Fourth Amendment violations in the Reynolds home invasion case

¶ … Pattern

What follows in this fairly lengthy report is the legal analysis of a prosecution that is taking place in light of a home invasion. While the overall details of the case seem to lead to an airtight conviction, the police and other law enforcement personnel involved make some clear missteps and they are to the point that the entire case might be in jeopardy unless the perpetrators can be coerced (legally) to confess their crimes. Even so, the author of this response will go through the details of the crime itself and what the police did in response and roughly piece together what will be admissible in court, what will not be admissible in court and what sort of chance the case has of ever finding a conviction of one or both of the brothers involved. The parameters of the assignment make mention of that fact that victims are often relegated to being second-class citizens. Indeed, this does happen a lot of the time but there is also the tendency for some police agencies and prosecutors to not know the laws they are to be following. They are also very aloof a lot of the time when it comes to the amendments of the Constitution that pertain to criminal prosecutions and the relevant precedent and court cases that have expanded and clarified the same. While an overall case against the Reynold's boys is not entirely lost, it is absolutely on life support and the police and detectives investigating the case are absolutely to blame.

Analysis

As far as analyzing this case goes, the author will review the storyline given for the case and will make comments and suggestions as thing go on. There will be, at the end, a final spate of analysis that will look at the admissibility claims and whether the case stands a chance in court. Anyhow the story begins with the Jacksons spending time at home watching television. Indeed, there are the two parents and a twelve-year-old daughter. Upon a knock at the door at about 9 pm in the evening, Mr. Jackson opens the interior door and comes across a man in his early 20's. The man tells Mr. Jackson that he is having car problems and that his cellular phone is not working. He asks if he might come inside to call a tow truck. Mr. Jackson, who is a man who always likes to help a man indeed, cracks open the door. The man, whose name is Steve Reynolds, opens the door and he and his accomplice standing nearby, that being Peter, rush in with guns and tell everyone to get on the ground or they will get hurt. Mr. Jackson goes for the sidearm wielded by Steve Reynolds but is stopped. Peter pistol-whips Mr. Jackson, who is knocked unconscious. Linda Jackson, Mr. Jackson's wife, is now hysterical and flees with her daughter to a bedroom. Peter Reynolds breaks the door down and binds the girl and the woman with duct tape. After everyone is bound or otherwise subdued, the house is ransacked of money, jewelry and other values. After about a quarter of an hour, they run from the home. Mr. Jackson, who had earlier been rendered unconscious, awakes and frees his family and also calls the police.

The police arrive and take a recitation of what happened. Mr. Jackson has to be hospitalized for his actions. Linda ends up having to go as well due to being in a state of shock. At the hospital, the Jacksons are able to give a general description of their attackers to the police. They also are quick to note that there was a cameo in the house that was extremely rare and uncommon and that this was part of what the burglars took. Detective Walters is assigned to the case. HE immediately keys in on the fact that the Reynolds brothers are quite likely the culprits. Indeed, they have been unleashing a crime spree for the ages over the recent months and years. He is also wise to the fact that the modus operandi used for this robbery matches the Reynolds brothers to the letter.

As part of his investigation, Walters talks to a woman named Mrs. Lindsay. She lives around the block from the Jacksons and she happened to have been walking her dog the night of the crime. She notes that she happens to know about Cyrus Reynolds, who happens to be the father of the two suspected robbers in this case. She said that she observed an old 1985 Ford Taurus that is owned by Cyrus that was parked near the Jackson house at about 8:45 PM. This was about fifteen minutes before the crime was committed, that being at the aforementioned 9 pm at night. Based on the narrative given by Mrs. Lindsay, the detective is convinced that the Reynolds brothers are the people behind the crime against the Jacksons. This leads to a team of police officers going to the house of Cyrus Reynolds. One of the alleged perpetrators lives in an apartment in another part of town but Steve Reynolds lives in the house with the father.

This is where the police missteps begin. Not only is an arrest warrant not issued for Steve Reynolds before he is pursued, there is also not a search warrant issued for the property that is being raided, that being the house of Cyrus Reynolds. They, for some reason, determine that no arrest or search warrant is needed due to their suspicions about the case. So, to put things clearly, no arrest warrant is in hand, no search warrant is in hand, and there are not any currently occurring exigent circumstances to justify the police breaking into the house (for any reason) without a warrant. This alone will certainly negate just about anything (if not everything) that is found and discovered in the house. This becomes extremely relevant because the aforementioned cameo and the two guns used in the robbery are in the house. If the legitimacy of the search leads to any relevant evidence found during the search is shot down, then the guns and the cameo are excluded as evidence in any trial that ends up occurring. Incidentally, both of the brothers (including the one that does not live there) are in the house and both are taken into custody. As they are taken into custody, the two men make no statements to police. It is not clear if they were Mirandized or not. Either way, they said nothing so that particular point is basically moot. Upon their capture, a lineup is done with the two Reynold's brothers. Mr. Jackson is only able to identify Steve Reynolds but not Peter. Mrs. Jackson and the younger Linda are unable to identify either of the brothers as they say they cannot recognize their faces. The police are able to get fingerprints off of the guns that were found in Steve's bedroom. No mention is made of whether any fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime.

Admissibility of Cameo against Either Brother

Since arrest warrants nor a search warrant was garnered for the search of the house of Cyrus Reynolds, the cameo would almost certainly be inadmissible. A search warrant as well as an arrest warrant for both men should have been garnered before any doors were busted down. The police did not have exigent circumstances to enter the home such as a crime in progress or someone in imminent danger. As such, a search warrant should have been procured first. This is something that absolutely falls under the "fruit from the poisonous tree." Police cannot just search homes and arrest people without at least a search warrant. An arrest warrant would also have been fairly easy to procure given the witness testimony of Ms. Lindsay seeing the car of Cyrus Reynolds and his two sons being in the car right by the Jackson house right before the crime. Couple this with the matching of the modus operandi and the pattern otherwise established by the two brothers, a search warrant and a pair of arrest warrants would have been basically assured.

Admissibility of Guns against Either Brother

The guns will quite likely be excluded for the same reason as the reasons stated for the cameo. Indeed, there was no search warrant or arrest warrant issued for this situation and thus this made the entry into the house completely unjustified given what was permitted by the court. As such, the discovery of the guns as a result of an invalid search would almost certainly lead to the guns not being admissible either. The only real exception to this is if Ms. Lindsay (or someone else) saw the guns or something else along those lines. However, the fact pattern for the case does not make mention of any such development. As such, both the guns and the cameo would almost certainly be excluded unless they can be looped back in some other way through witness testimony or evidence from a search warrant that is valid. For example, if a righteous warrant was issued for the apartment of Peter Reynolds and evidence was found in that apartment, that evidence would almost certainly be admissible because there is reasonable evidence that has not and almost certainly will not be excluded that ties the Reynold brothers to the crime including the witness testimony of Ms. Lindsay, the identification of Peter Reynolds in the lineup and the matching of the modus operandi as identified by the detective. The one way that the gun could probably be looped backed in is if any sort of indentation or pattern was left as a result of Mr. Jackson being struck by the gun. Just as shoe prints and other things are fairly distinctive, it would be very hard for the Reynold brothers to explain why there is a pattern matching either of their guns imprinted on the forehead of the victim, for example.

Admissibility of Lineups against Either Brother

The lineups, as just alluded to, is a mixed bag in this case. The only person who could identify either brother was Mr. Jackson and his identification of Peter. No one was able to identify Steve and only Mr. Jackson was able to identify Peter. It is not much to go on, but the lineup identification of Peter by Mr. Jackson would be admissible so long as no unstated rules were broken. Even if the arrest of Peter was done in blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and the general rules about getting warrants and such, there was enough evidence to arrest and charge Peter independent of what happened with the invalid search. Of course, the aforementioned idea of searching Peter's apartment would be more than wise so as to find out whether there is evidence at his house. It would also be wise to figure out whether there is any DNA or fingerprint evidence of either brother in the house of the Jacksons. The eyewitness testimony of Ms. Lindsay puts the Reynolds brothers near the house but they have to be placed inside of the house for any conviction to be possible. There is a chance that a search of Peter's apartment might yield such evidence. If the evidence from Cyrus Reynolds' house was not invalidated (as it surely will be), then the case as it currently exists would basically be airtight. Regardless, scrubbing the Jackson home for fingerprints and DNA and searching Peter's apartment is an absolutely must if a conviction is remotely possible. As is stands, the only admissible evidence is circumstantial and not nearly enough to convict the brothers. The guns and the cameo by themselves would have sealed their fate. However, since that evidence would be disallowed, alternate means to convict with a preponderance of the evidence will have to be found. In any event, the lineup identification of Peter places him at the scene and that, in concert with the other evidence that is going to hold up based on what has happened, can only help but it probably will not be enough.

Admissibility of Mrs. Lindsay's Testimony against each Reynolds Brother

The admissibility of testimony against the brothers is assured, but problematic. It is a plus for the prosecution that Mrs. Lindsay knew of the car and who it belonged to. It is also good for the prosecution that the woman knows that the Reynolds brothers were in the car. Further, they were in the car about fifteen minutes before the alleged crime and they were near the house of the victims. None of this places the Reynolds brothers in the house, however, and thus their presence in the car just proves that they were in the area. Unless there is something proving that the brothers were in the house, the case against them is very thin. The exclusion of the guns and cameo, as mentioned before, really, really hurts the case for the prosecution. Unless other evidence can be introduced that incriminates the brothers (e.g. fingerprints in the house, DNA in the house, etc.) or the cameo and/or guns can be reintroduced as evidence, the case is in big trouble. Also helpful to the case with Mrs. Lindsay, her testimony and the car is that Cyrus Reynolds is apparently too old to drive and thus there is no way that it was him in the car. Since one of his son's is his only live-in family, it makes complete sense that he was at least one of the people in the car. The fact that Mrs. Reynolds knows that Cyrus has two children and what they look like further strengthens the case as it relates to what Mrs. Lindsay is contributing.

Summary

In short, the cameo is out, the guns are out, Mrs. Lindsay's testimony serves to broadly (but not specifically) implicate both brothers and the batter of lineups only links Steve to the scene and not the other brother. The modus operandi make sense per the prior history of the perpetrators. In short, unless the lineup, the brothers' prior history and the witness testimony of Mrs. Lindsay is enough, there is no chance of conviction. A conviction of Steve Reynolds might hold up given the confluence of Mrs. Lindsay seeing them and Mr. Jackson being able to identify him. However, that is by no means assured and would perhaps fall upon appeal. Peter Reynolds, given the currently stated evidence, has basically no chance of being convicted based on what is actually admissible in this matter.

Scholarly Support

Of course, the author of this report is not stating the above based on personal opinion or a skewed perspective. While it is sad to see victims get shafted when it comes to the prosecution of criminals, it is made worse when the police cannot or will not follow procedure to the letter when it comes to getting search warrants, getting arrest warrants and otherwise going their job the way they are supposed to. The police should know full well that gaining evidence via incomplete or illegal means leads to that evidence being excluded and this can literally make or break cases. The police have a duty to make sure that they do their jobs correctly and completely lest they end up botching a case that would be a slam-dunk if people simply did their jobs. A conviction of the Reynold's brothers, both of them, would have been assured if the proper arrest warrants and search warrant was issued before the entry into the house of Cyrus Reynolds. The cameo and the guns being found along with the lineup identification of Steve, the rather damning (albeit circumstantial) evidence presented by Mrs. Lindsay and the prior criminal history of the brothers would make for a rather easy case. However, the "fruit from the poisonous tree" exists for a reason and it is meant to prevent the police from engaging in abuses and overreaches when it comes to pursuing criminals. While the criminals were clearly the beneficiary in this case, there are plenty of other situations over time where innocent people have been railroaded by corrupt police officers, prosecutors and detectives. As such, this is why police and such are held to doing their job the right way. The following details and research indicate why the assertions made above are the right ones and why the police in this case study made some unforgivable mistakes with the botched search alone.

Arrest Warrants

To give some background to what an arrest warrant is and how it should be issued and handled, there are a few things that need to be kept in mind. An arrest warrant is an official document that authorizes a police officer to arrest the person or people named in the warrant. In the case of this case study, it would and should be for both Reynolds brothers. As it turns out, both were hiding at their father's house even though only one of them officially lived there. Anyhow, arrest warrants are important because they identify the crimes that are suspected when it comes to the suspects. However, they also often identify the times and/or places that the person or people can be arrested. For example, a judge might say that the person can only be arrested from six in the morning to six in the evening. In many cases, bail is predetermined for the suspect if and when they are caught (Nolo, 2016).

The author of this report did some research and found that getting an arrest warrant is not always necessary. Indeed, so long as a police officer is investigating a crime and they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person they are arresting committed it, the lack of an arrest warrant is not a big deal. However, there is one notable exception to this and the police in this case study trampled all over it. As stated by Nolo, "police officers need to obtain arrest warrants only when they intend to enter a suspect's dwelling in a non-emergency situation." In other words, since there was not a known crime in progress and there were no other exigent circumstances that would allow the police to enter the house, the arrest of both brothers could absolutely be invalidated due to them not following the rules (Nolo, 2016).

Search Warrant

On the other hand, a search warrant is a warrant to enter and search a structure with or without the permission of the people who happen to be there at the time, whether they happen to be residents or other people. The facets of a common search warrant are fairly simple. The warrant will make clear what residence is being searched, typically represented by the address of the building in question. In this case, it would be the house of Cyrus Reynolds and his son. Police officers are able to obtain search warrants only if they have a neutral magistrate or judge that reviews the testimony, evidence and details that lead the police to wanting the search warrant including evidence of a crime, the likelihood that one or more of the perpetrators are present (or might be present) at the address and so forth. Evidence and testimony is provided by the police officers and detectives through what are called affidavits. The suspects involved with the warrant are not present when the warrant is initially argued but they can raise concerns later if they feel the warrant is invalid due to knowingly false or otherwise defective information being used to justify a search. In the Reynold's case, the eyewitness testimony of Mrs. Lindsay, the presence of the brothers near the crime scene and their criminal history would all be presented and thus a warrant would probably be issued given that evidence. The police and the detective would have to be careful, however, about the warrant because they have to be clear about what they are looking for and where they will look for said items. Obviously, the police would be seeking the guns used in the robbery, the cameo and any other items that can be clearly linked to the home of the Jacksons. To state the obvious, the Reynolds brothers would have an easy time explaining why the cameo is there, for example, if they did not rob the house. They would be, at the very least, be in receipt of stolen property and the evidence from the lineup and from Mrs. Lindsay would basically confirm that it was the Reynolds brothers who stole the items and not anyone else, including Cyrus (who cannot drive). There are exceptions to a search warrant not being needed but none apply here. There are no exigent circumstances and there is absolutely an expectation of privacy within the house of the Reynolds absent a righteous warrant. As such, full Fourth Amendment protections would apply. Unless the cameo or the guns are sitting in plain sight and can be seen in a garage or through an open window, those items are not usable in court as evidence unless a warrant was used to gain access to them via a search.

Exigent Circumstances

The term covered in this section has been mentioned several times before but deserves its own mention. Exigent circumstances are one of those exceptions whereby a warrant is not needed. For example, if a fleeing criminal goes inside of a house, the police do not need a search warrant to enter that house. If and when they do enter the house to apprehend the man, they have to focus on that and not searching the house. However, they do not need permission to enter. Similarly, if a police officer hears cries for help from inside a house or there is a 911 call from the same (from the homeowner or not), the police will enter and diffuse whatever situation is at hand, whether it be domestic violence, robbery or something else. For example, if one of the Jacksons was able to call 911, the police could enter the house and apprehend the Reynolds brothers if they were still in or around the house. However, no such circumstance existed when it came to the search of the Cyrus Reynolds house. As such, there should have been a search warrant procured prior to ever approaching the house. Indeed, the police did not have an emergency there to respond to and, even if they did, they had no legally granted reason to go poking around for the cameo, the guns or anything else related to the Jackson home invasion.

Fourth Amendment

When it comes to protections against police abuse of search and seizure, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States stands alone as the major protection that people can cite if they feel the police have overreached. Indeed, criminals use the amendment as well so as to disallow evidence against them and perhaps skate on charges that are actually legitimate. Even so, the law is in place for a reason and there is also a reason that improperly or illegally gained evidence is not usable in court. Otherwise, police and such would be much more likely to try and act with impunity and conduct searches that are not legally allowed for or advisable. These rules protect the innocent public but they sometimes end up protecting the scum of the earth, hence the common thought process that victims of crimes are often treated as second-class citizens when criminals are prosecuted (Cornell, 2016).

To be clear and concise about this subject, the Fourth Amendment as actually stated in the Constitution is as follows:

"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What precisely the law means in certain situations has been bandied about over the years. For example, some say that using infrared detectors to see if heat lamps are blazing in a house (often a sign of marijuana grow operations) is beyond the pale but a drug dog sniffing drugs from outside a car is usually not excluding on a Fourth Amendment basis. A person claiming violation of their Fourth Amendment rights have to prove that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy when the search was completed. Cyrus Reynolds could certainly claim this as he was in his own home bothering no one and there was no emergency or other situation going on that justified the police entering without a warrant. The only real exception to this is if Cyrus Reynolds consented to a search. This obviously did not happen here as the opened the door by force via breaking it down and Cyrus was asleep on the couch. The two brothers were hiding under a bed. Obviously, there was no consent to enter. It apparently was not even asked for. Given that there was no warrant, it should have been. Unless they knocked, spoke to Cyrus and got permission from Cyrus to search, the whole search is null and void from an evidentiary standpoint. There is perhaps a chance that Cyrus would have permitted such a search but the police did not give him a chance (Cornell, 2016).

Fourteenth Amendment

The other amendment to the United States Constitution that is extremely relevant to this case is the Fourteenth Amendment. The relevant part of the amendment, of which there are five major sections, is the first one. That section states as follows:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The key part of that overall clause is the verbiage about due process. Indeed, what this means from the standpoint of the Reynolds is that the police should have done their job and gotten arrest and search warrants. This would require review by an unbiased third party and would only be granted if the relevant judge or magistrate believed that a proper amount of probably cause existed to arrest the Reynolds brothers. However, the police skipped over that and this amendment is almost certainly the reason that the cameo and the guns will be excluded because due process was not properly allowed for and used in the police in their pursuit of arresting the Reynolds brothers.

Fruit from the Poisonous Tree

Given that the author of this report has dwelled on this subject a number of times and given that it is absolutely material to the case study being covered in this report, the author of this report and analysis will give the "poisonous tree" rule its own mention and point of analysis. The rule in question, which is part of the array of "rules of evidence" that is afforded to all accused people, came about as a result of the case of Silvethorne Lumber Company vs. United States. The legal citation of the case was 251 U.S. 385 and it occurred in 1920. Basically, this is a doctrine that was created as part of this case and has been upheld since then. The doctrine is that evidence that is gathered with "the assistance of illegally obtained information must be excluded from trial" (Cornell, 2016). Further, "if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery of evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence may be excluded, the interrogation because of the exclusionary rule, and the physical evidence because it is the 'fruit' of the illegal interrogation" (Cornell, 2016). However, there are three notable exceptions to the "poisonous tree" rule. Those exceptions are that the evidence was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity, the discovery of the evidence was inevitable or that there is an attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence (Cornell, 2016). The latter of those three exceptions is the only real hope for the police in this matter. It could be argued, in general, that the identification of the Reynolds near the victims' house and the identification of Peter in the lineup may be sufficient enough to cancel out the fact that a righteous warrant was not obtained before the search that led to the guns and the cameo. Throw in the prior history and the matching of that profile, and the prosecutors might have a chance. However, it cannot be over-stated just how ill-advised the unwarranted search was and the fact that no arrest warrants were issued concurrent to that just makes it even worse. Indeed, the discovery of the evidence was not "inevitable" because it was located in a secured and locked house. Further, the evidence was not discovered in a way that was independent of the invalid warrant. Indeed, unless the evidence was out in the open and the police just happened upon it or Cyrus discovered he had robbers for sons and offered the items willingly, the police are pretty much going to be stuck without having those items to rely on during trial (Cornell, 2016).

Police Lineups

The lineup identification of Peter by Mr. Jackson is obviously a good thing for the case in question here. However, there is an elephant in the room that may become a problem. Since there was not an arrest warrant issued for Peter Reynolds and since a house was forcibly entered to grab him, it has to be recognized that his arrest was basically not valid. The police had no cause to enter the house and they had no arrest warrant that identified that Peter was subject to arrest. Beyond that, the police themselves did not have probable cause or reason to arrest Peter as they were going off of the testimony of the Jackson family, Mrs. Lindsay and so forth. This is all relevant because people that are arrested can be compelled to participate in police lineups. However, this is not always the case when it comes to people that are simply being questioned or are otherwise there voluntarily. If Peter was at the police station involuntarily but it was because of an arrest that was not valid, this could present a problem when it comes to using this in court unless the lineup can somehow be re-done so as to make it legal. The problem is that Peter would either have to consent to this (and he probably would not) and whether he is legitimately under arrest and thus subject to a lineup at all. This is yet another complication of the police not getting the proper warrants before they entered the house of Cyrus Reynolds. That miscue alone is causing this case all sorts of problems. About the only evidence that is not in peril of being excluded or otherwise invalidated is the prior criminal history of the men and their presence, as seen by Mrs. Lindsay, near the house of the victims. This is not remotely enough to convict the brothers as both of the items just mentioned are circumstantial and really prove nothing (Nolo, 2016).

Prognosis of the Case

Overall, the case against the Reynolds brothers is in very bad shape. There is little to no chance that the brothers will be convicted without the cameo and the guns being admissible. If the lineup identification is stricken due to an invalid arrest, then the case is hopeless. It would really behoove the police to do a warranted search of the apartment that belongs to the other brother. It would also be wise to see if Mr. Jackson can identify the gun and/or of the strike point of the gun against Mr. Reynolds can somehow lead to a link to the gun. Finally, there needs to be an exhaustive review and search of the home to see if either of the brothers left DNA evidence and/or fingerprints at the scene. If one or both are present, this would inextricably link the brothers to the crime scene and thus a conviction could still be possible when they are tried in court. Unless the cameo and guns can be included (or allowed back in given some other development) and/or other evidence can (legally) be garnered that severely implicates the brothers, the chances of a conviction are really low. All the brothers need to do is withhold comment and force the police to prove their case. Barring a very positive development with the existing evidence or the addition of new evidence, that probably will not happen.

Commentary

The emergence and improving of forensic evidence like fingerprints and DNA evidence have greatly improved the prospects of convicting criminals for acts they most certainly committed even when eyewitness testimony and other evidentiary measures are less than optimal. Just as a few examples, if the Jacksons had been executed or if the guns and cameo were ditched prior to the police discovering them (with a righteous warrant or not), there still could have been convictions of these two brothers if DNA and/or fingerprints could place them in the house to begin with. Other times, the DNA and/or fingerprints can just be a confirmation of all of the other evidence and the case is sealed all the tighter for the prosecution to hand-delivered to the court.

As noted above, the rules of evidence and similar rules greatly tilt things in favor of the accused rather than the victims. There is some solace in this as some police and other law enforcement personnel such as prosecutors can simply get it wrong and they might even be over-zealous when it comes to the pursuit of the people they are going after. However, it is usually quite clear who did something and it can be quite easy to run afoul of a judge and their perceptions when it comes to presenting evidence. Further, there are situations where the police just makes dumb mistakes and victims are left in horror as the people in question that are absolutely guilty and everyone knows it, including the judge who disallows incriminating evidence, walk free on a technicality. Again, the author of this report knows why those rules are what they are but there is perhaps a case to be made to negate these rules somehow when there is a clear miscarriage of justice. Indeed, what the Reynolds brothers did is no small thing. They burglarized the home of the Jacksons, committed aggravated assault against the man of the house and they kidnapped the women of the house. They robbed the family of jewelry and other items and obviously made threats to the lives of the people in question. Things obviously could have been much worse and one or more of the Jacksons could have been killed on accident or on purpose by either of the two brothers. Murder was obviously not the motive or modus operandi of either of the brothers but this should not preclude them from being confined to a cell for a very long time.