NCJ Number
116431
Journal
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1988) Pages: 403-429
Date Published
1988
Length
27 pages
Annotation
This analysis of the case of Miga v. City of Holyoke concludes that to avoid similar situations in the future, the Massachusetts legislature should statutorily define what protective custody is, the rights of people who are so detained, and the responsibilities of the police in ensuring those rights.
Abstract
In Miga, the police found Sandra Smigiel in an intoxicated condition. They placed her in a cell without taking the precautions that the situation warranted under the Massachusetts statute authorizing protective custody. They also failed to investigate shouts from other detainees that Smigiel was trying to kill herself. She succeeded in committing suicide. Although the Miga court found that Smigiel's constitutional substantive due process rights were violated, such retrospective justice is of little help to Smigiel. Protective custody is often necessary to prevent people from harming themselves or others, but the police must exercise strict precautions to assure that detainees are not harmed and that their substantive due process rights are not violated. The revised statute should communicate clearly what the police must do and must not do. It should also provide severe sanctions for noncompliance. 215 footnotes.