Opinion
No. S1 02 Cr. 395 (JGK).
October 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the letter from counsel for defendant Sattar dated September 26, 2006 and the Government's responsive letter dated October 11, 2006.
In the September 26, 2006 letter counsel for defendant asks that the Special Administrative Measures ("SAMs") imposed on defendant Sattar on February 2, 2006 be lifted. In response, the Government conceded that the defendant has exhausted administrative remedies to lift the SAMs in general, but has not exhausted administrative remedies with respect to any particular restriction. The Government also contends that imposing SAMs on Sattar is reasonable given the fact that Sattar was convicted of terrorist activity and the fact that his activity involved the subversion of restrictions on prison communications and visitations.
The constitutionality of the SAMs is measured against a four-factor test: "The court must consider first whether there is a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate governmental interest used to justify it; second, whether there are alternative means for the prisoner to exercise the right at issue; third, the impact that the desired accommodation will have on guards, other inmates, and prison resources; and fourth, the absence of ready alternatives."United States v. El-Hage, 213 F.3d 74, 81 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 889-91 (1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Felipe, 148 F.3d 101, 110 (2d Cir. 1998). In this case, the defendant has failed to show that the SAMs should be lifted. The defendant has described the SAMs generally in counsel's letter, but has not provided the Court with a copy of the SAMs or shown how they infringe on any specific constitutional rights. Moreover, the defendant has failed to show that the SAMs violate the test articulated in Turner and El-Hage. It is plain that the Court cannot invalidate SAMs in the abstract, and the defendant has failed to show how the SAMs imposed on him violate his constitutional rights. It is clear that the Government does have a legitimate government interest in assuring that the crimes of which Sattar was convicted, which involved the subversion of SAMs, are not repeated.
This decision is based on the limited papers provided to the Court. The SAMs may be revised and the situation may be different in the institution to which the defendant is designated by the Bureau of Prisons. This decision does not purport to decide those issues. The Government also notes that the defendant has not exhausted administrative remedies on specific provisions of the SAMs and that issue is not before the Court on this application.
The application to lift the SAMs is denied.
SO ORDERED.