Doe v. Coughlin, 71 N.Y.2d 48 (1987)

An inmate does not have a constitutional right to conjugal visits, and the denial of such visits to an inmate with AIDS does not violate equal protection or due process rights, as the denial is rationally related to the legitimate state interest in preventing the spread of communicable diseases.

Summary

John Doe, an inmate with AIDS, and his wife, Jane Doe, challenged the denial of conjugal visits by correction officials. The New York Court of Appeals held that inmates do not have a constitutional right to conjugal visits and that denying such visits to an inmate with AIDS did not violate their rights. The court reasoned that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing the spread of communicable diseases, and the denial of conjugal visits was rationally related to that interest. The court further found that the Family Reunion Program did not create a legitimate expectation of conjugal visits, as participation in the program was discretionary.

Facts

John and Jane Doe married while John was incarcerated. After participating in one conjugal visit as part of the Family Reunion Program, John was diagnosed with AIDS. Correction officials then denied the couple further conjugal visits based on the prison regulation that applicants with a communicable disease may be disqualified from participating in the program.

Procedural History

The Does filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of conjugal visits. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the denial of conjugal visits to an inmate with AIDS violates the constitutional right to marital privacy?
2. Whether the denial of conjugal visits to an inmate with AIDS violates due process rights?
3. Whether the denial of conjugal visits to an inmate with AIDS violates equal protection rights?
4. Whether the respondents’ determination should be set aside as arbitrary and capricious?
5. Whether the respondents violated the petitioner’s rights as a handicapped person protected by section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973?

Holding

1. No, because inmates forfeit the right to marital intimacy upon incarceration, and this right is inconsistent with legitimate penological objectives.
2. No, because the Family Reunion Program is discretionary and does not create a legitimate expectation of conjugal visits.
3. No, because the denial is rationally related to the legitimate state interest in preventing the spread of communicable diseases.
4. No, because respondents’ determination is consistent with the view that AIDS is a communicable disease, and their efforts to prevent its transmission during conjugal visits were therefore rational.
5. No, because to be qualified for participation in the Family Reunion Program, applicants must be free of communicable disease, and John Doe was afflicted with AIDS.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while inmates retain some constitutional rights, these rights are limited by the realities of confinement and legitimate penological objectives. Intimate marital relations are deemed inconsistent with incarceration because the purpose of confinement is to remove the prisoner from society. “Traditionally, intimate marital relations have been deemed inconsistent with incarceration because the very purpose of confinement is to remove the prisoner from society for punishment and to serve valid governmental interests of security, deterrence and rehabilitation.”

The court found that the Family Reunion Program did not create a protected liberty interest because it was discretionary. The regulations require the consideration of many subjective factors, and the guidelines do not create an entitlement to conjugal visits. The court reasoned, “Given the present regulatory scheme of the Family Reunion Program, petitioners could have no legitimate expectation that they would be afforded conjugal visits.”

Regarding equal protection, the court held that the state’s interest in preventing the spread of communicable diseases was a legitimate state purpose, and the denial of conjugal visits to inmates with AIDS was rationally related to that purpose. The court noted that “It is recognized that the State has a substantial interest in preventing the transmission and spread of communicable diseases.”

The court also held that the correction officials’ classification of AIDS as a communicable disease was rational, even if it differed from the Health Department’s classification. “Regardless of the Health Department’s regulations, however, it is agreed that AIDS can be transmitted from person to person by direct exposure to blood, semen or breast milk. That being so, AIDS is routinely viewed as a communicable disease.”

Finally, the court rejected the petitioner’s claim under the Federal Rehabilitation Act, finding that the inmate was not “otherwise qualified” for the conjugal visit program because he had a communicable disease.