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner, and the Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to the District Court's holding that respondent was not deprived of his property without due process. The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision in Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 -- holding that a negligent deprivation of a prison inmate's property by state officials does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if an adequate postdeprivation state remedy exists -- should extend also to intentional deprivations of property. However, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with regard to respondent's claim that the "shakedown" search was unreasonable. The court held that a prisoner has a "limited privacy right" in his cell entitling him to protection against searches conducted solely to harass or to humiliate, and that a remand was necessary to determine the purpose of the search here.
to accomplish the prison objectives of preventing the introduction of weapons, drugs, and other contraband into the premises if inmates retained a right of privacy in their cells. The unpredictability that attends random searches of cells renders such searches perhaps the most effective weapon of the prison administrator in the fight against the proliferation of weapons, drugs, and other contraband. A requirement that random searches be conducted pursuant to an established plan would seriously undermine the effectiveness of this weapon. Pp. 468 U. S. 522-530.
2. There is no merit to respondent's contention that the destruction of his personal property constituted an unreasonable seizure of that property violative of the Fourth Amendment. Assuming that the Fourth Amendment protects against the destruction of property, in addition to its mere seizure, the same reasons that lead to the conclusion that the Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches is inapplicable in a prison cell apply with controlling force to seizures. Prison officials must be free to seize from cells any articles which, in their view, disserve legitimate institutional interests. P. 468 U. S. 528, n. 8.
3. Even if petitioner intentionally destroyed respondent's personal property during the challenged "shakedown" search, the destruction did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since respondent had adequate postdeprivation remedies under Virginia law for any loss suffered. The decision in Parratt v. Taylor, supra, as to negligent deprivation by a state employee of a prisoner's property -- as well as its rationale that, when deprivations of property are effected through random and unauthorized conduct of a state employee, predeprivation procedures are "impracticable," since the state cannot know when such deprivations will occur -- also applies to intentional deprivations of property. Both the District Court and, at least implicitly, the Court of Appeals held that several common law remedies were available to respondent under Virginia law, and would provide adequate compensation for his property loss, and there is no reason to question that determination. The fact that respondent might not be able to recover under state law remedies the full amount which he might receive in a § 1983 action is not determinative of the adequacy of the state remedies. As to respondent's contention that relief under state law was uncertain because a state employee might be entitled to sovereign immunity, the courts below held that respondent's claim would not be barred by sovereign immunity, since, under Virginia law, a state employee may be held liable for his intentional torts. Pp. 468 U. S. 530-536.
which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., also joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 468 U. S. 537. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 468 U. S. 541.
We granted certiorari in No. 82-1630 to decide whether a prison inmate has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell entitling him to the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. We also granted certiorari in No. 82-6695, the cross-petition, to determine whether our decision in Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981), which held that a negligent deprivation of property by state officials does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if an adequate postdeprivation state remedy exists, should extend to intentional deprivations of property.
Palmer subsequently brought this pro se action in United States District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Respondent claimed that Hudson had conducted the shakedown search of his cell and had brought a false charge against him solely to harass him, and that, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right not to be deprived of property without due process of law, Hudson had intentionally destroyed certain of his noncontraband personal property during the September 16 search. Hudson denied each allegation; he moved for and was granted summary judgment. The District Court accepted respondent's allegations as true, but held nonetheless, relying on Parratt v. Taylor, supra, that the alleged destruction of respondent's property, even if intentional, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, because there were state tort remedies available to redress the deprivation, App. 31 [Footnote 1] and that the alleged harassment did not "rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation," id. at 32.
that a postdeprivation remedy can cure an unintentional but negligent act causing injury, inflicted by a state agent which is unamenable to prior review, then that principle applies as well to random and unauthorized intentional acts."
"done pursuant to an established program of conducting random searches of single cells or groups of cells reasonably designed to deter or discover the possession of contraband"
or upon reasonable belief that the particular prisoner possessed contraband. Id. at 1224. Because the Court of Appeals concluded that the record reflected a factual dispute over whether the search of respondent's cell was routine or conducted to harass respondent, it held that summary judgment was inappropriate, and that a remand was necessary to determine the purpose of the cell search.
We granted certiorari. 463 U.S. 1206 (1983). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
searches . . . reasonably designed to deter or discover the possession of contraband"
or upon reasonable belief that the prisoner possesses contraband. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent had even a limited privacy right in his cell, and urges that we adopt the "bright line" rule that prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy in their individual cells that would entitle them to Fourth Amendment protection.
We have repeatedly held that prisons are not beyond the reach of the Constitution. No "iron curtain" separates one from the other. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 555 (1974). Indeed, we have insisted that prisoners be accorded those rights not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives of incarceration. For example, we have held that invidious racial discrimination is as intolerable within a prison as outside, except as may be essential to "prison security and discipline." Lee v. Washington, 390 U. S. 333 (1968) (per curiam). Like others, prisoners have the constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of their grievances, which includes a reasonable right of access to the courts. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969).
against it is evidence of the essential character of that society.
However, while persons imprisoned for crime enjoy many protections of the Constitution, it is also clear that imprisonment carries with it the circumscription or loss of many significant rights. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 545. These constraints on inmates, and in some cases the complete withdrawal of certain rights, are "justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 334 U. S. 285 (1948); see also Bell v. Wolfish, supra, at 441 U. S. 545-546, and cases cited; Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, at 418 U. S. 555. The curtailment of certain rights is necessary, as a practical matter, to accommodate a myriad of "institutional needs and objectives" of prison facilities, Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, at 418 U. S. 555, chief among which is internal security, see Pell v. Procunier, supra, at 417 U. S. 823. Of course, these restrictions or retractions also serve, incidentally, as reminders that, under our system of justice, deterrence and retribution are factors in addition to correction.
We have not before been called upon to decide the specific question whether the Fourth Amendment applies within a prison cell, [Footnote 6] but the nature of our inquiry is well defined.
"the person invoking its protection can claim a 'justifiable,' a 'reasonable,' or a 'legitimate expectation of privacy' that has been invaded by government action."
hold that society is not prepared to recognize as legitimate any subjective expectation of privacy that a prisoner might have in his prison cell and that, accordingly, the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell. The recognition of privacy rights for prisoners in their individual cells simply cannot be reconciled with the concept of incarceration and the needs and objectives of penal institutions.
Prisons, by definition, are places of involuntary confinement of persons who have a demonstrated proclivity for antisocial criminal, and often violent, conduct. Inmates have necessarily shown a lapse in ability to control and conform their behavior to the legitimate standards of society by the normal impulses of self-restraint; they have shown an inability to regulate their conduct in a way that reflects either a respect for law or an appreciation of the rights of others. Even a partial survey of the statistics on violent crime in our Nation's prisons illustrates the magnitude of the problem. During 1981 and the first half of 1982, there were over 120 prisoners murdered by fellow inmates in state and federal prisons. A number of prison personnel were murdered by prisoners during this period. Over 29 riots or similar disturbances were reported in these facilities for the same timeframe. And there were over 125 suicides in these institutions. See Prison Violence, 7 Corrections Compendium (Mar.1983). Additionally, informal statistics from the United States Bureau of Prisons show that, in the federal system during 1983, there were 11 inmate homicides, 359 inmate assaults on other inmates, 227 inmate assaults on prison staff, and 10 suicides. There were in the same system in 1981 and 1982 over 750 inmate assaults on other inmates and over 570 inmate assaults on prison personnel.
measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates themselves. They must be ever alert to attempts to introduce drugs and other contraband into the premises which, we can judicially notice, is one of the most perplexing problems of prisons today; they must prevent, so far as possible, the flow of illicit weapons into the prison; they must be vigilant to detect escape plots, in which drugs or weapons may be involved, before the schemes materialize. In addition to these monumental tasks, it is incumbent upon these officials at the same time to maintain as sanitary an environment for the inmates as feasible, given the difficulties of the circumstances.
The administration of a prison, we have said, is "at best an extraordinarily difficult undertaking." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 418 U. S. 566; Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460, 459 U. S. 467 (1983). But it would be literally impossible to accomplish the prison objectives identified above if inmates retained a right of privacy in their cells. Virtually the only place inmates can conceal weapons, drugs, and other contraband is in their cells. Unfettered access to these cells by prison officials, thus, is imperative if drugs and contraband are to be ferreted out and sanitary surroundings are to be maintained.
required to ensure institutional security and internal order. [Footnote 8] We are satisfied that society would insist that the prisoner's expectation of privacy always yield to what must be considered the paramount interest in institutional security. We believe that it is accepted by our society that "[l]oss of freedom of choice and privacy are inherent incidents of confinement." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 537. The Court of Appeals was troubled by the possibility of searches conducted solely to harass inmates; it reasoned that a requirement that searches be conducted only pursuant to an established policy or upon reasonable suspicion would prevent such searches to the maximum extent possible. Of course, there is a risk of maliciously motivated searches, and of course, intentional harassment of even the most hardened criminals cannot be tolerated by a civilized society. However, we disagree with the court's proposed solution. The uncertainty that attends random searches of cells renders these searches perhaps the most effective weapon of the prison administrator in the constant fight against the proliferation of knives and guns, illicit drugs, and other contraband. The Court of Appeals candidly acknowledged that "the device [of random cell searches] is of . . . obvious utility in achieving the goal of prison security." 697 F.2d at 1224.
"For one to advocate that prison searches must be conducted only pursuant to an enunciated general policy or when suspicion is directed at a particular inmate is to ignore the realities of prison operation. Random searches of inmates, individually or collectively, and their cells and lockers are valid and necessary to ensure the security of the institution and the safety of inmates and all others within its boundaries. This type of search allows prison officers flexibility and prevents inmates from anticipating, and thereby thwarting, a search for contraband."
Marrero v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 754, 757, 284 S.E.2d 809, 811 (1981). We share the concerns so well expressed by the Supreme Court and its view that wholly random searches are essential to the effective security of penal institutions. We, therefore, cannot accept even the concededly limited holding of the Court of Appeals.
"because searches and seizures to harass are unreasonable, a prisoner has a reasonable expectation of privacy not to have his cell, locker, personal effects, person invaded for such a purpose."
which assumes the answer to the predicate question whether a prisoner has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his prison cell at all, is merely a challenge to the reasonableness of the particular search of respondent's cell. Because we conclude that prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy, and that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells, we need not address this issue.
meaningful means by which to assess the propriety of the State's action at some time after the initial taking . . . satisf[ies] the requirements of procedural due process."
"It is difficult to conceive of how the State could provide a meaningful hearing before the deprivation takes place. The loss of property, although attributable to the State as action under 'color of law,' is in almost all cases beyond the control of the State. Indeed, in most cases, it is not only impracticable, but impossible, to provide a meaningful hearing before the deprivation."
While Parratt is necessarily limited by its facts to negligent deprivations of property, it is evident, as the Court of Appeals recognized, that its reasoning applies as well to intentional deprivations of property. The underlying rationale of Parratt is that, when deprivations of property are effected through random and unauthorized conduct of a state employee, predeprivation procedures are simply "impracticable," since the state cannot know when such deprivations will occur. We can discern no logical distinction between negligent and intentional deprivations of property insofar as the "practicability" of affording predeprivation process is concerned. The state can no more anticipate and control in advance the random and unauthorized intentional conduct of its employees than it can anticipate similar negligent conduct. Arguably, intentional acts are even more difficult to anticipate, because one bent on intentionally depriving a person of his property might well take affirmative steps to avoid signaling his intent.
Respondent presses two arguments that require at least brief comment. First, he contends that, because an agent of the state who intends to deprive a person of his property "can provide predeprivation process, then as a matter of due process, he must do so." Brief for Respondent and Cross-Petitioner 8 (emphasis in original). This argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Parratt. There we held that postdeprivation procedures satisfy due process because the state cannot possibly know in advance of a negligent deprivation of property. Whether an individual employee himself is able to foresee a deprivation is simply of no consequence. The controlling inquiry is solely whether the state is in a position to provide for predeprivation process.
Respondent also contends, citing to Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., supra, that the deliberate destruction of his property by petitioner constituted a due process violation despite the availability of postdeprivation remedies. Brief for Respondent and Cross-Petitioner 8. In Logan, we decided a question about which our decision in Parratt left little doubt, that is, whether a postdeprivation state remedy satisfies due process where the property deprivation is effected pursuant to an established state procedure. We held that it does not. Logan plainly has no relevance here. Respondent does not even allege that the asserted destruction of his property occurred pursuant to a state procedure.
available to respondent would provide adequate compensation for his property loss. We have no reason to question that determination, particularly given the speculative nature of respondent's arguments.
Palmer does not seriously dispute the adequacy of the existing state law remedies themselves. He asserts in this respect only that, because certain of his legal papers allegedly taken "may have contained things irreplacable [sic], and incompensable" or "may also have involved sentimental items which are of equally intangible value," Brief for Respondent and Cross-Petitioner 10-11, n. 10, a suit in tort, for example, would not "necessarily" compensate him fully. If the loss is "incompensable," this is as much so under § 1983 as it would be under any other remedy. In any event, that Palmer might not be able to recover under these remedies the full amount which he might receive in a § 1983 action is not, as we have said, determinative of the adequacy of the state remedies. See Parratt, 451 U.S. at 451 U. S. 544.
Palmer contends also that relief under applicable state law "is far from certain and complete," because a state court might hold that petitioner, as a state employee, is entitled to sovereign immunity. Brief for Respondent and Cross-Petitioner 11. This suggestion is unconvincing. The District Court and the Court of Appeals held that respondent's claim would not be barred by sovereign immunity. As the District Court noted, under Virginia law, "a State employee may be held liable for his intentional torts," Elder v. Holland, 208 Va. 15, 19, 155 S.E.2d 369, 372-373 (1967); see also Short v. Griffitts, 220 Va. 53, 255 S.E.2d 479 (1979). Indeed, respondent candidly acknowledges that it is "probable that a Virginia trial court would rule that there should be no immunity bar in the present case." Brief for Respondent and Cross-Petitioner 14.
be held liable' could have meant . . . only the possibility of liability under certain circumstances, rather than a blanket rule. . . ."
Brief for Respondent and Cross-Petitioner 13. We are equally unpersuaded by this speculation. The language of Elder is unambiguous that employees of the Commonwealth do not enjoy sovereign immunity for their intentional torts, and Elder has been so read by a number of federal courts, as respondent concedes, see Brief for Respondent and Cross-Petitioner 13, n. 13. See, e.g., Holmes v. Wampler, 546 F.Supp. 500, 504 (ED Va.1982); Irshad v. Spann, 543 F.Supp. 922, 928 (ED Va.1982); Frazier v. Collins, 544 F.Supp. 109, 110 (ED Va.1982); Whorley v. Karr, 534 F.Supp. 88, 89 (WD Va.1981); Daughtry v. Arlington County, Va., 490 F.Supp. 307 (DC 1980). [Footnote 15] In sum, it is evident here, as in Parratt, that the State has provided an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the alleged destruction of property.
We hold that the Fourth Amendment has no applicability to a prison cell. We hold also that, even if petitioner intentionally destroyed respondent's personal property during the challenged shakedown search, the destruction did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, since the Commonwealth of Virginia has provided respondent an adequate postdeprivation remedy.
claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is reversed. The judgment affirming the District Court's decision that respondent has not been denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment is affirmed.
* Together with No. 82-6695, Palmer v. Hudson, also on certiorari to the same court.
The District Court determined that Palmer could proceed against Hudson in state court either for conversion or for detinue, and that, under applicable Virginia law, see Elder v. Holland, 208 Va. 15, 155 S.E.2d 369 (1967), Hudson would not be entitled to immunity for the alleged intentional tort.
"there is no practical mechanism by which Virginia could prevent its guards from conducting personal vendettas against prisoners other than by punishing them after the fact. . . ."
Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals' decision rests at least in part upon a finding of an independent right of privacy for prisoners under the Fourteenth Amendment alone. Arguably, it is not entirely clear whether the Court of Appeals believed that the limited privacy right it recognized was guaranteed solely by the Fourth Amendment, and applicable to the States only through the Fourteenth Amendment, or whether the right emanated from the Fourteenth Amendment alone, or both. The court's opinion, however, explicitly speaks to the "primary purpose of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments," 697 F.2d at 1224, and nowhere does it suggest an intention to draw a distinction between the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right of privacy in prison cells. Under the circumstances, we assume, since there is no suggestion to the contrary, that the court did not mean to imply in this context that any right of privacy that might exist under the Fourteenth Amendment alone exceeds that which exists under the Fourth Amendment.
The majority of the Courts of Appeals have held that a prisoner retains at least a minimal degree of Fourth Amendment protection in his cell. See United States v. Chamorro, 687 F.2d 1 (CA1 1982); United States v. Hinckley, 217 U.S.App.D.C. 262, 672 F.2d 115 (1982); United States v. Lilly, 576 F.2d 1240 (CA5 1978); United States v. Stumes, 549 F.2d 831 (CA8 1977); Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F.2d 1311 (CA7 1975) (vacating District Court judgment), on rehearing, 545 F.2d 565 (1976) (en banc) (affirming District Court on other grounds), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 932 (1978). The Second and Ninth Circuits, however, have held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in a prison cell. See Christman v. Skilmer, 468 F.2d 723 (CA2 1972); United States v. Hitchcock, 467 F.2d 1107 (CA9 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 916 (1973).
In Lanza v. New York, 370 U. S. 139, 370 U. S. 143-144 (1962), a plurality of the Court termed as "at best a novel argument" the assertion that a prison "is a place where [one] can claim constitutional immunity from search or seizure of his person, his papers, or his effects." This observation, however, was plainly dictum. In fact, three Members of the Court specifically dissented from what they characterized as the Court's "gratuitous exposition of several grave constitutional issues. . . ." Id. at 370 U. S. 150 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting, joined by Warren, C.J., and Douglas, J.).
"a person confined in a detention facility has no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to his room or cell, and that therefore the Fourth Amendment provides no protection for such a person."
Id. at 441 U. S. 556-557. However, as in Lanza, it was unnecessary to reach the issue of the Fourth Amendment's general applicability in a prison cell. We simply assumed, arguendo, that a pretrial detainee retained at least a "diminished expectation of privacy." 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 557.
"Our problem is not what the privacy expectations of particular defendants in particular situations may be, or the extent to which they may in fact have relied on the discretion of their companions. . . . Our problem, in terms of the principles announced in Katz, is what expectations of privacy are constitutionally 'justifiable.' . . ."
"The analysis must, in my view, transcend the search for subjective expectations. . . . [W]e should not, as judges, merely recite the expectations and risks without examining the desirability of saddling them upon society."
United States v. White, supra, at 401 U. S. 768, 401 U. S. 786 (dissenting opinion).
The Court's refusal to adopt a test of "subjective expectation" is understandable; constitutional rights are generally not defined by the subjective intent of those asserting the rights. The problems inherent in such a standard are self-evident. See, e.g., Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. at 442 U. S. 740-741, n. 5.
Respondent contends also that the destruction of his personal property constituted an unreasonable seizure of that property violative of the Fourth Amendment. Assuming that the Fourth Amendment protects against the destruction of property, in addition to its mere seizure, the same reasons that lead us to conclude that the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches is inapplicable in a prison cell apply with controlling force to seizures. Prison officials must be free to seize from cells any articles which, in their view, disserve legitimate institutional interests.
That the Fourth Amendment does not protect against seizures in a prison cell does not mean that an inmate's property can be destroyed with impunity. We note, for example, that, even apart from inmate grievance procedures, see n 9, infra, respondent has adequate state remedies for the alleged destruction of his property. See discussion infra at 468 U. S. 531-536.
The Commonwealth has a new inmate grievance procedure that was effective as of October 12, 1982, see n 14, infra. But it appears that, at the time of the alleged deprivation of respondent's property, a very similar procedure was in effect that would also have afforded respondent relief for any destruction of his property. See Reply Brief for Petitioner and Cross-Respondent 13, n. 14.
In Four Circuits, including the Fourth Circuit in these cases, have held that Parratt extends to intentional deprivations of property. See Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864 (CA7 1983); Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (CA2 1982); Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345 (CA9 1981), aff'd sub nom. Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U. S. 719 (1983). Three Circuits have held that it does not. Brewer v. Blackwell, 692 F.2d 387 (CA5 1982); Weiss v. Lehman, 676 F.2d 1320 (CA9 1982); Madun v. Thompson, 657 F.2d 868 (CA7 1981).
Nebraska had provided respondent with a tort remedy for his alleged property deprivation. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 81-8,209 et seq. (1976). We held that this remedy was entirely adequate to satisfy due process, even though we recognized that it might not provide respondent all the relief to which he might have been entitled under § 1983. 451 U.S. at 451 U. S. 543-544.
In reaching our conclusion in Parratt, we expressly relied on then-judge Stevens' opinion for the Seventh Circuit in Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F.2d 1311 (1975), modified en banc, 545 F.2d 565 (1976), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 932 (1978), holding that, where an individual has been negligently deprived of property by a state employee, the state's action is not complete unless or until the state fails to provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the property loss. 451 U.S. at 451 U. S. 541-542.
"Parratt . . . was dealing with a . . . 'random and unauthorized act by a state employee . . . , [and was] not a result of some established state procedure.'"
455 U.S. at 455 U. S. 435-436 (quoting Parratt, 451 U.S. at 451 U. S. 541). Parratt, we said, "was not designed to reach . . . a situation" where the deprivation is the result of an established state procedure. 455 U.S. at 455 U. S. 436.
Our holding that an intentional deprivation of property does not give rise to a violation of the Due Process Clause if the state provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy was foreshadowed by our discussion of Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651 (1977), in Parratt. We noted that our analysis was "quite consistent" with that in Ingraham, a case that, we observed, involved intentional conduct on behalf of state officials. 451 U.S. at 451 U. S. 542.
It is noteworthy that the Commonwealth has enacted the State Tort Claims Act, Va.Code § 8.01-195.1 et seq. (Supp.1983), which, in defined circumstances, waives sovereign immunity. Additionally, as of October 12, 1982, the State has in place an inmate grievance procedure that received the certification of the Attorney General of the United States as in compliance with the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Although apparently neither of these avenues was open to this respondent, both are potential sources of relief for persons in respondent's position in the future.
The courts of this country quite properly share the responsibility for protecting the constitutional rights of those imprisoned for the commission of crimes against society. Thus, when a prisoner's property is wrongfully destroyed, the courts must ensure that the prisoner, no less than any other person, receives just compensation. The Constitution, as well as human decency, requires no less. The issue in these cases, however, does not concern whether a prisoner may recover damages for a malicious deprivation of property. Rather, these cases decide only what is the appropriate source of the constitutional right and the remedy that corresponds with it. I agree with the Court's treatment of these issues, and therefore join its opinion and judgment today. I write separately to elaborate my understanding of why the complaint in this litigation does not state a ripe constitutional claim.
privacy and possessory interests as established by the facts of the case. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 392 U. S. 17-18, n. 15 (1968). In some contexts, however, the Court has rejected the case-by-case approach to the "reasonableness" inquiry in favor of an approach that determines the reasonableness of contested practices in a categorical fashion. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 414 U. S. 235 (1973) (searches incident to lawful custodial arrest); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 555-560 (1979) (prison room search and body cavity search rules). For the reasons stated by the Court, see ante at 468 U. S. 526-530, I agree that the government's compelling interest in prison safety, together with the necessarily ad hoc judgments required of prison officials, make prison cell searches and seizures appropriate for categorical treatment. See generally LaFave, "Case-by-Case Adjudication" Versus "Standardized Procedures": The Robinson Dilemma, 1974 S.Ct.Rev. 127, 141-145. The fact of arrest and incarceration abates all legitimate Fourth Amendment privacy and possessory interests in personal effects, see Lanza v. New York, 370 U. S. 139, 370 U. S. 143 (1962); cf. United States v. Robinson, supra, at 414 U. S. 237-238 (POWELL, J., concurring) (individual in custody retains no significant Fourth Amendment interest), and therefore all searches and seizures of the contents of an inmate's cell are reasonable.
That the Fourth Amendment does not protect a prisoner against indefinite dispossession does not mean that he is without constitutional redress for the deprivations that result. The Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments stand directly in opposition to state action intended to deprive people of their legally protected property interests. These constitutional protections against the deprivation of private property do not abate at the time of imprisonment.
Of course, a mere allegation of property deprivation does not, by itself, state a constitutional claim under either Clause. The Constitution requires the government, if it deprives people of their property, to provide due process of law and to make just compensation for any takings. The due process requirement means that government must provide to the inmate the remedies it promised would be available. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, 451 U. S. 537-544 (1981). Concomitantly, the just compensation requirement means that the remedies made available must adequately compensate for any takings that have occurred. See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 467 U. S. 1016-1020 (1984). Thus, in challenging a property deprivation, the claimant must either avail himself of the remedies guaranteed by state law or prove that the available remedies are inadequate. See Parratt v. Taylor, supra, at 451 U. S. 537-544. When adequate remedies are provided and followed, no uncompensated taking or deprivation of property without due process can result.
sense and common understanding. When a person is arrested and incarcerated, his personal effects are routinely "searched," "seized," and placed in official custody. See Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U. S. 640, 462 U. S. 643-647 (1983); United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S. 800, 415 U. S. 804-807 (1974). Such searches and seizures are necessary both to protect the detainee's effects and to maintain the security of the detention facility. The effects seized are generally inventoried, noticed by receipt, and stored for return to the person at the time of his release. The loss, theft, or destruction of property so seized has not, to my knowledge, ever been thought to state a Fourth Amendment claim. Rather, improper inventories, defective receipts, and missing property have long been redressable in tort by actions for detinue, trespass to chattel, and conversion. Cf. Kosak v. United States, 465 U. S. 848 (1984) (discussing liability of Federal Government for losses incurred during customs officials' searches and seizures). Whether those remedies are adequate and made available as promised have always been questions for the Takings and Due Process Clauses. The Fourth Amendment has never had a role to play.
In sum, while I share JUSTICE STEVENS' concerns about the rights of prison inmates, I do not believe he has correctly identified the constitutional sources that provide their property with protection. Those sources are the Due Process and the Takings Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, not the Search and Seizure Clause of the Fourth Amendment. In these cases, the Commonwealth of Virginia has demonstrated that it provides aggrieved inmates with a grievance procedure and various state tort and common law remedies. The plaintiff inmate has not availed himself of these remedies or successfully proved that they are inadequate. Thus, his complaint cannot be said to have stated a ripe constitutional claim, and summary judgment for the defendant was proper.
"[o]f course, there is a risk of maliciously motivated searches, and of course, intentional harassment of even the most hardened criminals cannot be tolerated by a civilized society."
Ante at 468 U. S. 528. But the Court then holds that, no matter how malicious, destructive, or arbitrary a cell search and seizure may be, it cannot constitute an unreasonable invasion of any privacy or possessory interest that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Ante at 468 U. S. 525-526.
"It is true that inmates lose many rights when they are lawfully confined, but they do not lose all civil rights. Inmates in jails, prisons, or mental institutions retain certain fundamental rights of privacy; they are not like animals in a zoo, to be filmed and photographed at will by the public or by media reporters, however 'educational' the process may be for others."
Hochins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U. S. 1, 438 U. S. 5, n. 2 (1978) (plurality opinion) (citation omitted).
perception that "society" is not prepared to recognize any privacy or possessory interest of the prison inmate -- no matter how remote the threat to prison security may be?
Even if it is assumed that Palmer had no reasonable expectation of privacy in most of the property at issue in this case because it could be inspected at any time, that does not mean he was without Fourth Amendment protection. [Footnote 2/5] For the Fourth Amendment protects Palmer's possessory interests in this property entirely apart from whatever privacy interest he may have in it.
"The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the"
"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
"This text protects two kinds of expectations, one involving 'searches,' the other 'seizures.' A 'search' occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. A 'seizure' of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property."
"[T]he field test did affect respondents' possessory interests protected by the [Fourth] Amendment, since, by destroying a quantity of the powder, it converted what had been only a temporary deprivation of possessory interests into a permanent one."
Id. at 466 U. S. 124-125.
having any legitimate possessory interests. Ante at 468 U. S. 527-528, and n. 8. [Footnote 2/9] See also ante at 468 U. S. 538 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). That contention is fundamentally wrong for at least two reasons.
First, Palmer's possession of the material was entirely legitimate as a matter of state law. There is no contention that the material seized was contraband, or that Palmer's possession of it was in any way inconsistent with applicable prison regulations. Hence, he had a legal right to possess it. In fact, the Court's analysis of Palmer's possessory interests is at odds with its treatment of his due process claim. In 468 U. S. the Court holds that the material which Hudson took and destroyed was "property" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. Ante at 468 U. S. 533-534. See also ante at 468 U. S. 539-540 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Indeed, this holding is compelled by Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981), in which we held that a $23.50 hobby kit which had been mail-ordered but not received by a prisoner was "property" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. See id. at 451 U. S. 536. [Footnote 2/10] However, an interest cannot qualify as "property" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause unless it amounts to a legitimate claim of entitlement. [Footnote 2/11] Thus, in 468 U. S. S. 546Á II-B of its opinion, the Court necessarily indicates that Palmer had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the material at issue. It is well settled that, once a State creates such a constitutionally protected interest, the Constitution forbids it to deprive even a prisoner of such an interest arbitrarily. [Footnote 2/12] Thus, Palmer had a legitimate right under both state law and the Due Process Clause to possess the material at issue. That being the case, the Court's own analysis indicates that Palmer had a legitimate possessory interest in the material within the Fourth Amendment's proscription on unreasonable seizures.
Second, the most significant of Palmer's possessory interests are protected as a matter of substantive constitutional law, entirely apart from the legitimacy of those interests under state law or the Due Process Clause. The Eighth Amendment forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." Its proscriptions are measured by society's "evolving standards of decency," Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U. S. 337, 452 U. S. 346-347 (1981); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 429 U. S. 102-103 (1976). The Court's implication that prisoners have no possessory interests that by virtue of the Fourth Amendment are free from state interference cannot, in my view, be squared with the Eighth Amendment. To hold that a prisoner's possession of a letter from his wife, or a picture of his baby, has no protection against arbitrary or malicious perusal, seizure, or destruction would not, in my judgment, comport with any civilized standard of decency.
There are other substantive constitutional rights that also shed light on the legitimacy of Palmer's possessory interests.
The complaint alleges that the material at issue includes letters and legal materials. This Court has held that the First Amendment entitles a prisoner to receive and send mail, subject only to the institution's right to censor letters or withhold delivery if necessary to protect institutional security, and if accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards. [Footnote 2/13] We have also held that the Fourteenth Amendment entitles a prisoner to reasonable access to legal materials as a corollary of the constitutional right of access to the courts. [Footnote 2/14] Thus, these substantive constitutional rights affirmatively protect Palmer's right to possess the material in question free from state interference. It is therefore beyond me how the Court can question the legitimacy of Palmer's possessory interests which were so clearly infringed by Hudson's alleged conduct.
The Court itself acknowledges that "intentional harassment of even the most hardened criminals cannot be tolerated by a civilized society." Ante at 468 U. S. 528. That being the case, I fail to see how a seizure that serves no purpose except harassment does not invade an interest that society considers reasonable, and that is protected by the Fourth Amendment.
"Without the privacy and dignity provided by fourth amendment coverage, an inmate's opportunity to reform, as small as it may be, will further be diminished. It is anomalous to provide a prisoner with rehabilitative programs and services in an effort to build self-respect while simultaneously subjecting him to unjustified and degrading searches and seizures."
Gianelli & Gilligan, Prison Searches and Seizures: "Locking" the Fourth Amendment Out of Correctional Facilities, 62 Va.L.Rev. 1045, 1069 (1976).
Court takes today. It declares prisoners to be little more than chattels, a view I thought society had outgrown long ago.
"[T]hough his rights may be diminished by the needs and exigencies of the institutional environment, a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when he is imprisoned for crime. There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country."
"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
"there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application."
every search or seizure of "papers and effects" be evaluated for its reasonableness. The Court's refusal to inquire into the reasonableness of official conduct whenever a prisoner is involved -- its conclusive presumption that all searches and seizures of prisoners' property are reasonable -- can be squared neither with the constitutional text nor with the reality, acknowledged by the Court, that our prison system is less than ideal; unfortunately abusive conduct sometimes does occur in our prisons.
The courts, of course, have a special obligation to protect the rights of prisoners. [Footnote 2/35] Prisoners are truly the outcasts of society. Disenfranchised, scorned and feared, often deservedly so, shut away from public view, prisoners are surely a "discrete and insular minority." [Footnote 2/36] In this case, the destruction of Palmer's property was a seizure; the Judiciary has a constitutional duty to determine whether it was justified. The Court's conclusive presumption that all conduct by prison guards is reasonable is supported by nothing more than its idiosyncratic view of the imperatives of prison administration -- a view not shared by prison administrators themselves. Such a justification is nothing less than a decision to sacrifice constitutional principle to the Court's own assessment of administrative expediency.
"[T]he view once held that an inmate is a mere slave is now totally rejected. The restraints and the punishment which a criminal conviction entails do not place the citizen beyond the ethical tradition that accords respect to the dignity and intrinsic worth of every individual.
'Liberty' and 'custody' are not mutually exclusive concepts."
United States ex rel. Miller v. Twomey, 479 F.2d 701, 712 (CA7 1973) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied sub nom. Gutierrez v. Department of Public Safety of Illinois, 414 U.S. 1146 (1974).
By telling prisoners that no aspect of their individuality, from a photo of a child to a letter from a wife, is entitled to constitutional protection, the Court breaks with the ethical tradition that I had thought was enshrined forever in our jurisprudence.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment in No. 82-1630 and from 468 U. S.
See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U. S. 5, 449 U. S. 10 (1980) (per curiam); California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508, 404 U. S. 515-516 (1972); Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U. S. 172, 382 U. S. 174-175 (1965); Cooper v. Pate, 378 U. S. 546 (1964) (per curiam).
See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U. S. 364 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972) (per curiam).
"On 9-16-81 around 5:50 p. m., officer Hudson shook down my locker and destroyed a lot of my property, i.e.: legal materials, letters, and other personal property only as a means of harassment. Officer Hudson has violated my Constitutional rights. The shakedown was no routine shakedown. It was planned and carried out only as harassment. Hudson stated the next time he would really mess my stuff up. I have plenty of witnesses to these facts."
I join 468 U. S. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981), to the facts of this case. I do not understand the Court's holding to apply to conduct that violates a substantive constitutional right -- actions governmental officials may not take no matter what procedural protections accompany them, see Parratt, 451 U.S. at 451 U. S. 545 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring); see also id. at 451 U. S. 552-553 (POWELL, J., concurring in result); or to cases in which it is contended that the established prison procedures themselves create an unreasonable risk that prisoners will be unjustifiably deprived of their property, see id. at 451 U. S. 543; see also Block v. Rutherford, post at 468 U. S. 591-592, n. 12; Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.,@ 455 U. S. 422, 455 U. S. 435-436 (1982).
Though I am willing to assume that for purposes of this case that the Court's holding concerning most of Palmer's privacy interests is correct, that should not be taken as an endorsement of the Court's new "bright line" rule that a prisoner can have no expectation of privacy in his papers or effects, ante at 468 U. S. 523. I cannot see any justification for applying this rule to minimum security facilities in which inmates who pose no realistic threat to security are housed. I also see no justification for reading the mail of a prisoner once it has cleared whatever censorship mechanism is employed by the prison and has been received by the prisoner.
See also United States v. Karo, post at 468 U. S. 712; United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 462 U. S. 707 (1983), id. at 462 U. S. 716 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in result); Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 460 U. S. 747-748 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment).
See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 574-575 (1979) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, like the other Members of the majority, would apparently draw a distinction between the physical destruction of the prisoner's property and its "indefinite retention," see ante at 468 U. S. 538 (concurring opinion), in that the former may be actionable under the Due Process and Taking Clauses. I am not entirely sure whether she believes that an inmate can be harassed consistently with the Fourth Amendment by temporarily taking custody of his correspondence and family snapshots, for example, because "incarceration abates all legitimate Fourth Amendment privacy and possessory interests in personal effects," ibid., or because "all searches and seizures of the contents of an inmate's cell are reasonable," ibid. The net result of her position, however, is that harassment by means of temporarily -- i.e., for no longer than the duration of the prisoner's incarceration -- depriving an inmate of his personal effects raises no Fourth Amendment issue, and no constitutional issue of any kind if the property is ultimately returned.
The existence of state remedies for this seizure, to which the Court adverts, ante at 468 U. S. 528, n. 8, as does JUSTICE O'CONNOR, ante at 468 U. S. 540, is of course irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment question, since 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for Fourth Amendment violations supplemental to any state remedy that may exist. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 365 U. S. 183 (1961). See Burnett v. Grattan, ante at 468 U. S. 50; Patsy v. Florida. Board of Regents, 457 U. S. 496 (1982); Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary, 454 U. S. 100, 454 U. S. 104 (1981); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 449 U. S. 99 (1980); Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 424 U. S. 710, n. 5 (1976); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249, 404 U. S. 251 (1971) (per curiam); McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668, 373 U. S. 671-674 (1963). See also n. 4, supra.
On this point, the Court was unanimous, see 451 U.S. at 451 U. S. 546-548 (POWELL, J., concurring in result), as it is today.
See, e.g., Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 467 U. S. 1003-1004 (1984); Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. at 455 U. S. 430-431; Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155, 449 U. S. 161 (1980); Greenholtz V. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1, 442 U. S. 7 (1979); Leis v. Flynt, 439 U. S. 438, 439 U. S. 441-443 (1979) (per curiam); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 426 U. S. 344, and nn. 6, 7 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 416 U. S. 165-166 (1974) (POWELL, J., concurring in part and concurring in result in part); id. at 416 U. S. 185 (WHITE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id. at 416 U. S. 207-208 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 408 U. S. 577 (1972).
See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460, 459 U. S. 469-472 (1983); Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. at 442 U. S. 11-12; Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 556-558 (1974).
See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396 (1974). A prisoner's possession of other types of personal property relating to religious observance, such as a Bible or a crucifix, is surely protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S. 319, 405 U. S. 322, n. 2 (1972) (per curiam).
See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U. S. 817 (1977).
See, e.g., United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 466 U. S. 125 (1984); Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 463 U. S. 1051 (1983); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. at 462 U. S. 703; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 559.
See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 562; Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. at 416 U. S. 405-406; Cruz v.. Beto, 405 U.S. at 405 U. S. 321-322 (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 404 U. S. 520-521 (per curiam). See also Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U. S. 337, 452 U. S. 352 (1981); id. at 452 U. S. 368-369 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in judgment); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 429 U. S. 102-105 (1976); Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843, 417 U. S. 866-870 (1974) (POWELL, J., dissenting).
"[T]he letters were voluntarily written, no threat or coercion was used to obtain them, nor were they seized without process. They came into the possession of the officials of the penitentiary under established practice, reasonably designed to promote the discipline of the institution. Under such circumstances there was neither testimony required of the accused nor unreasonable search and seizure in violation of his constitutional rights."
Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15, 251 U. S. 21-22 (1919).
"[I]f the act of taking possession and the indefinite retention of the property are themselves reasonable, the handling of the property while in the government's custody is not itself of Fourth Amendment concern."
Ante at 468 U. S. 538-539 (concurring opinion). Hudson's infringement of Palmer's possessory interests was not reasonable. If we accept the allegations in the complaint as true -- as we must -- neither the act of taking possession nor the indefinite retention of these harmless noncontraband items would have been reasonable or justified by any legitimate institutional interest. Hudson took the property solely to harass Palmer.
The Circuits which have addressed this question are unanimous. See, e.g., Lyon v. Farrier, 727 F.2d 766, 769 (CA8 1984), cert. pending, No. 83-6722; United States v. Mills, 704 F.2d 1553, 1560-1561 (CA11 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1243 (1984); United States v. Chamorro, 687 F.2d 1, 4-5 (CA1), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043 (1982); United States v. Hinckley, 217 U.S.App.D.C. 262, 275-279, 672 F.2d 115, 128-132 (1982); United States v. Lilly, 576 F.2d 1240, 1245-1246 (CA5 1978); United States v. Ready, 574 F.2d 1009, 1013-1014 (CA10 1978); United States v. Stumes, 549 F.2d 831 (CA8 1977) (per curiam); Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F.2d 1311, 1315-1317 (CA7 1975), modified on other grounds, 545 F.2d 565 (1976) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 932 (1978); Daugherty v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (CA10), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 (1973). The Court claims that the Second and Ninth Circuits have reached a conclusion in accord with its own, see ante at 468 U. S. 522, n. 5, but both of the decisions it cites predated Wolff v. McDonnell. Prior to Wolff, many courts thought that no judicial review of prison conditions was possible. See generally Note, Constitutional Rights of Prisoners: The Developing Law, 110 U.Pa.L.Rev. 985 (1962); Note, Beyond the Ken of the Courts: A Critique of Judicial Refusal to Review the Complaints of Convicts, 72 Yale L.J. 506 (1963). It is now the law in both Circuits that the Fourth Amendment protects prisoners against searches and seizures not reasonably related to institutional needs. See Hodges v. Stanley, 712 F.2d 34, 35 (CA2 1983) (per curiam); DiGuiseppe v. Ward, 698 F.2d 602, 605 (CA2 1983); United States v. Vallez, 653 F.2d 403, 406 (CA9), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 904 (1981); Sostre v. Preiser, 519 F.2d 763 (CA2 1975); United States v. Dawson, 516 F.2d 796, 805-806 (CA9), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 855 (1975); Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (CA9 1974); United States v. Savage, 482 F.2d 1371, 1372-1373 (CA9 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 932 (1974).
See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 23-6.10 Commentary (2d ed.1980); Gianelli & Gilligan, Prison Searches and Seizures: "Locking" the Fourth Amendment Out of Correctional Facilities, 62 Va.L.Rev. 1045 (1976); Singer, Privacy, Autonomy, and Dignity in the Prison: A Preliminary Inquiry Concerning Constitutional Aspects of the Degradation Process in Our Prisons, 21 Buffalo L.Rev. 669 (1972); Note, Constitutional Limitations on Body Searches in Prisons, 82 Colum.L.Rev. 1033, 1043-1055 (1982); Comment, Electronic Surveillance in California Prisons after Delancie v. Superior Court: Civil Liberty or Civil Death?, 22 Santa Clara L.Rev. 1109 (1982).
See 28 CFR §§ 553.10, 553.11 (1983). The regulations also state: "Staff conducting the search shall leave the housing or work area as nearly as practicable in its original order." § 552.13(b). See also U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Standards for Prisons and Jails § 13.01 (1980) ("Written policy and procedure specify the personal property inmates can retain in their possession. . . . It should be made clear to inmates what personal property they may retain, and inmates should be assured both that the facility's policies are applied uniformly and that their property will be stored safely").
See Va.Code § 53.1-26 (1982) ("Any item of personal property which a prisoner in any state correctional facility is prohibited from possessing by the Code of Virginia or by the rules of the Director shall, when found in the possession of a prisoner, be confiscated and sold or destroyed"); Virginia Department of Corrections, Division of Adult Services, Guideline No. 411 (Sept. 16, 1983).
"It is important and essential that searches be systematic and do not result in damage, loss, or abuse to any inmate's personal property. Deliberately damaging, confiscating, or abusing any inmate's permitted personal property will result in disciplinary action against the offending employee."
See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 23-6.10 (2d ed.1980); American Correctional Association, Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions 2-4192 (2d ed.1981); National Advisory Commission on Criminal Standards and Goals, Corrections 2.7 (1973).
A summary of the literature is found in Schwartz, Deprivation of Privacy as a "Functional Prerequisite": The Case of the Prison, 63 J.Crim.L., C. & P. S. 229 (1972).
26 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1983 (Apr.1984).
See U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States -- 1982, pp. 51, 65, 70, 92 (1983).
The size of the prison population also sheds light on what society may consider reasonable with respect to the property and privacy of prisoners. When one recognizes that the prison population is constantly changing, and that most inmates have family or friends who retain an interest in their wellbeing, one must acknowledge that millions of citizens may well believe that prisoners should retain some residuum of privacy and possessory rights.
The Court's portrayal of the stereotypical prison inmate entirely overlooks the wide range of individuals who actually have served and do serve time in the prison system. It ignores, for example, the conscientious objectors who refuse to register for the draft, and the corporate executives who have been convicted of violating securities, antitrust, or tax laws, union leaders, former White House aides, former Governors, judges, and legislators, famous writers and sports heroes, and many thousands who have committed serious offenses but for whom crime is by no means a way of life.
I cannot help but think that the Court's holding is influenced by an unstated fear that, if it recognizes that prisoners have any Fourth Amendment protection, this will lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits. Of course, this type of burden is not sufficient to justify a judicial modification of the requirements of law. See Tower v. Glover, 467 U. S. 914, 467 U. S. 922-923 (1984); Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. at 457 U. S. 512, n. 13.
"Frivolous cases should be treated as exactly that, and not as occasions for fundamental shifts in legal doctrine. Our legal system has developed procedures for speedily disposing of unfounded claims; if they are inadequate to protect [defendants] from vexatious litigation, then there is something wrong with those procedures, not with the [Fourth Amendment]."
Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U. S. 558, 466 U. S. 601 (1984) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted). In fact, the lower courts have permitted such suits to be brought for some time now, see n.19, supra, without disastrous results. Moreover, costs can be awarded against the plaintiff when frivolous cases are brought, see 466 U.S. at 466 U. S. 601, n. 27. Even modest assessments against prisoners' accounts could provide an effective weapon for deterring truly groundless litigation.
'The Court's repeal does appear to extend to less than the entire Amendment. It appears to limit its holding to a prisoner's "papers and effects" located in his cell. Apparently it believes that at least a prisoner's "person" is secure from unreasonable search and seizure. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 563 (POWELL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
See cases cited, nn. 16, 17, supra.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 319 U. S. 638 (1943).
"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, by whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 277 U. S. 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U. S. 337, 452 U. S. 358-361 (1981) (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 452 U. S. 369 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Bailey, 444 U. S. 394, 444 U. S. 423-424 (1980) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting).
See Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U. S. 216, 467 U. S. 222, n. 7 (1984); Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 458 U. S. 23 (1982) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring); O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U. S. 773, 447 U. S. 800, n. 8 (1980) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in judgment); Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 427 U. S. 313 (1976) (per curiam); Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U. S. 88, 426 U. S. 102, and n. 22 (1976); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 403 U. S. 372 (1971); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112, 400 U. S. 295, n. 14 (1970) (Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 304 U. S. 152-153, n. 4 (1938).

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 81
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 § 1997
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 552
 § 13
 § 53
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.