Court cases
“Many custodial facilities have implemented anti-fraternization policies that regulate contact between staff and inmates. These policies either limit, or altogether prohibit, interactions between employees and current or former inmates and their families. Correctional employees who are adversely affected by their agency’s anti-fraternization policies most often challenge these polices under the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to freedom of association. Courts generally uphold the agency’s anti-fraternization policy against such challenges, and cite the agency’s interest in maintaining a safe and secure facility. This document provides an overview of how courts across various jurisdictions have responded to employees’ challenges to anti-fraternization policies.” Cases are organized according to cases upholding agency anti-fraternization policies or cases not upholding agency anti-fraternization policies by Circuit and its related states.
Distraction devices (such as flashbangs) are especially useful when "correctional personnel are dealing with unruly prisoners or detainees who must be brought under control or extracted from their cells in a safe and controlled manner … Such devices must be properly used by adequately trained personnel, skilled in both legal aspects and practical tactical considerations surrounding their intelligent deployment. Their deployment is a use of force. Although non-lethal in most instances, improper use can result in injury to both members of the public and officers themselves" (p. 1). The use of distraction devices and civil lawsuits associated with them are discussed. Sections of this series include: introduction; use in a home or building entry; use in correctional settings; use in street settings; damage awards; injuries to officers; and some suggestions worth considering.
![Civil Liability for Use of Distraction Devices Part 1 [and] Part 2 Cover](https://nicic.gov/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/library/029719.PNG?itok=pqDTsWYj "Civil Liability for Use of Distraction Devices Part 1 [and] Part 2")
“Inmates and detainees retain a limited privacy right when detained in correctional settings, particularly in the context of cross-gender searches. Jurisdictions have approached the competing interests of privacy and cross-gender searches quite differently, finding liability for correctional officers, supervisors, and facilities under a variety of circumstances. These decisions are highly fact-sensitive, and the jurisprudence has evolved rapidly. This document provides an overview of cross-gender search cases in both state and federal courts, focusing on what types of conduct most often result in individual and supervisory liability.” Cases are organized into the 11 Circuits (with their corresponding states) and the D.C. Circuit. Citations are listed according to a successful inmate claim or a successful agency defense for female correctional staff/male inmate or male correctional staff/female inmate.
This publication "reviews the history of correctional law and summarizes the results and effects of major court decisions" (p. 4). Sections comprising this document include: introduction; history of court involvement; corrections and the Constitution in a new century; the Constitution and the physical plant; understanding Section 1983 lawsuits; how courts evaluate claims -- the balancing test; the First Amendment; the Fourth Amendment; the Eighth Amendment -- overview; the 8th Amendment -- use of force; the 8th Amendment -- medical care; the 8th Amendment -- conditions of confinement; the Fourteenth Amendment; consent decrees; some final thoughts; glossary; and selected cases.
“This publication provides an introduction to mandatory reporting laws, and how these laws can help corrections officials respond to sexual abuse in custodial settings, both offender-on-offender and staff sexual misconduct. The importance of mandatory reporting laws cannot be overstated, given recent scandals involving the abuse of vulnerable populations, including youth. This publication provides insight into the utility of mandatory reporting laws, in light of the enactment of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA).” Sections comprising this paper are: introduction; background—the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003; mandatory reporting and juveniles—who a juvenile is, who the mandatory reporter is, what the standard of proof is, and consequences of failing to report; mandatory reporting and vulnerable persons—who a vulnerable person is, who the mandatory reporter is, what the standard of proof is, and consequences for failing to report; bringing correctional settings in line with state mandatory reporting requirements—reporting procedures, and other issues to consider such as what to report and retaliation; and conclusion.
This three-hour interactive videoconference addresses both adult and juvenile psychopaths who are incarcerated or under community supervision. It covers the following topics: identification, diagnosis, and classification of psychopathic offenders and detainees; assessing their risk for violence (prediction studies); special considerations with psychopathic sex offenders; costs associated with managing these offenders and detainees; the implications for treatment, management, and release; Hendricks v. Kansas, a landmark case concerning commitment beyond completion of sentence; and strategies to address institutional and community safety.
“Under certain circumstances correctional officers and their supervisors can be subject to civil liability for sexual abuse of inmates and detainees under their care. Liability for sexual abuse can attach whether the abuse was perpetrated by a correctional officer, facility employee or volunteer, or by a fellow inmate or detainee. This document provides an overview of sexual abuse cases in both state and federal courts, focusing on what types of conduct most often result in individual and supervisory liability. It does not address other issues that may arise in sexual abuse litigation, such as exhaustion requirements under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, qualified immunity for officers acting in an official capacity, or Eleventh Amendment immunity for states and their employees. Facilities should be mindful that these issues can complicate sexual abuse litigation”. Cases are organized into the 11 Circuits (with their corresponding states) and the D.C. Circuit. Citations are listed according to a successful inmate claim or a successful agency defense for male correctional staff/male inmate, female correctional staff/male inmate, male correctional staff/female inmate, inmate on inmate, juvenile, juvenile—detainee on detainee, juvenile—correctional staff/detainee, or juvenile—male correctional officer/female detainee.
