Opinion ID: 2785909
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Officers collectively had conspired to

Text: deprive him of his constitutional rights. R.24 at 51-54. 34 R.44 at 13–14. ‐31‐ defendants noted that, under Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), the key question was whether the conditions to which Mr. Goguen was subjected constituted “punishment” that required “‘an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law.’”35 However, they continued, “not all restrictions placed upon a pretrial detainee are punishment”: a condition, restriction or disability “‘reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, . . . does not, without more, amount to “punishment.”’”36 They submitted that, because Mr. Goguen’s placements in administrative segregation were justified initially by his violations of jail rules, and then were reviewed within seventy-two hours, the requirements of due process were met. The defendants also maintained that they were entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Goguen’s constitutional claims related to being strip searched. They noted that, after balancing the interests of the institution against the privacy interests of the inmates, the Supreme Court in Bell had concluded that subjecting a pretrial detainee to visual bodycavity inspections following contact with individuals from 35 Id. at 16 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979)). 36 Id. (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 539). ‐32‐ outside the institution did not violate due process. They argued that the strip searches to which Mr. Goguen was subjected while he was in administrative segregation similarly were justified by concerns of “‘[m]aintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline.’”37 Alternatively, the defendants contended that they were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. According to the defendants, “it [wa]s not clearly established that the officers involved in strip searching inmates, including those who are pretrial, upon entry or exit from a cell in A-pod were violating a constitutional right. Any mistake as to the constitutionality of their actions was reasonable.”38