|
|
| Court: Inmate Can Challenge Prison System's Porn Policy |
| By AP |
| Published: 09/12/2003 |
|
An inmate can pursue his legal challenge to a, Indiana Department of Correction policy preventing him from ordering or receiving pornographic materials depicting sexual penetration, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. The ruling said a Marion County judge wrongfully dismissed the lawsuit on grounds that his court lacked authority to review internal, administrative decisions of the prison agency. The appeals court said a state law exempting certain DOC actions from judicial review does not include 'alleged violations of constitutional rights, or in this case, statutory and constitutional rights.' The lawsuit was filed by Jerry Montgomery, an inmate at the State Prison in Michigan City. He was convicted of murder in Lake County in 1986 and sentenced to 40 years. He said he was entitled to pornographic material based on a state law that says the DOC can inspect all printed matter and exclude any material that is contraband or prohibited property. 'However, in the case of a confined adult, the department may not exclude printed matter on the grounds that it is obscene or pornographic unless it is obscene under Indiana law,' the law says. Montgomery claims that under the statute, he is entitled to receive 'penetration pornographic material' that does not run afoul of Indiana obscenity laws. Prison system spokeswoman Pam Pattison said agency policy prohibits inmates from receiving sexually explicit material that poses a threat to the security or good order of the prison, and what Montgomery wants falls under that definition. The appeals court said incarceration can include necessary limits on privileges and rights, but the state did not argue its case on those grounds. Instead, the attorney general's office sought dismissal of the lawsuit based on procedural and jurisdictional claims. The court said it recognized the DOC's ability to restrict rights and privileges, and that Montgomery's 'less than artful claims under the statute might evoke a visceral response.' But because the state did not raise those arguments, it said it had no choice but to return the case to the trial court for further action. |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think