Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Fourth Circuit Affirms No Privacy Right in Cell Searches

Virginia prisoner Russell Palmer sued Bland Correctional Center guard Ted S. Hudson for civil rights violations in intentionally searching his cell and maliciously destroying his property and legal work. The district court granted summary judgment to the officer, holding Palmer had no privacy rights in cell searches. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, sub nom Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), the appeals court was reversed. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court. See: Palmer v. Hudson, 744 F.2d 22 (4th Cir. 1984).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

Palmer v. Hudson

Palmer v. Hudson, 744 F.2d 22 (4th Cir. 09/20/1984)

[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


[2] No. 81-6967


[3] 1984, 744 F.2d 22


[4] September 20, 1984


[5] RUSSELL THOMAS PALMER, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
TED S. HUDSON, OFFICER, APPELLEE.


[6] On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.


[7] Deborah C. Wyatt, (Wyatt & Rosenfield), for Appellant


[8] Alan Katz, Assistant Attorney General, (Gerald L. Baliles, Attorney General of Virginia), for the Appellee.


[9] Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.


[10] Per Curiam:


[11] In the previous appeal, we affirmed the ruling of the district court that the intentional destruction of a prisoner's property is not a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment when the prisoner has an adequate remedy under state law, relying upon Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981). But we also ruled that plaintiff had a limited right to privacy in his prison cell entitling him to the protection of the Fourth Amendment, and we remanded the case for further proceedings under the latter holding.


[12] The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and by an opinion filed July 3, 1984, it agreed with our interpretation of Parratt v. Taylor, but it held that plaintiff, a prisoner, had no reasonable protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches. It reversed our contrary holding and remanded the case for further proceedings.


[13] In obedience to the mandate of the Supreme Court, we now affirm the judgment of the district court.


[14] AFFIRMED.