In the case of Hocker, Warden v. Heffley in 1969, the United States Supreme Court examined whether a Nevada state prisoner's constitutional rights were violated when he was denied access to certain books and publications while incarcerated. The petitioner argued that his First Amendment right to freedom of speech had been infringed upon by these restrictions. However, the court ruled against him stating that prison officials have broad discretion in managing prisons and maintaining security within their walls which includes controlling what materials inmates can access. Therefore, they concluded that such limitations on prisoners' reading materials did not constitute a violation of their constitutional rights as long as they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Hocker, Warden v. Heffley, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief on grounds of an alleged violation of petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel during a police lineup was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed there were no constitutional violations in this case as they felt that the police lineup did not constitute a critical stage requiring presence of counsel under United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California precedents because it occurred before any formal charges had been filed against Heffley. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of Kirby v. Illinois which held that pre-charge lineups do not require counsel unless initiated by law enforcement after adversary judicial proceedings have begun or if other compelling factors exist such as being highly suggestive or unreliable.