Stop Violence Against Women

Abuse of Women in Custody: Sexual Misconduct and Shackling of Pregnant Women

Key Findings

Policies, Procedures and Practices of Guarding Women

Amnesty International surveyed all 50 state departments of corrections as well as the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to provide information on issues related to custodial sexual misconduct. These findings are based primarily on information provided in the surveys.

Seven state departments of corrections do not have a specific policy prohibiting custodial sexual misconduct. Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, New Jersey, Utah and Vermont.
In 12 state departments of corrections plus the Federal Bureau of Prisons, cross-gender pat-down searches are generally allowed. Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wyoming.

- In 26 state departments of corrections cross-gender pat-down searches may be allowed under certain circumstances:
º Eight states attempt to limit the occurrence of cross-gender pat-down searches but do allow them: Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, New York, South Carolina and Tennessee.
º Eighteen states allow cross-gender pat-down searches in case of "emergency": Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

- Only three state correctional departments and the District of Columbia told Amnesty International that they prohibit cross-gender pat-down searches. Minnesota, New Mexico and South Dakota.
Only one state department of corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons do not impose any restrictions on the duties of male guards: Tennessee.

- New York has no restrictions other than limiting situations where pat searches may be performed by male officers. Connecticut only states that "reasonable accommodations" are to be made to provide for same-sex strip searches.

- In some states, the restrictions imposed only limit or disallow cross-gender strip searches and performing of urinalysis tests. Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming.

Policies and Procedures to Guide Official Response When Incidents of Custodial Sexual Misconduct Occur

Amnesty International surveyed all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to obtain information on their policies and procedures guiding official response to incidents of custodial sexual misconduct. These findings are based primarily on information provided in the surveys.

Five state departments of corrections report that they lack special procedures for investigating custodial sexual misconduct. Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi and Wyoming.

- Hawaii's procedure requires only that the suspected perpetrator of a sexual assault may not participate in the investigation.

- Amnesty International is concerned that policies and procedures may not adequately address the issue of custodial sexual misconduct but are focused on the sexual assault of inmates by other inmates or are generic in nature.
Two state correctional departments do not require that a rape kit be taken for victims of custodial sexual misconduct: Connecticut and South Carolina.
Nine state departments of corrections do not refer investigations of custodial sexual misconduct to an external agency. Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington.

- Twelve state departments of corrections and the District of Columbia conduct external investigations in some but not all cases. Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Texas.

- Twenty-two state departments of corrections and the US Federal Bureau of Prisons ensure that external investigations are undertaken in all cases. Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Twenty-four state departments of corrections and the US Federal Bureau of Prisons may place women who report custodial sexual misconduct in solitary confinement. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

- Only three state correctional departments report that they do not use solitary confinement for this purpose. Iowa, Minnesota and Mississippi.
Two state departments of corrections report they do not have any special procedures in place to shield victims of custodial sexual misconduct from retaliation: Kentucky and Delaware.
Two state departments of corrections do not track statistics about incidents of custodial sexual misconduct: Hawaii and North Carolina.
Six states have established independent Ombudsmen whose mandates include corrections. Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska. The Federal Bureau of Prisons answers to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.

- California's 2005 Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Act created the Office of the Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Ombudsperson. However, as of this writing, it is not clear that this office has yet been established.

- An ombudsman office in Texas is not independent of the department of corrections and consequently does not meet Amnesty International's standards.

- Three states had independent ombudsmen and abolished these offices. Kansas, Michigan and Minnesota.

- Five states have oversight committees or an auditor in the state legislature, which may perform limited oversight functions and can make recommendations. Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, Ohio and Tennessee.