- The extent to which. the Proposed Consent Decree squarely addresses the situation, the policy and procedure, directive, and the appellate court decision
Consent decree is the resolving of a lawsuit where an individual or a corporation reaches a resolution to take specific actions without admission of guilt for the occurrence that resulted to the lawsuit. This settlement is contained in a court order as the court instructs relief against the defendant and comes to a decision to the maintenance of jurisdiction against the case to ensure the settlement is followed (Hensley et al, 2006, pg. 389). This case involves Plaintiffs Jack Jones and Joe Johnsons as they initiate a civil action against the Defendants Adelphi County Jail, Warden Pete Peters, Shift Commander Edward Engle, Security Chief Dan Dawson, Sgt. Biff Belker and Officer Annie Anderson. The two plaintiffs initiate this civil action as they allege violation of their fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendment rights (Knight & Early, 1986). This violation occurred when Sgt. Belker and Officer Annie Anderson carrie out a search of the cell shared by inmates Jones and Johnson. In this search, they find contraband cigarettes in a bag of chips and also discover a suspicious sheet of paper.
This piece of paper has a crude drawing which shows what appears to be a local industrial park and a prominent “X” that had been drawn alongside one of the buildings in the industrial park. This piece of paper with a crude drawing is used as evidence during the murder trial of Jack jones. He had been accused of murdering an elderly couple, Bob and Mary Smith, who were his next door neighbors. After murdering them, he is accused of burying them in an abandoned industrial park nearby. A piece of paper with a crude drawing serves its purpose, and Jack Jones is convicted of first-degree murder. The proposed consent decree squarely addresses the situation in that each of the plaintiffs is paid a sum of 500 U.S dollars by the Adelphi county jail. This sum of money serves as a fine imposed towards Adelphi county jail as its officers violated the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth amendment rights of the two plaintiffs. The fine serves as a reminder to the officers so that in case they encounter a similar situation in the future, they will follow the correct procedures to avoid violation of individual amendment rights. It also serves as punishment to the Adelphi county jail as so that the administration keeps its officer on check and warns them against violation of various amendment rights as they carry out with their work. It will also ensure that, if officers were not well-trained on how to handle various legal incidences, the Adelphi county jail will revisit the issue and ensure thorough training to avoid a repeat of the same situation or a related incidence in the future. The 500 U.S dollars also act as a way of paying for the pain and suffering caused upon the two plaintiffs due to the violation of their fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendment of rights. The proposed consent decree squarely addresses the policy and procedures for conducting inmate searches. New policies and procedures are laid down in response to this situation.
The Adelphi county jail will from that moment onwards conduct inmate cell search routinely only when the inmate is to be transferred either to another c ell, housing unit or another facility .This serves as a correction to the current situation where a routine search was carried out devoid of the three options outlined above. There are two other situations when routine search is allowed; when an inmate is being transported to court, or he is being released from confinement. None of these cases applies to the cell search conducted for the two inmates. This means that if followed to the latter, this policy will ensure such incidences are avoided (Carlson & Garrett, 2008, pg.140). The proposed consent decree squarely handles the directives and procedures for conducting inmate cell searches by correcting the previous outlined directive which indicates that a random cell search will be carried out when directed by the shift commander and the inmate has been suspected of being in possession of contraband (Cripe et al, 2013, pg.198). The proposed directive is more specific in handling this issue since it requires not only a directive from the shift commander, but should also be in accordance with a truly random and documented selection system that involves multiple potential cells. If such an outline is followed, violation of individual amendment rights will be avoided.
The proposed consent decree addresses the issue of searching an inmate cell on suspicions of contraband possession. It is more specific unlike the old guidelines where a random search was allowed in case an inmate is suspected of being in contraband possession (Finkelman, 2014, pg.1108). In the current outline, if an inmate is suspected of being in contraband possession, a random cell search will be carried out upon written request and authorization from the security chief. Such a move will ensure reduced cases of individual amendments violation. The proposed consent decree squarely handles the issue of directives. In the old outlined rules, during an inmate cell search, the inmate is supposed to be removed from the area near the cell that is a violation of individual rights (Lee, 2014). The proposed directive allows the inmate to watch the process of searching, but from outside the cell. The proposed directive also requires the all the inmates of the particular cell to be present during the search process as long as they are in the jail premises. This is unlike what was seen in the alleged violation of individual amendment rights where inmate Jones was not present during the search as he was at the gymnasium playing basketball with other inmates. The proposed consent decree is friendlier and excellently handles the issue of individual rights violation. It is more specific in that directive is given without looking down upon the inmates. In the proposed consent decree, the officers carrying out the search are required to re-make the inmate's bed after removing them for contraband inspection. The outlined directives also require the officers carrying out the search to treat inmate’s property with utmost respect and make all reasonable efforts to avoid any unnecessary damages to inmate’s properties.(b) The extent to which, the Proposed Consent Decree is under-inclusive The proposed consent decree is under-inclusive in that the sum of 500 U.S dollars paid to each of the plaintiffs is a tiny amount especially to inmate Jones. Inmate was convicted of first-degree murder for murdering an elderly couple, Bob and Mary Smith, who were his next door neighbors. After murdering them, he is accused of burying them in an abandoned industrial park nearby. The unlawful search carried out by the officers at Adelphi County Jail resulted to obtaining of a paper with a crude drawing showing what appears to be a mark indicating a certain spot in the industrial park where Bob and Mary Smith were buried.
This paper confirms suspicions that Jones was responsible for murdering an elderly couple. If the officers had not found out a piece of paper, maybe Jones would have been spared. The 500$ is, therefore, an undervaluation of a fine on a violation that led to an individual being convicted of first-degree murder. The proposed consent decree is also under-inclusive in that the inmates are held in a restraint position as they watch the search being carried out. The search process should be carried in a more friendly manner as the officers are not yet sure that the inmates are in possession of the suspected contrabands and other illegal materials. The inmates should be allowed to watch the search process in a more close distance to their possessions preferably from inside the cell. Such a directive is necessary because some officers are known of harboring hatred towards certain inmates. Such officers are capable of inserting illegal materials into the possessions of the particular inmates for the purpose of causing more suffering to them. The proposed consent decree is also under-inclusive in that, apart from the officers involved in the search, the security chief should accompany them to ensure fairness of the process.
Most officers in the jail are usually charged with handling the inmates during their daily activities. Sometimes, these officers come into confrontations with various inmates, and that becomes a cause of grudge towards each other. Presence of a security chief or a higher rank officer would ensure that the officers have no chance of solving their grudge by acting unfairly to inmates during the searching of the cell.(c) The extent to which, the Proposed Consent Decree is over-inclusive The proposed consent decree is over-inclusive in that a random cell search will require a documented system of selection involving multiple potential cells. In some cases, the officer may notice certain illegal materials in the possession of the inmates while they are outside their cells. Since the officer may fail to get a clear view of the inmates in possession of the particular illegal materials, a random cell search is necessary once the inmates are back to their cells.
The requirement of a documented system of selection involving multiple potential cells will limit the chances of the officers confiscating illegal materials from such incidences as documentation of system involving multiple potential cells will require numerous incidences of inmates spotted in possession of illegal materials. The fact that once an inmate is suspected beyond reasonable doubt of being in possession of contraband and then the officer has to write a request and obtain authorization from the security chief is an over-inclusive. Sometimes the officer might feel that he is doing too much so that they can ensure the rule of law is followed. The fact that instead of acting immediately after suspecting certain inmates of being in possession of contrabands, they have to write a request to the security chief is enough to lower their motivation. Officers need to be allowed to act quickly once they spot or suspect a particular inmate to be in possession of contrabands otherwise the time for writing a request to the security chief will have allowed the inmates time to safely hide the contrabands.
References
UMUC Europe. (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2014, from http://www.europe.umuc.edu/syllabi/generic/ugrd/ccjs432
Hensley, T. R., Hale, K., & Snook, C. (2006). The Rehnquist court: Justices, rulings, and legacy. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Knight, B. B., & Early, S. T. (1986). Prisoners' rights in America. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Carlson, P. M., & Garrett, J. S. (2008). Prison and jail administration: Practice and theory. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Pub.
Lee, D. W. (2014). Handbook of section 1983 litigation 2014. Place of publication not identified: Kluwer Law International (pg. 4-77).
Cripe, C. A., Pearlman, M. G., & Kosiak, D. (2013). Legal aspects of corrections management. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
In Finkelman, P. (2014). The Supreme Court: Controversies, cases, and characters from John Jay to John Roberts.
