CRS, Inc.
          
Home National Jail Work
and Industry Center 		Staffing Analysis Clearinghouse Publications About CRS
 
 
 
Case Summaries on the Use of Video Monitoring
  
 


Selected Cases Addressing Use of Closed Circuit Television, Supervision, Privacy

Reprinted with permission from the Detention and Corrections Caselaw Catalog, 17th Edition, 2005. CRS, Inc. www.correction.org.
 
     
  Daniels v. Anderson  
 

Daniels v. Anderson, 237 N.W.2d 397 (Neb. Sup. Ct. 1975). The court rules that the use of audiovisual monitors by the jail is ineffective and is not an adequate substitute for the physical presence of jail staff to assure inmate safety. (Omaha Police Department, Nebraska)

  
     
  Brewer v. Perrin  
  Brewer v. Perrin, 349 N.W.2d 198 (Mich. App. 1984). Detention staff may be liable for juvenile's suicide because they failed to monitor actions and to make regular checks. An appeals court in Michigan has ordered a case to proceed to trial in which the plaintiffs charge the detention facility staff with responsibility for the suicide of their fifteen year old son. The boy was arrested after assaulting his twin brother; he was combative and belligerent during arrest and transport. Upon admission to a detention cell he continued to yell and scream. A staff member turned off an audio monitor because he decided the noise was interfering with department activities. After ninety minutes the boy hanged himself. He was only checked one time by facility staff during that period. The appeals court also instructed the jury to determine if liability might also result from violation of the state statutes regarding juvenile detention. (Southgate City Jail, Michigan)  
     
  Popham v. City of Talladega  
 

Popham v. City of Talladega, 908 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir. 1990). The administratrix of the estate of a deceased jail inmate brought a civil rights action against the city and jail officials. During the celebration of his wedding, Ronald Popham was arrested for public intoxication. In addition to being intoxicated, he was emotional, depressed, and angry at the time of his arrest. Popham's belt, shoes, socks, and pocket contents were removed by jail personnel who placed him in a holding cell and at 9:30 p.m., ordered the cell monitored. Monitoring was accomplished by closed circuit television located on another floor of the jail where the camera was operated by a radio dispatcher. Popham was last checked on physically when the shift ended at 11:00 p.m., after which there were no guards or jailers on duty. Sometime later, in a small space within the cell unviewed by the camera, Ronald Popham hanged himself from the bars by his blue jeans. He was discovered at 5:15 a.m. Christmas morning. Mrs. Popham claimed several constitutional violations, in effect, that her husband had a right to be protected from committing suicide while incarcerated, that he was not properly monitored after being placed in a cell by himself, and that his jailers were not properly trained to identify prisoners who might show a tendency to suicide. The U.S. District Court denied relief and the administratrix appealed. The appeals court affirmed the decision and found that evidence did not show a deliberate indifference by jailers to the inmate where they were unaware of any suicidal tendencies. Because jail suicides are analogous to the failure to provide medical care, deliberate indifference is the barometer by which suicide cases involving convicted prisoners as well as pretrial detainees are tested. The deliberate indifference standard applicable to civil rights actions arising out of jail suicides requires a strong likelihood, rather than a mere possibility, that the self-infliction of harm will occur, and deliberate indifference will not be found to exist in the face of only negligence. The failure to train jail personnel to screen detainees for suicidal tendencies did not provide a basis for imposing civil rights liability following the inmate's suicide. Standard procedures followed by the jail inmate's custodians prior to the inmate's suicide, which included the removal of shoelaces, belts, socks, and pocket contents, as well as closed circuit cell monitoring, demonstrated a lack of deliberate indifference to his safety, even though the closed circuit camera could not pick up every corner of his cell. (Talladega City Jail, Alabama)

  
     
  Abrams v. Hunter  
 

Abrams v. Hunter, 910 F.Supp. 620 (M.D.Fla. 1995). An inmate filed a civil rights suit against a jail officer and sheriff for injuries he received in a beating by other inmates while he was confined. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the inmate failed to show that the jail officer knew about the assault or that there was a causal connection with the sheriff or a history of widespread abuse. The inmate had alleged that he was placed in a general population cell which had four video cameras for security purposes, and that while in the cell he was attacked by three inmates for a period of fifteen minutes but that no staff responded to stop the fight. (Collier County Jail, Florida)

  
     
  Oliver v. Scott  
  Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 2002). A male prisoner brought a civil rights suit against a prison warden, correctional officers, and private contractors who operated a state jail facility, alleging constitutional violations arising from cross-gender surveillance and strip searches, and the absence of partitions in male shower areas. The district court dismissed a portion of the complaint for failure to state a claim and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants for the remaining issues. The prisoner appealed and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that any minimal right to bodily privacy possessed by the male prisoner did not preclude cross-gender surveillance and that such surveillance, in the absence of partitions in the male shower area, did not violate the prisoner’s equal protection rights. The court noted that fundamental implied rights-—marriage, family procreation, and the right of bodily integrity—-do not include a right of prisoners to avoid surveillance by members of the opposite sex. According to the court, the existence of privacy partitions in female inmates’ showers and the absence of male guard surveillance of female inmates did not violate the equal protection rights of the male prisoner because male prisoners were not similarly situated to female prisoners due to their conviction for more violent crimes, larger numbers, and higher incidence of violent gang activity and sexual predation. The court found that the prisoner’s complaint did not identify a specific unconstitutional policy that correctional officers allegedly violated by engaging in cross-gender strip searches and monitoring of prisoners. (Dawson State Jail Facility, Texas)  
     
  Cagle v. Sutherland  
  Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2003). The personal representative of the estate of a pretrial detainee who hung himself in his cell brought a § 1983 action, alleging that officials failed to prevent his suicide. The district court denied summary judgment in favor of the defendants and they appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The appeals court held that the county's violation of a consent decree that arose out of a voluntary settlement of a prior jail conditions lawsuit, did not establish a violation of the pretrial detainee's constitutional rights actionable under § 1983. The consent decree required the county to provide a second nighttime jailer to staff the jail during the hours that the detainee committed suicide, but the court noted that the prior lawsuit was not concerned with the risk of prisoner suicides. According to the court, the county's failure to fund the second jailer did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to the strong likelihood that a suicide would result. The court also found no deliberate indifference on the part of the jailer who waited for one hour and forty-six minutes after his last cell check, even though the detainee had expressly threatened suicide. The court noted that the jailer was aware that the detainee's belt, shoelaces and the contents of his pockets had been confiscated, the cell had been stripped of implements that might assist suicide, and the jailer regularly observed the detainee through a closed circuit monitor that viewed the majority of the cell. The detainee was able to commit suicide by tearing the elastic band from his underwear, tying it around his neck, and hanging himself from the top bunk. (Winston County Jail, Alabama)  
     
  Gaines v. Choctaw County Comissioner  
  Gaines v. Choctaw County Com'n., 242 F.Supp.2d 1153 (S.D.Ala. 2003). Administrators of a deceased inmate's estate asserted state and federal law claims against a sheriff and county, alleging that the inmate's death resulted from the denial of medical treatment while the inmate was a pretrial detainee in a county jail. The district court held that the county could not be held liable for any alleged lack of training or supervision of the sheriff, or sheriff's employees. The court found that allegations failed to support a claim against the county based on its statutory duty to maintain a jail, but that the allegations supported a claim against the county for an alleged breach of duty to fund medical care, where the alleged failure to provide adequate funding to meet the medical needs of inmates supported a claim for deliberate indifference under § 1983. The court held that the alleged conduct of the county in failing to equip the jail with audiovisual equipment to monitor inmates failed to support a claim against the county, absent an allegation that the failure caused, or in any way contributed to, the inmate's death. (Choctaw County Jail, Alabama)  
     
  Simpson v. Penobscot County Sheriff’s Department  
  Simpson v. Penobscot County Sheriff’s Dept., 285 F.Supp.2d 75 (D.Me. 2003). A former county jail inmate brought a § 1983 action alleging violation of his right to privacy, his right to medical treatment, and his right to seek redress during his placement in administrative segregation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the Due Process Clause did not afford a remedy under § 1983 for the alleged invasion of privacy of a county jail inmate who was placed in a cell that did not have a privacy partition next to the toilet. The toilet's placement in the cell allowed female inmates, at separate intervals, to have a direct view of him while he was performing bodily functions. The court noted that jail officials did not know about the problem, and that once the inmate made them aware of it, they investigated and mitigated the problem by placing a removable piece of magnetic paper over the lower door window. The court found that the officials did not know about the problem until the inmate submitted a grievance in September 2002, although the inmate would have previously had access to the jail supervisors on their daily tours of the facility three times each day, providing him with 51 opportunities to raise the issue before he filed his grievance. (Penobscot County Jail, Maine)