Edward Nelson Rickman v. Warden Avaniti, Warden at Cb-6, Aspc-Florence
Docket: 87-1975
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 9, 1988; Federal Appellate Court
Edward Nelson Rickman, an inmate at the Arizona State Prison, appealed a district court's summary judgment favoring prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 lawsuit challenging the prison's visual strip search policy. The policy mandates that inmates in administrative segregation, the highest custody level, undergo visual strip and body cavity searches when exiting their cells. After Rickman refused to comply, he was denied access to the exercise yard, prompting his legal action against five prison officials.
Rickman contended that the search policy violated his Fourth Amendment and due process rights. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Bell v. Wolfish, which supports significant deference to prison administrators regarding policies essential for maintaining order and security. The Court determined that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit strip searches of inmates, particularly those who have had contact visits.
The reasonableness of a search under the Fourth Amendment involves balancing the need for the search against the intrusion on personal rights, considering factors such as the scope and manner of the search and the justification for it. Although the Supreme Court has not explicitly addressed routine visual body cavity searches, other circuits have upheld their constitutionality using a similar analysis.
In this case, the court found that the searches were limited to convicted prisoners in administrative segregation and were conducted visually without physical contact, thus minimizing their intrusiveness.
The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of prison safety and the prevention of contraband introduction as key objectives of penal institutions, as established in Hudson v. Palmer. Warden Avaniti's affidavit indicates that the search policy was implemented to uphold the high security standards required in the administrative segregation unit. The Eighth Circuit's decision in Goff supports the idea that security considerations warrant searches of inmates in segregation. The record demonstrates that contraband issues, such as weapons and drugs, are prevalent in prisons, with security concerns in this case deemed more significant than those in Wolfish. The search procedures are considered neither more intrusive nor demeaning than those upheld in Wolfish.
The challenged search took place in Rickman's cell within the administrative segregation unit, which is deemed a reasonable location for such searches due to its security requirements. Rickman argues that his refusal to undergo body searches has deprived him of rights related to exercise time, sunlight, visits, religious practice, medical treatment, and access to the law library. However, the Eighth Circuit in Goff rejected similar claims, asserting that inmates cannot invalidate a permissible policy based on their refusal to participate in activities protected by the Constitution. The court aligns with this view, concluding that Rickman's constitutional rights were not violated since his inability to access certain opportunities is solely due to his refusal to comply with the search policy. The ruling is affirmed, and the case is submitted without oral argument as per Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
