Cell Search

Privacy and Confinement

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be violated.” To arrive at the conclusion that prisoners do not have this protection, the Supreme Court applied the Katz privacy test to establish the reasonableness of a prisoner's Fourth Amendment claim. Under this test, a person can invoke the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure only if he or she demonstrates an actual expectation of privacy and only if society is prepared to recognize this expectation as reasonable (Katz v. United States, 1967). After applying this two-pronged standard, the Court held that “society is not prepared to recognize as legitimate any subjective expectation of privacy that a prisoner might have in his prison cell” (Hudson v. Palmer, 1984).

By using privacy as the standard to determine the reasonableness of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Court noted that the Fourth Amendment right to privacy is “fundamentally inconsistent” with incarceration. As a result, the interest of a prisoner's privacy within the prison cell must yield to the accepted belief that “the loss freedom of choice and privacy are inherent incidents of confinement” (Bell v. Wolfish, 1979).

Security and Confinement

An expectation of privacy within a prison cell must be one that society is prepared to recognize as legitimate before prisoners can effectively invoke Fourth Amendment concerns. In prison, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy is always curtailed by the institution's responsibility for security. To this end, the Court clearly held in Hudson v. Palmer (1984) that prison administrators are obligated to provide an environment for inmates and prison employees that is both secure and sanitary. While society might value the ability of prison inmates to enjoy some degree of Fourth Amendment protection, that is, privacy, this possibility is outweighed, and effectively cancelled out, by the more prominent social demand that prisons represent a secure and sanitary environment. The Court saw no way to reconcile the “privacy rights” of inmates with the more pertinent social concern of prison security and sanitation. “It would be impossible to accomplish the prison objectives of preventing the introduction of drugs, weapons, and other contraband into the premises if inmates retained a right of privacy in their cells” (Hudson v. Palmer 1984).

Cell Searches

Because prisoners are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, prison cell searches may occur at random times in a frequent and unannounced basis. They need not adhere to the dictates of an established plan or method of search. Furthermore, random shakedown searches may be done regardless of whether the prisoner is present to observe the search of his or her cell.

...