Citation network
Block Vs. Rutherford
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 03, 1984
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 576 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Block v. RutherfordSearch
-
U.S. 576 (1984) Block v. RutherfordSearch
-
practice or policy constitutes punishment or is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective. Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
of the cell occupants is also a reasonable response by the jail officials to legitimate security concerns. Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
The District Court sustained both of these challenges. Rutherford v. PitchessSearch
-
Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for consideration in light of our intervening decision in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
nothing in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
Rutherford v. PageSearch
-
security measures that are imperative to proper administration of a detention facility. Four Terms ago, in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
Id. at 540-541, n. 23 (quoting Pell v. ProcunierSearch
-
least five Circuits have held that pretrial detainees are not constitutionally entitled to contact visits. See Jordan v. WolkeSearch
-
Ramos v. LammSearch
-
Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. PierceSearch
-
Feeley v. SampsonSearch
-
Ozendine v. WilliamsSearch
-
have held that the Constitution does require contact visits for detainees, at least in certain contexts. See Marcera v. ChinlundSearch
-
F.2d 1231 (CA2), vacated and remanded sub nom. Lombard v. MarceraSearch
-
Jones v. DiamondSearch
-
F.2d 1364 (CA5), cert. granted sub nom. Ledbetter v. JonesSearch
-
U.S. 959, cert. dism'd, 453 U.S. 950 (1981). Cf. West v. InfanteSearch
-
Campbell v. McGruderSearch
-
of Wolfish a Second Circuit decision holding that the denial of contact visits was unconstitutional. Marcera v. ChinlundSearch
-
F.2d 1231, vacated and remanded sub nom. Lombard v. MarceraSearch
-
U.S. 915 (1979). The issue was presented for review in Jones v. DiamondSearch
-
Id. at 441 U. S. 540 . See also Pell v. ProcunierSearch
-
deference to administrative judgment that have no place in the present litigation. As the Court made clear in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
Ante at 468 U. S. 585 , quoting Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
judgment. Instead, I think it sufficient to rest on the substantive due process standard announced in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
the rhetoric of judicial deference for meaningful scrutiny of constitutional claims in the prison setting. See Rhodes v. ChapmanSearch
-
particular measures advance prison security, however, does not make them ipso facto constitutional. Cf. Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
approach. As we recognized in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
challenging their exclusion from cell searches on substantive due process grounds, and hence that the decision in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
in order to minimize erroneous deprivations. Because the Court did not address a procedural due process claim in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
something more must be said to support the judgment in this case. Page 468 U. S. 595 Under Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
Here, I do not dispute that the private interests at stake in cell searches are potentially significant. See Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
a pretrial detainee's presence never would contribute to the avoidance of erroneous deprivations. We noted in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
U.S. at 441 U. S. 555 , is any less likely to result from the presence of detainees here than it was in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
during the course of a search may not prevent the seizure of contraband during the search itself, cf. Calero-Toledo v. PearsonSearch
-
exigencies have excused the requirement of predeprivation hearings in other contexts, see, e.g., Commissioner v. ShapiroSearch
-
a deaf ear to inmates' claims that the conditions of their confinement violate the Federal Constitution. See Rhodes v. ChapmanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial