432 Project 2: Adelphi County Jail (Essay Sample)

Instructions:

(2) Consent Decree Project:
This project will require that you read the document labeled “Proposed Consent Decree.” This Proposed Consent Decree has been proposed by attorneys representing the fictional jail and is located below.
Based on the situation, the policy and procedure directive, the appellate court decision, and the Proposed Consent Decree, the student will write a report that addresses the following:
(a) whether and to what extent the Proposed Consent Decree squarely addresses the situation, the policy and procedure, directive, and the appellate court decision;
(b) whether and to what extent the Proposed Consent Decree is under-inclusive; and
(c) whether and to what extent the Proposed Consent Decree is over-inclusive.
Description of Situation
This situation takes place at the fictional Adelphi County Jail in Maryland, where Jack Jones is being confined while awaiting trial on charges that he murdered Bob and Mary Smith, the elderly couple living next door, and buried their bodies in a deserted industrial park nearby. The criminal case has enjoyed a lot of local publicity because inmate Jones was the County’s youngest Eagle Scout, Mr. Smith was his Scout Leader, and the bodies of Mr. and Mrs. Smith have not yet been found.
Inmate Jones shares a cell at the Adelphi County Jail with inmate Joe Johnson, who has been suspected by Officer Anderson of selling contraband cigarettes to other inmates. Officer Anderson shares his suspicions with Sgt. Belker, and the two of them approach the Shift Commander about arranging for a random search of inmate Jones’ cell. The Shift Commander approves the random cell search.
Sgt. Belker and Officer Anderson proceed to the cell shared by inmates Johnson and Jones. Inmate Johnson is present in the cell; inmate Jones is in the gymnasium playing basketball with other inmates. Officer Anderson removes inmate Johnson from the cell and begins to search the cell with Sgt. Belker. When inmate Johnson asks twice what’s going on, Sgt. Belker calls the housing unit supervisor on his radio and asks that inmate Johnson be taken to the dayroom. Officer Casey arrives and escorts inmate Johnson to the dayroom.
Sgt. Belker and Officer Anderson inspect inmate Johnson’s television and inmate Jones’ CD player and typewriter and find nothing unusual, but the antenna snaps off the television as Sgt. Belker replaces it on the shelf. They inspect the inmates’ clothing and footwear and find nothing unusual, although a sneaker falls into the cell toilet. They inspect a drawer full of commissary snacks, opening five apparently unopened bags of potato chips in the process, and they discover contraband cigarette papers inside one of the potato chip bags. Officer Anderson continues the search by looking through a box of books and papers. Included in the hundreds of pages of papers in the box is a sheet of paper with a crude drawing of what appears to be a local industrial park and a prominent “X” drawn alongside one of the industrial buildings. Officer Anderson asks Sgt. Belker if inmate Jones isn’t the inmate charged with murdering the elderly couple and burying their bodies in an industrial park. Sgt. Belker replies that he thinks he is. Officer Anderson removes the sheet of paper from the box, folds it, and puts it in his pocket.
On his way home after the conclusion of his shift, Officer Anderson stops at the State’s Attorney’s Office and leaves the folded sheet of paper with his cousin, who is a Staff Investigator, after explaining how and where he found it. The Staff Investigator passes the sheet of paper along to the Assistant State’s Attorney handling the murder case against Jack Jones. The sheet of paper is used as evidence in the subsequent murder trial, and Jack Jones is convicted of first degree murder.
Adelphi County Jail Policy and Procedure Directive: “Inmate Cell Searches”
A. An inmate cell search shall be conducted
(1) routinely, or
(2) randomly when directed by the Shift Commander,
(3) when an inmate residing in that cell is suspected of possessing contraband.
B. An inmate cell search shall be conducted as follows:
(1) Any inmate in the cell shall be removed from the area.
(2) All bedding will be removed and thoroughly inspected for contraband.
(3) All inmate appliances, clothing, footwear, and commissary products will be closely inspected to ensure that they are not being used to hide contraband.
(4) All inmate books, magazines, and other papers will be closely inspected to ensure that they are within the limit for paper materials (1 cubic foot maximum), they are not being used to hide contraband, and they do not contain evidence of a planned escape, disturbance, or other crime.
(5) Any item of contraband shall be confiscated.
Appellate Court Decision: Carter v. State (See above under READ)
Proposed Consent Decree
WHEREAS Plaintiffs Jack Jones and Joe Johnson have initiated this civil action against Defendants Adelphi County Jail, Warden Pete Peters, Security Chief Dan Dawson, Shift Commander Edward Engle, Sgt. Biff Belker, and Officer Arnie Anderson, alleging violations of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and
WHEREAS the parties wish to reach an amicable resolution of the issues raised herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The Adelphi County Jail will pay each of the Plaintiffs the sum of $500.
2. The Adelphi County Jail and its officials and employees will conduct inmate cell searches only in accordance with the following:

A. An inmate cell search shall be conducted
(1) routinely when
(a) the inmate is to be transferred to another cell, housing unit, or facility;
(b) when the inmate is to be transported to court; or
(c) when the inmate is to be released from confinement.
(2) randomly when directed by the Shift Commander, but only in accordance with a truly random and documented system of selection involving multiple potential cells or housing units.
(3) when an inmate residing in that cell is reasonably suspected of possessing contraband, but only upon written request to, and authorization from, the Security Chief.

B. An inmate cell search shall be conducted as follows:
(1) The search shall be conducted by at least two Officers.
(2) If an inmate residing in the cell is present, the inmate shall be removed from the cell and placed in restraints immediately outside the cell. If an inmate residing in the cell is not in the cell but is present in the jail, the inmate shall be summoned and placed in restraints immediately outside the cell. An inmate residing in the cell shall be permitted to observe the cell search from outside the cell unless the inmate is violating inmate rules by, for example, being disruptive, in which event the inmate will be removed to administrative segregation pending disciplinary charges.
(3) All bedding will be removed and thoroughly inspected for contraband. Following the inspection, the bed will be re-made.
(4) All inmate appliances, clothing, footwear, and commissary products will be closely inspected to ensure that they are not being used to hide contraband.
(5) All inmate books, magazines, and other papers will be closely inspected to ensure that they are within the limit for paper materials (1 cubic foot maximum), they are not being used to hide contraband, and they do not contain evidence of a planned escape, disturbance, or other crime.
(6) Any item of contraband shall be confiscated, the confiscation shall be documented on a Property Confiscation form, and the inmate shall be charged with violating inmate rules prohibiting the possession of contraband.
(7) All inmate property will be treated with respect and all reasonable efforts will be made to avoid unnecessary damage to inmate property.
(8) The Officers conducting the cell search shall prepare a report and forward same to the Shift Commander. If the report indicates that contraband was confiscated, the Officers shall include a copy of the disciplinary charges. If possession of the contraband constitutes a crime, the Shift Commander shall forward the report to the Warden, who shall then consider whether to forward the report to the State’s Attorney.

source..

Content:

432 project 2
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Introduction
In deciding on the right course of action for prisoners, officials need to take into account institutional needs and the right to privacy. The case presented for Adelphi County Jail, is relevant to understand the role of privacy rights when officials carry out searches. Even though, the Fourth Amendment guarantees privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures, these privileges do not extent to prisoners. Nonetheless, this is applicable to the extent that the searches should not have harmful consequences on prisoners (Clear, Reisig & Cole, 2012). Similarly, the Eighth Amendment is relevant to the case as the Constitution guarantees that no American citizen should suffer cruel and unusual punishment (Siegel & Bartollas, 2013). This project focuses on the depth of the proposed consent decree, including the situation, the policy and procedure, directive, and the appellate court decision as well as the extent to which the consent decree is over and under inclusive.
Depth of the Proposed Consent Decree
The consent decree is enforceable and binding to the parties involved, but it is also different from the court trial. The proposed consent decree adequately covers the policies and procedures of the case matter. This is especially because there is no change in the substantive change in both prisoners’ rights. Additionally, the guidelines established merely broaden the meaning and scope of guidelines to be followed in cases where officers need to search the inmates’ rooms. At the same time, the consent broadly captures the decree by judges in the appellate court. Overall, the Proposed Decree Consent has been created in view of the circumstances prevailing during cell search, as it is necessary to carry out the reasonable searches to achieve the intended objective.
The Fourth Amendment captures the need to secure people, effects, houses and papers against arbitrary searches and seizures. Nonetheless, this Amendment is enforceable incases where the searches are conducted because there is probable cause that is supported by affirmation or oath to the extent that the place to be searched has been described, together with the things and persons to be seized. The proposed consent decree adequately captures the intention and purpose in adhering to the Fourth Amendment as the decree gives guidelines on the extent to which the cells are to be searched randomly and routinely. The decree consent is broader than the original guidelines giving specific instances where the searches are to be conducted, rather than simply making broad declarations
Even though, Jack Jones has been convicted based on material found in the cell indicated the possible location of the murdered couple, there is concern that the actions undertaken to search the room did not adequately follow the due procedure. Nonetheless, prisoners the searches were not entirely unreasonable given that there is loss of rights for prisoners in order to maintain the safety and security of the prison system. In other words, it would be almost impossible for to avoiding relying on random and warrantless search of inmate cells since the inmates are not accorded the same privacy rights like the no prison population as held in U.S. v Hitchcock (1972) (Clear, Reisig & Cole 2012). Equally, the drawing found in Jack’s belongings were not contraband, but material sufficient for the judges to convict the inmate. The proposed consent decree adequately covers the situation given that the actions of officers are reasonably justified given the likelihood that there was contraband material in the jail cell.
Since, inmates have diminished rights unlike law abiding citizens the question of limited privacy rights arises in the case. Even though, Jack Jones had not been convicted before the inmate cell search was conducted, the situation mirrored that of a convicted prisoner. Searches are reasonable in the prison system, but it is the way the searches are conducted that may show whether the extent of reasonableness clause of the Fourth Amendment (Harr et al., 2013). The proposed decree consent is relevant to protect the privacy right, given that there is a need to ensure that the searches ought to be designed to avoid violating this right while they should also help to ascertain whether there is contraband.
Proposed Consent Decree and under-inclusiveness
The guidelines provided in the proposed consent decree are not sufficiently inclusive to the extent that they do not adequately cover the intended purpose of the law and actions. For a pretrial detainee, the case for their constitutional rights often revolves around the argument that their treatment ought to be mindful of instances in which actions can be considered cruel and unusual punishments (Siegel & Bartollas, 2013). The Proposed Decree Consent highlighted on instances in which searches could be conducted, but did not elaborate more on the treatment of the inmates during this time. The prison officials and those administering the prison system are left to decide whether cases are referred to state officials, even if their treatment of the inmates could be considered to have violated their limited privacy rights.
Inmates have the right to seek redress for grievances as shown by the case, and the payments made are the damages necessary for the parties to agree on the proposed Consent Decree. The random cell search emphasizes on a random, documented system for various units, in cases where the prison officials have the permission of the Shift Commander. However, the provisions failed to highlight on what would be considered fair and equal treatment, and as such there is a need for broader guidelines. In any case, it is not clear if the searches are believed to be random given that there is likelihood of bias in the selection of units when conduct searches. The guideline was based on the assumption that once the prison officials identified the selected units, then this would be duly followed, but searches would probably be more elaborate for certain prisoners more than others.
According to Brill (2008), Consent Decrees have played a prominent role towards limiting unconstitutional violations of prisoners, with equitable remedies being the most common course of actions utilized by federal judges. Ideally, the litigants negotiate terms in the consent decrees, but in the case there was less input from the plaintiffs. Even with there being limited privacy rights, there were no provisions to ensure that they did correct constitutional violations. In other words, the proposed policies were merely adopted as a measure to ensure equitable relief without the need to make the facts of the lawsuits open to the public
Proposed Consent Decree and over-inclusiveness
The classification of guidelines as being over inclusive focuses on circumstances where people in similar situations are placed in the same category even when there are persons who need not be included (Palmer, 2013). The Proposed Consent Decree is both under and over-inclusive. ...

Get the Whole Paper!

Not exactly what you need?

Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Order

432 Project 2: Adelphi County Jail (Essay Sample)

Other Topics: