In sum, contact visits, especially to detainees, are an appropriate, humane remedy, within the court's constitutional exercise of its judicial power. Rhem v. Malcolm, 2 Cir. 1974, 507 F.2d at 338-39; O'Bryan v. County of Saginaw, E.D.Mich. 1977, 437 F. Supp. 582; Jordan v. Wolke, E.D.Wisc. 1977, 75 F.R.D. 696; Forts v. Malcolm, S.D.N.Y. 1977, 426 F. Supp. 464; Mitchell v. Untreiner, N.D.Fla. 1976, 421 F. Supp. 886; Inmates, D.C. Jail v. Jackson, D.D.C. 1976, 416 F. Supp. 119; Dillard v. Pitchess, C.D.Cal. 1975, 399 F. Supp. 1225; see generally Comment, Confronting the Conditions of Confinement, 12 Harv.C.R.-C. L.L.Rev. 367, 373, 401 (1977); Note, United States ex rel. Wolfish v. Levi: The Limits of Administrative Discretion on Inmate Visitation, 3 New England J. Prison L. 291, 300-02 (1976). Moreover, the trial court did not "thrust itself into prison administration", Bounds v. Smith, 1977, 430 U.S. 817, 832, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1500, 52 L.Ed.2d 72, 86.
Masters have been used in the prison context, when prison officials were unable or unwilling to comply with a court order, to provide expert assistance, to serve as a visible reminder of the court's jurisdiction, and to serve as "the eyes and ears of the Court." Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956, 986 (D.R.I. 1977); see also Jordan v. Wolke, 75 F.R.D. 696 (E.D.Wis. 1977); Jones v. Wittenberg, 73 F.R.D. 82, 85 (N.D. Ohio 1976). We think that compliance efforts here will be expedited by the appointment of a master to monitor compliance until we are satisfied that the due process protections required by our order have been incorporated into the prison routine.
Accordingly, the Court will appoint a Special Master to undertake a thorough examination of the conditions at the Passaic County Jail. This has been done by other courts in similar situations, see, e. g., Owens-El v. Robinson, 442 F. Supp. 1368 (W.D. Pa.), modified, 457 F. Supp. 984 (W.D.Pa. 1978), appeal dismissed, No. 78-1893 (3rd Cir. Sept. 6, 1978); Jordan v. Wolke, 75 F.R.D. 696 (E.D.Wis. 1977); and Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956 (D.R.I. 1977), and is appropriate here. The Master will have the authority and the responsibility to become familiar with all aspects of the Passaic County Jail. He will have complete access to all staff, records, and inmates.