Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
The Joint Committee of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees was called to order by Chairman Senator Mike Anderson at 1:40 pm on June 23, 1982 in Room 108 of the Capitol. Co-chairman Representative Kerry Keyser was also in attendance. All Senate Judiciary Committee members were present. All House Judiciary Committee members were present except Representatives Anderson, Eudai1y, Keedy and Shelden, who were absent. Representative Conn was excused. Lois Menzies.and John MacMaster, Staff Researchers, were also present.
CHAIRMAN ANDERSON gave commitee members EXHIBIT A, which is information the committee had requested concerning Ranch/Industry Inmate Employees. EXHIBIT B, a memo from John MacMaster, Legal Researcher, was also presented to the committee. The memo concerns the design capacity of Montana State Prison.
SENATE BILL 5
SEN. VAN VALKENBURG, chief sponsor of the bill, stated this bill would authorize the warden to grant a temporary furlough up to ten days for an inmate already approved for parole, that the inmate had to obtain employment or living arrangements that the inmate was not able to fulfill immediately.
SEN. VAN VALKENBURG stated he was a member of the Prisoner Alternatives Study Committee. In May, that committee received information from the Department of Institutions concerning 62 people in the total responsibility of the Corrections Division who would fit the definition of parole to an approved plan, but who had not actually gone out on parole. The Parole Board wants inmates to have a job before they are allowed out on parole. It is very difficult to obtain a job now days, especially if you are in prison.
There is a coordinator that tries to obtain jobs for inmates outside of the prison. This works well, but SEN. VAN VALKENBURG feels it could work even better if this bill was adopted. This would allow an employer to talk directly to the inmate and perhaps have him work for a day. SEN. MANLEY has used inmates as employees on his ranch before. This became a problem, however. If an inmate could come out for one day and work, the employer could see how well the inmate works and perhaps hire him.
SEN. VAN VALKENBURG stated this bill would give the state a responsible chance to reduce the prison population by 20-30 prisoners. It would also allow the prisoners to look for a job in a more realistic manner.
MI~UTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June .23, 1982
Page 2
DAN RUSSELL, Administrator of the Division of Corrections, supports the bill. RUSSELL stated that at anyone time there are 20 inmates who could benefit from this bill. If a person cannot go in person to interview for a job, there is not much chance that person will obtain the job.
If the prisoner choo!esnot to return after the furlough is complete, it would be considered a felony escape. This would ruin his opportunity for parole and would probably not happen.
REP. GOULD was also in favor of the bill. He was also a member of the Prison Alternatives Committee. With the safeguards in the bill, he feels it is a good bill.
WARDEN HANK RISLEY stated he is familiar with this type of legislation in other areas. There are built in protections and safeguards. This bill concerns a prisoner who has been approved for parole and is eligible. He would have to report to the parole officer in the community he goes to. He is still considered a prisoner. RISLEY felt this is an excellent program and it does have safeguards. It would have an impact on the prison population.
There were no further proponents.
There were no opponents.
During the question period, SEN. CRIPPEN asked if a convict does go out and is unable to find a job within the ten days, is he assured that he will have another opportunity to go out again at a later date to try to obtain work. SEN. VAN VALKENBURG replied it was not his intention that the person would only have one furlough. He thought the warden could give the person an extension if the warden wanted to.
WARDEN RISLEY stated he would assume that the inmate would have already established interviews to go to. After attending those interviews, he would come back to the prison and set up more interviews.
REP. RAMIREZ questioned the wording of the bill, "or any other condition that is difficult to fulfill". SEN. VAN VALKENBURG replied an example of this would be if an individual has a program at a community mental health center. He felt this wording would provide flexibility in the bill.
REP. BROWN asked the sponsor if he would have objections to strike on line 23, page 1 "a", to which the sponsor replied no. He felt, however, the inmates might be constantly asking the warden for furlough. REP. BROWN replied there will be a number of requests for furlough any way, and the Warden is free to permit or deny
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
the requests.
Page 3
In closing of this bill, the sponsor stated that the Parole Board is in favor of the bill.
SENATE BILL 6
SEN. VAN VALKENBURG, chief sponsor, stated this bill is an attempt to bring to the legislature's attention an item that has been discussed in the Prison Alternatives Committee. Although_ it has not been formerly acted upon or recommended in that committee, it would provide a device where the Parole Board could consider inmates for parole up to 90 days prior to their eligibility date for parole.
On page 3 of the bill a provision has been added to a requirement that the prison be in excess of 515 inmates and has exceeded that capacity for a period of more than 30 days.
This bill would terminate on September 30, 1983. The sponsor feels this bill would be a good experimental approach in reducing the prison population in an effective way. It might, however, backfire and cause problems. Therefore, it should have a termination date. When the legislature meets in the regular session, they can change the date if they find the bill has merit. Or, it might be necessary to terminate the bill or to let the bill terminate on its own in September of 1983.
Inmates who might be paroled under this bill are the same inmates who would be paroled three months later. If they are a good candidate for parole, they would also be a good candidate 90 days sooner. The figure 515, the sponsor feels, is a proper population figure for the prison presently. The figure, however, might change during this special session and could be amended. There is an acceptable level of double bunking at the prison and there is also an unacceptable level. Other states have found, including Montana in the last ten years, that parole can reduce the population. There are safe and effective means to do this. Incarceration of an inmate costs the state about $30.00 a day. Parole costs the state only $3.00 a day. The sponsor felt the state has a tough Parole Board that would not let people out that they don't feel are responsible enough to succeed.
Other states that have adopted this type of legislation include Oklahoma, Iowa and Michigan. This bill has a real potential to save the state money.
HANK BURGESS, Chairman for the Montana State Parole Board was in support of the bill. At a meeting of the Prison Alternatives
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
Page 4
Committee the members were trying to find some serious ideas that would help reduce the prison population. The idea came up that perhaps there should be some type of a system for release that would not endanger the lives of anyone. Some type of mechanism like this bill would be valuable. Overpopulation presents many dangers in the prison to employees, staff, and the inmates them-selves. ',. ~ "
If the Parole. Board were asked to assume a responsibility like this we would do it. If we were requested to receive inmates earlier we could do it. aURGESS would hesitate, however, to indicate how many they could release because they would have to have some experience doing it. He feels that the prison population could be reduced in about three months. BURGESS stated that whenever extra duties are placed on the Parole Board extra funds are also needed.
There were no further proponents.
There were no.opponents. ~
During the question period, SEN. HALLIGAN felt the number "515" should be changed to 125% design capacity. The sponsor had no objections.
REP. RAMIREZ stated that an inmate that is serving a one year sentence could become elig,ible for parole on his first day. The sponsor agreed, but he felt that usually a prisoner is not sentenced to any time less than three years.
REP. RAMIREZ then asked WARDEN RISLEY about the certainty:..· of sentencing. The Warden replied the sentencing statutes today call for the judge to set the sentence. An inmate who is considered dangerous and has been sentenced for ten years, is eligible for parole in five years. An inmate who is considered nondangerous and has been sentenced for ten year~ is eligible for parole in 2 1/2 years. For the nondangerous inmate, good time is subtracted from the 2 1/2 years. This bill does not remove the certainity of the date which he is eligible for parole. Whether or not he receives parole is not certain. That is the Parole Board's decision. This bill just moves it up 90 days.
The Warden stated that Kentucky also is a state that has this type of legislation. He is familiar with the Michigan system. He feels this would help reduce the prison population, as it would allow the board to review a case earlier. Reducing a person's prison sentence automatically and making him parole eligible, does not impose a danger on the community by throwing out prisoners who are a threat. The decision-making process is still there for the board.
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
Page 5
CHAIRMAN ANDERSON asked the Warden what number he felt was adequate that the prison could hold. The Warden replied he does not have a specific number in mind. The facilities have a total capacity figure they are using of 515. The legislature could set a figure above that if they thought it was appropriate. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON stated the legislature was called in for this special session because the number was too high. The Warden replied when he came to work on August 3 the number of inmates was 685, which was too high. The number 515 is without double bunking.
REP. RAMIREZ stated that literature the legislators have received talks about a manageable level of bunking without any new facilities. What is the manageable level of double bunking? The Warden replied there is no manageable level of double bunking from his perspective. If the legislature decides we will live with a certain amount of double bunking that's what we have to go by.
The sponsor of the bill indicated the Department of Institutions provided the Alternatives Prison Task Force a briefing paper which stated 610 was a manageable level. The Legislative Fiscal Analyst took that information and had converted it to an acceptable level of double bunking, which'is printed on page 10 of the Legislative Fiscal Analysis. This would mean double bunking in one of the existing close security units and everything else would be single bunking. It is possible to get down to 610 by opening two new prerelease centers, changes in parole eligibility, and by putting some people in the dairy dormitory. The sponsor felt that 610-625 would be the highest number that should be reached. The Department has said that this is a manageable level.
REP. BENNETT asked what the immediate effect on the population would be if this bill were to pass. DAN RUSSELL replied an impact of 80 people at anyone time would be affected by it.
SEN. MAZUREK asked about the ratio of success in the states that have adopted this type of legislation. The Warden replied that from what he has heard through other professionals, the rate of success or failure on parole for that group that becomes eligible 90 days early is no different then if they would have waited the additional 90 days.
REP. DAILY asked what the annual population increase is, percentagewise. It was replied about 7.1% since 1930. REP. DAILY further asked if the population increase will have an ~effect on this bill. The sponsor replied this is temporary legislation. If the bill is passed it will terminate in September, 1983. It will be an experimental program.
REP. BROWN stated the committee might want to change the bill so that it would state the "design capacity" of the prison, instead of placing a number in the bill. The sponsor replied they might want to define what "design capacity" is and have statutory law stating it.
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
Page 6
REP. TEAGUE questioned if this bill would increase the workload of the parole officers a lot. JACK MCCORMICK replied they would be affected. In Montana each parole officer has approximately 75 charges, which is a mixture of probation and parole people. The probation people are easier to handle compared to the parole people.
REP. DAILY asked if there could be a possible discrimination problem concerning an inmate who was number 516 and was paroled and the inmate who was number 515 and was not paroled. The sponsor replied he didn't think so.. Legislators are permited by the courts to differentiate between the classes of people. If there is a legitimate purpose in making the differentiation, he feels that would be upheld. The federal courts are doing this in other states by court order.
There were no further questions or comments on the bill.
SENATE BILL 5 ,
HANK BURGESS, Chairman for the Montana State Parole Board, was allowed to speak on this bill even though it was heard earlier in the meeting.
BURGESS stated he was in favor of the bill. The Parole Board would make the decision and would be competent. This bill would be an advantage to a number of inmates to go to cities to interview for work. Many inmates presently have a difficult time finding work. They must use the telephone or go through the counselor to find work.
REP. HANNAH asked BURGESS if he sees a problem with the Parole Board having to deny people parole because there is no place to put them. BURGESS replied he could see a problem where they would want to be paroled instead of being placed in a prerelease center. The Parole Board would deny a person parole, however, if they had to, because of the inadequacy of the plans of a parolee. The Board would ask that the plans be modified.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 4
REP. GOULD, sponsor of the resolution, stated this resolution concerns when a person is revoked from parole, returned to prison, and given a hearing. The person can request a hearing at any time. The rule at the present time is they must have a hearing within one year. The significance of this bill is there is a contract between the Parole Board and the convict that is being released. The Parole Board feels they need a one year "stick". It would be a year before they would look at a parolee again if he violated the parole. This would make the contract more binding.
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
Page 7
HANK BURGESS, Chairman for the Montana State Parole Board, was in support of the bill. BURGESS stated he and REP. GOULD were both concerned when a motion was passed in the Prison Alternatives Committee requesting the Parole Board review their rule about people whose parole had been revoked, to serve one year before the case is reviewed again. He tried to defend the present system feeling one year was adequate time. Others felt that if it was moved back to six months there would be a basis to move people out of the prison quicker. At the time he tried to explain it would not work.
. There is a process now that individuals who have parole revoked can make a request to the Warden for an early hearing. If the Warden feels the request has merit, the Board usually honors the request and has an early hearing. The Parole Board would appreciate it to have the one year on annual review parole ratifications.
Presently there is a state statute that covers those who have been turned down for parole stating they cannot return for a full year. BURGESS would like to have the same rule placed on those people who have had their paroles r~voked. It is appropriate they serve additional time.
There were no further proponents.
There were no opponents.
Ouestions included SEN. BROWN asking if there is any proposed legislation to repeal the rule the Board has. BURGESS stated no, but this would nullify it if any resolution was brought up.
REP. SEIFERT asked if the board has the authority now to make a review prior to the annual review. BURGESS stated they do not have to wait the full year~ they can call someone back or honor a request to have a hearing. The full year would be a full calendar year.
REP. GOULD stated he has spoken to hearing officers about this resolution. Very rarely is a person's parole revoked unless it is a serious offense. It is not revoked for being intoxicated once or twice.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 4
The House Judiciary Committee went into executive session. REP. BROWN moved Do Pass on House Joint Resolution 4.
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
Page 8
REP. 'YARDLEY felt the committee was overreacting to the interim committee. He did not feel the resolution was necessary at this time.
Being no further discussion on the resolution a roll call vote was taken. Representatives voting yes on the motion Do Pass were: KEYSER, ABRAMS, BENNETT, BROWN, CURTISS, DAILY, HUENNEKENS, MATSKO, MCLANE, TEAGUE, and RAMIREZ. Representatives voting no on the motion Do Pass were: SEIFERT, HANNAH, IVERSON, and YARDLEY. The motion of Do Pass carried 11 to 4.
SENATE BILL 5
The Senate Judiciary Committee went into executive session.
SEN. HALLIGAN moved Do Pass on Senate BillS. The motion passed unanimously.
SENATE BILL 6
SEN. HALLIGAN moved to amend page 3, line 3, striking "exceeds its design capacity of 515" and to replace it with "is 125% of the design capacity". He felt there is an acceptable manageable level of double bunking.
SEN. BROWN disagreed with the amendment because of the automatic termination date within the bill. The number should be left as it is in the bill and during the regular session of the legislature it could be changed. SEN. HALLIGAN disagreed.
The amendment passed with Senators ANDERSON and CRIPPEN voting no.
SEN. BOB BROWN stated he was against the bill because he thought it was confusing concerning the double bunking. SEN. CRIPPEN stated he was also against the bill because the bill is overlooking the reason the special session was called.
SEN. TVEIT felt it was a good bill on a temporary basis. The January session can change the bill if they want to.
SEN. O'HARA felt by the time the plan is implemented and the regular session is in progress, there will not be enough time to see if the plan has worked or not.
SEN. BROWN felt this is one option that could be used and would be a cheap alternative. It comes down to what is acceptable for a good manageable level.
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
Page 9
SEN. HALLIGAN moved Senate Bill 6 DO Pass As Amended. A roll call vote resulted. Those Senators voting yes on the motion were: BERG, S. BROWN, MAZUREK, HALLIGAN and ANDERSON. Those voting no on the motion were: B. BROWN, CRIPPEN, OLSON, TVEIT, and O'HARA. The result was 5 to 5. The bill did not pass as amended.
The Joint Committee of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees then went back into a joint meeting to hear more bills.
HOUSE BILL 15
House Bill 15, sponsored by REP. KITSELMAN, is aimed at the security guards personnel. REP. KITSELMAN stated he visited the Idaho State Prison in Boise. The appearance of the campus there is good. It was easy to determine who the guards were. When visiting the Montana State Prison, however, REP. KITSELMAN stated he had trouble determiningwho: 1.the guards ·were and·.~.who the prisoners were.
This bill addresses the dress code ot the guards and the in service training. Many of the guards at the Montana State Prison are out of shape. The bill would allow them time to get back into shape as part of their regular paid duties. REP. KITSELMAN stated an amendment on line 11 of the bill should be added as follows: "minimum of four hours per calendar month not exceeding ten hours."
REP. KITSELMAN quoted the Supreme Court Case of Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. Supreme Court, 1975, concerning the length of a police officer's hair. EXHIBIT C.
House Bill 15 is based on the safety of the guard and the uniformity they would have.
There were no proponents.
There were no opponents.
During question time, REP. BROWN asked what the additional cost of the bill would be to the state. REP. KITSELMAN replied it would be $3.50 for a haircut. The uniforms (grey slacks, white shirt and blazer) would not be changed at this time, but he hoped it would be at a later date.
REP. RAMIREZ wondered if there was an additional cost that could not be seen within the bill. For example, the Warden could not free up enough people with present staffing without changing the regular shift. REP. KITSELMAN replied this bill would bring the guards
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
Page 10
into shape. It is designed to promote professionalism and would be for their protection. He feels it would have a minimum financial impact. REP. RAMIREZ stated that a guard on duty from 6 pm until 2 am, when would he have time to do the exercises? The sponsor felt that time could be found.
SENATOR CRIPPEN asked for a definition of "correctional personnel", would that include all the staff? The sponsor replied they would look at the entire group of personnel. In the Montana National Guard, they have annual physical fitness tests.
REP. HANNAH asked if the sponsor could see a problem with changing the bill so that the guards could get into shape on their own time and have an annual testing program concerning weight. REP. KITSELMAN replied that would be okay yet he would like to still have a general dress code.
REP. DAILY asked about the money that would have to be appropriated for a new gym. The sponsor replied there is a gym on the facilities that the guards could use, o~ the guards could possibly obtain access to a local school gym.
REP. HUENNEKENS thought the warden could address this issue and save the taxpayers money. The sponsor stated the comparison between the Idaho and the Montana prisons was vast. REP. HUENNEKENS stated that during the tour of the Montana prison, many of the guards were there on a voluntary basis to show the legislators around. The sponsor stated he still had difficulty in determining the guards that were on duty from the prisoners.
There was no further discussion on the bill.
SENATE BILL 4
SENATOR RYAN, sponsor, stated this bill would prohibit judges in justice, city and municipal courts from using the services of probation and parole officers. SEN. RYAN stated he is a parole officer and last month approximately one-half of his caseload was done for lower jurisdictional courts, which demand the same services as the district court. The services are a full case history of a criminal after he has been found guilty or pleads guilty. This entails educational reports, family history, all reports from law agencies on the individual (including out-of-state reports). If all this information is important for lower courts to know, perhaps the case should have been brought into district court instead.
Parole officers and the lower courts do not have the power to limit the convicted person's movement; however in district court, a parole officer can limit the convicted person's movements. The person
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
Page 11
cannot travel outside of a designated area without permission. The district court can also limit the person's carrying of firea~s, but the justice court cannot. The lower courts are placing people under a parole officer's supervision that takes the same time and efforts~sa felony-convicted person, yet the parole officer cannot limit his movements anyway. The convicted person knows this.
After this special session, the caseload will probably not go down for parole officers. In adopting this bill, it will free up some of the parole officers time to deal with the inmates out for parole from the prison.
There were no further proponents.
There were no opponents.
During the question period, REP. SEIFERT asked who would provide the service if it is to be provided. The sponsor replied counties have probation officers that work for them in the juvenile division. In the past, the parole officers have volunteered time to do this when the case was more ipvolved. After awhile, however, the court began to demand it upon eyeryone.
SEN. MAZUREK asked if this is a statewide problem or just in Cascade County. The sponsor stated it is more prevalent in Cascade County but other counties in the state would also pick up on it.
The sponsor also noted that they are Parole/Probation Officers and the wording "parole or probation officers" is incorrect. The "or" should be eliminated from the bill.
SENATOR CRIPPEN was concerned with what the representatives of the. JP system think about the bill since none were in attendance to testify. Who would perform the service? SEN. RYAN replied the service may not be performed at all. Before, the parole officers did the service on an informal basis when the judge had a need for it~ but now 1/2 of his work is done for the JP court.
CHAIRMAN ANDERSON asked if it is meaningful wor~ that is done for the JP Courts, to which the sponsor replied he felt it was a type of delaying tactic.
REP. KEYSER stated it seemed foolish that the JP and lower courts are using the parole officers time in the first place.
REP. YARDLEY stated if the bill was passed the parole officers would not be able to do the work on a voluntary basis. The sponsor stated if the JP had a real need for help with an involved case, they probably could help out.
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 23, 1982
CHAIRMAN ANDERSON asked what is the biggest impact of the officers by just stopping to do the service. The sponsor he did not think it was worthwhile from what is achieved. belongs with the lower courts.
There were no further comments or questions on the bill.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
SENATE BILL 4
Page 12
parole replied It
The Senate Judiciary Committee went into executive session on Senate Bill 4.
SEN. CRIPPEN stated he was not comfortable in voting for this bill because the JP courts were not there to give their opinion of the bill. He was concerned with how the bill would tie into the Governor's call. Many bills could be best handled during the regular session.
~
It was asked what type of cases are handled in the lower courts. SEN. MAZUREK mentioned all misdemeanors that the maximum sentence of six months in the county jailor a fine of $500.00 would be in the lower courts. This includes OWls, criminal trespassing, bad checks, and fish and game violations.
CHAIRMAN ANDERSON asked if the bill would tie into the special session by decreasing the workload of the parole officers in order to spend more time with the inmates that would be out on parole. SEN. MAZUREK replied he thought so, or it would at least reduce the number in Cascade County.
SEN. B. BROWN felt the bill should be handled during the regular session.
SEN. O'HARA was concerned with input from the JP courts. SEN. RYAN said during his work he has had contact with them.
SEN. S. BROWN did not feel the bill violated the call of the special session. SEN. OLSON, however, thought that a bill of this magnitude should be discussed when the regular session is held.
SEN. MAZUREK asked if JP courts in other counties use this. It was replied they do, but to get a total picture of the whole state there are 14 people under supervision under JP court status, so it is very few people under supervision. This would still be eight hours minimum for presentence investigation. Many of the proposals in front of the legislature presently would have an impact
MINUTES OF THE JOINT CO~rnITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COm~ITTEE June 23, 1982
on the parole officers.
Page 13
SEN. l-1AZUREK asked what the department's position is on this bill. JACK ~1CCORMICK stated the department is looking at corrections at such a huge fashion that they didn't really have a position on this bill; however, the department has recommended this bill on previous occasions.
SEN. O'HARA asked why the bill did not pass before if it was proposed during earlier sessions. The sponsor could not remember.
SEN. MAZUREK was concerned with what the JP courts thought and wanted members of the committee to call JP members about the bill. The sponsor stated if JP's were allowed to testify by telephone he would like to be able to hear their testimony about the bill.
The meeting recessed at 4:15 pm to reconvene at the call of the chair.
Kerry Keyser;~o-Chairman ~ /tg~' ~t 01Zvt-h"~~
(xl (j lJ rr /-1
."me )'). 1 ')82
C 1 .1 ~;:~ i. r i I~ a t i on
Hiniflllm I·lt'tl i \t Tn
H.1nch 70
Dairy 16 5 71
Packing Plant 9 14 23
Equi.pment I·laint. 8 3 ) 1
Industries 10 26 36
Tag Plant 18 18
Total 63 66 129
SENATE MEMBERS
PAT M GOODOVER
CHAIRMAN
CARROLL GRAHAM
JOSEPH P MAZUREK
JESSE O·HARA
HOUSE MEMBERS
JOHN VINCENT VICE CHAIRMAN
BURT L HURWITZ
REX MANUEL
BOBBY SPILKER
~nntana 1fiesislatiue {[nun.cil ~tntl' QInpitol
~ell'nn, ~m. 59620
(406) 449·3064
TO: Joint Judiciary Committee
FROM: John MacMaster, Legal Researcher
DIANA S. DOWLING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CODE COMMISSIONER
ElEANOR ECK ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
ROBERTA MOODY
DIRECTOR. LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
ROBERT PERSON DIRECTOR. RESEARCH
SHAROLE CONNELLY DIRECTOR. ACCOUNTING DIVISION
ROBERT C. PYFER DIRECTOR. LEGAL SERVICES
RE: Design capacity and possible capacity of Montana State Prison buildings, and number of inmates, of the type the buildings were designed for, in the buildings.
DATE: June 23, 1982
The last column on the attached table is based on the prison's figures for the day Wednesday, June 23, 1982. The number of inmates in any given building can and does change from day to day, and can change quite a bit from week to week and month to month. This is due to the reclassification of inmates into other levels requiring movement of them into another type of housing. It is also due to movement of previously reclassified inmates into other types of housing when spots open up for them. This is largely the cause of the discrepancy between various studies of inmate population figures by building.
JM:hm Attachment
f r
('
f f
, ,
f •
If
f'
• I
f M
axim
urt\
.~
umbe
r o
f In
mate
s,
. o
f th
e
Ty
pe
Desi
gn
ed
fo
r,
Nu
mb
er o
f In
mate
s It
/Th
ey
C
ou
ld
be
Mad
e tO
l B
uil
din
g
____
~D_es_~ned fo~~ _
H_
old
_(b
y _!)o_~ble_Bunking)
Max
imum
2
Secu
rity
Clo
se
I an
d
Clo
se II
co
mb
ined
(s
ame
typ
e
of
bu
ild
ing
)
Un
it
A,
B,
an
d
C b
uil
din
gs
co
mb
ined
(s
ame
typ
e
of
bu
ild
ing
)
Fo
otn
ote
s:
42
p
lus
4 so
lita
ry
co
nfi
nem
en
t d
ete
nti
on
cell
s
19
2
28
8
84
p
lus
4 so
lita
ry
co
nfi
n)
men
t ty
pe d
ete
nti
on
cell
s
38
4
,."f
57
6
N8~er
t:c I
nlc
11
..e(·
o
f th
e
Ty
pe
Desi
gn
ed
fo
r,
It/T
hey
N
ow
Ho
ld
33
p
lus
4 in
so
lita
ry
co
nfi
nem
en
t cell
s
25
5
31
1
lDo
ub
le
bu
nk
ing
is
th
e o
nly
w
ay
to
mak
e a
bu
ild
ing
h
old
m
ore
in
mate
s th
an
it w
as
desig
ned
to
h
old
. D
ou
ble
b
un
kin
g is
sU
bje
ct
to b
ein
g
fou
nd
u
nco
nsti
tuti
on
al
sh
ou
ld it
be
ch
all
en
ged
in
co
urt
. K
ey
issu
es are
am
ou
nt
of
tim
e
do
ub
le-b
un
ked
in
mate
s are
all
ow
ed
o
ut
of
their
cell
s,
an
d
the q
uali
ty
an
d
ran
ge o
f serv
ices,
treatm
en
t,
an
d
facil
itie
s
av
ail
ab
le
to
them
. D
ou
ble
-bu
nk
ing
w
ou
ld at
the le
ast
sev
ere
ly ta
x o
ther
facil
itie
s,
such
as
din
ing
, la
un
dry
, an
d re
cre
ati
on
, as w
ell
as
the p
riso
n sta
ff.
2Th
is
typ
e
of
bu
ild
ing
, an
d m
ost
o
f it
s cell
s,
is
desig
ned
an
d
use
d m
ain
ly
for
tem
po
rari
ly
ho
use
d p
riso
ners
w
ith
d
iscip
lin
ary
, p
rote
cti
ve,
psy
ch
iatr
ic,
an
d
oth
er
pro
ble
ms.
It is
n
ot
for
perm
an
en
t h
ou
sin
g,
oth
er
than
o
f d
eath
ro
w
inm
ate
s.
Th
us,
th
e
nu
mb
er
of
inm
ate
s in
it
can
an
d o
ften
d
oes
flu
ctu
ate
w
idely
.
3Man
y p
riso
n p
ers
on
nel
beli
ev
e
a rio
t w
ou
ld
be cert
ain
if
th
e
max
imu
m secu
rity
b
uil
din
g
was
d
ou
ble
-bu
nk
ed
.
f
t:Kh;b;+ l1.,
UNITED STATES REPORTS VOLUME 425
CASES ADJUDGED IN
THE SUPREME COURT AT
OCTOBER TERM, 1975
OPINIONS OF MARCH 24 (CONCLUDED) THROUCH (IN PART) JUNE I, 1976
ORDERS OF MARCH 29 THROUGU MAY 27, 1976
HENRY PUTZEL, jr. REPORTER OF DECISIONS
STATE LAW LIBRARY
APR 10 1978
OF MONTANA
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: U7I
For sal. b7 lh. Superintendent 01 DocumenU. U.s. Oonmmenl Prlnllnl Olllce WIJhIDIWIl. D.C. 2Oto:!
Slock No. CJ28.O()I-oo:l9f-o I CI&aloc ~o. JU U4U
'.
, 23
S O
CT
OB
EH
T
En!
\I.
11li5
8~·1
I.,b
lls
425
U.S
.
KE
LL
EY
. ('O~nnSSIONER.
SU
FF
OL
K
CO
UN
TY
P
OL
ICE
DE
PA
RT
ME
NT
ft.
JO
HN
SO
N
CERT
IOIU
nI T
O TH
E l1
NIT
ED ~
TATES
COUR
T OF
AP
PE
ALS
FO
R TH
E S
EC
ON
n
ClR
Ct'
if
No.
i4
-12l
i9.
Ar~l
IC'd
D
I'C'l'm
l)(,f
~,
19i5
-DI'
('id
cd A
pril
5,
1976
11(,1
' sin
('r.
:I SI
:l11'
has
wid
('r
htitl
illC
' :l
Ilrl
Ilo
l:i1J
h·
djfT
l'rrn
l in
lere
s'"
in u
im!l
0~in
g-r(
'''l
rirt
h'c
r(\Z1
I1a I
ion
.. on
it,
: rm
pl()
y('~
t h:
1I\
il clc
x'~ i
n r<
'gllb
l in~
I hI
' ('i
t i-
7.,·n
l'\'·"
\:
Ht:
I'.
1'. :!
-4f,.
I b
) C
Itni
rr
of
orl!:
lniz
:l1 io
n. dr
r"~.
:li
lt!
C'o
lljm
nrnl
fo
r \:1
'" I'l
lfo
rcl'I
lwnl
l'(
'r;:(1
111 1
1'\ I;
: mli
lh'd
10
Ihl'
!'am
r. I'o
rl of
lfI
':OlIm
Iliu
n of
Ir
t:I!':
\ 1
\'1
' \'
:\ l(
iil\'
ni
l :lr
(' ~I
alc
I'll
'rr,;
10
Ir
olllo
l!'
olll
l'r
aim
s w
it 11
1 t
1('
('o~niz:1lll'r
of
Ih('
81:1
1(""
po
lirr.
I~·r
r.
'1'111
1;:.
thr
'1\\1
''-'1
i(111
i.<
nol
wh(
'1 h
rr I
Itl' ~I
alc
ran
"I'l'I:\hli~h" a
"gr
llllil
lr.
Jlll
hIic
nl
'('II"
fO
T 'h
I' ~
r('rifil'
rrt:1
l1a I
ion.
'htil
w
h('1
her
rei!\
l(IJu
lent
r:1
Il (i
I'mon
<!r
:\lr
Ihat
Ih
NI'
i"
110
rali
onal
rO
llnrr
lion
b('lw
(,{,1
I Ih
c Tl
'l!lIl
ati!l
11.
h:'l,
NI
:1"
it i;:
on
Ihl'
rOllnt~··" 1
1\1'I
hod
of o
r~ani7.inlt
ils
l'oli
rr f
nrc(
'. :'I1
1t\ t
ill'
prom
olio
n of
l'a
f('I
~' o
f pr
r:<on
" an
d \l
rn\l
I'rly
. \'1
' ~I
;"r:
!-ti
t d
\\'ll
I'tl\
l'[
:, I't
al('
or
Inra
l 1!
0\'l'r
llll1
('III
's rh
oi,'r
. 10
h:
\\'r
ils
poli,
'" II
nifo
rml''
' rf'
!I('l'
t.~
n dr
<;r!
' 10
lII
ak,'
poli
rr o
m"(
'rS
rl':l
Ililr
[(
"'ol!
niz:
,h!!
' to
lit
e p!
!hlir
o
r III
fn
..;I('
r Ih
r ('!
'pril
ell
' ,'o
rll"
Ih:
lt
.. im
il:lT
il\'
nf j
!arh
nl1r
1 ap
l"':I
r:lI
lrl'
m:!
,' il
lrll
lr:!
lr w
ilhj
n th
e !lnl~
fnrr
l' it
-rlf
. Ih
l' jn
.;lif
ir;I
Iifl
ll fo
r til
(' h:
lir-
)'I\'l
r [r
glJl
a!jll
n j . .;
lOl
If/i.
·j""I
!\,
r"'ir
lll:1
1 In
dl'f
r-!I
I r"
"pol
lll!'I
II'",
"Ia
im 1
1:\:<1
'1/ 0
11 I
h,'
lih,
'ri\
' I:I
I:,r'I
III,·
1'
fir 'h
.. FO
llrll'
('I11
h ,\l
IIrl,.
11I1
I'1I1
. I'p
. 2·
1;-2
·1)0
;. :,n
... F
:.:!
,\ ~l
li.
rr\,
l'r~
('(1
.
nF.J
\~Qt
·I"'
T,
.I.,
,lrli
\','rN
I Ih
e 01
1111
1011
of
Ih
e C
unrl
, in
w
hirh
IIt·II';J:I~.
(' .
.I .
. al
l(1 :
-:n:
w \
liT
, '''I
lin
:, )
h .. \I
·lo
l\· S
. a
llli
I'm
n:I
.. I.,
,I,L
, jll
ill",
J 1'1
1\\'1:
1.1 .•
.1.
fil.,,
J a
"IlI
l"lI
rrin
l! I
Ipin
inll.
11l
I·",
1',
:!·I!I
. :\
L\I
I
~ II' fL
, .I
, lih
l a
di~'
;"11
1 in
g op
inlo
ll,
in w
hi,'h
1I1
1.:s
:ns,
.1.,
juill
,',I,
\.
4
KE
LL
EY
I'.
JOH
NSO
N
2:l~
O
pini
ol1
or I
h('.
Co
urt
, 239
1)()'~
" p.
24
!l.
~n:"
Es~,
.T.,
lonk
no
pn
rl
in
the
ron:
<jdr
r:lli
on
or
deri
sion
of
thc
rMC
.
Pat
rick
.. 1
. S
IN'C
IIC
Y
argu
ed
the
('a 11
5('
fo
r pe
titi
oner
. W
ith
him
Oil
the
' bri
e'(
\\'a~
I101
l'ard
E.
l'ac!
1mQ
II.
Leo
nard
D.
Wrx
ler
argu
ed t
ht'
('aus
e' (o
r re
spon
dent
. W
ith
him
on
the
hrie
'( w
as R
icha
rd T
. H
ae/e
li.·
Mn.
JU
STIC
F. R
EH
NQ
l'lST
d('lin~rt'd
the
opin
ion
o( t
he
Cou
rt.
Th
e D
ish'
iet
Cou
rt (
or
the
Ea~t
('rt
I D
istr
ict
of X
ew
Yor
k ()
ri~i
llal
ly di~missed r
C's
pond
l'nt's
('o
mpl
aint
5('t
'kin
g de
'c1a
rnto
ry
and
inju
llct
iw
rl'l
id
agni
nst
a re
gula
tion
prolmlt~nh'cl
hy p
etit
.ione
r li
mit
ing
the'
Ie>l
lgth
of
a po
lice
Jlln
n'5
hnil'
. O
il r£
'spo
ndC'
nt'~
app
e'al
to
the'
Cou
rt o
f A
p}le>al~
(or
the>
~e>(
,01\
(1 C
ircu
it.
that
. jl
J(l~
llle
llt.
was
r('\
·e-r
sed.
an
el
on
rC'm
:llld
til
(' D
istr
ict
Cou
rt t
ook
te-s
timol
lY
and
th('r
l'aft
e>r ~r
nnte
d th
e' re
-liC'
( so
ught
by
resp
onde
nt.
The
C
ourt
of
;\ppC
'ats
aff
irm
NI.
and
We'
~ral1ter1
ce-r
tiora
ri.
421
F. ~.
O~i
(1
0i5
). t
o ro
n~id
<'r
the>
cons
titu
tion
al d
octr
ine
cmbo
cli(
'd
in
the'
ruli
ngs
of t
h£'
Cou
rt o
( A
ppea
ls.
We
rc\'e
-l'se
. I
III
10
il rl'~pond('
nt.'
5 Pl
'<,c
l(·C
l'~5
0r.
illd
h'id
uall
y an
d as
pl
'(,l'i
de'll
t of
thl
' :;'
"ITo
lk C
oull
ty P
:ltro
hlll'
II'5
Bl'l
H'\'o
le>l
lt A
!,5\w
in t i
nti.
hl'oll
~h t
this
art
iOIl
u nd
t'r t
he C
i\' il
H ijl
;h t.s
A
ct o
( lS
i 1.
42 1
-. ~,
C.
~ H
lS:l.
agl
\ill
~t pe
-titiO
lH'r'
s pr
cd
el~(
'SS(
)r.
th£'
('ol
1l11
1iss
ione
>r o
f ti
lt'
Suff
olk
CO
llllty
Pol
ice
J)£'
pnrt.
Il\l'I
lt..
TIl
(' CO
\llm
i~~i
oll(
'r h
nd )
lrom
ulgn
te'd
Qrd
er.
Xu,
iI
-I.
whi
ch
('~t3hlislH'd
hair-
l!TO
-
-np
plJe
3llie
' to
mal
e-lll
e'm
he'rs
of
the
polic
e fo
rce.
' T
he
·Jnm
(·.(
l·n
"ll.
Sl'
rill
ga f
iled
n br
it'f
fur
Ihe
Jllt
rrnn
liol
l:!l
Bro
th('r
ho
od \
If P
oli"
r Ol
lire
~ nl
' anr
iCII$
ru
ria
r ur
Jtin
Jt a
llirm
:1I1
rc.
IOrd
!'r
1\0.
il-
1
(19
i1),
nll1
rllrli
lllt
Ch
aplr
r 2
of I
he H
l1lt~
:ll1d
I'r
llr,'(
hm':<
. )'o
li,'"
nl'p
arll
1l1'
nt.
C(\l
1\1I
~' I
If :":
I1IT
olk,
~.
Y ..
pro\
'it\e
d:
'·2/;
!l.(
) l\l
elllh
l.'r,;
of
thr
Fll
rl'C
all
d })
C'I':
lrtll1
C'1I
1 sh
all
b(' I
Icat
:ln
d
f f
('
I"
, (
, (
240
OC
TO
BE
R T
ER
M,
19i5
Opi
nion
of
the
Cou
rt.
425
U.S
.
denl
\ nt
al\
tim
es w
hile
on
du
ty.
Mnl
e pe
rson
nel
shnl
l co
mpl
y w
ith
I he
follo
win
J,t g
room
ing
st:m
dnrd
s un
less
('x
clud
('d b
y t
he P
olic
e C
om
mi~~
ion(
'r d
ue t
o sp
('('in
l as
sign
men
t:
"2/7
5.1
HA
IR:
Hni
r sh
nll
be
n<'ll
t, rl
ron,
tri
mm
ed,
nnd
pres
ent
a I!
TOom
rt\
appc
arnn
('('.
Hai
r w
ill
not
tOU
l'h
the
rnrs
or
th
e co
llar
r"
crp!
. Ih
r r1
05('l
y ru
t hn
ir o
n th
e b
ark
of
thr
nerk
, H
air
in f
ront
w
ill h
e gr
oom
rd l
OO t
hnt
it d
oc;;
not
fnll
belo
w t
he b
nnd
of p
rop(
'rly
w
orn
hr:\ll~r:lT.
In n
o ca
se w
ill t
he b
ulk
or
leng
th o
f th
e h
air
inte
rfe
Tr
wil
h th
e p
rop
er
w('a
r of
an
y nu
thor
izrd
hr
adge
:lr.
T
he
:lcl
'rpt
:lhi
lity
of
a m
rmb
cr's
hni
r st
yle
will
he
basr
d up
on t
he
crit
eria
in
thi
;; P:
H:lI
!:T:lp
h an
d n
ot u
pon
the
styl
e in
whi
ch h
e ch
oose
s to
wea
r hi
s hn
ir.
"2,.
75.2
~IDEBl'RNS:
If :
\11
indi
\'idu
nl
choo
srs
to
wrn
r fi
de
burn~.
t hry
will
br
ncat
ly t
rim
mrd
:1Ilc
\ tn
prre
d in
the
l':l
me
m:l
Ilne
r n~
hi"
h:llT
C'lI
t. ~idrburn
s w
ill
not
rxtc
nd b
rio\
\' th
e lo
\\'c
st
par
t of
th
e I'x
tl'ri
or r
:H o
l)('n
inJ!
;, w
ill
he o
f e\
'Cll
,wid
th (
not
fi:u
rd),
an
d w
ill
(·nd
wil
" :1
rl
r:tI
H;J
\a\'(
'n h
oriz
ontn
llin
('.
"2/;;
;.:1
~lt.
·ST:
\CJI
ES:
A s
hort
an
d nr
atly
tri
mm
ed
mm
:tnr
he
may
bl'
wor
n. h
ut
shal
l no
t rx
tenc
\ O
\'rr
the
top
of t
h('
up
per
lip
or
twyo
nd I
hl'
('orn
l'rs
of t
he
mO
llth
. ·'2
/i.'U
B
EA
nn
S '
" GOAl'EF.~:
Th
e fa
re w
ill b
r rl
l'an-
!'h:w
('n
olh
rr
Ih:lI
I th
r w
('ari
ng
of
the
:\('l'
l'pt:l
bll'
mu~t
:lrh
l'
or
sill
rbur
ns.
nl':
HlI~
:ln
d I:o
nl('(
'>'
UI'
pro
hihi
t('tl
, l'x
rl'p
t tll
llt :
1 P
olkl
! :;;
mgc
'On
mny
I!:
r:lIIt
a w
ni\'(
·r f
or t
he
wra
ring
of
:\ bc
':ml
fur
ml'(
Jirn
l rr
Mon
s w
ith
thl'
appr
o\':!
1 of
tI
ll'
J'ol
ire
Com
mi!l
l<io
ller.
Whe
n a
Sur
ltco
n Il
rl'
~rril)('s
Ihnt
a
mem
brr
not
. "h
a\'I
', th
r be
nrd
will
he
kt'p
t tr
imm
rd
"Yll
lmf'l
rirn
lly
and
nil
hl':m
l hn
irs
will
be
k(')l
l Ir
imm
ell
!'O th
:!t
they
do
lin
t pr
nlru
dl'
mor
l' th
nn o
nl'·h
nlf
inrh
fro
m t
he :c
kin
!lur
far!
' of
the
f:l':
(' .
"2/;
;;.'1
\\,I(;~;
Wilt
!! o
r hn
ir p
ir(,1
'8 \
\'i\1
not
be w
orn
on d
llty
in
unif
ornl
l',
,('rp
t fo
r ro
:.:nw
tir
rr;\
~OIl
S to
('O
\'rr
nntl
lml
b:1I<
1l1rs.
,o;
or
plaY
";(':!
1 disfi~ura'ioll.
If n
ndl'r
thN
'!' r
ondi
tion
s. 1
\ w
ilt o
r h:
lir
piec
e i~
\\'
flrn
. it
will
ro
nfo
nn
to
depa
rtm
('nt
sta
ndnr
ds."
A
pp.
Si-
58.
I I
\ I
, I
, •
KE
LL
EY
v.
JOH
NS
ON
•
, 2
4(
238
Opi
nion
of
the
Co
urt
prot
ecti
on u
nder
the
Fou
rtee
nth
Am
endm
ent.
in
that
it
was
"n
ot
bas(
'd u
pon
the
gene
rall
y ac
cept
ed s
tand
ard
of
groo
min
g in
th
e co
mm
ulll
ty"
and
plac
ed
"an
un
due
rest
rict
ion"
upo
n hi
s ac
tivi
ties
the
rein
. T
he
Cou
rt o
f A
ppea
ls h
eld
that
cas
es c
hnrn
ct<>
rizin
g th
e un
jfor
n)cd
ci
yj1i
an
serv
ices
8S
upara.mi]jtor?~
H
and
sus
tain
ing
hair
reg
ulat
ions
on
that
bas
is,
wer
e no
t so
undl
y gr
ound
('d h
isto
rica
lly.
: It
said
th
at t
he f
act
that
a p
olic
e fo
rce
IS o
rgan
ized
"w
ith
a ce
ntra
lize
d ad
min
istr
atio
n an
d
a. di
scip
line
d ra
nk
and
file
for
effi
cien
t co
nduc
t of
it
s af
fair
s"
did
not
for(
'clo
se r
espo
nden
t's c
laim
, b
ut
inst
ead
bore
onl
y up
on "
the
exis
t('n
c(' o
f a
lrgi
tim
atr
stat
e in
ter
est
to b
e rc
ason
ably
ndv
anc(
'd b
y th
e re
glli
atio
n."
Dw
en
Y. B
arr
y, 4
83 F
. 2<
1 11
26.
1128
-112
9 (1
973)
. T
h('
Cou
rt
of A
ppea
ls w
ent
on
to d
ecid
e th
at "
choi
cr o
f pe
rson
al
'apl
X'n
rnnc
c IS
an
in
gr('
dien
t of
an
indi
vidu
al's
p('
rsol
~ li
bert
.Y"
3 an
d is
pr
ot('c
tect
by
t.h
e F
ourt
eent
h A
men
dm
ent.
It
fur
ther
hel
d th
at t
he p
olic
e de
part
m£'
nt h
ad
~d t
o m
ake
t.he
slig
htes
t sh
owin
g of
the
rt'l
at.io
nshi
p bl
'twcc
n it
s r£
'gul
ntio
n an
d th
e I(
'Jriti
mat
c in
tcr(
'st
it
soug
ht t
o pr
omot
c."
Id ..
at 1
130-
1131
. O
n th
e ba
sis
of t
his
rC'a
soni
ng i
t co
nclu
ded
t.hat
n('i
th('r
dis
mis
sal
nor
sUll
lmar
y jll
<lgm
(,llt.
in
th('
Dis
t.ric
t C
ourt
was
app
ropr
int<
>, s
il1('(
' th(
' d('
part
men
t "h
as t
he b
urde
ll o
f es
tabl
ishi
ng
: E.
fl.,
Str
ad
/f!/
,'.
A,l
drr
$fl
l. 4i~
F.
2d
ISS
tC'A
S 1!
'173
); G
ree
n.
wal
d ,'.
Frl
lllk.
40 A
PI'.
Dh·
. 2d
iIi
. 33
; !\
. Y
.!".
2(1
225
(19i
2). a
f!"d
w
itho
llt
opin
ion,
:t!
~.
Y.
2"
862,
2!lf
l N
. E
. 21
1 S!
I;)
(W7
3).
T
he
J)i~
1 ri
rt.
Cou
rt 's
c1i~mi~~:
l1
WM
' ba
sed
Oil
ra
!'c'S
II )
lhol
diug
th
e di
"l're
ti
ounr
y p
ow
rr
of
thl'
mil
it:l
ry
:lnd
~ntion:ll
Gun
rd
to
r('J!
ulnt
e a
sold
irr'
s h:
lir
Il'u
ltth
. SC
'(' Gi
fJll
atn.
.~i(
l ,'.
Wh
ytr
, 42
6 F
. 2d
90S
(C
A2
),
crr!
. dl
'llil'
<l.
400
P.
S.
941
(197
0):
Ra
drr
llltl
ll ,'.
I\a
ill("
41
1 F
. 2
d
1102
(C
:\21
. c'
rrt.
c1i
~lI1
i"::
1ed.
3n6
tT. 8
. !)
iG (
lOG
!)\.
l4&
1 F
. 2
d,:
lt
1130
. W
hill
' it
r(,I
'ogn
izl'd
thl
' di
,:ti
nrti
on l
ll'tw
CI'n
ci
tiz!'n
,: :11
111
IIni
forn
1l'c1
rm)llo~'N'S o
f po
lir(
' an
d f
irr
rlep
.'lrt
ml'l
lts,
the
C
ourt
of
Apl
'r:!l
;t "I
atN
I th
:lt
thr
indh
'idun
l's ~
tntu
;; d
id n
ot
bm
r on
th
e I'x
istl
'nrl
' of
hi;;
ris:
ht h
ut 0
11 w
hrl
hrr
thl
' riJ
!:ht
wns
out
wl'i
ghl'<
i b
y
:t l
egit
imat
r Il
tntr
in
lrrr
st.
ld.,
at
1130
11.9
.
.:
r r
(~
f f
, •
t'
242
OC
TO
BE
R TER~I,
1975
Opi
nion
of
the
Cou
rt
425
U.S
.
a ge
nuin
e pu
blic
nee
d fo
r th
e re
gula
tion
."
ld.,
at 1
131.
T
here
aft.
er t
he D
istr
ict
Cou
rt,
unde
r th
e co
mpu
lsio
n of
the
rem
and
from
th
e C
ou
rt o
f A
ppea
ls,
took
tes
tim
ony
on t
he
ques
tion
of
whe
ther
or
no
t th
ere
was
a.
"gen
uine
pu
blic
nee
d."
Th
e so
le w
itne
ss w
as t
he
Dep
uty
Com
m
issi
oner
of
the
Suf
folk
Cou
nty
Pol
ice
Dep
artm
ent,
pet
.iti
oner
's s
ubor
dina
te,
who
tes
tifi
ed a
s to
the
pol
ice
depa
rt
mrn
t's
conc
ern
for
the
saf
v of
the
at
rolm
he
ne
e or
som
e st
a.nd
ards
of
unif
orm
ity
in a
ppea
ranc
e!
TIH
' D
istr
ict
Cou
rt.
h('ld
th
at "
[n]o
pro
of"
was
off
ered
to
supp
ort
nny
cbim
of
the
need
for
the
pro
tect
ion
of t
he
polic
e of
fice
r, a.
nd
that
whi
le "
prop
er g
room
ing"
is
an
ingr
edie
nt
of
a go
od
poli
ce
depa
rtm
ent's
es
prit
de
• O
n rr
m:m
d. t
he
rorn
pb
int
W:\
5 ap
prop
riat
ely
amen
ded
to r
efle
ct
1 hl'
in
teri
m
rrnl
lmbc
ring
:m
d m
odif
iC'a
tion
of
the
hfli
r-gr
oom
ing
rrJ:
uhtj
on.
Th
e fo
rmrr
sec
tion
s 2/
75.0
-2/7
5.3,
see
n.
I, '
"pT
a, w
ere
moc
hfil'
d to
pro
drl
e as
fol
low
::;:
'·:'\[
l'mbl
'r,:
of I
hr
Fo
rer
will
b
e ne
at a
mI
.. 11':1
11
nt a
ll ti
ml's
whi
le
on
dtll~·.
:'\b
le p
r,""
olln
f'l
will
co
mpl
y w
ith
the
follo
win
g J:
room
ing
q~lI
d:\T
(I~
tllllr,.~
rxd
url
rd b
y th
l' P
olic
e C
omm
i1'.c
ionl
'r du
e to
!'p
rcia
l :l
. ..; .... jl!
nmf't
\!:.
:
G "';\. Ih
ir
will
bl
' nf
'a!.
rl
f':lll
. tri
mnl
oCl
nnd
prc.
c;en
t. a
~roo
med
:tl'r
"ar:
lllr
('
Hai
r w
ill
1I0t
~o
helo
w
the
car~
o
r th
e ro
llnr
exc
ept
Ih('
r·\n.
.;('\Y
rt
lt
hai
r on
Ih
r hn
l'k
of
thl'
nrr
k.
Pon
,·
tail:
:; ar
e pr
ohih
j,.·
d.
In 1
10 ":
I~r
will
Ih
r. h
ulk
or Ir
n~lh
of
thl'
hnir
int
erfe
re
wjl
h II
." l
'rn
prr
W(,:
lr of
:ln
~· :
1II1
horiz
('(1
hrnt
iltf
':lr.
'.1
' If
~ m
rmh
rr "
hoo~ri
l 10
W
('ar
sirl
rhur
n",
thrr
will
bl'
lle
atl
D\·
lrimlJII
~1
~jdr
hllr
n,:
will
nol
('x
trll
d he
low
th
e lo
we'S
! p
art
of t
he
ear.
~l
(lt-
hurl
\~ ~h:lIl
not
hI'
flar
r'!l hr
~·on
d 2
" in
wid
th a
nd w
ill e
nd w
ith
~ r\(':IIl-~h:l\"rn
hori
zont
al l
illr
. f:
illrb
llrn!
l l'h
nll
no
t co
nne(
't. w
ith
the
•
ml1
..;t:w
h".
D ·
"C'.
:\
n":ll
\\"
I rim
m('d
1I
l1l~
larh
l'
111:
1\'
lw
wor
n."
Rul
e'!'
hnd
l'T1,...·dllr'·~.
I'oli(
'('
Tlt
'Jla
rtm
rnt,
('lI
llll
ly
of ~
llfTolk,
N.
Y.,
2/,2
.16
(h ..
r,·il
l:lf
t,·r
Hul
..,.
nlll\
I'r
orrr
lm('
!I).
~.·,·I jn
n-:.
!/il
l4-2
/7.'i
.. 'i.
1'1'
1'
n.
1, '
l/pTa
, W
('rl'
sim
ply
rt'n
llm
brrr
o :.
~
:.!. :
.!.lfi
. I'l
Ihth
j,.:j
nlli
' J)
:md
E. n
'''I
l('c
th·r
l~·.
}w
\lll
ty C
lIllIl
Ili!'.
..:iO
llt'r
H.IJ
'I'·"
; I,
·.tim
llIlY
111
1 rl
'man
rl W
:l" r
lirr
rlrd
to
tht
, rt
'~lI
lalioll
nil
mod
ifir
·,1.
For
prr
. ..;rn
t (l
IlT
PO
S('
:oI,
tI
lt, dit
Trrr
nc~
aTe
irnl
ll:l
trri
:ll.
.
f I
\,
,,
: ...
t, . '.
,-
~. ',',
I t
t ,
• •
I
241
KE
LL
EY
t'.
JO
HN
SO
N
238
Opi
nion
of
the.
Cou
rt
corp
s.
pcti
tiQ
ucr·
s sf
? Il
th re
i s d
id lH~t
@E
'hl>
];sh
?
p!!b
lic
need
bec
ause
the
y ul
tim
atel
y ]:g
du"g
g tg
"[
u]n
ifo
rmit
y
l2.r
uni
form
ity'
s sa
ke."
5 T
he
Dis
tric
t C
ourt
gra
nted
th
e
G l1
1ust
r:lt
ing
one
s.'\f
rty
prob
lem
. R
np
p s
how
ed
tbnt
nn
~nt
coul
d th
row
nn
of
fice
r of
f bn
lnnc
e bv
gr
abbi
ng
hi;;
hnir
fr
om
tbe
rrn
r an
d le
\'er
ill~
ng
ains
t th
e at
rolm
nn'~
..
Aft
er n
otin
g th
at
t. le
pr
ohi
ltlO
n ng
ains
t "p
onyt
ail;
;"
Wfll
I th
us
a p
rop
er
one,
th
e D
istr
ict
Cou
rt s
tnte
d:
rrit
iln
trd
rx
cr
t. as
it
in
te
ro
er
,,"ro
r of
an
y
alit
lo
med
lC
':ldc
:ear
.' T
hu
s th
e r~
lIln
tion
wou
ld p
enn
it b
ulk
y a
nd
le
nl!:
lhy
hnir
on
the
top
of
the
hror
l.
thrr
rby
pr
e:::
rnti
ng
the
ver
y
pro
hlr
m
that
w
ns
drm
on
strn
trd
. In
th
e rr
mai
ning
f:
ubdi
\"is
ions
. si
drlm
rns.
mus
tnch
rs a
nd
witt
s fi
re r
r~ulatrd :
l1ld
bea
rd!:
nre
bar
red
. N
o pr
oof
was
otT
rred
10
sup
port
an
y c
!:lim
of
the
nrr
o f
or t
he
pro
te
('tio
n of
th
r po
lice
off
i('e
r in
th
e pr
rtin
rnt.
rrgulation~."
Pet
. fo
r C
ert.
ia.
Th
l' D
islr
irt
('O
urI
'll f
iJ\(
lin·
~,;
wit
h rr
"pr(
't to
thl
' rl
'l:tt
ioll
ship
bctw~n
Illo
ra Il
' :ln
el I!:
room
in~
sl:l1
lda
rrlll
n re
as
foll
ows:
"T
he
hiJ:
h m
ornl
<l
of p
olil
'r p
er~nnel
is
a m
ntt
rr o
f gr
n\"e
con
cr
m
10
thr
drp
nrl
ml'
nt.
l'
rop
t'r
I/:ro
nmin
l!:
i"
nll
ingr
edie
nt
of
thl'
espr
it.
ele
corp
.;; o
f fI
~ood I:t
w e
nfor
rrtn
cnt
orgn
niza
tion
. T
hr
self
l'!
'trrl
ll e
:rnr
mtN
i ill
th
r in
di\'i
cluf
ll an
d t
hr
rl'<'
}1cc
t ('o
mm
:lnd
rd f
rom
ih
r pl
lhli
l' it
!'en
·r!'
pnl
lllo
tr:i
(,i
rl t
hr
l'mrirnl'~·
of
the
orga
niz:
ltio
n's
wor
k.
lIow
t'\·t
'r.
wit
h th
e rX
t'rpt
ioll
of
lhr
Itrn
eral
rr.
quir
rmf'n
t. th
nt
hair
. si
drbu
rn;:
an
d m
u,>
tarh
es l~
nrnt
ly t
rim
med
. th
r r~ulations d
o no
t· pr
ovid
e standnrd~
for
pro
prr
gro
omin
l!:.
Hfl
thf'r
. th
e st
:lnd
:lfd
g do
nol
hinl
t m
orr
th
nn
drm
nnd
unif
orm
ity.
t·
nif
orw
ity
for
uni
form
it
y's
sak
e do
rll
not
esb
bli
sh a
pu
hlir
. n(
'C(\.
D
efen
dan
t of
frrr
o no
pr
oof
that
br
flrd
~. go
n\('
e~.
hflir
I't
ylC
!l th
at r
xtc
nd
bel
ow
the
rMS
or
roll
ar.
or
!'itlrhurn~
that
('x
trnd
hf'l
ow t
h('
low(':;
Of.
pn
rt o
f th
e rn
r o
r bc
yond
2"
in
wid
t h
nnd
do
no
t en
d w
it h
1\
e1c,
,\n ... c
;h,w
rn
hori
zo
ntnl
Ii
n('
:.tT
rrt.
thr
mor
alr
of t
h('
ml'm
hf'r
s of
th
e po
lice
df'
pnrt
tn
f'nt
or
l':\
nl
the
di.c
rt'~
p('(
't
of
thr
publ
ic."
Id
., n
t in
-Sa.
Whi
lr
noti
ng
Rap
p's
t~tilllon~·
tlm
t lII~iformit,·
wpc
rc
olljr
('(1
for
iden
tifi
cnti
on,
the
Dis
trir
t C
ou
rt s
tatr
o:
"It
wou
ld n
ppr:
lr.
how
e\'e
r,
-
•
*-
f
" ('
I
f r
, ,
244
OC
TO
mm
TIm
:\l,
19i
5
Opi
nion
of
the
C'o
urt
425
U.S
,
reli
d
prny
('d
for
by
re
spon
dent
, an
d on
pe
titi
oner
's
app(
'al
that
ju
dg
men
t w
as a
ffir
med
wit
hout
opi
nion
by
th
e C
ou
rt o
f A
pp('a
ls.
508
F.
2d 8
36.
II
Sec
tion
1 o
f th
e F
ourt
<-(
'nth
All
l('n
dmrn
t to
th
e U
nite
d S
tate
s C
onst
itut
ion
prov
id('s
in
pert
inen
t p
art:
"~o
~tAt
c ::h
all
. .
. .de
prh·
c an
y pe
rson
of
lif
e,
lib(
'rty
. o
r pr
op('
rty,
wit
hout
due
pro
cess
of
law
." --
Thi
:: s
t.'ct
ion
affo
rds
no
t on
ly a
pr
oced
ural
gua
rant
ee
agai
nst
tht'
r]l'p
rh'a
tiol
l o
f "l
ibcr
ty."
bu
t li
kew
ise
pro
tl'c
ts :
:ub
stan
tiw
asp
('ct
s of
lib
('rty
aga
inst
unc
onst
itu
tion
al
rest
rict
ions
hy
th
t' S
t.at(
'. B
oard
of
Reg
en.ts
v.
R
oth.
40~ 1
'. S.
;;()
4. ;
);2
f Ifl
i2):
Gri
swol
d v.
Con
nect
icut
, a~
l l'.
R 4
;!1.
;'>0
2 (l
06
:n
(\\'
HIT
F.,
.T..
conc
urri
ng).
T
he
"lih
erty
" in
trr(
'st
clai
mrd
hy
r('s
ponu
ellt
her
e, o
f ro
ursl
'. is
dis
till
~uis
hahl
r fr
om t
he i
ntrl
'rst
s Pl
'Otl'
ctec
l b
y
till
' C
Ollr
t in
Rill
' ".
Wad
C'.
410
r. S
. 11
3 (I
Oi3
): E
iscl
l,r
:tfld
t Y
, B
aird
. 40
;'; F
. ~. 4
38 (
10
;2);
Stn
llic
y Y
. Il
lil/o
is,
·HI.;
{'
, S
. (;
4.;
(Hli2
):
Gri.
t;ll'o
ld "
. C
(ll/lI
et·ti
cut .
. <;u
pra;
n
il"
.'fl
ycr
", .
\'c[,
rn.r
:/m.
262
p'.
,~. :
~on
(02
3).
E
ach
of
thos
l' ra
s('s
i",
'oh
wl
a su
bsta
ntia
l cl
nim
of infrill~rm('nt
on t
h('
indi
\'idl
lal's
frr
l'r]o
m o
f ch
oice
wit
h rrs
\>('C
't. to
rer
tn
in
basi
c Il
latt
l'rs
of
pror
r('n
tiol
l. I
Ilnr
riag
r. a
nd
fnm
ily
lift',
B
ut.
whr
tiH
'r t
ill'
riti7.
C~nry
at, Int
'~c h
as s
onl<
' so
rt o
f "I
ihl'r
ty'"
ill
tl'r(
'st
wit.
hin
the
Fou
rt('
rnth
Am
endm
ent
in
Illa
ttt'r
s o
f )l
l'l'so
nnl
npp(
'arn
nc('
is n
qll
('sti
on o
n w
hich
th
is C
ou
rt's
rns
('s o
fTl'r
lit
t1r,
if
nny,
gui
danc
e.
,,~c
can,
Il
l'\·f
'rtlw
\('s
s. a
SSltl
llC n
il
nffi
rmat
h'('
Rn
SW
('f
fOI'
pllr
l'osc
s of
t11
'('idi
l\~ t
his
cas<
" h(
'('n
u~ w
c fi
nn
thnt
ns.
c;lIm
ptio
ll in~
lIfIi(
'ient
tn (
'3rr
y th
(' d
ny f
or r
('sp
ondr
nt's
cln
im.
n('~JlonrJ('nt h
as s
()uf1
;h t
th!'
prot
<'c
tion
· of
thr.
F
ou
r-
th:\
t th~
unif
orm
(is
. .. u!'d
h~'
thl'
dep,1ftm~nt) s
uppl
ies
the
ll~cC1
'S.'ry
itl
l'lIt
iliC'
s t io
n fo
r po
lice
wor
k,"
I I
\
U
,~'j.i
;: .
. ~ .
. . "
~ , ,
.. " ...
~
, .i
'
. ,
..
I I
• I
I'
• •
{ K
EL
LE
Y v
. JO
HN
SON
24
5
238
Opi
nion
of
the
Cou
rt
teen
th A
men
dmen
t, n
ot
as a
mem
ber
of t
he
citi
zenr
y at
larg
e, b
ut
on t
he
cont
rary
as
an e
mpl
oyee
of
the
poli
ce
dep
artm
ent
of S
uffo
lk C
ount
y, a
sub
divi
sion
of
the
Sta
te
of N
ew Y
ork.
W
hile
th
e C
ou
rt o
f A
ppea
ls m
ade
pass
ing
refe
renc
e to
thi
s di
stin
ctio
n, i
t w
as t
her
eaft
er a
pp
aren
tly
ig
nore
d.
We
thin
k,
how
ever
, it
is
hi
ghly
si
gnif
ican
t.
In P
icke
ring
v,
Boa
rd 0
/ E
duca
tion
, 39
1 U
. S.
563
, 56
8 (1
968)
, af
ter
noti
ng t
hat
sta
te e
mpl
oym
ent
may
no
t b
e co
ndit
ione
d on
th
e re
linq
uish
men
t o
f F
irst
Am
endm
ent
righ
ts,
the
Co
urt
sta
ted
th
at "
[alt
th
e sa
me
tim
e it
can
n
ot
be g
ains
aid
that
th
e S
tate
has
int
eres
ts a
s an
em
pl
oyer
in
re
gula
ting
th
e sp
eech
of
its
em
ploy
ees
that
di
ffer
sig
nifi
cant
ly f
rom
tho
se i
t po
sses
ses
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith
regu
lati
on o
f th
e sp
eech
of
the
citi
zenr
y in
gen
eral
."
Mo
re
rece
ntly
, w
e h
ave
sust
aine
d co
mpr
ehen
sive
an
d
sub
stan
tial
re
stri
ctio
ns
upon
ac
tivi
ties
of
bo
th
fede
ral
and
sta
t~ e
mpl
oyee
s ly
ing
at
the
core
of
the
Fir
st A
men
dm
ent.
C
SC
v.
Lct
ter
Car
ricr
s,
413
U.
S. 5
48
(197
3);
Bro
adri
ck v
. O
klah
oma,
413
U.
S. 6
01
(197
3),
If s
uch
stat
e r(
'gul
atio
ns m
ay s
urvi
ve c
hall
enge
s ba
sed
on
the
expl
icit
lan
guag
e of
th
e F
irst
Am
endm
ent,
the
re i
s su
rely
ev
cn
mor
e ro
om
fbr
rest
rict
ive
regu
latI
ons
of
stat
e em
ploy
ces
whe
re t
he c
laim
im
plic
ates
onl
y th
e m
ore
gen
eral
con
tour
s of
th
e su
bsta
ntiv
e li
bert
y in
terc
st p
rote
cted
b
y t,
he F
ou
rtee
nth
Am
endm
ent,
T
he
hnir
-lcn
glh
rcgu
lat.i
on h
ere
touc
hes
res
nd
ent
as
an.
emp
0
ce 0
·l
e co
un
t' n
n m
ore
arti
cula
rl
po
Ice
man
. R
espo
nden
t's
empl
oyer
has
, in
w
ith
its
wel
l-es
tabl
ishe
d d
uty
to
kce
th
e m
'ri
ad d
eman
ds u
>on
t
(' m
em
rs o
f e,
du
ti('
s w
,ich
hav
e no
co
un
terp
art
wit
h re
spec
t to
th
e p
ub
hc
at
larg
e,
Res
pond
ent
mu
st w
ear
a st
and
ard
uni
fo
rm,
spec
ific
in
each
det
ail.
' W
hen
in u
nifo
rm h
e m~st
'Ru
les
:md
Pro
cedu
res
4/1
.0-4
/1.3
.
•
r ,
(W
I I
( I
I
246
OC
TO
BE
R TEn
~l,
19i5
Opi
nion
of
thc
Cou
rt.
425
U.S
.
saill
tc t
he f
lag.
: H
e Il
lay
no
t ta
ke a
ll a
ctiv
e ro
le i
n lo
cal
)olit
-ica}
a.fl
'airs
by
way
of
beIn
g a
par
ty d
eleg
ate
or c
on-
t.rib
utin
or
so
)0 1
lca
co
n ·1'
1 ut
lOllS
" e
may
.l!
ot
smok
e in
pu
blic
.~
All
of t
hese
an
d ot
her
regu
la
tion
s In
of
the
Suf
folk
Cou
nty
Pol
ice
Dep
artm
ent
infr
inge
on
res
pond
ell t
's f
reed
om
of c
hoic
e in
pe
rson
al m
atte
rs,
and
it w
as a
pp
aren
tly
the
vie
w o
f th
e C
ourt
of
App
eals
th
at t
he
burd
en i
s on
the
Sta
te t
o pr
o .... e
a "
genu
ine
publ
ic
need
" fo
r ea
ch a
nd
eve
ry o
ne o
f th
ese
regu
lati
ons.
T
his
"iew
was
bas~d u
pon
the
Cou
rt o
f A
ppea
ls'
rea
soni
ng t
hat
tht
' "u
niqu
e ju
dici
al d
efer
ence
" ac
cord
ed b
y th
e ju
dici
ary
to r
egul
atio
n of
mem
bers
of
the
mil
itar
y w
as
inap
plic
able
' be
caus
e th
ere
was
no
hist
·ori
cal
or f
unct
iona
l ju
st.if
icat
ion
for
the'
ch
arac
te'ri
zati
on
of
the
poli
ce
as
·~nr
a-mi
lita
ry."
B
ut
the
eonc
lusi
on
that
su
ch
case
s ar
c in
app~
site
. ho
we\
'er
corr
ect,
in
no w
ay d
etra
ct.s
fro
m
the
dder
ellc
e du
e S
uffo
lk C
ount
y's
choi
ce o
f an
org
aniz
ati
onal
st
ruct
ur('
fo
r it.
s po
lice
fo
rce.
H
ere
the
coun
ty
has
chos
en a
mod
e of
org
aniz
atio
n w
hich
it
undo
ubte
dly
d{'e
llls
the
mO!
-lt. e
ffic
ient
in
enab
ling
its
pol
ice
to c
arry
ou
t th
e du
ti('
s as
sign
ed t
o th
em u
nder
st.a
te a
nd l
ocal
law
. l1
Suc
h a
('hoi
ce n
ec('s
sari
Iy g
ives
\';'e
'igh
t to
the
ove
rall
nee
d fo
r di
scip
linC
'. ('s
prit.
de
rorJ
l!-l,
and
1IIli
form
it.y.
T
h('
CO
\lllty
'!-l
choi
r('
of
an
orga
niza
tion
al
stru
ctur
e,
t.hrr
pfor
e'. do
('~
not
d,.P
PIH
! fo
r it
s co
nsti
ttlt
.iona
l va
lidi
ty
on
nny
rioc
trill
(, o
f hi
~tor
irnl
pre
srri
ptio
n.
Nor
, in
deed
, ha
s r('
~polld
('nt.
I1l:H
!C' a
ny s
He'h
cla
im.
His
arg
umen
t doe
s
: ld
., 6/
'2.2
. S
id .•
2/2
.. ".
'ld
., 2
/.'U
I" ~('
c. c.
g.,
id ..
2/14
.0 (
I "0
1. (
Cod
n of
Elh
irs)
. II T
ill' C
ourl
of
:\pp(,
:lL~
ilsr
lf f
onnd
Ihl
lt "'
hill'
Ihe
rc W
:lS n
o de
sire
01
1 !h
e p:
lrt
of 1
0(':11
go
vrrn
ml'n
ls l
ike
Su/T
olk
Cou
nly
10
rrc:
ltc
11 "m
ilit
ary
for"
e:'
"[tJ
hc
usc
of
surh
or
jt:ln
iznt
ion
c\'o
l\'C
d ns
a
pra
rtir
fli
aa
mill
i.d
rati
l"·
.~olul
io/l .... "
483
F. 2
d, n
t 11
28-1
129
I (,lIlph:l~i;: nd
dl:'d
). .
f I ,
-' ii·'
...
' :i.
. :.,:
~ -,1
• I
I I
I •
, 24
1 K
EL
LE
Y v
. ,1
0HN
SO
N
238
Opi
nion
of
the
Cou
rt
no
t ch
alle
nge
the
cons
titu
tion
alit
y of
the
org
aniz
atio
nal
stru
ctur
e, b
ut
mer
ely
asse
rts
that
t.h
e pr
esen
t ha
ir-l
engt
h re
gula
tion
in
frin
ges
his
asse
rted
li
bert
y in
tere
st u
nder
th
e F
ou
rtee
nth
Am
endm
ent.
W
e be
liev
e, h
owev
er,
that
th
e ha
ir-l
engt
h re
gula
tion
can
no
t be
vie
wed
in
isol
atio
n,
bu
t m
ust
be
rath
er c
onsi
dere
d in
the
con
text
. of
the
coun
ty
's c
hose
n m
ode
of o
rgan
izat
ion
for
its
poli
ce f
orce
. T
he
prom
otio
n of
saf
ety
of
pers
ons
and
prop
erty
is
unqu
esti
onab
ly a
t th
e co
re o
f th
e S
tate
's p
olic
e po
wer
, aY
{d
virt
uall
y al
l st
.ate
and
loc
al g
over
nmen
ts e
mpl
oy a
lUii
fQrm
ed p
olic
e fo
rce
to a
id i
n th
e ac
com
plis
hmen
t of
thl!o
t pu
rpos
e.
Cho
ice
of o
rgan
izat
ion,
dre
ss.
and
equ
ipm
ent
for
law
enf
orce
men
t. p
erso
nnel
is
a de
cisi
on e
ntit
led
to t
h
.me
sort
of
pres
um
tlOn
of
Ie
Isla
b\'e
val
id'
are
stat
e ch
oice
s (e
slgn
ed t
o pr
omot
e ot
her
aim
s w
ithi
n th
e co
gniz
ance
of
the
Sta
te's
pO
hce
pow
er.
Day
-Bri
te L
ight
in
g, /
l1C
. v.
Mis
sour
i, 34
2 U
. S.
421
,423
(19
52);
Pri7
u;e
v.
M a
ssac
hw;e
tts,
321
U.
S. 1
58,
168-
1iO
(19
44);
Ols
en v
. .V
ebra
ska,
313
U.
S. 2
36
,24
6-2
4;
(194
1).
Hav
ing
reco
gni
zed
in
ot.h
er ro
nt~x
ts
the
wid
e la
titu
de a
ccor
ded
the
gove
rnm
ent.
ill
t.he
"dis
patc
h of
it.s
ow
n in
tern
al a
ffai
rs,"
C
afet
eria
Wor
kers
v.
lll'r
t..lr
oy,
367
U.
S. 8
86,
896
(196
1),
we
t.hin
k S
uffo
lk
Cou
nty'
s po
lice
re
gula
tion
s in
volv
ed
here
arc
ent
itle
d to
sim
ilar
wei
ght.
T
hu
s th
e qu
esti
on
is l
Iot·,
n!l
the
Co
urt
of
:\pp<
.>al
s cO
llcch
'ed
it. t
o be
, w
heth
er
the
Stnt
.e c
an "
esta
hlis
h" a
"gC
'nui
ne p
ubli
c ne
ed"
for
the
spec
ific
reg
ulat
ion.
It.
is w
heth
er r
espo
nden
t ca
n de
mon
st
rate
th
at t
here
is
no r
atio
nal
conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
the
regu
lat.i
oll,
bnse
d as
it
is o
n th
e ro
un
ty's
met
hod
of o
rga
nizi
ng
it·s
poli
ce
forc
e.
nnd
the
prom
otio
n of
saf
ety
of
pers
ons
and
prop
erty
. U
llit
ed P
ubli
c fJ
'orA
'ers
v.
Mit
ch
ell,
330
U.
S. i
5.
100-
101
(Hl4
i);
Jaco
bson
v.
Mas
sach
use
tts,
10;
U. S
. 11
,30-
31. 3
5-3
; (1
905)
. 'V
e th
ink
the
answ
er h
ere
is s
o cl
ear
that
the
Dis
tric
t C
ou
rt w
as q
uite
rig
ht
in t
he f
irst
ins
ta.n
ce t
o h
ave
dis-
•
r f
( ,
r f
f f
248
OC
TO
BE
R T
ER
M,
1975
Opi
nion
or
the
Cou
rt
425
U.S
.
mis
sed
resp
onde
nt's
co
mpl
aint
. N
eith
er
this
C
ourt
, th
e C
ourt
of
A
ppea
ls,
nor
the
Dis
tric
t C
ourt
is
in
a
posi
tion
to
wei
gh t
he p
olic
y ar
gum
ents
in
favo
r of
and
ag
ains
t a
rule
reg
ulat
ing
hair
styl
es a
s a
part
of
regu
la
tion
s go
\"er
ning
a u
nifo
rmed
civ
ilia
n se
rvic
e.
The
con
sti
tuti
onal
iss
ue t
o be
dec
ided
by
thes
e co
urts
is
whe
ther
pe
titi
oner
's d
eter
min
atio
n th
at s
uch
regu
lati
ons
shou
ld b
e en
act~
d is
so
irra
tion
al
that
it
may
be
bran
ded
"arb
itr
ary,
" an
d th
eref
ore
a de
priv
atio
n of
res
pond
ent's
"Ji
ber
ty"
inte
r('s
t in
fr
eedo
m
to c
hoos
e hi
s ow
n ha
irst
yle.
W
illia
mso
n v.
Le
e O
ptic
al C
o.,
348
U.
S. 4
83,
487-
488
(19.
55).
T
he o
verw
helm
ing
maj
orit
y of
sta
te a
nd l
ocal
po
lice
of t
he p
rese
nt d
ay a
re u
nifo
rmed
. T
his
fact
it
self
tes
tifi
es t
o th
e re
cogn
itio
n by
tho
se w
ho d
irec
t th
ose
opcr
atio
ns,
and
by t
he p
eopl
e of
the
Sta
tes
and
loca
liti
es
who
dir
ectl
y or
ind
irec
tly
choo
se s
uch
pers
ons,
th
at s
im
ilar
ity
in a
ppea
ranc
e of
pol
ice
offic
ers
is d
esir
able
. T
his
choi
ce m
ay b
e ba
sed
on a
des
ire
to m
ake
polic
e of
fice
rs
read
ily
r('c
ogni
zabl
e to
the
mem
bers
of
the
publ
ic,
or a
de
5ire
for
the
esp
rit
de c
orps
whi
ch s
uch
sim
ilar
ity
is f
elt
to i
n('u
lcat
~ w
ithi
n th
e po
lice
fore
e it
self
. E
ithe
r on
e is
a
suff
icie
ntly
rat
iona
l ju
stif
icat
ion
for
regu
lati
ons
so a
s to
de
feat
re
spon
dent
's
clai
m
base
d on
th
e li
bert
y gu
aran
tee
of t
he F
ourt
eent
h A
men
dmen
t. T
he C
ourt
of
App
eals
rel
ied
on G
arri
ty v
. N
ew J
erse
y,
385
U.
S. 4
03 (
1007
), a
nd a
miC
1ls
in i
ts b
rief
in
supp
ort
of r
espo
nden
t el
abor
ates
an
argu
men
t ba
sed
011
the
lan
guag
e in
Gar
rity
th
at "
poli
cem
en,
like
tea
cher
s an
d la
w
y('rs
, ar
e no
t re
lega
ted
to
n w
at.e
red-
dow
n vc
rsio
l\
of
cons
titu
tion
al r
ight
s."
Id.,
at 5
00.
Gar
rity
, of
cou
rse,
im
'olv
cd t
hr.
prot
ecti
ons
affo
rded
by
the
Fif
th A
men
dm
ent
to t
he U
nite
d S
tate
s C
onsH
tuti
on a
s m
ade
appl
ica
ble
to t
he S
taw
s by
the
Fou
rtee
nth
Am
endm
ent.
Mal
lo
y \'.
Hog
an,
378
P.
S. 1
(19
64).
C
erta
inly
its
lang
llng
e ca
nnot
be
take
n to
sug
gest
th
at t
he c
laim
of
a m
embe
r
, ;~1.'"
.. J!1
~
, ';
~ .,':
~' .
,
t .
l
r \ (
r f"
f
NI"
KE
LL
EY
v.
JOH
~ON ,
f' ..
.. J(
238
lVlA
nslu
LL,
J.,
diss
enti
ng
of
a un
ifor
med
ci
vili
an
sen'
ice
base
d on
th
e "l
iber
ty"
inte
rest
pro
tect
ed b
y th
e F
ourt
eent
h A
men
dmen
t m
ust
nece
ssar
ily
be
trea
ted
for
cons
titu
tion
al
purp
oses
th
e sa
me
as
a si
mil
ar c
laim
b
y a
. m
embe
r of
th
e ge
nera
l pu
blic
. T
he
regu
lati
on
chal
leng
ed
here
di
d n
ot
viol
ate
any
righ
t gu
aran
teed
re
spon
dent
by
th
e F
ourt
eent
h A
men
dmen
t to
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Con
stit
utio
n, a
nd t
he
Cou
rt o
f A
ppea
ls w
as
ther
efor
e w
rong
in
reve
rsin
g th
e D
istr
ict
Cou
rt's
ori
gina
l ju
dgm
ent
dism
issi
ng t
he
acti
on.
The
jud
gmen
t of
the
Cou
rt o
f A
ppea
ls is
R
ever
sed.
l\IR
. Jt
'ST
ICi:
STEV
ENS
took
no
par
t in
the
con
side
rati
on
or d
ecis
ion
of t
his
case
.
l\IR
. JU
STIC
E P
OW
F.L
L,
conc
urri
ng.
I co
ncur
in
t.h
e op
inio
n oC
t,h
e C
ourt
and
w
rite
to
m
ake
clra
r t.h
at,
cont
rary
to
th
e co
ncer
n ex
pres
sed
in
t.he
disS
<'nt
, I
find
no
nega
tive
im
plic
atio
n in
the
opi
nion
w
it.h
resp
ect
to a
Hbe
rty
intr
rest
wit
hin
the
Fou
rtee
nth
Am
endm
ent
as t
o m
atte
rs o
f pe
rson
al n
ppea
ranc
e.
See
Poe
,'.
Fll
mal
l, 36
7 U
. S
. 4!
l7,
541-
543
(106
1)
(Har
lan,
J.
, di
ssen
ting
).
Whe
n th
e S
tate
has
an
inte
rest
in
regu
la
ting
on(
's p
erso
nnl
appc
.'nrn
nce.
as
it. r
E'rt
ninl
y do
cs i
n th
is
rusc
. th
l'r('
mll
st h
l' n
wei
ghin
g of
th
e dr
grec
of
infr
inge
lll(
'nt
of t
he i
ndh'
idun
l's l
ibrr
ty i
ntc.
'rest
. ag
ains
t th
e Ilt
'ecl
for
t.he
r('g
ulnt
ion.
T
his
pror
css
of a
naly
sis
just
ifie
s th
r np
plic
ntio
n of
a r
en~ollab]e
regu
lnti
on t
o a
unif
orm
ed
polic
e C
oree
th
at w
ould
be
nn
impe
rmis
sibl
e in
trus
ion
upon
lib
('rty
in
a di
ffer
ent.
ron
text
.
~In .
.In:
nCE
1\
IAR
slJ.
\LL
, w
ith
who
m
MR
. Je
sTIC
E
BIU~NNAN jo
ins,
dis
sent
ing.
The
('o
urt
tod
ay u
phol
ds t
ht'
cons
titu
t.io
nali
ty o
f S
uf
folk
Cou
nty'
s rr
guln
tion
lim
itil
lg t
he l
rngt
h of
a p
olic
e-
,
( r
( I
• ,
I ,
2.;0
O
CT
OR
F.R
TEn~I, 19
;5
1\hll~II.\T.L,
,T.,
di. ... "
'cllli
llg
425
U.S
,
llla
n'~
hair
. W
hile
t.hC
' C
ourt
onl
y as
sum
es f
or p
urpo
ses
of i
t~ o
pini
on t
hnt.
:"ih
C' '
citi
zcn
ryat
In.rg~
has
som
e so
rt
of
'\ilw
l't,y
' il1
t.('l'
~~t.
wit
hin
t.he
J"b\
,~tc
cilt
h A
men
dmel
lt
.•
, I
', .•
in m
ar,tr
l'::-
of
11I'1
':-lIl
Ial
a\lp
('a
rnllt
'(··
. ' ..
," a
/lte
;: a
t '24
4, I
th
ink
it.
clC
'ar
t,h.at<'lho/i~olll'tc('lIth
Alt1
flldm
C'll
t do
cs
illc\
t'('(l
Pl'o
tC'o
t ri~
~il{$t
, com\lr('h(w~i"~
I:~~ttintion o
f .w
hat
riti7
.<'ll
s m
n.y
or
ina
)' no~
w('a
r> '~
~A';C1
.. t fin
ct.
t·hilt,
tH
e rn
.tiol
lnlC
's of
T('n
'd
by"
th~~
fcOl
lft
to
jlls
tify
' n,e
rC
'gll
bti
on
in
th
is c*
';irc
; :hl
~l\f
fici
cnt.
to·
'cl\-
moJ
1strn
tc
its
. t.··
':'. "
cons
titu
tion
alit
y, ..
Aee
ol'd
illgl
y, I
tcs
pcct
full
y di
sscn
t,.
I
As
t hC'
('O\ll
't· l
'C'co
glli7
.C's.
t.h
e FO
Ul't
('cnt
h A
mcl
ldm
cnt's
gu
arnn
t('C
' ng
nills
t. tIl
<'
d<'p
ri\'a
tion
of
libc
rty
"pro
tC'c
ts
suhs
t:lI1
tiw'
nspC
'ris
of
libC
'rtr
agni
nst
unco
nsti
tllt
iona
l r{'~tl'i
cti(
)llS
h~'
thC'
~ttltC',"
..tll
fe,
nt 2
44.
Alld
\\'C
' hn
\'C'
()l)~(,I'\'('d
that
. "f11ihC'l't~·
111l
d('r
In\\'
('x
1cnd
s to
th
e fu
ll rallgt~
of r
Olld
ll('t
whi
ch t
hC'
il\(l
h'ie
hwl
is f
l'C'C'
to
Plll'
SllC
'."
Uol
lil1f
l \',
Sha
r/'f'
, 3
4i
F.
f'. 4
fli.
40f
l (1
054)
. SC
'C' n
lso
Poe
",
F
ilm
al/,
3G
i P
. ~,
4
0i.
543
(l
OG
!)
(Hnl
')nn.
,J.,
di
"~ll
till
l!),
t It
~(
'('m
~ t.o
11
1('
Il1nn
if('st
th
nt t
.hat
"fu
ll
rn Il
j!('
of
conc
lu('t
" ml
1~t
(,II
CO
I1l\
':i&
C::
nllc
's il
1tC'
l'C'st
in
dl'C
'~s:
il7
g n(
'C'u
rdin
g to
hi~
ow
n tn
st·C'
, A
n in
cliv
idun
l's p
Cl's
onnl
up
pt'n
.J'nl
lCI'
Jll:l~
' 1'C
'11<'c
1. sl
Istn
in,
filld
nO
llrls
h Ill
!;;
)CI'8
0n
...
no
o,
'"n
.. "'n
IC'
II~
('(
:lS
n l
11('a
llS o
f cxprc8~ing hi
s
t \\
,,,
haw
Iw
ltl
th~,
t Ih
" ('o
ll;;I
itntio
u'",
I'r
ot!'r
liol
l of
liI
)('r
l~'
rn
rOln
p:L"
'p.;
'hr'
il
lll'
n'~'
of
l':
lrrn
t;::
ill
h:I\
'in~
Ih
rir
rhil
tlrr
ll
lI'a
m
(;"r
mal
l,
M •. '!
".r
\',
,\"'
Irn,
./;(
/,
2!i2
p
, ~,
;l!
IlI
(J!)2;~)
: th
e ill
ll·n,
:,t.
.. r p
art'
II'"
ill
!.,
.jlll:
nh'
" 10
I'r
lld
thri
r rh
iltl
rrn
to p
ri\''
'I!'
liS
w
rll
:1"
plll.
1i,'
.• "!to
l1l,,
, P
i,',.
", \
', $0
.';1'
/11
of ,"
is/fT
.c.
2GS
ll,~
, 51
0, !
i3~1
-535
(l
!l·'!.
'iJ:
IIII'
ill't'r
f':<1
of
I'il
izcn
.• in
tra
\"t'l
illJ!
; ab
rO:\l
I, K
rllt
\'.
DIII
l,',
~,
:;;,7
,'
,:-:
11
1i,
12;;
(I!w
n:
"11/
hl'/.
''''
\',
SI'
r"'/
nr,
, Ilf
S/n
ll'.
:\;8
t'
~.
!'l(
)ll,
:,11:;
(I
fll i.
!l:
Ihl'
illll'
re.,:
t of
a W
Olll
all
in ,
It'ri
ding
wJu
'lJlt'
r fir
lilt
' 1
0
'('rm
illa
l!'
hN
pl'
1"~n
nlll
'r,
Uor
\',
H
'fIIlr
, -1
10
U.
R.
11,1
, t.'
i:\
11!l
i:!)
: al
ld
Ihe
illlr
r.·,;
t of
a
:;1\11
11'1\
1 in
th
e da
mal
t.,
to
hi:;
r"I'I
IIal
joll
1':l
Il~(
'"
h~'
a II
I-da
y l'l
'~IIf"
'I\~if
lll
fmm
j:.
,hoo
l. .
GII,
'~
v,
1,"
p":
,II!
' P
. ~
r,ti!i
, 5;
·1-5
;5 (
19;5
),
f
ii·"
, l 1~
I \
",
" lJJ
:'Ji .
~ I
.. ,1;:
\
. ~,
" """
,~
~r1
-~ ·.,
I:~.
,."\
I i ,t
• I
I •
I •
I .:
KE
LL
EY
I',
.TO
HN
SON
2;
,\1
'; f
23~
:\h
nsl
HI,
L •
.1..
rli~
~(,l
It i\l
~
\' a
ll] e
S (I
I, )
lIW
:H' \
' 8(
'11-
tiler
1t1t
\' il
l! to
n I)
III Y
, an
d p
er,.§Q
n a 1
ill
tk.p:r
it~"ih
:1t. 1
hn\~,
c al\\
,'nys
ass
lml('
r1 t
Ilt' C
OlI
stltl
ltiol
l w
as
dC'5
i~ll
('(l
to
Jl
rot;·
c.t.
~'('
H
oc
\'.
Wad
e,
410
U,
S.
1l:-J
I (1
973)
; S
talll
ey \
-. G
eorg
ia,
394
U.
8. 5
57,
564
09
(9);
G
ri.s
ll'ol
d \'.
C()
/I/I
crti
cut,
:~8
1 U
. S
. 47
0, 4
8.5
(196
5);
Olm
st
ead
v. U
1Il't
ed S
tate
s, 2
7i U
. S,
438
, 47
8 (1
928)
(B
ran
deis
.. J..
dis
sC'n
ting)
. If
lit
tlc
('nil
he
foun
d in
pa
st r
nses
of
this
Cou
rt o
r i n
dc'('(
l i 1
\ th
C' :
\ a t i
on's
his
tory
011
t h
c sp
C'ci
fic i
ssu(
' of
a
citiz
C'Il
's rig
ht.
t4.1
choo
sC'
his
0\\'
11 p(
'f~o
llal
np
pt'nl
"aIlC
'C',
it
is
olll
~'
lWC'
:lus('
th
C'
I'igh
t hn
s hC
'C'1l
so
clea
r as
to
he
bc
yond
qu
C'st
.ion,
W
hen
the
righ
t hn
s b(
,(,11
men
t.i
ollC
'd. i
ts c
xist
('ncC
' hn
s si
mpl
y be
en t
akcn
for
gra
ntcd
. fo
r in
stan
cC'.
thC'
as
sum
ptio
n th
at
the
righ
t ex
ists
is
rl'
I1t.'
ckd
in
tIl('
1789
('o
ngre
ssio
nal
debn
tes
over
w
hich
gu
nran
h't's
sho
uld
bt.'
exp)
i('it
ly a
rtic
ulnt
C'd
in
thC'
Bill
of
Rig;
ht~,
1.
Bm
nt.
Tht
' B
ill
of
Rig
ht::;
5
3-6
7
(lOG
;")),
Thc
rC'
was
('o
llr--i
dC'm
blC'
d(
·hnt
C'
O\'C
'I' w
hC'th
C'r
thC'
ri
ght
of m
~~C'lllhly
slUlu
l,1 I
x-C'
xpl'
essl
~'
111C
'ntio
l\ed.
C
ongr
ess
mal
l BC
'Il!"o
ll of
NC'
w Y
ork
nrgu
C'ci
th
at i
ts i
nclu
sion
was
I\C
'C('s
snQ
' to
n~!"
\II'C' t
hnt
thC'
rig
ht.
wou
ld n
ot b
c in
frin
!!:c
d hy
t J
u'
g:o\
'('1'I1
1ll<
'nt.
In
rc!"
pons
(',
('ollg
rC'ss
ma 1
1 S
edg
wic
k of
Mn!
"snc
huSt
'tts
ilHlic
att'd
:
"If
tIl('
('ol1
ll1lit
t('C
' w
crc
go \'(
'1'1
\ cd
hy t
hat
gen
cral
: \\,
hil(
' th
e l'a
rlit
''; .
Iid
Illlt
:uld
rl''''
'' :l
ily
F
ir,I
,\m
l'llIl
l11(
'1)'
i",~
ul>l
'
ill :
lll~'
111'1
:Iil
ill
I h~.
('
ollr
l, 1
;0\'(
'rtlll
ll'llI
al
fl'!!:
l,l:rt
inn
of a
ri
tizr
ll's
pr
r,:on
:,1
:rPI'(
':Ir:t
IlI'('
m:l~'
in
!'Oll1
r ri
rrll
ll1~
l:ll
lr\'
;:
IInl
onl~
' dt
'pri
\'c
him
(I
f Ji
hl'r
l~'
IIno
.'r
thl'
Fou
rlN
'lllh
A
mrn
dlll
rlll
b
ut
viol
ate
hill
Fir,:
1 A
Illf>
lIthl
h,,'
ri~h
tl'
:\,.
wrl
l, 1
'illl:
cr \
. D
", .1
loi/l
I·,<
Scho
ol D
i,.t.,
:~
!I;J
U,
S, 5
0;J
(1 ~6
!l)
,
I
I f
252
( f
, I
r r
OC
TO
BE
R T
ER
M,
1975
MA
RS
H.'L
L,
J.,
diss
cnti
ng
425
U.S
.
prin
cipl
e ... t
hey
mig
ht h
ave
decl
ared
th
at a
man
sh
ould
hat
'e a
rig
ht t
o we
a·r
his
hat
if h
e pl
ease
d ..
. b
ut
[1]
wou
ld a
sk t
he g
entl
ema.
n w
heth
er h
e th
ough
t it
nec
essn
ry t
o en
ter
thes
e tr
ifle
s in
a d
ecla
rati
on o
f ri
ghts
. in
a G
over
nmen
t w
here
non
e of
them
wer
e in
te
nded
to
be
inf
ring
ed."
Id
., at
54-
55
(em
phas
is
adde
d).
Thu
s, w
hile
the
y di
d n
ot
incl
ude
it i
n th
e B
ill o
f R
ight
s,
SC'd
gwic
k an
d hi
s co
llea
gues
cle
arly
bel
ieve
d th
ere
to b
e Po
ri
ght
in o
ne's
per
sona
l ap
pear
ance
. A
nd,
whi
le t
hey
may
h:.w
e re
gard
ed t
he r
ight
as
a tr
ifle
as
long
as
it w
as
hono
rC'd
. th
ey c
lear
ly w
ould
not
· ha
ve s
o re
gard
ed i
t if
it
w~rr
. in
frin
ged.
T
his
Cou
rt,
too.
has
t.a
ken
as a
n ax
iom
th
at t
here
is
a ri
ght
in o
nc's
}X
'rsol
lnl
nppC
'nrn
ncc.
' In
deed
, in
19
58
we
usC'
d th
e C
'xis
tellc
e of
th
nt
righ
t as
sup
port
for
oU
t' rC
'<'o
gniti
on o
f th
c ri
ght
to t
rave
l:
"Th
e ri
ght
to t
rave
l is
a p
art
of t
he 'l
iber
ty' o
f w
hich
th
e ci
tize
n ca
nnot
be
depr
ived
wit
hout
due
pro
cess
of
law
und
er th~
Fif
th A
men
dmen
t. .
..
It m
ay b
e as
cl(l
se t
o tlt
e he
art
of t
M in
dit,i
dtta
l as
the
cho
ice
, T
her!
' h:l!
; I>
<'cn
II !
'ubs
tlll
ltin
i nm
ount
of
low
l'r-r
ourt
Iit
igat
ioll
rO
ilce
rtli,
,:: 1
hl'
ron:
:l it
lit io
nalit
y o
f h:
lir-
ll'n
gth
lind
drrs
s-ro
dc r
t"gu
lal i
ons
:\.~
:I\1p
lil'\l
to
!w
hofl
lrhi
ldl'(
'n.
SO
IllC
or
t.h
e CI
U'Nl
h:
we
fOlln
t! th
c ra
liflll
ak.c
off
l'rl'd
for
I'II
('h r
t'l:ul:ltion~
to h
I' !'u
ffir
icnt
, to
su
pp
ort
the
ir
cun;
:lit
utio
n:ll
ity.
8r
e, r
. g .
• K
illg
v. Sad
dlrb
a('~
' JI
II/io
r C
ollr
gl!
Dis
!.,
4-15
F.
21
\ 9:
l2
(CA
9) ,
cert
. dc
nied
, 40
4 U
. S
. 9i
!)
(19
il);
G
fdl
\'. /
lirk
rlm
ml .
.... 1
F.
2d 4
·'·'
(CA
G 1
971)
; /<
'rrrc
il v.
Dal
la.,
In-
I
a"pt
llr/
r"t
&h
oo
l D
id.,
:l9
2 F
. 2d
6!
li
(CA
S),
rc
rt.
dl'll
iC{l
. 30
3 U
. S.
S;
;fi
(Hl6
S).
O
ther
r:\S
r.s
have
fou
nd !
'imil
ar r
rltl\lalio\l~
lin
l·on~t
itl\
li()
llri
l.
SC<',
t.
g.
, R
irha
rds
v.
1'hu
r.'to
ll,
42-1
F
. 2
" 12
Sl
(C,\
1 l
')i(
); n
ran
\'.
Ka
M,
-119
F. 2
<110
34
(CA
7 19
(9),
crr
t. r
\eni
ed,
:)~.
~ e.
~.
9:l
i (l
DiO
).
Non
e of
the
cn!
'cs,
how
c\'c
r, h
.wc
indi
ralr
o th
rlt
lhl'
COJ~<;till\tio
ll
may
off
l'r
no
prot
ecti
on a
t al
l II
ltllin
st
com
pr
chl'l
I!'i\
"1'
rcgu
btio
ll o
f th
e pc
rson
a\ a
p}le
arnl
lCC
of
thc
citi
zrnr
y n
t b
rge.
, I
\,
I 238
, •
• I
KE
LL
EY
v.
JOH
NS
ON
MA
RS
HA
LL
, J.
, di
ssen
ting
I I
2!
of w
hat
he e
ats,
or
wea
rs, o
r re
ads.
" K
ent
v. D
ulle
s,
357
U.
S.
116,
12
5-12
6 (1
958)
(e
mph
asis
add
ed).
To
my
min
d, t
he r
igh
t in
one
's p
erso
nal
appe
aran
ce i
s in
extr
icab
ly
boun
d up
wit
h th
e hi
stor
ical
ly
reco
gniz
ed
righ
t of
"ev
ery
indi
vidu
al t
o th
e po
sses
sion
an
d c
ontr
ol
of h
is o
wn
pers
on,"
Uni
on P
acifi
c R
. C
o. Y
. B
otsf
ord,
141
U
. S.
250
, 25
1 (1
891)
, an
d, p
erha
ps e
ven
mor
e fu
nda
men
tall
y, w
ith
"th
e ri
gh
t to
be
let
alo
ne-t
he m
ost
com
pr
ehen
sive
of
righ
ts a
nd t
he r
ight
mos
t va
lued
by
civ
ili
zed
men
."
Olm
stea
d v.
U
'1ite
d St
ates
, Stt
]>Ta
, at
478
(B
rand
eis,
J.,
diss
enti
ng).
In
an
incr
easi
ngly
cro
wde
d so
ciet
y in
whi
ch i
t is
alr
eady
ext
rem
ely
diff
icul
t to
mai
nta
in o
nc's
ide
ntit
y an
d pe
rson
al
int£
'gri
ty,
it w
ould
be
dist
r£'ss
ing,
to
sa
y th
e le
ast,
if
th
e go
vern
men
t co
uld
regu
late
our
per
sona
l ap
pear
ance
unc
onfi
ned
by
an
y c
on
stit
utio
nal
stri
ctur
es w
hnt-
soev
er.'
4 H
isto
ry i
s do
tted
wit
h in
stan
ces
of g
O\'e
rnm
ents
reg
ulat
ing
the
pen:
on:u
app
t'ara
ncc
or t
hci
r ci
tizcl
l!'.
Fo
r in
stan
cc,
in a
n e
ffor
t to
st
inm
lalc
hi
s co
untr
ymen
to
nd
opt
n m
odem
Ii
rest
yle,
P
eter
th
e G
rcat
is
sued
3
.Il
edic
t in
16
9S
regu
!ati
ng
the
wea
ring
of
be
ards
t.h
roug
hout
Rus
sia.
W
. &
A.
Du
ran
t, T
hc
Age
or
Lou
is X
IV,
p. 3
98
(196
3).
Any
one
who
wan
ted
to g
row
a b
eard
h:l
d to
pay
an
annu
al
t.'1X
of
from
One
kop
ek f
or a
pen
s:m
t to
one
hun
dred
rub
les
for
n ri
ch
mer
ch:l
nt.
Ibid
. O
f th
osc
who
('o
uld
not
affo
rd
the
"bca
rd t
n:t,"
th
ere
wcr
e m
:1I1
Y "w
ho,
nCtN
hav
ing
thei
r br
:lrd
s !'h
n\'e
d of
f, sa
n-d
them
pr
eeio
m:ly
, in
or
dcr
to
h:\\"
e th
l'm
pl:1
red
in
thei
r co
ffin
s,
rrar
ing
that
th
ey
wou
ld
no
t bc
nl
low
ed
to e
nte
r h(
':l\'e
n w
itho
ut
them
."
J. U
obin
son,
!tr
adin
gs i
n E
urop
ean
His
tory
390
(1
906)
. T
herc
nrc
mor
c re
emt
inst
:mcr
s, t
oo,
or g
o\·c
rnm
clll
s re
gula
ting
th
e pc
rson
al n
ppt'a
ranc
e of
thc
ir c
itiz
ens.
Se
e, t
. g.
, N
. Y
. T
imes
, F
cb.
18,
19i4
, p.
22,
col
. 4
(Cze
ch p
olic
c st
op
lon
g-ha
ired
you
ng m
en,
tcl1
ing
them
to
get
hn
ircu
ts);
id.
, Ju
ly 2
3, 1
9i2,
p.
4, r
ol.
1 (L
ibya
n G
o\'C
rnm
rnt.
tell
s yo
uths
to
tri
m h
:,ir
lind
\\"
mr
mor
e so
ber
clot
hes
or
!'ubm
it t
hrm
sc\n
'S f
or t
rain
ing
in t
hc
arm
y);
itf.
, Ju
ly 7
, 19
i1,
p.
22,
ro\.
S (
o\'c
r 1,
000
youn
g m
en r
ound
ed u
p a
nd g
iven
hai
rcut
s b
y
Sou
th K
orro
n po
lice
in
whn
t w
as d
escr
ibed
by
gov
crnm
ent
offi
cial
s as
n "
sodn
l )l
urif
ient
ion"
cam
pnig
n);
id.,
Oct
. 13
, 19
iO,
p. 1
1, c
ol.
1 (p
olic
c ro
rcc
mor
c th
An
1,40
0 S
outh
V
ietn
ames
c yo
uths
to
cu
t
,
I~
r ('
f'
I I
, I
2M
OC
TO
BE
R T
ER
M,
1975
?\l!
.nsH
AL
L,
J.,
diss
('ntin
g 42
5 U
.S.
II
Art.
in~
on i
ts a
ssum
ptiu
ll t
hat
the
Four~enth A
men
dm
ent d
oes eneompa~ a
rig
ht, i
n on
e's
pers
onal
app
eara
nce,
tl
H'
Cou
rt j
m:;t
ifir
s th
e ch
alle
nged
hni
r-Ie
ngth
reg
ulat
.ion
on t
.hl.'
grou
nds
that
. su
eh r
rgul
at.io
ns m
ay "
be b
ased
on
a d
rsir
r to
mak
e po
lire
off
icrr
s rr
adil
y re
cogn
izab
le t
o th
e m
rmhf
'rs
of t
he
publ
ic,
or a
des
ire
for
the
espr
it d
e co
rps
whi
rh s
uch
sim
ilar
ity
is f
elt
to i
ncul
rntc
wit
hin
the
poli
ce
forc
r i t
"rl f
." A
nte,
at
248.
W
hile
ful
ly a
ccep
ting
th
e ai
ms
of
"ide
ntif
inhi
lity
" nn
d m
aint
enan
ce o
f es
pri
t de
eo
rps.
I
fin(l
no r
atio
nal
rela
tion
ship
bet
wee
n th
e ch
8ol
]f'll
geri
rr~u]ation
and
th
esc
goal
~.~
As
for
the
firs
t ju
st.if
icat
ion
offe
red
by t
he
Cou
rt.
I si
mpl
y do
no
t se
e ho
w r
equi
ring
pol
icem
en t
o m
aint
ain
hair
of
lInd
rr a
cer
tain
lrn
gth
eoul
d ra
tion
ally
be
nrgu
ed
to c
on tr
ibut
e to
mak
ing
them
idr
ntif
inbl
e to
th
e pu
blic
as
pol
irrl
TIf
'lI.
Sur
rly,
th
e fn
ct t
hn
t a
unif
orm
ed t
)olic
e of
ficf'r
is
wra
ring
his
hai
r be
low
his
col
lnr
will
mak
e hi
m
tlw
ir h
:tir
).
It i
s il1
('oll(
'('i\'
nhle
to
mc
thnt
the
Con
stitu
liol1
wou
ld
ofT
rr
nn
I'ro
lrrl
ioll
\\
'hnt
~ol"
\'l"
r :lg
:lio!
'. Ih
l' c:
lrry
ing
oul
of s
imil:
tr
:lrt i
on.
hy l
'itlH
'r ou
r FI
'(\(,r
:l1 o
r S
inle
Go\
·('rm
llcnt
s.
~;\
poli(
,I'm
nl1
do('!
; no
t !'u
rr('n
drr
his
righ
t in
hi~
OWI1
prfl
'olln
l :lp
p<>a
r:l!lr
f' l'i
rnpl
y h
y j
oini
lllt
thl'
polir
c' f
orre
. St
'e T
i"kr
r ".
Drs
.'1
nj"
,·s
Scho
ol
Di .•
t.,
:l9:1
tT
. R
, nt
· !jO
G.
I I1
grr.l
' w
ilh
the
Com
! of
ApI
"':'\.
< Ih
:lt t
hr
"!'IIIIII~ o
f th
r in
di\'i
dll:t
l m
i,:ill
lt th
" r!
:tim
"f
':lr-
fllll
l 01
1 Ih
r ('x
i;:te
llrc
of t
he r
ilth
l, hi
lI r
lllh
rr]
Oil
Ih
(' fll
I(,:'!
tio
ll of
wlw
lhrr
th"
rilt
ht
i~ ol
llwei
Jthr
d by
n I
rgili
mnl
(' :-:
tlll('
illl
('r
C"!
'\."
4>;'1
F
. 2d
, :I
t 11
:10
II.
9.
TI\I
I~,
thl'
nred
to
('\
'nlll
llle
Ihe
£o\·r
rnm
enl:
tl
illt('
f('!'
I. nl
lll
the
ronn
(,l't
ion
bel\\
,(,(,1
1 it.
:ll
1d
Ihe
• rh
:tllp
lHtrl
l I!
n\'('
rnm
rnl:
tl :
tl'ti
on i
ll 1\.
<1;
prC'
!'<'nl
wh
(,11
Ihe
par
ty' \
\'h(
).~c
ri
l!ht
" h:
\\,('
:tllrl!pr!I~·
1)('(
'1\
"io\
:tt('r
l i!l
II
puhl
ir
rm)J
loyl
'c
:I~
whl
'll
hr
i;: :I
I'
th':l
le f
'mpl
oy('C
'. ~r
e C
SC "
. 1"
,ttrr
Car
n'a
s, 4
1:1
1'.
R
5-l.I
l , .')
1)4-
56i
(Ifl
i:l)
. T
o h
olr!
th
:lt
rili7
.I'Il!
l "o
Oll'
how
Il\I
tom
lltil'
ally
!t
in'
lip
rO
Il~t
itll
lion
:t1
rid,!!
,! by
b(,l
'om
illl!:
pu
blic
rm
plo)
,el'S
w
Olll
d 11
1(~'
\n
t hilI
:lh
no."1
15
m
illio
n A
tnf'r
ir:1l
1 ri
lizrn
l!
nm
rurr
(,lIt
1y
nff(
'c\I'I
1 b
y h
:l\'
ill~
"('x
p(,lI
t('II
" !'u
rh "
:l\It
olll:
tlic
wai
\'rrs
."
. St:l
tislil
':l1
Ah,
trac
t of
the
tT
nite
d S
t:lt
al 1
975,
p. 2
72.
r
i I ,
I I
I I
I I
• {
KE
LL
EY
t',
JOH
N80
N
255
238
MA
Rt'H
.\L
L,
,J.. .
diss
rnti
ng
no
less
id
enti
fiab
le
as
a po
lict:'
man
, A
nd
one
cann
ot
eMil
y im
agin
r a
plai
nclo
th{'
s of
fice
r be
ing
read
ily
iden
ti
fiab
le
as s
uch
sim
ply
brca
use
his
hair
doe
s n
ot
exte
nd
bene
ath
his
coll
ar,
As
for
the
Cou
rt's
sec
ond
just
ific
atio
n, t
he f
act
that
it
is t
he
pres
iden
t of
the
Pat
.roh
ut:'I
l's B
t:'ne
vole
nt A
ssoc
ia
tion
, in
his
off
icia
l ca
paci
ty,
who
has
cha
llen
ged
the
regu
la
tion
her
e w
ould
see
m t
o in
dica
te t
hat
the
reg
ulat
ion
wou
ld i
f an
ythi
ng,
decr
('ase
rat
her
th
an i
ncre
ase
the
po
lice
forc
e's
espr
it d
e co
rps.
" A
nd e
ven
if o
ne a
ccep
ted
the
nrgm
nent
th
at s
ubst
anti
al ~im
i1ar
it~r
in
appe
ar8o
nc('
wou
ld
incr
ease
n f
orce
's (
'spr
it d
e' co
rps,
I s
impl
y do
no
t un
der
st.a
nd
how
im
plem
enta
tion
of
th
is
rt:'g
ulat
ion
coul
d be
ex
pcct
{?d
to c
r('a
te a
ny
illC
rrll1
rnt
in s
imil
arit
y of
app
ear
ance
am
ong
mem
bers
of
a. un
ifor
med
pol
ice
forc
e,
W..h
ile
the
regu
latiQ
Il n
rohi
bits
hai
r he
low
the
car
s or
th
e co
llar
nn
d lim
its t
.he
leng
th
of s
ideb
urnl
' jt
allo
ws
the
mai
nha
n a
pony
tail
.
G K
or,
to ~
!ly
th('
1(,lI
llt,
is th
e ~J
lrit
lIe
('(lrp~ ;H~UnH~l1t
bols
tere
d h
y
the
f:wt
Ih:lt
Ih
(' In
l(,fI
l:tlio
l1:t1
H
roth
l'rho
od
of P
olir
e Of
fice
r~.
II 2.
'i.OO
O-ll
Irllll
ll'T
IIni
on
fI'p
n':'(
'nl i
ng
IIni
ftlr
nu'It
pl
llire
otli
crr:<
, h:
ls
filp
" a
hri(
'f :1.
" nll1i(,/
I.~
curi
nc a
rl!lIi
nj:!
I hal
Ih
l' ('h
allr
n!l:r
d r(
,~11
:t1 i
on
i!: I
II1(,O
lll'ti
tlllin
n:11
. 1
Tit!.
' n'
l:lIl
:!lil
lll
it'-:(
'\f ('
~rhe
\\'!
t w
h:!1
w
ould
Ilp
p<':l
r to
be
a
I<'!"~
in
l n1~
in'
1ll(
,:lI
Ill
of I
lrhi('
\"in
lt ~i
l1li
\ari
ty i
n th
l" h
:tit
"'n~th
of o
n-rl
uty
()1lirl'~.
Arrl
1rdi
n~
10
the
re~tl:lli(ln.
a po
lirl'l
ll:lI
I ('m
lllot
. ('o
llll'l
y w
ith
Ih('
hnir
-I('
It~t
h rr
llllin
'I1ll'
111"
h
)'
w(,:
Iril1
l: a
wil!
w
ilh
h:tir
of
I he
prtl
p('r
l«'n
~1 h
whi
ll' 0
11 d
ill y
. T
hl'
rl'l!u
!:tt i
OIl
proh
ibit
s t h
(' W
{'.
'H
ing
of w
ig~
or h
:tiTpil'(,l~ "
011
dlll~'
in
unif
orm
('X
~('p
l fo
r ro
,..:m
rtir
rea:
:on~
10
('O
\'rr
nalu
r:ll
1>:1
1«11
1""'"
or \
,hy~i(':,1
disf
igur
atio
n."
..tll
te,
:If
~4(1
11.
1.
Thl
l",
whi
l" t
I\(' r
l'l:u
!:tlio
l1 i
n It'
TIll'
: :1
l'l'li
t':' I
II Itru(lmjn~
sl:m
ti:lI
'Ils
of
PO\i(
,I'1ll1
"1I
whi
h'
011
dlll
~·,
t h('
hair
-Iel
lltth
pr
o\'i8
ioll
cfrc
eti\"
c1y
rOlll
rols
bO
lh
Oil-
duty
an
d of
f-du
ty
IIpp
c:ua
nr{'
.
•
,¥ f
( r
f f
f I
256
OC
TO
RE
R T
ER
M,
19i5
l\hR
~H.\
,.L,
J.,
dis
s('n
ting
425
U.S
.
Thl
' C
ourt
. C
31
l t io
ns u
s n
ot
t.o
"iew
th
e hn
ir-l
l'np:
th
r(,~\Ibti()1\
in i
sola
tion
, hu
t. ra
t.her
t.o
exa
min
e it
"in
th
e co
ntl'x
t. of
til
t' ('
ount
y's
chos
('n I
llO
<\(
, of
orf
!:an
i1.a
tion
for
its
poli(
't' f
orcl
'."
.. tlltr
, at
247.
W
hile
the
Co
urt
's C
3U
tion
is
\\"('1
1 ta
kl'n
, on
t' sh
ould
als
o kl
'('P
in m
imI.
as
I f(
'ar
the
Co
urt
do(
's n
ot,
th
at w
hat
is u
ltim
atel
y un
der
scru
tiny
is
nt
'it.h
('r
t.he
owrn
ll s
tru
ctu
re o
f th
e po
lice
fo
rce
nor
th('
unif
orm
an
d
Nlu
ipm
('nt
r('q
uirt
'lll(
'nts
to
whi
ch
its
tnrm
b('r
s ar
('
sub
jrct
, b
ut
rnth
rr
th('
re
gula
tion
w
hich
di
ctat
es
a('('
('ptn
hle
hail
' le
ngth
s,
Th
e fn
ct
that
th
e un
ifor
m
r('q
uir(
'men
t,
for
inst
ance
, in
ay
be
mt.
iona
lly
n'la
tl'c
\ to
tht
' I!
onls
of
incr
('asi
ng p
olic
e of
fice
r "i
c1cn
tifi
nhilit~·"
and
th
t' m
aint
rnnn
('e
of
('sp
rit
de
corp
s do
cs
l\h!,(
lll\t(
'l~·
noth
illl
! to
('s
tnbl
ish
the
lrgi
tim
ncy
of t
he
hair
l('
nl1:
tll
r('p
:lIla
tion,
I
s('('
no
co
nnec
tion
bc
tw('
en
the
r<'g
:IIl:\
tion
and
th
e of
fe-r
Nl
rnti
onnl
('s ~
and
,,"ou
M n
ecor
din
gly
affi
rm t
he
jud
gm
ent
of t
he C
ou
rt o
f A
pp('u
ls,
"
• HI
'I·a
IlC~
. tl)
m~'
milH
l, th
r ch
n\Jr
llJ!;!
'd rt,
ltuln
tiun
f:lib
: to
p:l.
~); r
\'('n
:\
min
im:!1
11f
'J!;rr
c of
!'rr
llti
ny,
thrr
r i"
111
1 JI
('('d
tn l
if,tr
nnill
!' w
hrth
rr,
J!;in
n th
.. n:
ltur
e of
thl
' in
h'rl
.,.t
~ ill
\'O!\"
NI
:lI\d
the
11"
ltrt"!
, to
whi
l·h
th .. y
:n
r nl
Ter
t!'d,
th
!' np
l'lir
ntio
ll
of
:\ m
ore
hcig
hten
ro
.~(·
rllt
iny
wou
ld b
e :l
Pll
ropr
iate
.
I I
I
" I
I I
I •
I {
OH
IO t
'. G
AL
LA
GH
ER
25
7
Per
Cur
i:tm
OH
IO t
',
GA
LL
AG
HE
R
Ct:
IlT
IOR
AR
l T
O T
H.:
Sl'
pm
:ME
CO
t:R
T 0
1-'
OH
IO
No.
i4-
tfl2
. A
rj!:u
et"\
Dee
embt
-r 2
, 19
i5-D
('ri
ul-d
Apr
il 5.
19i
fi
The
Ohi
o S
upre
me
Cou
rt l
wlc
l th
:lt t
esti
mon~
' rd
atin
g til
<' I
!tnt
rml'n
t:'
of :
Ill
:II'('u
:<('1
1 in
rr:o
:pon
:,r,
to f
Ju<'
Stio
n" h
y :t
p:no
\r o
flir
er i
n 1
m i
ll
trr\
·jrw
in
:I ja
il i. ..
in:H
lmi"
"ih\
(' nt
tri
nl i
f, pr
ior
to t
hl' q
ll!':>
tioni
nlZ,
til
!' pa
rolr
oll
irrr
f:li
lC'd
to a
(h·to
Oc t
hl'
:11'
('11;
;00
of h
i" r
ijl;h
t:< l
lnd(
'r M
iran
da \
', A
rizo
na,
3S",
U. ~,
4aG.
W
h('n
, :u
; he
f("
it j"
not
rir
:lr
from
t h
(' w
hol('
r<'C
Ord
whe
t h('r
the
~tnte r
omt
r!.':<
t('d
itf!'
df><
'il!io
n up
on t
he F
ifth
:ln
d Fo
urtC
<'nt
h A
m('n
dmcn
t" t
o th
n t:
nit(
'd S
tnh'
S C
on;:t
itllti
oll
or u
pon
th('
Ohi
o C
onst
itut
ion,
tl\(
' ju
dgm
l'nt
is \
":1
-
(':11
1'<1
lin
d th
(' 1'
11"(
' i:4
r('m
:lllll
NI
to p
('rm
it th
r O
hio ~lIprrme C
ourt
10
rX
l'lir
:lte
wh(
'lh('r
or
not
its
jll
ogm
ent.
rei i
rs
on
fe<i(,
T:l1
In\\"
. 3S
Ohi
o S
t. 2
d 29
1, 3
13 N
. E
. 2d
396
, \':
\(':lt
C'd
:ln
d r(
'm:ln
dC'd
.
lla
bcT
t M
. Ja
cobs
on a
rgue
d th
e ca
use
for
p€'ti
tion
er.
Wit.
h hi
m o
n th
e br
ief
was
Lee
C.
Fal
ke.
Jack
T.
S
rlU
l'a
TZ
, b
y a
pp
oin
tmrn
t of
the
C
ourt
., 42
1 U
. S
. nS
5.
argu
ed
the
caus
e an
d
file
d a
brie
f fo
r re
spon
dent
.. *
Pr.
n Ct
lRlA
~1.
W(,
I!l'a
nt('c
! ('(
'rtio
rnri
' to
det
rrm
illt
' w
hl'
thrr
tIl(
' ad
m
issi
on
in (
'\'id
e-llc
e of
sta
teJn
rnts
mad
e by
an
acc
us€'
d in
r('~JlOIl~l'
to i
ll-(
,\I~
tody
qlll
'stio
llillj
!: b
y hi
s pa
rolt
' ofl
irrr
vi
olnt
l's t
ht'
rule
' of
M ir
a Ill/
a. \
'. ,1
rizl
lua.
384
r.
S.
436
( 1 %
li).
01
1 Ju
ne' 2
1. 1
072.
tIl(
' re
spon
dell
t. T
erry
L.
Gal
lngh
('r,
wt\.
~ ar
rest
('ci
and
lat
er c
hnrg
Nl
wit
h th
e ar
med
rob
lwry
* El'r
llr
J.
l·olf
lll7f
f, A
ttor
ney
GI'l
ll'ra
l, Jo
r~'
fl.
Witl
Her
. C
hi('f
,\s
;:i."
tllnt
Atto
rnl'Y
G,'n
(,r:ll
. S.
Cln
d'
MO
llrr,
Alt.
~i",
t:lI
lt J\
ttom
ry G
(,II
eral
. Jo
'rcdr
rirk
Il
. .lf
illnr
. Jr
.• :ln
d T
/1f'o
dl1r
o Jl
!'rl7
l'r. Dr
p\lt
~· A
ttor
IIr
y:4
GI'n
l'raJ
. fil
l"!l
:I h
rirf
for
thl
' ~t:
ltr
of C
:!lif
orni
:l :I
); (
lill
iI'l
l.!
I'u
rio
l'
urgi
ng r
enr:
':!!.
14
20 U
. S.
100
3 (H
);5)
.
•