Benjamin F. Daughtery v. Warden Harris, U. S. Leavenworth Prison, Thomas J. Piper, Jr. v. C. E. Harris, Warden, Leavenworth Penitentiary, Individually & in His Off. Capacity, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Benjamin F. Daughtery v. Warden Harris, U. S. Leavenworth Prison, Thomas J. Piper, Jr. v. C. E. Harris, Warden, Leavenworth Penitentiary, Individually & in His Off. Capacity, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
135 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 41 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Griffith v. El Paso County Colorado (cod, 2023-02-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#13 28 C.F.R. § 0.95 cited 1× in this case · 26 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 41 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Griffith v. El Paso County Colorado
D. Colo. · 2023 · confidence medium
Jan. 29, 2018) (quoting Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir. 1973)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hylton v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Dona Ana
D.N.M. · 2021 · confidence medium
Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir. 1973), cited in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 560 , 99 S. Ct. 1861, 1885 , 60 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clay (ID 102093) v. Early
D. Kan. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Hyberg v. Enslow, 801 F. App’x 647 , 650–51 (10th Cir. Feb. 21, 2020) (unpublished) (finding no constitutional violation despite plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that search was conducted in a demeaning and derogatory way) (citing Farmer, 288 F.3d at 1260 (recognizing a strip search may be unreasonable if conducted in the open, “visible to a number of other inmates and staff,” and without regard for the inmate’s privacy interests); see also id. at 1261 (“[I]nfringements on prisoners’ constitutional rights must not be arbitrary or irrational, nor an exaggerated response to …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hyberg v. Enslow
10th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Farmer, 288 F.3d at 1260 (recognizing a strip search may be unreasonable if conducted in the open, “visible to a number of other inmates and staff,” and without regard for the inmate’s privacy interests); see also id. at 1261 (“[I]nfringements on prisoners’ constitutional rights must not be arbitrary or irrational, nor an exaggerated response to security needs.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir. 1973) (rejecting contention that rectal cavity searches must be conducted by medical doctors in complete privacy).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lucero v. Bush
D.S.D. · 2010 · confidence medium
Hurley v. Ward, 584 F.2d 609 , 610 n. 1 (2d Cir.1978) ("If there is reasonable cause to believe contraband has been concealed in a body cavity, the inmate shall be immediately examined ... by a facility health staff member.”); United States v. Lilly, 576 F.2d 1240, 1247 (5th Cir.1978) ("The body cavity search *1010 was conducted by a female medical officer in the prison clinic in the presence of only the medical officer and a female correctional officer.”); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 295 (10th Cir.1973) ("the examinations were carried out by trained paraprofessional medical assista…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo (2×) also: Cited "see"
1st Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, physical rectal examinations of prisoners, when carried out by trained medical staff under sanitary conditions, are at times “a necessary and reasonable concomitance of ... imprisonment.” Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 295 (10th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. City of Zebulon
11th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Del Raine, 32 F.3d at 1041 (digital rectal exam of an inmate by medical personnel); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 295 (10th Cir.1973) (rectal searches of inmates by medical personnel).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Peter Evans v. City of Zebulon, Georgia
11th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Del Raine, 32 F.3d at 1041 (digital rectal exam of an inmate by medical personnel); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 295 (10th Cir.1973) (rectal searches of inmates by medical personnel).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Del Raine v. Williford
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See also Tribble v. Gardner, 860 F.2d 321 , 325 n. 5 (9th Cir.1988); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 295 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973). 62 The appellant also argues that the defendant-appellee conducted the rectal search in a manner violative of the Eighth Amendment insofar as the rectal search was conducted in an unnecessarily brutal, painful, and humiliating manner.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ramey v. Hawk
E.D.N.C. · 1989 · confidence medium
See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 , 97 S.Ct. 1491 , 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977); Bryan v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233 (3d Cir.1975); Daugherty v. Harris, 476 F.2d at 292.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tracy Ray Vaughan v. James D. Ricketts
9th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973), held that routine physical rectal searches of inmates before court appearances were reasonable “unless contradicted by a showing of wanton conduct.” The court continued: Of course, any search should be conducted by prison officials under judicious circumstances ....
examined Cited as authority (rule) Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Appeal of William Shaughnessy (4×)
1st Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
See e.g., Logan v. Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007, 1013 (4th Cir.1981) (strip search of detainee unreasonable under Bell v. Wolfish); Olson v. Klecker, 642 F.2d 1115, 116-17 (8th Cir.1981) ("Prisoners enjoy at least minimal fourth amendment protection in cell-search situations"); Hurley v. Ward, 584 F.2d 609, 611 (2d Cir.1978) (the "gross violation of personal privacy" involved in visual anal/genital searches of inmate, "especially in view of the physical and verbal abuse incident to the procedure", outweighs state's interest in the "prison security measure"); United States v. Lilly, 576 F.2d 1240, 124…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Russell Thomas Palmer, Jr. v. Ted S. Hudson, Officer
4th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
United States v. Savage, 482 F.2d 1371, 1372 (9 Cir.1973); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294 (10 Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Bayaoa
Haw. · 1982 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 560 ; United States v. York, 578 F.2d 1036, 1041 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1005 (1978); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294-95 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 (1973); In re Alan R., 132 Cal. App. 3d 601, 604-05 , 183 Cal. Rptr. 325, 327 (Ct. App. 1982); Thomas v. State, 285 Md. 458, 468 , 404 A.2d 257, 263 (1979); Marrero v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 754, 757 , 284 S.E.2d 809, 810-11 (1981). 8 We believe this position to be a sound one, given the unique and compelling need of prisons to preserve order and security within their w…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rene v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1982 · confidence medium
Seilers v. Ciccone, 530 F.2d 199, 202 (8th Cir. 1976); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973). .
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sherry Marie Lilly, United States of America v. Merrilyn M. Gallegos (4×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
United States v. Stumes, 549 F.2d 831, 832 (8th Cir. 1977); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973); United States v. Cristancho-Puerto, 475 F.2d 1025 , 1027 n.1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 869 , 94 S.Ct. 181 , 38 L.Ed.2d 115 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Frank Edward Ready
10th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
This Court has upheld rectal searches of prisoners under sanitary and nonhumiliating conditions as “a necessary and reasonable concomitance of appellants’ imprisonment.” Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 295 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roger Lee Woods v. Loren Daggett, Warden United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas
10th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Id. at 294.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States Ex Rel. Wolfish v. Levi
S.D.N.Y. · 1976 · confidence medium
It is surely true, as respondents stress, that executive officials rather than judges are in charge of prisons and jails. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4001 , 4042 (1970); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827 , 94 *1247 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05 , 94 S.Ct. 1800 , 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974); Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Alonzo Bonner v. Joseph Coughlin (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
7th Cir. · 1975 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15 , 21—22, 40 S.Ct. 50 , 64 L.Ed. 103 ; see also United States v. Palmateer, 469 F.2d 273, 274 (9th Cir. 1972); cf. Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294-295 (10th Cir. 1973); Denson v. United.States, 424 F.2d 329, 331 (10th Cir. 1970).
cited Cited "see" Shapiro v. Rynek
D. Colo. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See 476 F.2d at 293 . .
discussed Cited "see" Security And Law Enforcement Employees v. Carey
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294-95 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973); Evans v. Moseley, 455 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 889 , 93 S.Ct. 160 , 34 L.Ed.2d 146 (1972); United States v. Kelley, 393 F.Supp. 755, 756-57 (W.D.Okla.1975).
discussed Cited "see" Security & Law Enforcement Employees v. Carey
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294-95 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973); Evans v. Moseley, 455 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 889 , 93 S.Ct. 160 , 34 L.Ed.2d 146 (1972); United States v. Kelley, 393 F.Supp. 755, 756-57 (W.D.Okla.1975).
discussed Cited "see" Hunt v. Polk County, Iowa
S.D. Iowa · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973) (strip search of federal penitentiary inmate prior to court appearance, to locate contraband which could threaten security of the transferring marshals or the court); Bell v. Manson, 427 F.Supp. 450 (D.Conn.1976) (strip search of pretrial detainees on return from court appearances and other outside visits); Hodges v. Klein, 412 F.Supp. 896 (D.N.J.1976) (strip searches of maximum security convicted prisoners when entering or leaving the institution and after contact visits with ou…
discussed Cited "see" James Edward Clayton v. Peter A. Douglas, Warden, Lexington Assessment and Reception Center
10th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
As we reiterated recently: The Supreme Court has made it clear that “lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction *145 justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 [ 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804 , 41 L.Ed.2d 495 ]; Accord, Jones v. North Carolina Prisoner’s Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 125 [ 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2537 , 53 L.Ed.2d 629 ]; See generally Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 [ 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 ].
discussed Cited "see" Vera v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Daughtery v. Harris, supra , (rectal search of inmates at maximum security institution prior to court appearances reasonable in absence of showing of wanton conduct); Hodges v. Klein, 412 F. Supp. 896 (D.N.J. 1976) (rectal search of inmates upon leaving or entering the institution and following contact visits is reasonable).
discussed Cited "see" Ramos v. Lamm
10th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
However we need not decide this basic issue since the district court did not find, nor is it claimed by the plaintiffs, that prison officials are denying visitation entirely. 83 Assuming that such a right exists, the Supreme Court has made it clear that "lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 , 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804 , 41 L.Ed.2d 495 ; accord, Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. 119, 125 , 97 S.Ct. 2532, 253…
discussed Cited "see" Ramos v. Lamm
10th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
Assuming that such a right exists, the Supreme Court has made it clear that “lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 , 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804 , 41 L.Ed.2d 495 ; accord, Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union, 433 U.S. 119, 125 , 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2537 , 53 L.Ed.2d 629 ; See generally Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 .
discussed Cited "see" Bell v. Manson
D. Conn. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Daugherty v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10 Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973) (rectal search of inmates at maximum security institution prior to court appearances); Hodges v. Klein, 412 F.Supp. 896 (D.N.J.1976) (rectal search of prison inmates upon leaving or entering the institution and following personal contact visits with other inmates or friends and relatives); Giampetruzzi v. Malcolm, 406 F.Supp. 836 (S.D.N.Y.1975) (strip search of pretrial' detainees after personal visits); Penn El v. Riddle, 399 F.Supp. 1059 (E.D.Va.1975) (body cavity search of inmat…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Odell Bennett
10th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Daugherty v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jackson v. Wiley
E.D. Va. · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Daugh-tery, 476 F.2d 292 (upholding rectal searches performed by “paraprofessional medical assistants” and forbidding such searches by ordinary prison personnel); see also Tribble, 860 F.2d 321 ; Snider, 59 F.3d 167 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Williams v. State
Iowa · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 and 113, 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973) (strip search and rectal examination prior to court appearance approved).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cole v. Snow
D. Mass. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, 295 (10th Cir.1973) (allowing strip searches under “judicious” circumstances); Frazier v. Ward, 426 F.Supp. 1354 (N.D.N.Y.1977) (disallowing strip searches after contact visits).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hendrix v. Faulkner
N.D. Ind. · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. en., 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Bono v. Saxbe
S.D. Ill. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973); Hodges v. Klein, 412 F.Supp. 986 (D.N.J.1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bell v. Wolfish (2×)
SCOTUS · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F. 2d 292 (CA10), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 872 (1973); Hodges v. Klein, 412 F. Supp. 896 (NJ 1976); Bijeol v. Benson, 404 F. Supp. 595 (SD Ind. 1975); Penn El v. Riddle, 399 F. Supp. 1059 (ED Va. 1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sconiers v. Jarvis
D. Kan. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
It has been repeatedly stated that: “[T]he basic responsibility for the control and management of penal institutions, including the discipline, treatment and care of those confined, lies with the responsible administrative agency and is not subject to judicial review unless exercised in such a manner as to constitute clear abuse or caprice upon the part of prison officials.” Paniagua v. Moseley, 451 F.2d 228 (10th Cir. 1971); Marchesani v. McCune, 531 F.2d 459 (10th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 846 , 97 S.Ct. 127 , 50 L.Ed.2d 117 ; see also Daugherty v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hurley v. Ward
S.D.N.Y. · 1978 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th *1231 Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 88 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973); Hodges v. Klein, 412 F.Supp. 896 (D.N.J.1976); Giampetruzzi v. Malcolm, 406 F.Supp. 836 (S.D.N.Y.1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harry Clardy v. Edward Levi, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents- Phillip L. Tucker v. Edward Levi, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents
9th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973); Royal v. Clark, 447 F.2d 501 (5th Cir. 1971); Sullivan v. Ciccone, 311 F.Supp. 456 (W.D.Mo.1970); Lesser v. Humphrey, 89 F.Supp. 474 (M.D.Pa.1950).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Clardy v. Levi
9th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973); Royal v. Clark, 447 F.2d 501 (5th Cir. 1971); Sullivan v. Ciccone, 311 F.Supp. 456 (W.D.Mo.1970); Less er v. Humphrey, 89 F.Supp. 474 (M.D.Pa. 1950).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Penn El v. Riddle
E.D. Va. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872 , 94 S.Ct. 112 , 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Benjamin F. Daughtery
v.
Warden Harris, U. S. Leavenworth Prison, Thomas J. Piper, Jr. v. C. E. Harris, Warden, Leavenworth Penitentiary, Individually and in His Official Capacity
72-1620.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
May 9, 1973.
476 F.2d 292
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

476 F.2d 292

Benjamin F. DAUGHTERY, Appellant,
v.
Warden HARRIS, U. S. Leavenworth Prison, Appellee.
Thomas J. PIPER, Jr., Appellant,
v.
C. E. HARRIS, Warden, Leavenworth Penitentiary, Individually
and in his Official capacity, Appellee.

Nos. 72-1363 (L-2035), 72-1620 (L-2132).

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

April 10, 1973.
Rehearing Denied in No. 72-1363 May 9, 1973.

Donald E. Cordova, Denver, Colo., for appellants.

Bruce E. Miller, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.

LEWIS, Chief Judge.

[*~292]1

Appellants appeal from separate judgments of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denying injunctive and declaratory relief from rectal searches conducted by officials of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. The proceedings in both cases were in forma pauperis. Because the basic facts and issues are identical the appeals were consolidated for argument before this court.

2

Appellants are inmates at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. Appellant Daughtery was subjected to two rectal searches by a physician's assistant preparatory to being transferred to the custody of the United States Marshal's Office for transportation to a court appearance. Appellant Piper was also given a rectal examination prior to the United States Marshal's transporting him to testify in court. The purpose of these searches is to locate any concealed contraband[1] which could be used to threaten the security of a marshal or the court.

3

The authority to undertake rectal searches stems from a grant of power to the Bureau of Prisons, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 4041, 4042, to manage and regulate all federal penal and correctional institutions. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is empowered to formulate policies and procedures for commitment, control and treatment of inmates in federal institutions. 28 C.F.R. Secs. 0.95, 0.96, 0.97. Prison officials at local institutions are also authorized to promulgate procedures consistent with their peculiar needs and problems. Pursuant to this authority the Bureau of Prisons and officials at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas established procedures concerning the discharge of inmates to the United States Marshal's Office.

4

Policy Statement No. 7300.53 of the Bureau of Prisons requires a United States Marshal to exercise every precaution when transferring prisoners, including conducting thorough searches of the person. Due to specific problems which have arisen with the transfer of prisoners in the District of Kansas, prison officials at Leavenworth developed local procedures concerning contraband and searches before releasing prisoners to the United States Marshal's Office. This directive states:

5

Effective immediately, dress-out procedures for all inmates to be released to the custody of the U. S. Marshals or U. S. Deputy Marshals will be conducted in the basement of the Administration Building. The Receiving and Discharge Officer will carry the dress-out clothing and escort the inmate to the release room at the time the Marshal arrives to assume custody. The inmate will be given a "strip shake-down" removing all institutional clothing and a rectal examination given by the M.T.A., and dressed in release clothing which will be thoroughly shaken down in the presence of the Marshal or his Deputy. (Director of the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, October 18, 1971.)

6

It is the validity of this "strip shakedown" and rectal examination procedure which is brought into question on appeal by appellants' contention that such procedures violate constitutional guarantees of privacy and prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[*~293]7

Appellants' assertions must be examined in light of the basic rule that control and management of federal penal institutions lies within the sound discretion of the responsible administrative agency. Judicial relief will only be granted upon a showing that prison officials have exercised their discretionary powers in such a manner as to constitute clear abuse or caprice. Perez v. Turner, 10 Cir., 462 F.2d 1056, 1057; Evans v. Moseley, 10 Cir., 455 F.2d 1084, 1086. The district court, based upon the pleadings and after taking judicial notice of facts contained in other files and records of the court and facts subject to judicial knowledge, summarily denied relief. We affirm, rejecting appellants' contentions that the searches are a basic violation of their right to privacy unless special cause is shown in justification and that, in any event, the searches must be conducted by medical doctors and in complete privacy.

8

Leavenworth is a maximum security institution containing many dangerous inmates and any consideration of the penitentiary's security regulations must be realistic. There are many known incidents of concealed contraband being carried by prison inmates in the rectal cavity. Several serious episodes, including the wounding of a court officer, were attributable to the ability of inmates to smuggle weapons out of prison. Given these circumstances coupled with an increasing need to assure the safety of our law enforcement and court officials, this policy of allowing rectal searches must be considered reasonable unless contradicted by a showing of wanton conduct. Graham v. Willingham, 10 Cir., 384 F.2d 367, 368. To hold that known cause comparable to that required for a search warrant in private life must precede such a search would be completely unrealistic. It is usually the totally unexpected that disrupts prison security.

9

Of course, any search should be conducted by prison officials under judicious circumstances. Cf. Bethea v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 417 F.2d 504, 506. Rectal examinations are not medically dangerous as such and while such an examination when done for diagnostic purposes requires professional expertise a search for contraband does not. The searches were here conducted according to the directives issued by the Bureau of Prisons and the Leavenworth administration and the examinations were carried out by trained paraprofessional medical assistants in a designated area and under sanitary conditions. Also, there was no attempt on the part of officials or medical personnel to humiliate or degrade the appellants. The conclusion, therefore, to be drawn from a survey of the facts is that the rectal searches in question were, and are, a necessary and reasonable concomitance of appellants' imprisonment.

[*~294]10

The judgments of the district court are severally affirmed.

1

The Chief Correctional Supervisor at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas has stated that a typical but incomplete list of contraband items would include the following:

Weapons of any type, sawblades, narcotics, intoxicants, barbituates, money, pornography, single edge razor blades, or any item which might be used to effect an escape, or any unauthorized books, magazines, newspapers, clothing, medicines, tools, foodstuffs, etc. (Directive of the Chief Correctional Supervisor, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas.)