Bell v. Wolfish - Significance, Impact, Further Readings

detainees petitioner constitutional justices

Petitioner

Griffin B. Bell

Respondent

Louis Wolfish

Petitioner's Claim

Regulations imposed on pretrial confinees by the New York City Metropolitan Correctional Center did not impinge upon pretrial detainees' constitutional rights (who, as temporary inmates awaiting trial, had the constitutional right to be regarded as detainees who were presumed innocent).

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Andrew L. Frey

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Phylis Skloot Bamberger

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

14 May 1979

Decision

Respondents' constitutional right to be treated as unconvicted detainees (despite being incarcerated in a municipal jail) were not violated by New York City Metropolitan Correctional Center regulations and restrictions.

Related Cases

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).
Wolff v. McDonell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).
Rhem v. Malcom, 507 F.2d 333, CA2 (1974).
United States ex rel. Wolfish v. Levi, 439 F.Supp. 114 (1977).
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977).

Additional Topics

Bell v. Wolfish - Significance

Due to a lack of adequate facilities, a New York custodial facility placed two pretrial detainees in rooms planned for single occupancy. Because convicted inmates were sharing common areas, pretrial detainees were expected to abide by the same restrictions as those of the prisoners. The justices ruled that pretrial detainees, regardless of where they were housed, were not entitled to receive less …

Bell v. Wolfish - Impact

Pretrial detainees were deprived of their constitutional rights after the Supreme Court reasoned that institutional needs in this issue justified regulations and administrative procedures at New York City's Metropolitan Correctional Center. The Court found no intention to inordinately punish pretrial detainees nor were restrictive measures a violation of due process of law. The U.S. Supreme Court …

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.

User Comments

about 1 month ago

baju bayi murah toko online murah

i see you got really very useful topics This subject has always been one of my preferred topics to study about. I have discovered your publish to be very stirring and complete of reliable details.