Jail Standards and Inspection Programs, Resource - National ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Jail Standards and LiabilityChapter 2Cost of Jail LitigationThe costs associated with mistakes in jail operationsare going up. In early 2005, a federalappeals court in the Midwest upheld a jury damagesaward against two individual officers fornearly $57 million. The jury found the officersresponsible for the beating death of an inmate ina medium-sized Indiana jail (Estate of Morelandv. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thesheriff was dismissed from the case on summaryjudgment, and other defendants settled claimsout of court.The Moreland decision is probably the biggestdamages award in a corrections case, but othersubstantial awards have been made in the lastfew years:nnnA teenager died of pneumonia in a bootcamp after staff ignored pleas for medicalattention. The jury awarded more than $40million against both individual staff andthe private correctional company runningthe jail (Alexander v. Correctional ServicesCorporation, Tarrant County, Tex., DistrictCourt No. 236-187481-01 (9/29/2003)).Nearly $13 million was awarded againstvarious officers, supervisors, and the cityresponsible for jail operations following ahog-tying death (Swans v. City of Lansing,65 F.Supp.2d 625 (W.D. Mich., 1998)).Mobile County, Alabama, and various jailofficials settled a lawsuit over the death of amentally ill inmate in the jail for $1.45 millionin 2003 (Collins, 2004c).n A Texas jury awarded $2.5 million to thewidow of a doctor who died in an El Pasojail while being held for traffic violations.The jury believed allegations that the jaildenied the deceased necessary antiseizuremedications (Collins, 2004b).n An Arizona sheriff and his county were hitwith compensatory damages of $440,532,and the sheriff with punitive damages of$195,000, in a case involving deliberateindifference to the safety needs of inmatesheld in the sheriff’s “tent city” jail (Flandersv. Maricopa County, 54 P.3d 837 (Ariz. Ct.App., 2002)).n The misuse of restraints has been the basisof several awards around the country. In themost notable case, $8.5 million was awardedin the case of an inmate in a MaricopaCounty, Arizona, jail who died after beingpushed into a restraint chair, gagged, andshot with a stun gun (Collins, 2004a).Depending on the facts of the case, damagesmay be awarded against individual officials(from jail officers to sheriffs to county commissioners),the governmental unit (city or county)operating the jail, or both. In some situations—such as the Moreland case—the government and/or its insurance carrier have refused to defendor indemnify officers because their actions wereso far outside the requirements of agency policy.As a result, those officers face multimillion dollardamage awards with no insurance coverage.More commonly, the insurance carrier (or theself-insured city or county) defends the officers
and pays the major portion of any judgment. Inthese cases, even if the judgment is against onlythe named officers and not the city or county,the cost of the judgment is borne by the jurisdiction,whose insurance policies cover mishandledjail operations. Large awards for damages haveled insurance providers to demand improved jailoperations as a condition of continuing insurancecoverage.Simply defending a major lawsuit can be expensive,even if the court rules in favor of the jailofficial. Losing a major case can be far morecostly in terms of damages, fees the local jurisdictionor their insurance carrier must pay to theplaintiffs’ attorney, and possible court interventionand oversight of jail operations. Such a losscan be a political embarrassment for elected officialsresponsible for jail operations. It has beensaid that “You don’t win elections by running agood jail, but you can lose elections by runninga bad one.”Judicial Oversight of Jail OperationsFor some, disco, wide ties, and polyester pantsdefined the 1970s. For those working in corrections,a revolution in the management of prisonsand jails defined that decade. The revolutionwas driven by the federal courts’ extension ofthe protections of the U.S. Constitution to thoseconfined inside jail and prison walls. During thisperiod, the courts began to examine and definewhat concepts such as freedom of religion, crueland unusual punishment, and due process meantfor inmates. This process of defining and refiningthe basic legal tests and applying them tomany different aspects of jail maintenance andoperations continues to this day.Prior to 1970, the concept of “inmate rights”was almost unknown. By 1979, the SupremeCourt criticized lower courts for becoming too“enmeshed in the minutiae” of jail and prisonoperations (Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562(1979)).For the first time in history, there was a body—the federal courts—willing to exercise verystrong oversight of detention and correctionalinstitutions and to hold agencies and officialsaccountable for operations in accordance withrequirements that, in many cases, were completelynew to those responsible.Federal constitutional requirements dealingwith both operational and physical plant issues,from procedures to be followed in disciplininginmates to the size of cells, sprang up almostovernight. These topics could be the subject oflawsuits brought by individual inmates or classactions brought on behalf of a defined group ofinmates (e.g., all the inmates in a jail now and inthe future). Many of the issues addressed are stillimportant today:nnnnnnnnMedical care, including mental health anddental care.The use of force.Protection of inmates from violence at thehands of other inmates (and sometimesstaff).Provision of services adequate to meet basichuman needs, including food, clothing, shelter,protection from fires, and exercise.Searches of all types, but particularly stripsearches of detainees.Access to mail and reading materials.A variety of issues regarding the practice ofreligion.Inmate discipline.To understand the range of court decisions andhow few areas of jail operations have escapedthe attention of the courts, see appendix A,which lists issues that the courts have routinelyaddressed over the years. This list (which,although long, is nevertheless incomplete) demonstratesthe startling number of potential topicsfor litigation that must be considered by jail0
Page 2 and 3: U.S. Department of JusticeNational
Page 4 and 5: This document is supported by coope
Page 6 and 7: Administering Agency Functions and
Page 8: AcknowledgmentsThis resource guide,
Page 12 and 13: Consequences for Jails and Communit
Page 14 and 15: Exhibit . Translating Constitutiona
Page 16 and 17: can, the courts have determined tha
Page 18 and 19: Inspections provide a level of acco
Page 22 and 23: Chapter 2: Jail Standards and Liabi
Page 28 and 29: Jail standards developed by profess
Page 30 and 31: Exhibit . Jail Standards and Inspec
Page 32 and 33: that cannot be immediately resolved
Page 34 and 35: Key Stakeholders in ImplementingJai
Page 36 and 37: and inspection programs to a specif
Page 38 and 39: and inspection programs. Some progr
Page 40 and 41: nnnAssess their current understandi
Page 42 and 43: The documentation will not only hel
Page 44 and 45: nnnnnIdentify emerging and continui
Page 46 and 47: Corrections Community Web SiteIn Ju
Page 48 and 49: Rosazza, T. 2007b. Jail Inspection
Page 50 and 51: n Paraplegic inmates.n Officers adm
Page 52 and 53: ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑Officer
Page 54 and 55: n Inmate strip search:❑❑❑Out-
Page 56 and 57: Existing Standards and Inspections
Page 58 and 59: Existing Standards and Inspections
Page 60 and 61: MarylandCommission on Correctional
Page 62 and 63: Profiles of Three OrganizationalMod
Page 64 and 65: Appendix C: Profiles of Three Organ
Page 66 and 67: Appendix C: Profiles of Three Organ
Page 68 and 69: ❑❑❑Provide “best practice
Page 70 and 71:
concerning appropriate corrective a
Page 72 and 73:
Duty C: Perform Administrative Task
Page 75 and 76:
National Institute of CorrectionsAd
show all

Jail Standards and Inspection Programs, Resource - National ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?