Can Religious Items Be Confiscated in Jail?

  

Everyone has a right to use the items of their choice to practice their religion. But how does this right extend to individuals who are behind bars? This is an issue raised in Goff v. Rode, a case involving Shawn Goff who is an Arizona State Prisoner, and sued four prison officers as well as a complex manager for taking items which he claims violate his freedom to practice religion. Goff is a practicing member of Wicca, which is the largest of the modern Pagan religions. The question the court was looking to answer was not whether or not Wicca is a genuine religion, but instead did the items confiscated substantially burden his ability to practice his religion. 

Goff is 43 years old, and he was sentenced to life in prison for a murder that took place back in 2001. He says that in 2019 he saw guards carrying a plastic bag out of his cell which contained an altar cloth and a medallion. Goff says that he heard the guards describing the items as “satanic” and “devil stuff.” According to Goff however, they were talking about items connected to his religious faith. Goff went on to claim that not having the altar cloth and medallion “deprived him of his sincerely held religious belief.” 

Goff brought forward claims under the free exercise clause of the first amendment while also bringing forward a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). RLUIPA gives additional protection for religious exercise by people who are institutionalized, including prisoners. The case began in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona where the court decided to grant summary judgement for the defendants, by finding that Goff hadn’t provided enough evidence to establish the necessary violation to the first amendment. Goff appealed and the majority decided that Goff had provided sufficient evidence to create a legitimate argument of whether the confiscation of his religious items created a substantial burden on his religious exercise. They decided that a jury could reasonably conclude that taking away Goff’s medallion and altar cloth substantially burdened his exercise of Wicca. Goff states that these items store energy and are important parts of him performing his rituals. 

There are some things about this case that are important to note. To begin, after the religious items were confiscated, they were never returned. This means that taking these items was substantial and more than just a momentary or temporary confiscation. Another important fact is that Goff had previously gotten approval for these religious items to be in his cell. When these items were taken in a search, they were in a box labeled “religious items” and it is reasonable to assume that the guards knew that these items held religious significance. Although these items were never returned to Goff it is also important to note that these two items were $12 each, and Goff had the option to purchase new ones, however he refused. 

I find Judge Rawlinson’s dissent more persuasive, claiming that taking these items from Goff did not substantially burden his ability to practice his religion. Rawlinson mentions how in order to count as a substantial burden the action in question must put substantial pressure on an individual to modify their behavior or violate their beliefs. Rawlinson claims that even after the confiscation Goff continued to practice daily meditation and prayer. Goff does not say that he cannot afford to purchase the replacement cloth and medallion but instead says that he will not buy them until after he gets his lawsuits taken care of. 

Ultimately, I believe that the confiscation of Goff’s medallion and altar cloth do not violate his free exercise of religion. I think that the emphasis here is on whether or not his ability to practice his religion was substantially burdened. Goff was able to continue practicing Wicca, which has a very wide variety of techniques and methods not relating to the medallion or altar cloth, well after these items were confiscated from him. Additionally, Goff’s refusal to purchase replacements, while still practicing his religion makes it seem as though these items are not necessary for his ability to exercise religion. From my perspective this is important because it shows that the government did not substantially interfere with Goff’s ability to practice his religion. If Goff was still able to practice his religion through prayer, meditation, visualization, and other actions, then taking two relatively inexpensive objects would not rise to the level of a substantial constitutional burden. 

If Goff was to win this case and it is ruled that taking his medallion and cloth provided a substantial burden to his free exercise of religion, then there may be a compelling state interest. In prisons the government has a legitimate interest in controlling property, preventing contraband, and maintaining order in protecting staff and inmates. The issue here however is that this argument falls apart quickly with the idea that Goff had already gotten approval to have these items. If Goff had these approved items in a box clearly labeled as religious material, then it is not a question of whether it was right or wrong to take the items, but instead whether Goff’s first amendment rights to free exercise of his religion were taken from him.