Justices hear reason for cuffing inmates

The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether cuffing unruly inmates violates the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Another issue is whether the officers who cuffed the prisoner are immune from personal damages.

State employees are normally granted immunity in such cases, unless their actions are clearly unconstitutional.

The case before the court came from Alabama, but a ruling would affect at least 16 other states that use similar methods.

Alabama is believed to be the nation's only prison system, however, that cuffs prisoners to a hitching post exposed to the elements. The state discontinued use of the hitching post in 1998.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held her fists before of her face to demonstrate the height the inmate was cuffed for seven hours.

"It's your position that the state could leave him hanging there for as long as the state wishes without administration of water or a bathroom break just because there's a regulation?" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked Alabama Solicitor General Nathan A. Forrester.

"Any person would know it's cruel and unusual to leave someone for seven hours in the hot sun with his arms over his head and only give him water once," said Justice Stephen Breyer.

Justice Antonin Scalia asked whether the practice was different or more painful than making an inmate stand in the comer.

Larry Hope, who in 1995 was an inmate at Limestone Correctional Facility, twice broke the rules of the work crew and was handcuffed to the post in accord with an Alabama Corrections Department regulation.

Hope alleged he was denied adequate water and protection from the heat, especially on his second summer stint on the post, which lasted seven hours.

Hope's lawyers contend there was ample precedent in 1995 for the officers to have known the post was cruel and unusual, including past rulings against the use of the pillory and a 1994 advisory opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Hope's lawyers want the justices to reverse an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that granted the officers immunity. If they do, Hope's lawsuit against the officers can go forward.

Alabama Solicitor General Nathan Forrester argued that judges in the state previously had upheld the use of similar restraints.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor said reversing the 1I th Circuit would weaken qualified immunity protections for state employees and increase the number of lawsuits.

A lawyer for the 16 states backing Alabama said the officers couldn't be expected to know complicated legal precedent.

Inf.: Hope v. Pelzer, 01-309.