Hudson v. Palmer

Start Free Trial

Please summarize the case of Hudson v Palmer (1984). What was the main decision of this case in regards to 4th Amendment privileges? Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision? Why or why not?

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Hudson v. Palmer (1984) was a case that reached the Supreme Court. Palmer, a prisoner in a Virginia correctional facility, sued Ted Hudson, who was a corrections officer. Hudson said that Palmer's "shakedown" search of his locker and cell had violated the 4th Amendment (prohibiting illegal search and seizures) and the 14th Amendment (prohibiting depriving people of their property).

In this case, the court decided that Hudson's search of Palmer's belongings did not violate the 4th Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizures because the need for security in a prison was more important than this right. In addition, the court said that Palmer had not been deprived of his property under the 14th Amendment as long as there were remedies to this deprivation.

There are arguments to be made on both sides of this case. There is a need for security in prison that might outweigh people's rights to privacy and against some types of search and seizure. However, one might also argue that our fundamental constitutional rights are on a slippery slope. If the court starts removing some rights for prisoners, others could be taken away over time for both prisoners and people who are not in prison.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In this case, Russel Palmer was a prisoner in the state of Virginia.  Ted Hudson was a guard at the prison where Palmer was incarcerated.  Hudson conducted a search of Palmer’s cell that was outside of regular searches and, Palmer said, was meant only to harass him.  Hudson found a torn pillow case and Palmer was charged with destruction of state property and forced to reimburse the state.  He was also reprimanded.  Palmer sued, saying that the search was baseless and that it, therefore, violated his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search or seizure.

In this case, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Hudson.  They found that prisoners have a very limited expectation of privacy.  They found that the state has a compelling interest in maintaining order in correctional facilities.  If the state had to have probable cause for all its searches of prisoners, it would be very difficult to maintain order.

My own view is that the Supreme Court made the right decision.  It is surely impossible to write rules that will prevent all prison guards from ever using their authority to abuse prisoners (which Hudson allegedly did when he allegedly destroyed some of Palmer’s property).  If we try to force prisons to write such rules, we end up with a situation where there is too much “red tape” involved in trying to search a prisoner or his/her cell.  This would make it too hard for guards to maintain order in prisons.  I would say that prisoners have to assume that they have very limited expectations of privacy when they are incarcerated and that essentially no search or seizure is unconstitutional.  

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team