On the Road Again the Dangers of Transporting Ailing Inmates

Regardless of the purpose, transporting a prisoner tin be a potentially dangerous assignment for constabulary or correction officers and adherence to proper condom protocols are obviously critical. While a majority of prisoner transports are achieved without incident prisoners accept escaped killing or injuring an officer, injured themselves or been killed, and harmed or killed innocent citizens. A report of the New York Police Department plant that forty% of prisoner escapes happened during a prisoner transport (NY Times, 2002). Farther, an analysis of data regarding reported incidents emerging from transporting prisoners from 2002 to 2007 revealed the following (world wide web.troopertrap.com, 2008):

• On boilerplate there were 309 escapes reported annually;

• Of these escapes, 68% were from a caged vehicle and 84% of the incidents, the prisoner escaped from the back seat of the caged vehicle;

• Well-nigh 12% of the prisoners were injured and 3% were killed; and

• Well-nigh 12% of the officers were injured and less than 1% of the officers were killed as a event of the incident.

A prison bus approaches a road block leading to the Metro West Detention Centre in Miami Monday, Apr 28,2008 as a wild fire nears the prison house and heavy smoke hangs overhead. (AP Photograph/J. Pat Carter)

These figures are sobering and should provide intermission to remind officers and supervisors that transporting a prisoner can pose a risk of impairment to the officeholder and the prisoner. Hence, following safety guidelines, policy, and training are critical for performing this assignment without incident.

While training in safe methods for performing a ship is important and regular training in transportation procedures in maximizing officer safety should be ongoing, it is too important for offices and supervisors to be cognizant of the liability issues which emerge from transporting prisoners.

Liability concerns on the topic are rarely discussed  despite the potential of a lawsuit being filed regarding some aspect of transporting a prisoner, for example, a civil lawsuit could be filed by a prisoner claiming an injury sustained during the transport.

An estate of a deceased prisoner may file a lawsuit against the section for the wrongful death of a prisoner during transport, or a lawsuit may be filed past a denizen who was harmed or killed due to a prisoner escape during the ship. Some federal courts take held that the transporting department is liable a prisoner'southward behavior during an escape from a ship or incurring an injury sustained during the ship.

Like an elephant in the room, liability issues are seldom discussed despite their potential to escalate into a lawsuit. Today, I'll walk you through aspects of prisoner ship that are vulnerable to liability -- so that your section can be in the all-time defensible position.

Potential liability & prisoner transport

Police and corrections officers perform prisoner transport thousands of times daily beyond the nation for a variety of purposes. As previously mentioned, a bulk of these transports occur without incident, just due to the unpredictable nature of the transport, anything may occur and officers and supervisors should be prepared to reduce the risks when performing the duty. The old adage that drastic people will exercise desperate things applies to a case that I worked on two years ago and provides an instructive case.

The post-obit business relationship was taken from the transcripts of an interview that the arrestee provided to a psychiatrist prior to his trial:

An arrested murderer was existence transported to the county jail by two deputies. The prisoner was handcuffed with both hands secured in the front end position; he was placed in the back seat of the patrol car. In that location was a plastic partition separating the front and back seats. During transport, the prisoner reported, he worked upwards the nervus to endeavour and kill himself past causing the patrol auto to crash — a drastic mensurate taken to avoid being sentenced to life in prison.

(AP Photo/Thomas Babb)

He knew the officers wouldn't be injured because they were belted, and air bags would deploy.

Claiming that he was cold, the prisoner asked the deputy to open the sliding partition and then more than rut could get to the back. 1 of the deputies obliged. Every bit the patrol automobile proceeded around a bend, the prisoner shoved himself through the opening of the partitioning, grabbed the steering wheel and turned it forcefully, hoping to land the vehicle in a ditch.

He later said he wanted to be projected through the windshield, hoping it would kill him.

But this is non what happened.

The deputy who was driving got the car nether command and brought it safely to a end on the shoulder of the roadway. A fight ensued between the 2 deputies and the prisoner, and he was finally subdued with pepper spray. Fill-in officers responded and the prisoner was transported to the jail, where he's serving that the life sentence he went to such boggling measures to avoid.  He also failed to prevail on a civil merits that the officers used excessive force in stopping his suicide.

This instance provides an example of the mindset of many criminals and should remind officers to follow standard handcuffing procedures, fairly monitor the prisoner, and exist prepared for the unexpected. Simple requests can turn ugly rapidly.

Mini-adventure direction

Performing a mini-risk management assessment of the components involved in performing a prisoner send can yield a number of full general topics and tin assist in identifying the risks associated with performing the job.

Consider the following major items involved in virtually every prisoner send: selection and preparation of the vehicle; possible vehicle accidents; securing and placement of the prisoner in the vehicle; acquiring prisoner data; transporting special needs prisoners; gender of the prisoner; restraint equipment used; searching the prisoner; the number of prisoners to ship; nature of the transportation; distance and route of the transportation; medical purposes of the transportation; using commercial aircraft; officer weapons involved; number of officers required for the ship; and communications required during the ship.

While not exhaustive, these components can sally every bit potential topics in which ceremonious liability may result. Forth with other components they should at a minimum be used to design policy guidelines, to provide training, and to review instance decisions to learn how the courts examine prisoner allegations.

What case police force tells us

A review of the relevant civil example law regarding prisoner transport reveals a number of judicial decisions regarding the above cited areas. Among these areas of potential civil liability, the use or misuse of restraints, the failure to utilize seatbelts, and transporting prisoners for medical purposes emerge every bit among the more common topics in which litigation is filed. Due to the folio limitations for this article only a few cases volition be discussed.

A prisoner may file a civil lawsuit nether Section 1983 for declared violations of their constitutional rights and the legal argument applied in the lawsuit is adamant by the status of the prisoner. For example, an arrested person injured during a transport later an arrest by a law enforcement officer may claim a Fourth Amendment right violation for the misuse of restraints, excessive use of force, and a failure to provide medical care under the Fourteenth Subpoena.

Prisoners detained in a jail and injured during a send from the jail to courtroom or a medical care facility (or other destinations) by and large criminate a Fourteenth Amendment violation, while some federal courts have allowed jail prisoners to file a merits under the Eighth Amendment.

Convicted prisoners, however, may file a lawsuit regarding a transport issue consistent with the Eighth Amendment, due to their convicted status. Typically the prisoner will also claim that administrators failed to train, failed to supervise the transporting officer (s), and failed to directly officers through policies and/or the department implemented ramble deficient policies.

What about seatbelts?

Many transportation policies direct officers to utilize the vehicle seatbelt when transporting a prisoner. A common complaint raised in a prisoner transport lawsuit emerges when a prisoner is injured and an officer failed to secure him with a seatbelt. In Chocolate-brown v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections (8th Cir. 2004) a state prisoner was allegedly injured from an accident while en route to a correctional facility.

He claimed that the officers were liable for denying mail-accident care and for providing inadequate medical care. He also claimed that the officers refused to seatbelt him into the vehicle and argued that his injuries were sustained due to a failure to be seat belted. The appellate court overturned the lower court's decision, holding that the prisoner stated a valid Section 1983 claim. The court ruled that the prisoner'south claims aligned with the deliberate indifference standard commenting that he had a right to prophylactic and to medical intendance.

Compare however, the court'due south decision in Carrasquillo five. City of New York (S.D.Northward.Y. 2004).

A city prisoner brought a Section 1983 action confronting the City later he was injured in a bus accident while being transported to court. The prisoner claimed that he sustained injury every bit the officers failed to provide him a seat belt in the ship bus while he was secured in handcuffs. The prisoner claimed that he could hardly back up himself and that he was denied adequate treatment.

The court dismissed the prisoner'due south complaint holding that the city did not violate the prisoner's constitutional rights past failing to provide him with a seatbelt while transporting him in handcuffs.  Further, in Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equipment Company (8th Cir. 1999) a pretrial detainee who had suffered injuries rendering him quadriplegic after he was placed with handcuffs behind his back in police ship vehicle, and was thrown forward into the bulkhead of the rider compartment, brought a Section 1983 action against city officials.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court'south decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the officers, stating that neither the buy of vehicles without safety restraints, nor the manner of transporting arrestees in the vehicles, showed deliberate indifference to the rights of the pretrial detainee.

Modified restraints

Generally restraint equipment used by officers in a prisoner transport include: handcuffs; cuffs with waist chains and the blackbox; leg restraints; leg straps; flex-cuffs; and in some cases leg braces. The courts recognize the demand, the practice and the policy of using varying types of restraints when controlling and transporting prisoners to ensure the safe of the officer and the prisoner.

For case, in Thielman five. Leean (seventh Cir. 2002) a country prisoner brought a Department 1983 action seeking injunctive relief, alleging that the department's policy on transporting prisoners in full restraints violated his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The prisoner was classified equally a sexually violent offender and complained that the policy discriminated confronting him, as mentally ill prisoners were not transported in full restraints when existence transported from the facility.

The prisoner had a medical problem requiring him to exist transported exterior of the facility for treatment iii times a month. The appeals court affirmed the lower courts conclusion past property that a policy stipulating that prisoners will be secured in full and double-locked restraints, waist-belt chain restraints with attached handcuffs, security Blackbox, and leg restraints, did not violate the prisoner's rights to equal protection.

Just when an officer misuses restraints, liability will more than likely be incurred.

In Mladek v. Day (Chiliad.D. GA, 2003) an arrestee brought a Section 1983 action against county officials alleging they violated his 4th, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they used excessive forcefulness during and after his arrest, during transport to the jail and denied him medical intendance. The courtroom determined that arrestee stated a valid claim finding that a deputy violently handcuffed the arrestee with no justification and such caused physical injury to the arrestee in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Implications

This brief review provides a reminder that officers must stay diligent to their safe when performing the frequent chore of transporting a prisoner. The statistics discussed at the start are reminders that a major problem associated with the transportation of prisoners is the potential for escape and that officer and prisoners may sustain an injury. The case example also provides a pedagogy point that officers demand to be prepared for the unexpected during a prisoner transport and provides insight into the criminal mindset. The incident could be used as instance written report at a briefing or in a training setting to discuss the hazards that may be experienced in transporting prisoners.

Further, the case decisions presented also provide illustrations that prisoners have filed legal actions stemming from transportation incidents and that seatbelts and the utilize of restraints are mutual areas where lawsuits are focused. This should direct officers in ensuring that transportation guidelines are followed and that all restraint equipment is appropriately applied.

Like other job assignments, conducting a periodic hazard assessment of the varying dimensions of performing prisoner transports in recommended. Breaking all of the tasks down to their lowest grade is suggested and so that all components of the job are identified to let for a complete assessment. Once the components are identified, a thorough and detailed policy can be adult or revised that incorporates each component. Performing such an assessment and providing a detailed policy can help in ensuring officers are properly directed in the functioning of the consignment past department administrators.

Training of all officers should follow after the policy is developed. All components of the policy should exist addressed in training. Officers should strive to enhance their own safety past adhering to policy guidelines and their grooming. Finally proper implementation of the policy and training should be addressed in the field by supervisors to ensure officers are following the training fairly. Post-obit these few recommendations tin can place the department in a more defensible position should a prisoner file a lawsuit resulting from a prisoner send.

About the author

Dr. Ross is ane of 12 Force per unit area Point Control Tactics (PPCT) Advisory Lath Members and is the Director of Research for PPCT. He was awarded the "Excellence in Leadership Award" by PPCT in 2000. He regularly certifies police, corrections, the military and private security personnel as instructors in these subject control tactics nationally and internationally. He has developed 15 managerial and vii line officer training programs, has made 12 training videos, and has been authorized to provide training in 12 states. Dr. Ross is an writer of multiple books including "Ceremonious Liability Bug in Corrections," "Civil Liability in Criminal Justice, 4th Ed." and "Sudden Expiry in Custody".

Contact Darrell Ross

milesanguareany.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.corrections1.com/products/vehicle-equipment/prisoner-transport/articles/prisoner-transports-officer-safety-liability-issues-iAmg2mWlQcmOoJh8/

Share this post