The Stun Belt in the USA: A Growing Concern
Vadik
The Stun Belt in the USA: A Growing Concern
http://www.amnestyusa.org/rightsforall/stun/cruelty/cruelty-2.html
Times have changed and so has technology. We have apparently progressed from
the "ball and chain" to an electronic belt..."
Court of Appeal of California19
The Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology (REACT) belt is a
product of Stun Tech Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio. Two versions of the belt are
in use - the High Security Transport Belt (HTSB) and the Minimal Security
Belt (MSB). The HTSB is designed for use with various other restraints such
as handcuffs, wrist cuffs and shackles, whereas the MSB is designed for
lower profile use such as in courtrooms. Stun Tech has claimed to have made
about 90 per cent of the stun belts on the market, and to have sold about
1,400 belts to US law enforcement agencies. Nova Products, of Cookeville,
Tennessee, offers the Remote Activated Custody Control (RACC) belt.Amnesty
International understands that REACT and RACC devices are the only stun
belts currently in use in the USA.
The future of the REACT belt appears to be uncertain following legal action
brought against Stun Tech by RACC Industries of Upper Marlboro, Maryland,
the sole owner of the stun belt patent.20 Stun Tech had the exclusive
licence to make and sell stun belts, in return for royalty payments to RACC
Industries. However, Stun Tech ceased making these payments when it
redesigned its REACT belt into one which resulted in a noticeable bulge when
worn under clothing (see here for more on visibility issue). Stun Tech
argued that this was therefore different to the original patent description
of a device "adapted for concealment beneath garments...". In 1998 a federal
court upheld a lower court decision that Stun Tech had infringed the patent
agreement and prohibited it from making, using, selling or otherwise
distributing its belts for the life of the patent.21 According to
information received by Amnesty International, this injunction was lifted
when Stun Tech appealed to the US Supreme Court, which at the time of
writing had not made a decision on the case. Amnesty International
understands that Nova Products now has the licence to make and distribute
the stun belt.
In a settlement reached in October 1998, the US government agreed to pay
RACC Industries $50,000 to escape patent infringement liability for the
REACT belts federal authorities have already purchased, and for the first
100 belts they purchase following the settlement.22 The situation at state
and local authority level is less clear. For example, in April 1998 Franklin
County Sheriff's Office, Ohio, were in the process of placing an order for
REACT belts with Stun Tech, when it was informed that the company was not
allowed to sell them because of the patent dispute. It ordered RACC belts
from Nova Products instead. Kodiak Police Department, Alaska, decided to
stop using its REACT belt in early 1998 rather than pay extra fees to RACC
Industries as a result of the lawsuit. Other jurisdictions have purchased
REACT belts in recent months. For example, on 1 April 1999, the Duval County
Sheriff's Office, Florida, was awaiting the arrival of a REACT belt it had
bought. Likewise on 10 May, Daviess County Sheriff's Office in Kentucky had
a REACT belt on order. Both counties were planning to use the stun belts -
their first - in courtrooms.23
There are no official national statistics on the use of the stun belt. Stun
Tech has claimed that REACT belts have been worn by prisoners on over 50,000
occasions in the past five years. This may be an underestimation, given that
there are well over 1,000 belts in circulation in more than 100
jurisdictions and a single belt can be used on many occasions during a year.
For example, Franklin County Sheriff's Office in South Carolina has one stun
belt which has been used some 30 times in its first year, according to a
spokesperson in February 1999. A spokesperson for Franklin County Sheriff's
Office in Ohio stated in February 1999 that at least one of the county's
four new RACC belts is in use most days for transportation (particularly
interstate extraditions) or in courtrooms.
Similarly, the true figure for the number of times stun belts have been
activated is impossible to determine, given that some activations may go
unreported, particularly those that occur outside of public view such as
during transportation or within prison walls. Based on claims made by Stun
Tech, the REACT belt has been activated at least 29 times, including several
allegedly accidental activations.24
At federal level the US Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) use
the stun belt. The US Marshals Service is responsible for federal courtroom
security and for the housing and transportation of individuals arrested
under federal laws from the time they are brought into custody until they
are either acquitted or convicted. The agency has a daily total of over
27,000 detainees under its jurisdiction in federal, state and local jails.
According to Stun Tech, the US Marshals Service has bought 200 REACT belts.
For its part, the BOP "routinely removes inmates from our secure
institutions for medical treatment, inmate transfer, court appearance,
etc... To increase security and reduce the risk to the community, staff, and
inmates when escorting high risk inmates into the community, the REACT or
"Stun Belt" was adopted."25 At the end of 1998, there was a total BOP inmate
population of 123,041 prisoners, 14 per cent of whom (14,281) were
classified as high security inmates. According to Stun Tech, the BOP has 100
stun belts.
In a telephone survey conducted in January 1999, 20 state Departments of
Corrections told Amnesty International that they currently authorize the use
of stun belts, although the extent to which they are used varies from state
to state (see Table 2). The organization has been unable to systematically
survey the use of the belt by law enforcement agencies at local level, for
example county Sheriff's Offices, but it believes that its use by such
agencies is far more common than at state level. For example, at state level
in California and Ohio, the Departments of Corrections do not authorize the
use of stun belts (or any other stun equipment) in their institutions.
However, at least 18 counties in California and more than 20 in Ohio are
believed to have stun belts for use in transportation and courtrooms, with
some jurisdictions only recently added to the list. For example, in Ohio,
the Sheriff's Offices in Greene County and Warren County both purchased stun
belts in 1998.26 They have since trained officers in the use of the stun
belts, and began using them late in the year. Of the 25 largest local jail
jurisdictions in the USA in 1998, 15 are believed to have stun belts, as
depicted in table 3 at the end of this report. Table 3 lists 112 local
jurisdictions in 30 states reported to have, or to have had, the stun belt.
This list does not claim to be exhaustive.
It appears that use of the stun belt is on the increase elsewhere in the
USA. In mid-March 1999, the Florida Department of Corrections was planning
to purchase some 85 Stun Tech REACT belts. It is considered likely that the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections will soon authorize the purchase of stun
belts, having recently incorporated them into its use-of-force policy. The
Division of Pretrial Detention and Services of the Maryland Department of
Public Safety and Correctional Services has recently purchased stun belts
and in January 1999 was training officers in their use for transportation
and court hearings. Prior to this no stun equipment was authorized at state
level in Maryland. At local level in the state, the Sheriff's Office in
Montgomery County was reported to have purchased three stun belts in 1998
for use in courtrooms and to have used them 10 times in the last three
months of the year. Local jurisdictions elsewhere have adopted the device
recently, including the Sheriff's Offices in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and
Hall County, Nebraska, which purchased stun belts in 1998, and in Prince
George County, Virginia, which was planning to train officers in April 1999
in the use of its new REACT belt.
Some jurisdictions have been prompted to adopt the stun belt as a result of
specific incidents such as a violent disruption in court, while others may
have been motivated more by the anticipation of such incidents. Another
driving force for the growth in use of the stun belt is its alleged
potential to cut staff costs. Stun Tech's Instructional Guidebook for stun
belt users emphasizes this: "Overcrowded prison situations require mass
transports on a daily basis, once again straining available manpower and
budgets. Use of the REACT System can reduce security personnel requirements
and save precious budget dollars... By implementing the REACT Belt System
additional savings are realized because escort and/or security personnel can
be reduced. Very often, one belt system may be purchased for the comparable
overtime rate of 24 hours for one officer!". The current cost of a stun belt
is around US$700. In the 1998 appeal of Phillip Flieger (page 19), one of
the arguments the county reportedly gave for using the stun belt was that it
saved on staffing costs.
Private companies involved in the rapidly growing US incarceration business
may have an even stronger interest in cutting costs in order to increase
profits.27 While Amnesty International does not know the extent to which the
stun belt is being used in privately-run correctional facilities, it is
concerned that the belt could become a favoured form of restraint in
prisoner transportation by such institutions. Tens of thousands of inmates
are held in private US jails and prisons, and many are held in states other
than the ones in which they were convicted, increasing the need for
interstate transportation. For example, the Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center (NEOCC), a private prison in Youngstown, Ohio, opened in May 1997 and
was rapidly filled with prisoners contracted out from the District of
Columbia's Department of Corrections. The NEOCC, owned and operated by the
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), had at least one stun belt for use
in transportation. An official security audit report of the NEOCC carried
out in September 1998 in response to serious problems and alleged abuses in
the facility, was critical of the fact that NEOCC had no policy on the
circumstances in which the stun belt could be activated, and recommended
that such a policy be written. The lack of policy was symptomatic of
inadequate policies in several areas and the use of inexperienced staff - a
result of the CCA's rush to open the prison which it had built on
speculation without a prospective inmate population. The lack of adequate
policies governing the use of the stun belt (and stun shields) could have
had profound ramifications relating to prisoner health; many of the first
arrivals to the prison had serious medical conditions and yet their medical
records had not been received at NEOCC. The report notes that 250 of the
first 900 inmates "needed chronic care for such pre-existing conditions as
asthma, HIV [-related illnesses], diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart
disease. In fact, management of chronic care cases remained a significant
problem for a long period.28"
Although the use of the stun belt appears to be growing in the USA,
acceptance of it by law enforcement agencies is as yet far from universal.
In the telephone survey referred to above, several spokespersons for state
corrections departments indicated to Amnesty International outright
opposition to the stun belt, or departmental reluctance to embark on use of
the device. A spokesperson in another state which has recently adopted the
stun belt defensively stated that the department was "doing no more than the
federal government and several other states are doing." Other jurisdictions
have displayed a sensitivity to potential bad publicity surrounding its
use.29 In late 1998 New York City Department of Corrections cancelled an
order of 10 stun belts, and returned them to Stun Tech after the news of the
order was investigated by a journalist and condemned by Amnesty
International on a national TV program. Prior to this, a number of law
enforcement officials had reportedly been trained in their use. In March
1999, Latah County Sheriff's Office in Idaho told Amnesty International that
it had stopped using the stun belt,"because they were not happy with it"
after one was accidentally activated against Michael Allen Wachholtzjust
before his trial was due to begin in 1996.30 In January 1999, a federal
judge banned the use of the stun belt in courtrooms in Los Angeles County,
California, following a highly-publicized activation during a trial in 1998
(see Ronnie Hawkins).
Proponents of the stun belt have sought to justify its use by saying that
there is rarely need for the device to be activated given the psychological
supremacy it achieves. Furthermore, they say, it is worn only by the most
dangerous individuals. However, Amnesty International is concerned that as
the stun belt becomes more acceptable to US society, it will become a more
routine form of restraint in some jurisdictions. In some cases the decision
to fit a defendant with the belt appears to have been based simply on the
nature of the crime of which the wearer has been accused or convicted,
rather than a credible evaluation of their dangerousness in custody or
likelihood of escape. In some jurisdictions, whole groups of prisoners not
considered to be a high security risk may become eligible for the stun belt.
In El Paso County, Colorado, the Sheriff's Office considers the stun belt to
be a "Level 1" restraint (the lowest), the same level as handcuffs. Level 1
restraints "are generally used for transports and escorts, and for other
situations when an inmate is compliant with no (or minimal) resistance.31"
In New Orleans, Louisiana, minimum security prisoners with HIV/AIDS are
reportedly being made to wear the belt because of their HIV status and not
their security status (see here).
An example of a category of prisoner against whom authorities may develop a
tendency to use the stun belt increasingly routinely is the so-labelled
"sexual predator". On 11 March 1999 Steven Klein, reportedly convicted of
the attempted molestation of two boys in 1992, appeared in court in Florida,
handcuffed and wearing a stun belt over his prison uniform. Having served
his prison sentence, he was facing a civil commitment hearing under Florida'
s 1998 "Jimmy Ryce Act". This act provides for the indefinite confinement in
treatment programs, after the expiry of their prison sentences, of convicted
sex offenders deemed to be a continuing risk to society. Steven Klein is
held, along with dozens of other sex offenders, in the Florida Department of
Corrections' medium security Treatment Unit at the Martin Correctional
Institution. According to an officer there in April 1999, it is the
institution's policy to use the stun belt on any of these prisoners whenever
they are transported out of the facility and during their court hearings. At
his March hearing, Steven Klein's civil commitment trial was set for 19 July
1999. A stun belt was used in a similar trial in Washington State in
mid-1998 (see here)32.
Amnesty International acknowledges the serious crimes of which many stun
belt wearers, some of whom are named in this report, have been accused or
convicted. Furthermore, the organization recognizes the security risk, in
court or during transportation, presented by a small minority of prisoners
and defendants, and acknowledges that many law enforcement officers would
not engage in arbitrary use of the stun belt.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/rightsforall/stun/cruelty/cruelty-2.html
--