In Ebli v. State,[1] the supreme court affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss an incarcerated individual’s complaint that a restriction placed on his visitation rights by the Department of Corrections (DOC) violated his constitutional right to rehabilitation. While incarcerated, Keilan Ebli began a romantic relationship with a DOC substance abuse counselor, which continued even after the counselor had been moved to another facility. The counselor and the counselor’s parents regularly visited and called Ebli. DOC has rules that prohibit relationships between DOC employees and prison inmates. DOC eventually became aware of this relationship and sent letters to all parties involved informing them that neither the counselor nor her parents would be allowed to visit Ebli again. After going through the internal appeals process, Ebli sued DOC, claiming, amongst other things, that the restrictions violated his “fundamental right to rehabilitation,” which is protected under Article 1, §12 of the Alaska Constitution. Although the superior court recognized that the right to rehabilitation did include visitation privileges, it found that this restriction did not violate his constitutional right. The Alaskan supreme court applied the test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley, which considers four factors in determining whether a prison rule is “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” The court found that the DOC had a legitimate penological interest in prohibiting future visitations on the grounds that the counselor’s loss of objectivity and her willingness to violate ethics policies could potentially be a security concern and that the restrictions would discourage others from violating the relationship policy in the future. Finding that the superior court had correctly deferred to DOC’s judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Ebli’s constitutional claim.
[1] 451 P.3d 382 (Alaska 2019).
