Cruel and unusual punishment from secondhand smoke?

An inmate diagnosed with asthma sued prison officials, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to the secondhand smoke’s impact on his health


This article was featured in Lexipol’s Xiphos newsletter, a monthly legal-focused law enforcement newsletter authored by Ken Wallentine. Subscriptions are free for public safety officers, educators and public attorneys. Subscribe here!

Washington v. Denney, 2018 WL 3827437 (8th Cir. 2018)

Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington (not Denzel Washington the actor) is a guest of the Missouri state prison system.

Washington was diagnosed with asthma and bronchitis. After filing several grievances about secondhand smoke, he sued prison officials for cruel and unusual punishment from secondhand smoke, alleging the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the secondhand smoke’s impact on his health.

Evidence showed prison officials knew about the inmate’s medical condition, but they allowed his cellmates to violate the smoking ban in their cells. (Photo/Pixabay)
Evidence showed prison officials knew about the inmate’s medical condition, but they allowed his cellmates to violate the smoking ban in their cells. (Photo/Pixabay)

Washington was confined in the Crossroads prison, where over 85% of prisoners smoke. The prison allows inmates to keep cigarettes, tobacco, rolling papers, rolling machines and lighters in their cells.

Though smoking in cells is prohibited, corrections officers admitted they “can smell smoke all the time” in the cells.

The evidence showed the prison officials knew about Washington’s medical condition, but they allowed his cellmates to violate the smoking ban in their cells.

After a trial, the jury decided that prison officials violated Washington’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment from secondhand smoke. The jury awarded Washington $40,000 in compensatory damages and $71,000 in punitive damages against prison officials.

The court of appeals agreed Washington’s rights were violated and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Nonetheless, punitive damages against prison officials are appropriate only when their conduct is malicious, outrageous, or intentional. The court held there was no “evil motive or intent,” and reversed the award of punitive damages.

Join the discussion

Copyright © 2019 correctionsone.com. All rights reserved.