Other Free Encyclopedias :: Law Library - American Law and Legal Information :: Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988
 

Hudson v. Palmer - Significance, Impact, Do Prison Inmates Have Rights?

Petitioner

Ted S. Hudson

Respondent

Russel Thomas Palmer, Jr.

Petitioner's Claim

Privacy rights and protection against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment cannot be extended to prison inmates. Such expectations are inconsistent with effective prison administration in correctional centers.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

William G. Broaddus

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Deborah C. Wyatt

Justices for the Court

Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

3 July 1984

Decision

Prison guards act of unreasonable search, seizure and deprivation of prisoners property did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the respondent.

Related Cases

  • Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 (1962).
  • Wolff v. McDonell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).
  • Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979).
  • Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981).

Sources

West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.

Further Readings

  • Call, Jack E. "The Supreme Court and Prisoners' Rights." Federal Probation, March 1995, pp. 36-46.
  • Emory University School of Law. Criminal Procedures-Cases, Statutes, & Executive Materials. "Chapter Four: Searches in Recurring Places and Contexts," 30 September 1997. http://www.law.emory.edu/CRIMPRO/notes/ch4notes.html

Additional Topics

Hudson v. Palmer - Significance

Although a ward of the prison system, the respondent, Russel Palmer, claimed that his personal rights were infringed after an "unreasonable" and cruel "shakedown" by prison guard Ted Hudson. He also contended that the guard's intentional search and seizure was conducted solely as harassment and that there existed no reason to suspect Palmer harbored contraband. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, jud…

Hudson v. Palmer - Impact

In Hudson v. Palmer, the Supreme Court sought to define the limits of the constitutional rights of prisoners. Toward that end, its decision tacitly served to instruct states and penal authorities in the constitutionally acceptable administration of justice in detention facilities. The Court ruled prisoners must be aware that incarceration reduces and limits applicability of personal rights. Althou…

Hudson v. Palmer - Do Prison Inmates Have Rights?

Common sense would seem to dictate that prisoners should have fewer rights than people on the outside; otherwise prison would not be prison. Lack of freedom of movement, for instance, is a defining factor of prison. Likewise prisoners forfeit certain civil rights, such as the right to vote; a number of property rights (e.g. the warden might prevent a prisoner from receiving a gift of a gold watch …

United States v. Leon - Significance, Further Readings [next] [back] Nix v. Williams - Significance, Supreme Court Approves Inevitable Discovery Exception, Dissenters Feel Exclusionary Rule Is Undermined, Exclusionary Rule Offends Law And Order Supporters

User Comments Add a comment…