Blinding Fundamental Rights with "Bright-Line" Rules: Hudson v. Palmer, 104 S.Ct. 3194 (1984)
Vol: 64, Issue: 3
1985
- 318Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage318
- Downloads264
- Abstract Views54
Article Description
In Hudson v. Palmer, the United States Supreme Court, by a 5–4 majority, adopted a "bright-line" rule holding that "the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell." For the substantial number of citizens who are presently or will in the future be incarcerated, this rule will have a significant impact. It is the conclusion of this article that the Supreme Court, in Hudson v. Palmer, unnecessarily deprived prison inmates of minimal fourth amendment protections without a concomitant enhancement of the state's asserted interest in penal security. This conclusion is substantiated in several sections that discuss the pre-Hudson case law, exploring its rationales, analysis, and factual settings. In addition, the Hudson opinion is critiqued to demonstrate that the Court needlessly withdrew the fourth amendment's protection of an inmate's privacy in his prison cell.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know