Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 6 of 8: Environment

Environment

Unsanitary and inhumane environmental conditions may violate inmates’ rights under the 8th and 14th amendments (see Hopowit v. Spellman, McCord v. Maggio, Jones v. Diamond, and Carver v. Knox County, Tennessee). Environmental issues may arise if children are housed in inadequate, dilapidated, or unhygienic physical surroundings (see Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck, Ahrens v. Thomas, and Thomas v. Mears).

Sanitation

There should be no sewage backup in sleeping quarters, and the area should be free of insects and rodents. The living area should be clean and comply with local and state sanitation regulations. Thus, Ramos v. Lamm found constitutional violations at a prison with poor ventilation, fungus and mold, poor drainage, sewage accumulation, rodent and insect infestation, missing tiles/hard-to-clean bathroom areas, exposed wiring, broken windows, inadequate laundry facilities, deteriorating conditions, and inadequate maintenance. Along the same line, McCord v. Maggio held that lack of funds was not a justification for requiring inmates to live in cells where sewage backup created squalid and unsanitary conditions. Hygiene. Children in custody should be provided with adequate supplies for personal hygiene and should be given an opportunity to shower daily, change their clothing reasonably often, and have fresh bed linens on a weekly basis under Ahrens v. Thomas and Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck.

Food

Institutions housing children must provide a balanced diet, with three meals each day and snacks at night. Food should be prepared in accord with public health standards. Food should not be old or moldy; there should not be evidence of insects, rodents, or bad sanitation; and inmate workers should be trained in food preparation and storage (see Ramos v. Lamm). Food should never be withheld from children for disciplinary reasons (see Ahrens v. Thomas and Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck). Ventilation, heating, and cooling. Housing inmates in units with inadequate ventilation and air flow is unconstitutional according to Hopowit v. Spellman and Brock v. Warren County, Tennessee. Inadequate ventilation, heating, and cooling may violate inmates’ constitutional right to adequate shelter under Ramos v. Lamm, Ahrens v. Thomas, Henderson v. De Robertis, and Del Raine v. Williford. The Court has also recognized that involuntary exposure to unreasonable environmental tobacco smoke may violate the constitution (see Helling v. McKinney).

Fire Safety

This is a critical area since failure to adequately provide for fire safety may be a matter of life or death (see Hopowit v. Spellman). The facility must have smoke-monitoring devices, a written evacuation plan with posted diagrams for inmates and staff, at least two fire escape routes, fire extinguishers, and lights marking the fire exits (see Ahrens v. Thomas). 

Lighting

The courts have not required specific levels of candle power, but professional standards require that lighting be sufficient for detainees to comfortably read books in their cells without eyestrain (see Hopowit v. Spellman, Ramos v. Lamm, McCord v. Maggio, and Jones v. Diamond). Juvenile cases addressing lighting include Ahrens v. Thomas and Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck.

Clothing/Personal Appearance

Children have a right to clean clothing under Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck. Clothing should be appropriate for the season, and children should be able to wear clothing similar to that worn by children in the community (see Thomas v. Mears). Also, restrictions on personal appearance that are unrelated to penological interests may violate prisoners’ privacy rights (see Quinn v. Nix on  striking down a prohibition on shag hairstyles).

Overcrowding

This is a critical issue because it is related to so many others. The effects of overcrowding permeate every aspect of institutional operation, including health issues, education, suicidal and assaultive behavior, and overreliance on restraints and disciplinary measures. Under the constitutional standard, the due process clause is violated where children are held under conditions that amount to punishment (see Gary H. v. Hegstrom and Bell v. Wolfish).

In measuring overcrowding against constitutional standards, the courts look not at overcrowding per se but at its impact upon conditions in the institution. Rhodes v. Chapman stands for the proposition that doublecelling itself is not unconstitutional but that it is a factor to be taken into account with other prison conditions affecting essential needs (see Wilson v. Seiter). Thus, in Nami v. Fauver juveniles in the administrative segregation unit of a youth correctional facility could claim constitutional violations when they were double-celled in poorly ventilated, 80-square-foot rooms with only one bed, with violent or psychologically disturbed felons who abused them. Similarly, in Hall v. Dalton the court found constitutional inadequacies in a city jail where an adult inmate spent 40 days in a windowless, two-person cell that held four, with only 14 square feet per person, where meals were served in the cells, where there was little opportunity for exercise, and where the inmates had to sleep on the floor (see the additional adult cases of Tillery v. Owens, Balla v. Board of Corrections, Fisher v. Koehler, Baker v. Holden, Feliciano v. Colon, Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, Young v. Keohane, and Williams v. Griffin).

There is also case law on overcrowding-related issues such as sleeping conditions. Several cases specifically hold that assigning pretrial detainees to sleep on mattresses on the floor violates the due process clause (see Lareau v. Manson, Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, and Lyons v. Powell). Similarly, courts have ruled on overcrowding in juvenile facilities as it relates to program effectiveness, physical plant, staff, security, and other conditions of confinement (see Alexander S. v. Boyd and A.J. v. Kierst). Where overpopulation has an impact upon the availability of health and mental health services, educational programs, and recreation; institutional violence; suicide attempts; and situations requiring the use of force or restraints, the courts may find a violation of the 14th amendment. In addition, courts may find that the constitution is violated where overpopulation means that children spend most of their waking hours locked in their rooms because of inadequate staff to supervise day rooms or recreational activities. Courts around the country have imposed population caps to alleviate overcrowding, even when officials claimed that overcrowding was a result of budgetary constraints (see Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, Texas). In a recent juvenile institutional case, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ordered that no juvenile detention facilities may accept children beyond their licensed capacity, no child may be held in detention longer than 30 days pending disposition of his or her case, and no child may be held longer than 14 days pending post-disposition placement in an appropriate setting. In addition, the court ordered that detention centers must adopt modified versions of the American Bar Association’s detention standards at intake (see Facilities Review Panel v.  Coe).

The Prison Reform Litigation Act of 1995 limits the permissible remedies in cases involving prison conditions and imposes special requirements on prisoner release orders. Nonetheless, relief may still be granted to remedy overcrowding, consistent with the provisions of the act.

Searches

Incarcerated individuals retain some privacy rights. In Bell v. Wolfish, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a determination of whether body cavity searches may be conducted requires balancing the need for a particular search with the invasion of personal rights. For example, adult inmates are entitled to some protection against exposure of their genitals to persons of the opposite gender (see Arey v. Robinson, Lee v. Downs, and Hayes v. Marriott). Similarly, random, suspicionless, clothed searches of female inmates have been found unconstitutional in Jordan v. Gardner. Also, blanket policies allowing strip searches of all detained persons represent an unconstitutional intrusion into personal rights (see Chapman v. Nichols, Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, Giles v. Ackerman, Ward v. County of San Diego, and Thompson v. Souza on recognizing qualified immunity of officials for visual body cavity searches and urine tests of prisoners preselected for prior drug involvement and Thompson v. City of Los Angeles on holding that grand theft auto is sufficiently associated with violence to justify a strip search based on the charge itself).

Courts have remained protective in cross-gender searches of female inmates, disapproving practices such as random, clothed body searches of female inmates by male guards in Jordan v. Gardner and body cavity searches of females in the presence of male officers in Bonitz v. Fair. Even patdown searches of male inmates by female staff violates inmate rights if improperly conducted (see Watson v. Jones). In some situations, male inmates enjoy fewer protections than females. The courts have recognized that female guards may conduct visual body cavity searches of male inmates, and may supervise male prisoners disrobing, showering, and using the toilets under Grummet v. Rushen, Somers v. Thorman, and  Johnson v. Phelan.