Prison rule hair-brained at best

CHARLES J. UNGER

Now here is a ruling we can all be proud of. This is the story of

Billy Warsoldier, a Native American who was freed from jail earlier

this year after his sentence had been extended due to his refusal to

allow his hair to be cut while in prison. Mr. Warsoldier was in

prison due to the rare combination of possessing brass knuckles while

driving under the influence of alcohol.

The Adelanto Correctional Facility requires all inmates to comply

with their grooming policies. These include a major haircut.

The last time Mr. Warsoldier had cut his hair was in 1980 when his

father died. He has not cut it since. Mr. Warsoldier is a member of

the Cahuillas tribe. His tribe membership required him to make the

decision to not cut his hair. Mr. Warsoldier’s release date came and

went as the Department of Corrections told him he would have to serve

an extra month and a half in prison due to the hair issue.

He then filed suit claiming that the hair requirements violated

his ability to practice freedom of religion. Well, the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Warsoldier and ordered his immediate

release, pending a more lengthy hearing on this matter. If his

attorneys eventually win, he will not have to return to prison. If

they lose, he is heading back.

Needless to say, the Department of Corrections does not agree with

this ruling indicating their belief that their rules pertaining to

grooming are for security reasons.

What undercuts (pun intended) their position is the fact that

their grooming rules have only been in place since 1997. The rules

indicate that male inmates cannot have their hair longer than three

inches. The stated goal is to keep inmates from hiding weapons in

their hair. A secondary goal is if an inmate were to escape, they

don’t want the inmate to be able to drastically alter his appearance

with a big time haircut. I am not particularly impressed with these

reasons. If they want to they can do a hair search every day.

The key to Mr. Warsoldier’s lawsuit is the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act, which was passed four years ago. This

law forbids any correctional facility from imposing what is deemed a

“substantial burden on one’s ability to freely practice his

religion.”

The extension of Mr. Warsoldier’s sentence was not the only

punishment he suffered for his beliefs. He was denied phone calls and

family visits and other niceties that he would normally would have

received.

This is only the first phase of the hearing as the Ninth Circuit

has decided to free Mr. Warsoldier for the time being, however,

things could change.

Personally, I hope they don’t. I understand the need for

discipline in a prison, but if it is a matter of one’s faith, I think

that should supercede the Department of Corrections rules in this

case. I would not want to be denied the right to pray or have other

reasonable religious beliefs or activities of mine denied were I in

Mr. Warsoldier’s shoes.

I am emphasizing the word reasonable. People certainly should not

be permitted to make things up and create their own religions in an

attempt to obtain extra privileges. Similarly, if it could be proved

that Mr. Warsoldier just wanted long hair and did not hold these

religious beliefs or that the Cahuillas tribe did not hold the

beliefs Mr. Warsoldier attributes to them, then he should lose. If

Mr. Warsoldier is telling the truth, I hope he keeps on winning.

* Dr. Charles J. Unger is a criminal defense attorney in the

Glendale law firm of Flanagan, Unger & Grover, and a therapist at the

Foothill Centre for Personal and Family Growth. Dr. Charlie writes a

bimonthly column on legal and psychological issues. He can be reached

at (818) 244-8694 or at www.charlieunger.com. You can also hear Dr.

Charlie on KLSX-FM (97.1), at 9 p.m. Sundays.