Further Reading: An important issue in electoral reform is addressed by recent proposed legislation, dogs are protected by the Fourth Amendment, at least so says the Fourth Circuit, and prisoner Steven Martin (no not that one) did not get any relief for having to wait a year to get married.

There is something wrong, though the opinion did not think so ("And what could be the damages from delay?"), for delaying a marriage (constitutionally protected) for a year (again, the delay, surely notable, is treated as rather trivial "only postponed" and "every delay" does not "violate the Constitution") as a result of a prisoner grabbing his girlfriend's butt during a visit. In jail since 1987 for murder, the action is not shocking, while the defendant is far from sympathetic. All the same, he got a disciplinary ticket for abuse of privileges and could not see visitors for only thirty days, though the girlfriend was put on a a restricted list. [They would not see each other for eighteen months.] Thus, the "crime" was not particularly serious either, and a marriage clearly could have commenced with the two separated if a nontouching period would be a just punishment for the violation. The one inflicted does not seem to be one.