66 year old prison inmate in poor health and held in isolation for 41 years stated grounds for preliminary injunction against six strip searches a day when he is removed from his cell in shackles. The chances of his being a drug mule are \u201cminuscule.\u201d Wilkerson v. Stalder, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12185 (M.D. La. January 31, 2014):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The record shows that Woodfox is a 66 year-old man who has weathered over four decades of living in isolation. Presumably, such prolonged isolation has rendered him in poor health. [FN: The record in a prior case with him shows that.] He is shackled at his hands, waist, and ankles wherever he goes outside of his cell, and he is escorted by, and under the constant supervision of, prison correctional officers. He is not afforded the opportunity to congregate with, approach, or even touch another inmate. Therefore, he has little to no opportunity to pass along or be passed contraband. Given this lack of contact with other inmates coupled with his constant supervision by correctional officers, he does not appear to be at risk of being used as a “mule,” or clandestine carrier of contraband, for other prisoners. Furthermore, inmates from other tiers who enter the A Tier N1 Cellblock are subjected to visual body cavity searches, all but eliminating the chance that an inmate could bring contraband into the segregated area. He has not had any disciplinary infractions during his time at Wade and not been found in possession of any contraband. Indeed, based upon the incident reports submitted, it appears that no one on A Tier N1 Cellblock has been written up for being in possession of contraband. Finally, Defendants own expert opined that the incidents of contraband were miniscule in comparison to other institutions.<\/p>\n
Considering the facts presented, the Court finds that conducting visual body cavity searches of Woodfox based solely on his entering or leaving a segregated area is unnecessary given his age, housing in complete isolation under constant supervision, and clean disciplinary record. Furthermore, the Court finds that the response to fighting contraband is unnecessary given the infrequent reported incidents of contraband and the Defendants’ own expert’s conclusion that the incidents of contraband are miniscule. But Cf. Elliot, 38 F.3d 188 (finding a visual body cavity search which compromised an inmate’s privacy reasonable in light of the emergency situation caused by an extraordinary number of murders, suicides, and stabbings). Therefore, striking a balance between Woodfox’s human dignity protected by his Fourth Amendment rights and the Defendants’ legitimate penalogical interest in the detection and deterrence of contraband, the Court finds that there is a substantial likelihood that the scales will tip in Woodfox’s favor.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading