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.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| |
rdfs:comment
| - 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. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Griffin Bell, Attorney General, et al. v. Wolfish, et al. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
Subsequent
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| - Stevens (en)
- Marshall (en)
|
JoinDissent
| |
JoinMajority
| - Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun (en)
|
LawsApplied
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| |
courtlistener
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
findlaw
| |
fullname
| - Griffin Bell, Attorney General, et al. v. Wolfish, et al. (en)
|
Holding
| - The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit strip searches and similar intrusive conduct against persons being held in federal prison while awaiting trial. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| |
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - 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. (en)
|
Concurrence/Dissent
| |
googlescholar
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |