Hudson v. Palmer
| Hudson v. Palmer Palmer v. Hudson | |
|---|---|
| Argued December 7, 1983 Decided July 3, 1984 | |
| Full case name | Ted S. Hudson, Petitioner v. Russell Thomas Palmer, Jr.; Russell Thomas Palmer, Jr., Petitioner v. Ted S. Hudson |
| Docket no. | 82-1630; 82-6695 |
| Citations | 468 U.S. 517 (more) 104 S. Ct. 3194; 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Palmer v. Hudson, 697 F.2d 1220 (4th Cir. 1983); cert. granted, 463 U.S. 1206 (1983). |
| Holding | |
| Prison inmates have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and destruction of property did not constitute a Due Process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment because Virginia had adequate state law remedies. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by White, Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Connor |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV; U.S. Const. amend XIV | |
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prison inmates have no privacy rights in their cells protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court also held that an intentional deprivation of property by a state employee "does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if an adequate postdeprivation state remedy exists," extending Parratt v. Taylor to intentional torts.