Hudson v. Palmer
- Decided
- July 3, 1984
- Docket
- 82-1630
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 8,014 timesOverruled in part (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled in part, overruled on other grounds, overruled in part on other grounds (not yet verified) · Dickerson v. Blomme
What later courts said
- holding that the Due Process Clause is not violated by random and unauthorized intentional deprivations of property "until and unless it provides or refuses to provide a suitable postdeprivation remedy" — Albright v. Oliver (1994)
- concluding that a post-deprivation remedy satisfies the Due Process Clause when the deprivation is random and unauthorized and is not pursuant to an established policy — Paul A. Wright, on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. Chase Riveland (2000)
- holding that the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not ap ply within the confínes of the prison cell — Nicholas v. Goord (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in No. 82-1630 to decide whether a prison inmate has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell entitling him to the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. We also granted certiorari in No. 82-6695, the cross-petition, to determine whether our decision in Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981), which held that a negligent deprivation of property by state officials does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if an adequate postdeprivation state remedy exists, should extend to intentional deprivations of property.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.