Rivera v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 501 (1984)

Under the New York State Constitution and Correction Law, a Muslim inmate’s right to free exercise of religion is violated when subjected to a random pat frisk by a correction officer of the opposite sex, unless justified by prison security or equal opportunity interests, but insubordination cannot be sanctioned by expunging records.

Summary

Edwin Rivera, a Muslim inmate, objected to a pat frisk by a female officer, citing religious beliefs. The prison charged him with insubordination. Rivera sued, arguing the frisk violated his religious freedom under the New York Constitution and Correction Law. The Court of Appeals held the frisk violated Rivera’s rights because the state’s interests in prison security and equal opportunity for female officers did not outweigh Rivera’s religious rights under the specific circumstances; however, the court also held that Rivera’s insubordination could not be erased from his record.

Facts

Rivera, a Muslim inmate at Attica, was selected for a random pat frisk by Officer Ricks, a female correction officer. Rivera objected, citing his religious beliefs against physical contact with the opposite sex. He was charged with refusing a direct order and violating prison rules after refusing the frisk.

Procedural History

Rivera filed an Article 78 proceeding seeking a declaration that the prison directive was unconstitutional and to expunge the write-up from his record. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Superintendent and correction officers appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a random pat frisk of a male Muslim inmate by a female correction officer violates the inmate’s right to free exercise of religion under the New York State Constitution and Correction Law.
2. Whether references to the charges filed against the inmate for refusing the frisk and the disposition of those charges should be expunged from the inmate’s institutional records.

Holding

1. Yes, because in the limited circumstances of this case, the state’s interests in maintaining prison security and providing equal opportunity for women to serve as prison guards did not outweigh Rivera’s religious rights.
2. No, because inmates must comply with orders from correction personnel, even if illegal, and then seek administrative or judicial review; self-help by the inmate cannot be recognized as an acceptable remedy.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court recognized that inmates retain rights not inconsistent with their status, including the right to free exercise of religion under both the Federal and New York Constitutions, and Section 610 of the Correction Law. New York law manifests the importance of religious beliefs as a “preferred right”. The Court balanced the inmate’s religious freedom against the correctional facility’s institutional needs. Although prison administrators have a substantial interest in maintaining security, legitimate security objectives weren’t advanced by having female officers randomly frisk Muslim inmates when male officers were available. The court noted, “In the limited circumstances of the present case, however, it has not been shown that legitimate security objectives are advanced by having female correction officers randomly pat frisk Muslim male inmates.” The court further explained, “The threat to prison security would be manifest were we to allow inmates to decide for themselves which orders to obey and which to ignore as violative of their rights and to act accordingly.” The court modified the order to eliminate the expunging of Rivera’s institutional record because inmates must comply with the orders of correction personnel, or accept the penalties properly applicable to noncompliance, and self-help is not an acceptable remedy.