Белл против Волфиша: Конституциялық құқықтар және сотқа дейінгі қамаудағылардың жағдайы

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520 (1979), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of various conditions of confinement of inmates held in federal short term detention facilities. The Court narrowly found that while treatment of pre trial detainees is subject to constraint by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments,[2] all of the policies challenged in the case passed constitutional scrutiny. Opened in 1975 in New York City, the MCC served as a federally operated short term detention facility mainly for defendants awaiting trial at one of three federal district courts located in the New York City area. holding that inmates could only be deprived of liberty as a matter of "compelling necessity." On appeal, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed nearly all of the District Court's rulings, including the due process standard the District Court utilized in enjoining the MCC's practices. The Court of Appeals did not affirm the District Court's Eighth Amendment analysis related to convicted inmates at the MCC awaiting sentencing or transfer, and instead remanded that issue to the District Court. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on October 2, 1978.

In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. First, it noted that the “compelling necessity” standard on which the Court of Appeals relied was not grounded in the Constitution. Because the MCC's practice of double bunking did not amount to punishment, the policy did not violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. [2][3]

The Court also determined that the policy of prohibiting detainee from receiving hard cover books not mailed directly from the publisher did not violate the First Amendment. In addition, the Court held that the practice of prohibiting detainees from receiving packages from outside the facility was not a due process violation under the Fifth Amendment. Nor, in the Court's opinion, was the practice of performing body cavity searches on detainees after contact visits a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the Court held that none of these practices constituted punishment within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.

Keith A. Hassler, Bell v. Wolfish: The Rights of Pretrial Detainees, 6 New Eng. J. on Prison Law 129 (1979)
Dennis D. Cohen, Substantive Due Process Rights of Pretrial Detainees after Bell v. Wolfish, 65 Iowa L. Rev. 818 (1980)
Joseph P. Gill, Confused Concepts of Due Process for Pretrial Detainees the Disturbing Legacy of Bell v. Wolfish, 18 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 469 (1981)
James Brian Boyle, Constitutional Law Pretrial Detention Due Process Bell v. Wolfish, 26 N. Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 341 (1981)

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015)
Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington, 566 U. S. 318 (2012)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987)
Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144 (7th Cir. 1995)