Case Study: Wolfish V. Metropolitan Correctional Center

FACTS: Along with the other defendants, Wolfish brought this case to the Supreme Court claiming that the conditions in which they were in prior to their trial violated constitutional protections. Each of the defendants were all confined at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. They claimed that the double-bunking, which meant two inmates within a room only built and furnished for one, no reading materials, no packages or mail allowed from the outside, body-cavity searches, and that they were forced to stay outside of their cell during searches was unconstitutional. Since the Metropolitan Correctional Center is a federal facility, they brought the charges against the U.S. and Attorney General Griffin Bell. ISSUE: Can conditions and procedures such as body-cavity searches of pretrial defendants that convicted felons go through violate the Fourth Amendment? HELD: The majority of the Justices decided that Wolfish and the other detainees claims do not implicate Fifth Amendment due process concerns and that none of the procedures violated their constitutional protections. …show more content…
While the Court acknowledged that pretrial detainees must not be punished until they are proven guilty, they argued that the purpose of detention excludes a right to live comfortably with no restraints during confinement. If incarcertation was needed until a defendant was found guilty or innocent, it followed restrictions during confinement with convicted inmates had to be the same. The majority of justices agreed. The regulations contributed to safety, maintained order, prevented illegal activities and served a legitimate government interest. Contrary to the detainees’ claim, the Court did not believe that the Metropolitan Correctional Center were to unreasonably “torture”