The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

"Come here," he ordered.

The guard pulled Bunton into a bathroom. She wore jogging pants, a T-shirt and socks.

She was the guard's prized possession, a pretty young thing, as he said, "just the way I like 'em," -- short and cute with brown hair, brown eyes and porcelain skin.

"Shhh!" he demanded.

He yanked down her underwear and pushed her against the sink.

"No!" she screamed in her head. "No, please, no!" But she was scared to death, and the words wouldn't come out. "I'm choking, please, stop, I'm going to die," she thought.

And he raped her.

Bunton said nothing. It would become the theme of her life, a way to survive the next 16 years in prison.

When he was done, he stepped back. "Shhh!" he said, with his finger to his lips. He smiled and left. Bunton stood there, numb, her pants at her ankles.

She was 19.

Bunton said she was raped seven more times by prison guards between 1993 and 1996. She is among more than 500 women who say they were sexually assaulted by guards at several Michigan prisons in the 1990s as officials ignored or dismissed warnings by human rights groups that male guards were preying on female inmates.

A class-action lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections has already yielded verdicts reaching an estimated $50 million, when interest and fees are included. And that's only for the first 18 women. With most yet to testify, and lawyers for the state insisting they have no intention of settling, Michigan's beleaguered taxpayers could face hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

"A prison is not supposed to turn you back out to society with more harm than when you came in," said Deborah LaBelle, an Ann Arbor civil rights lawyer who led a team that sued on behalf of the women. "No one, no one in this country, no one in a civilized society is sentenced to be raped and assaulted in prison."
The state's defense: Why didn't they speak up?

It wasn't just the rapes. Many women said they were routinely molested by guards who took advantage of rules that required them to meet a daily quota of pat-down searches for weapons, drugs or other contraband.

Inmates said guards ran their hands over the women's legs, buttocks and breasts under the guise of security. When it became clear the guards wouldn't be punished, some grew so brazen that they fondled women in front of other inmates and guards, or openly masturbated in the prison yard, according to trial testimony.

It is against the law for guards to have sexual contact with prisoners, even if there is consent. Some guards convinced women to submit to ongoing sexual relations in return for "protecting" them from fellow guards.

For years, Bunton kept quiet. She was afraid to speak up. She was a prisoner, after all, a convicted felon, afraid the allegations would not be taken seriously. Afraid of retaliation.

But after years of delay, the case involving the first 10 women, including Bunton, reached a courtroom last winter.

The state had a simple defense: These women are prisoners, and prisoners lie; if something did happen, it was the act of a few rogue guards; and if something did happen, the women didn't report it. So how could the Department of Corrections prevent what it didn't know was happening? The state said it thoroughly investigated any allegations it knew about and the claims of abuse were exaggerated.

"To say the department just sat back and did nothing, just let everybody run the place is just totally false," Allan Soros, an assistant attorney general, said at the first trial.

Nonetheless, a series of human rights reports throughout the 1990s said sexual assaults on female inmates were rampant and corrections officials tolerated the climate.

Since then, the state says it has made changes. They include refined work rules to prevent sexual misconduct or harassment by guards, tougher legal penalties for guards who have sexual contact with inmates and a policy to refer allegations to the Michigan State Police, as well Corrections Department internal affairs, for investigation.
No matter their pasts, listen to their stories

LaBelle said the legal action, at its heart, was about human rights. About women coming out of the shadows and getting a chance to tell their stories.

Bunton and the other women who testified are no saints. The group includes convicted murderers, thieves and drug dealers.

But Bunton, now 35, says it's important to listen to all of them, no matter their past.

"People don't know what goes on inside prison," Bunton said. "I think a lot of people don't care, unless it directly affects them. I want people to know this is going on in your backyard, and you might not care because it might not affect you, but you should care. This is not really about sexual harassment. This is about civil rights, basic fundamental rights of human beings."
June 10, 1991: A favor turns to murder

Bunton knew the guys as Pook and Timbo and Poodle, friends of her cousin, all of them teens in Detroit. They were planning to sell marijuana, and the deal was set, but they needed a ride, according to Bunton. One of the guys said: Let's steal a car.

Bunton said: Oh, no, I'll take you.

At the time, she said, it didn't sound monumental or deadly, a trip that would ruin the lives of nearly all involved.

"I know it's stupid now," Bunton said recently. "I think it is really stupid ... but at 17, uh, I didn't see the harm in it."

Bunton had a clean record, no history of drug involvement. According to records from the case, she dropped off the teens at a gas station on Livernois in southwest Detroit.

"Just drive around the block and come back," she said she was told.

She was in a white Mustang, and was halfway around the block when she heard gunshots.

She began driving faster and ended up going down a dead-end street. Bunton turned the car around and, now, the teens were running toward her -- Pook and Timbo and Poodle -- and they were waving guns. She said later she had no idea they had guns. They jumped into her car, screaming and shouting, saying they had "popped" somebody.

The two buyers had been shot.

Police found Omar Kaji, 19, dead from a single gunshot wound to his head. He was slumped at the wheel of a Monte Carlo. He had a 9-mm automatic pistol.

His twin, Ayman, was shot several times. He was lying by the passenger door.

Later, police would suggest, it was a setup -- by both sides. The buyers didn't have money to make a deal. All they had was a wad of blank paper, wrapped with a $20 bill. The sellers, meanwhile, didn't have any pot.

Ayman Kaji admitted that he and his brother planned to steal the marijuana.

He identified one of the teens with Bunton that night, Jose Burgos, 16, as the shooter.

"He got in the car and just started shooting," Kaji said. Kaji remains paralyzed from the neck down.
A murder conviction, and a harsh sentence

Bunton said she dropped the teens off and went home.

The next day, police took her to police headquarters for questioning.

After signing a statement detailing her role, Bunton thought she was going home. She said she didn't know that, even though she didn't pull the trigger, she could be held just as culpable as the teen who did.

Burgos was convicted of first-degree murder and is serving life in prison. The other two teens never went to trial.

Kaji was wheeled into court at Bunton's sentencing. He spoke in a whisper, and the emotional scene tugged on the heart of Judge Clarice Jobes. Three years later, in a 1994 newspaper interview about her retirement from Detroit Recorder's Court, Jobes singled out the case as an example of the endless violence she saw from the bench and admitted that she was so moved that she later cried.

Bunton was convicted of second-degree murder, armed robbery and assault with intent to murder. She was sentenced to 25 to 50 years, a term that some legal experts now say appeared excessive, given her role.

Kaji does not share that view. He insists Bunton must have known that his brother was going to be shot.

He said he has no sympathy for what Bunton went through in prison.

"I'm a Christian, but I'll never forgive," he said. "There is no way in hell that I'll ever forgive her."

For her part, Bunton has accepted responsibility for the tragedy, even as she insists she was only the getaway driver.

"I feel horrible," she says now. "I deserve to be punished, and you know, I have spent half of my life thinking about the (Kaji) family. ... I am so sorry."
Inmate No. 221034, for the rest of her life

Bunton wore a flowery dress, the same clothing she wore in court, when she was shipped to Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti in December 1991.

At the intake area, she was given five white bras and nine pairs of white cotton underwear. "Your number will be 221034," a guard said. "Remember it because you will have this number till you die."

Another guard told Bunton to read Psalm 23.

"This is the Valley of Death, baby girl," Bunton recalled the guard as saying. "All you have to do is read that verse, and God will carry you through all the way."

Just a few hours after arriving, Bunton met a woman returning to prison.

"Girl, I can't wait for shift change," the woman told her. "My man's gonna flip when he sees me here."

"Your man?"

"Yeah, my man."

She meant her sex partner at Huron Valley. A guard.
Welcome to Scott: The nightmare begins

Bunton stayed for six months before she was transferred to Scott Correctional Facility in Plymouth Township in the summer of 1992.

On one of her first nights at Scott, she woke up from a loud voice outside her door.

"Damn, girl, you wanna hurt a brother," a guard said.

Bunton tiptoed to the door. She looked out the window and saw a prisoner performing oral sex on a guard.

This was Bunton's new home, a facility she described as wild, with few rules and almost no physical boundaries between the guards and inmates.

At 4 foot 11, Bunton was small and meek when she entered prison.

One day, she was taking a shower, and one of the male guards pulled back the curtain.

"I'm naked," Bunton said, scrambling to cover her body.

"Oh, hush," the guard said. "I got a wife at home, I know what it all looks like."
Search policy becomes an excuse for sexual contact

At Scott, as in every Michigan prison at the time, every guard was required to pat down five prisoners every shift for weapons, food, drugs, whatever. It didn't matter which prisoners they picked. Some officers did it the proper way, quickly and with professionalism. But others exploited this directive, picking out the pretty women to search, the ones who were young and had long sentences.

Bunton said she was a daily target.

"The officers would come and feel us up whenever they wanted," she said. A guard "would cup the breast. He would rub his hands down your stomach and around your thighs and buttocks, legs.

"All the way up your thighs, to the end."

State prison officials would claim later they had no idea that some guards abused the search policies by sexually assaulting the women. They said they properly trained officers and had written policies against improper behavior. The rules have changed since. Men are not assigned to housing units and are not allowed to pat down women.

But the Michigan Women's Commission reported in 1993 there was an alarming level of sexual abuse and harassment by state prison guards.

In 1995, the U.S. Department of Justice found "pervasive" sexual abuse in Michigan women's prisons.

In 1996, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting sexual harassment, sexual abuse and privacy violations by guards and other employees in Michigan prisons.

The report, based on interviews with prisoners and prison rights advocates, cited rapes by guards in a "highly sexualized and excessively hostile" environment.

"Rather than seeking to end such abuse, the Michigan Department of Corrections has consistently refused to acknowledge that there is a problem of sexual misconduct in its women's prisons."
Handed from 1 guard to the next as others watch

The brazen nature of that abuse was laid bare one day, when Bunton was stopped in the recreation yard by a guard.

"How old are you?" he asked.

"Eighteen," she replied.

"Umm, just the way I like 'em, young and fresh.

"Give me a shakedown," he said.

She lifted her arms, standing in a group of prisoners, according to what she wrote in her prison journal. The guard rubbed his hands down her neck, across her back and around to her chest. He caressed her breasts.

He rubbed her stomach. He squeezed her buttocks, rubbing up and down her thighs.

His hand brushed against her pelvic bone, as he pulled himself closer to her.

Another officer watched.

"That's the way you do it," the second officer said.

The first officer started the pat-down again.

"Yeah, let me show y'all how it's done properly," the second officer said.

Bunton said she wanted to scream, but she was too afraid.

The second officer took his turn with Bunton. He rubbed her neck, then her back. He moved around to her breasts and the officers egged each other on. The other prisoners cheered and applauded.

"Aww, you got it down, rookie," the first guard laughed.

"All yard units report to segregation," a voice said over the speakers.

The crowd dispersed. Bunton rushed back to her cell.
Other inmates' stories show pattern of abuse

Bunton's account echoed the abuse testimony of other women at the civil trial last year in front of Judge Timothy Connors.

Jennifer Pruitt, who was serving life in prison for murder, entered Scott at age 17. Days after arriving, a guard forced her to perform oral sex. "You'll get better," the officer said.

Michele Bazzetta, sent to Scott after being convicted of second-degree murder, said an officer frequently took her to an isolated place. "He had a bald head and he wanted me to rub his head at the same time that I had my hand on his penis," she said.

Amy Black, who also entered prison at 17, had sex with a guard two or three times a week over several years.

"He promised he would treat me right and make sure none of the other officers were bothering me," said Black, serving life for murder. "He promised to make sure I was safe."

She ended the relationship when she found out that he was having sex with another prisoner, who she had heard had a sexually transmitted disease.

"For him, I think it was about sex," Black said. "For me, it was about staying alive."
'Make it your garden, where you can grow'

Bunton learned to keep her mouth shut. The guards controlled everything: when she ate, when she slept, when she went to the bathroom, when she spoke.

Each time she was raped, each time she was groped, Bunton buried the pain deep inside.

Dr. Frank Ochberg, a psychologist who examined Bunton in prison, later told jurors she had been "systemically, overtly degraded" by the assaults, the "humanity just beaten out of her."

"I call them battle scars because they never go away," Bunton said. "Being a prisoner is the lowest you can be in life. Being a female prisoner is so much worse."

She tried to hide in her cell, reading and thinking and praying. She kept her mouth shut.

"There was someone very close to me, who told me a long time ago, 'Scott Correctional Facility is a very bad place,' " Bunton said. " 'But it is up to you to find the good in the place. So you can look around in that very bad place and you can make it your garden, where you can grow, no matter what is going on around you. It's up to you to remove yourself from the bad and only concentrate on the good.'

"So that's what I did. I made that place my garden. I grew."
Education builds up the courage to tell her story

Bunton, a high school dropout, focused on her education, earning associate's and bachelor's degrees in business administration and a master's degree from a correspondence program.

She earned vocational certificates in food management, computers and graphic arts.

She became a yoga teacher and fitness trainer. "Every time I accomplished something, I felt better about myself," she said.

She grew stronger. She gained confidence and found her voice.

Toni Bunton, inmate No. 221034, was learning to stand up for herself.

After suffering in silence, she took a gamble. She summoned the courage to join a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections. She decided to speak up and tell her story, hoping it would force some changes, hoping that it would end the attacks.

LaBelle, the Ann Arbor attorney who specializes in women's prison issues, had been working for years on sexual abuse issues before coming across Bunton.

Believing the problem was growing and the state was doing nothing to stop it, LaBelle filed a lawsuit in 1996 on behalf of female inmates.

The case would eventually involve more than 500 prisoners, including Bunton.

After years of sexual brutality, Bunton found there were people -- strangers, even -- willing to fight with her: civil rights lawyers and law students at the University of Michigan.

They would push for her voice to be heard in court. They would fight for her freedom.

Contact JEFF SEIDEL at 313-223-4558 or jseidel@freepress.com.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090104/NEWS06/901040419/1007

Article 2
SPECIAL REPORT | CHAPTER 2 |
For female inmates, much is at stake as rape trial begins

BY JEFF SEIDEL • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • January 5, 2009

Second of five parts

The story so far
Toni Bunton landed in a Michigan prison after being convicted for participating in a drug deal that led to a murder. She and other female inmates say they became victims there, helpless to defend themselves against male guards’ sexual advances.
Advertisement

Last January, one day before her civil lawsuit went to trial, Toni Bunton sat on the top bunk in her prison cell at Scott Correctional Facility, a place she had lived almost half her life.

The place where she said she was raped, over and over, by prison guards.

She cried and prayed and wrestled with old doubts that swirled through her head.

Should she stand up in court and tell the world what happened to her? Should she risk her freedom at a time when she was seeking to have her 25- to 50-year sentence commuted? Or should she keep her mouth shut, once more, and hope that her silence was the key to getting out?

She felt trapped.

Once a meek teenager who had silently endured assaults by male guards, Bunton had grown into a confident and respected member of the prison population at Scott, on the border of Northville and Plymouth townships. Even so, she was a convict. With no physical evidence to support her, would jurors believe she had been raped? Would they even care? Bunton was among 500 women who claimed in a lawsuit that prison officials had willfully ignored years of sexual abuse by male guards.

Now, at 34, Bunton was among the first 10 prisoners to reach a courtroom.

"Some people are telling her to lay low, keep your head down until you get out," Dick Soble, one of the lawyers in the prisoners' suit, said of Bunton's fears.

Would the lawsuit help her pitch for commutation or kill it? Even on the eve of her court testimony, the old doubts resurfaced.

The following morning, Jan. 15, Deborah LaBelle woke in a panic, worried about what she would say in her opening statement.

For several days, LaBelle had tried to find the right words, forming thoughts and writing ideas on paper, but she couldn't get it right. She feared her statement was flat, lacking the passion she felt for a case that had consumed her for 12 years.

LaBelle handles civil rights cases from her Ann Arbor office, many involving female inmates. It was while meeting with inmates on visitation and education issues that LaBelle began to hear complaints of sexual abuse. Over the years, as the prison case grew and became more complex, she added likeminded attorneys in private practice.
The chance to speak up

As she prepared for trial, LaBelle knew she had to set the right tone from the start, there was so much at stake. She felt pressure to honor these women, who had waited so long to tell their stories.

So she scribbled on a legal pad, writing and rearranging her notes. As she walked down the sidewalk to the Washtenaw County Courthouse, she was still writing.

Dressed in a simple black dress and coat, intended to convey her serious and somber message, LaBelle continued to scribble as lawyers and spectators filed into the courtroom.

The Department of Corrections had fought the case for years, arguing variously that the statute of limitations had expired on the women's claims; that it should not be considered a class-action; that the hundreds of women in the suit should have their trials held separately; that prisoners don't have the same rights as normal citizens. The appeals went all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Five days earlier, Allan Soros, an assistant state attorney general representing the prison system, filed a motion seeking 10 separate trials for the women. Judge Timothy Connors denied the motion.

LaBelle finished writing as the court was called into session for opening statements. She faced the jury and cleared her throat.

"OK," she said. "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen."

Behind her, against the wall, the 10 women sat in chairs, dressed in civilian clothing -- pink sweaters, blouses, dress pants -- the kind of clothing seen at a PTA meeting. Seven of the women, including Bunton, were still prisoners. They had changed from their prison garb at the courthouse.

"We've all been waiting for this trial for a very long time," LaBelle told jurors.

Her voice was calm. Her mind was racing, trying to find the right balance of emotion. She wanted to scream out loud about how the guards preyed on the pretty ones, the ones who were small and weak, the ones who had been abused as children; how the women had to see the guards every day, yet couldn't report what happened to them, couldn't say no and couldn't fight because guards had all the power.

But the suit wasn't against the guards. They didn't create the system. They didn't have money to pay for damages.

Instead, this lawsuit was filed against the Department of Corrections, former DOC Director Kenneth McGinnis and former Scott Correctional Warden Joan Yukins.

To win, it would not be enough for LaBelle to show the guards had abused the women. LaBelle and her legal team had to convince jurors that prison officials knew about the abuse and did nothing to stop it.
The 1st hurdle: Jury selection

All of the women said they were touched inappropriately -- some, several times a day -- as the guards filled a daily pat-down quota. LaBelle contended that this constant touching emboldened some guards to sexually molest the prisoners.

On the other side of the room, the 10 jury members listened closely. Normally, in a civil trial, six jurors are used and five are needed for a verdict, but Connors said that the trial would last so long that he would lose a few. He kept 10, just in case.

Jury selection took 11 hours.

Several potential jurors said prisoners deserved whatever they got, even though it is a crime for a guard to have sexual contact with a prisoner. Others were dismissed because they said they themselves were sexually abused.
The case against the state

"I want to start with a little history and context," LaBelle told the jury. "Historically, in Michigan ... women used to be supervised in their cells and in their living units and in their showers and in their bathrooms by women. That is the way it was."

But that changed in 1986, when the DOC assigned men to work closer with female inmates.

LaBelle glanced at her notes, but spoke from memory.

She looked into the eyes of the jurors to make sure they were listening, to see whether they were engaged.

"You will hear that these guards -- not all of them, certainly not all of them -- these male guards went further," LaBelle said. "They sexually assaulted these 10 women. After the gropings, after the viewing, after the watching, then they assaulted them. They assaulted them over a period of years.

"Michigan, you will hear, invited men into the women's prison unit areas without training, without restriction and without precautions for these women's safety."

LaBelle told jurors how prison officials had ignored years of warnings.

The Michigan Women's Commission, a governor-appointed group, reported in 1993 an alarming level of sexual abuse and sexual harassment by prison guards. Two years later, the U.S. Department of Justice called it "pervasive." One year after that, Human Rights Watch, the international watchdog group, released a report that said there was a "highly sexualized and excessively hostile" environment.

"Had the wardens and directors looked, they would have seen," LaBelle said. "Had they read, they would have known. Had they listened, they would have heard."

After 47 minutes, she was done.
The state's defense

It was the state's turn.

Soros rose.

Speaking in a dry, steady voice, with little flash or emotion, Soros explained that he represented the prison system and its top officials, not the guards.

Soros, too, offered jurors a history of Scott, and how the facility switched to female prisoners in late spring 1992. At the time of the alleged assaults, there were 860 female inmates and nearly 400 employees.

Admittedly, he said, there are problems in every prison.

"You cannot have a perfectly running correctional facility. There is always going to be some problem that needs to be addressed."

He said the department knew of some allegations of sexual assault and made changes, improving the way it investigates abuses. He added: "You can't solve everything."

He then stressed what would become the backbone of the state's defense: The women had had opportunities to tell the warden and others that they had been assaulted years earlier.

"They didn't report their allegations in a timely manner," he said. "That's crucial."

Over and over, he repeated the point: "You have to know about a problem before we can help resolve it. We didn't get notice. We couldn't do anything about it.

"And we are not at fault."

Human Rights Watch studied abuses

January 4, 2009

The following excerpt comes from a December 1996 report, “All Too Familiar,” by Human Rights Watch. The organization examined sexual abuse of female prisoners in the United States. The full report is available here. It was one of a series of reports in the 1990s that described abuses of female inmates in Michigan prisons.
Advertisement
Click to learn more...

The Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) is currently being sued by seven female prisoners on behalf of all others similarly situated for sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and inappropriate visual surveillance within its correctional facilities for women. The suit comes on the heels of a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finding in 1995 that sexual misconduct pervades Michigan's women's prisons, including rape, sexual abuse, sexually aggressive acts by guards, and violations of the female prisoners' legitimate privacy interests. Our own investigation, conducted from 1994 through 1996, and based on interviews with current and former female prisoners as well as attorneys, prisoner rights advocates, and MDOC, revealed that rape, sexual assault or abuse, criminal sexual contact, and other misconduct by corrections staff are continuing and serious problems within the women's prisons in Michigan have been tolerated over the years at both the institutional and departmental levels.

Rather than seeking to end such abuse, the Michigan Department of Corrections has consistently refused to acknowledge that there is a problem of sexual misconduct in its women's prisons. As noted below, MDOC dismissed the female prisoners' class action suit as "erroneous" and issued a written statement characterizing the DOJ's findings as "vindictive and distorted" and "full of half truths, innuendo, distortion and lies." (658) The state has taken the positive steps of establishing minimal grievance and investigatory procedures as well as disciplinary and criminal sanctions for custodial sexual contact; however, its stated policy of "zero tolerance" for such abuse is belied by a pervasive bias against prisoner testimony, a high incidence of retaliation against complainants, and a consistent problem with the enforcement of appropriate penalties.

MDOC cooperated with Human Rights Watch's on-site investigations at its women's facilities and was prompt in its reply to our requests for additional information. Moreover, we commend the state for expressly criminalizing custodial sexual touching and for establishing clear disciplinary penalties for this crime. However, a significant gap exists between MDOC policy and its practice with respect to sexual misconduct. We strongly urge MDOC to enforce its criminal and administrative prohibitions against sexual misconduct, including rape, sexual abuse, and assault, criminal sexual contact, verbal degradation, and privacy violations; to protect prisoners' right to an effective remedy in cases of sexual misconduct by prison staff; and to end impunity for abusive employees. Moreover, we urge the department to publish regular reports of the nature and results of its sexual misconduct investigations to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice and other independent monitors in their efforts to uncover and remedy on-going custodial sexual misconduct in Michigan's prisons for women.
CONTEXT

Custodial Environment

Female prisoners in Michigan, held in increasingly overcrowded facilities, are guarded by a largely male staff. According to recent figures, men constituted from nearly one-half to over two-thirds of the corrections staff in the state's two largest prisons for women, the Florence Crane Women's Facility (Crane) and the Scott Correctional Facility (Scott). (659)

As noted in the legal background chapter of this report, Human Rights Watch does not oppose the presence of male officers in contact positions in female prisons per se. Nor do we believe that all male staff abuse prisoners or that custodial abuse is carried out only by males. However, we are concerned that Michigan has not taken adequate steps to protect against the potential for custodial sexual misconduct that arises out of this cross-gender guarding situation. Although Michigan does expressly prohibit sexual misconduct in both prison rules and criminal law, it fails to train male staff adequately to uphold these prohibitions and does not consistently investigate and discipline those employees found to violate them.

Corrections officials have also failed to inform female prisoners adequately regarding the nature of custodial sexual misconduct and the mechanisms available to seek redress. Christina Kampfner, a clinical psychologist who had worked extensively with women in Michigan's prisons, told us that in these relationships, officers often target "like a radar" women with histories of sexual or physical abuse or prisoners in emotionally vulnerable positions, such as those who lack support from family or friends, who are alienated or isolated by other prisoners or staff, and younger women who are incarcerated for the first time. (660) According to Kampfner, many of these prisoners are so in need of attention that they are easily exploited by the officers.

The gap between policy and practice in Michigan with respect to sexual misconduct is occurring at a time when the women's prisons are increasingly crowded. According to the most recent figures available from MDOC, there are a total of 1,616 prisoners in its women's facilities. (661) The majority of women are held in the Scott Correctional Facility, located in Plymouth, and the Florence Crane Women's Facility, (662) located in Coldwater, which house 771 and 447 women respectively. (663) MDOC also operates Camp Branch, a female camp in Coldwater that holds approximately 400 women. MDOC currently operates both women's prisons in overcrowded conditions--prisoners are double- and triple-bunked — and areas once used for recreational space are being used to house prisoners. (664)

State Legal and Regulatory Framework

Under Michigan's criminal code, any sexual touching with a prisoner by an employee of or a volunteer with MDOC constitutes fourth-degree "criminal sexual conduct," a misdemeanor. (665) The provision was added in 1988 to a pre-existing section of the criminal code that outlawed sexual touching with someone between the ages of thirteen and sixteen who is physically or mentally incapacitated or that is accompanied by force or coercion. The law applies to sexual contact irrespective of a prisoner's alleged consent. (666) Given the position of authority held by a corrections employee over a prisoner, the Michigan legislature found "the usual notions of consent do not apply." (667) The MDOC employee manual reiterates the prohibition on sexual contact with a prisoner and informs employees that such conduct constitutes a crime under Michigan law. (668) Under certain circumstances, corrections officers who engage in sexual intercourse with prisoners may be charged with third or first degree criminal sexual conduct. Third degree criminal sexual conduct occurs when an individual uses force or coercion to have sex. First degree sexual conduct applies to intercourse that occurs under specified aggravating circumstances. (669)

At present, MDOC operates both of its women's prisons and Camp Branch under a court order issued in 1981, in Glover v. Johnson. (670) While the issues raised in Glover are outside the scope of this report, the authorities' persistent defiance of both the judicial authorities and the other external monitors involved in Glover are indicative of similar problems in MDOC's approach to addressing sexual misconduct in its women's prisons.

At the time Glover was decided, it was a landmark decision for incarcerated women regarding their rights and an influential precedent for female prisoners in other states to seek more equal programming. Despite its precedential value, however, women incarcerated in Michigan continue to be denied the full implementation of the judge's order. (671) Attorneys representing female prisoners have been forced to file repeated contempt motions seeking compliance with Glover orders. The district court has found that the state disobeyed the 1981 order in two major contempt rulings. (672)

MDOC's continued noncompliance led the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in 1991, to issue a stern rebuke to the department and to uphold the appointment of a special administrator, a remedy the Circuit Court once found overly intrusive. The Sixth Circuit concluded:

[The] history of this case shows a consistent and persistent pattern of obfuscation, hyper-technical objections, delay, and litigation by exhaustion on the part of the defendants to avoid compliance with the letter and spirit of the district court's orders. The plaintiff class has struggled for eleven years to achieve the simple objectives of equal protection under the law generally, and equality of opportunity specifically. (673)

While the court upheld the creation of a special administrator, MDOC was permitted to designate who would serve in that position. The director of MDOC, Kenneth McGinnis, appointed Nancy Zang, a former parole officer in Illinois as special administrator of the Female Offenders Program. Zang is based in the director's office and reports directly to him.

The Sixth Circuit's rebuke did not appreciably affect MDOC's recalcitrance, and women have continued to face difficulties gaining the remedies ordered by the court. Deborah LaBelle told us there have been more than eight contempt motions filed against MDOC since 1991. (674) The court has issued nine orders to force compliance since 1991, and in March 1995 issued an opinion finding that MDOC had still not obtained compliance, despite MDOC's insistence that they were fully compliant in all areas. (675) On July 19, 1996, the court again issued an opinion and orders to compel compliance. United States District Judge John Feiken concluded: "… Defendants [MDOC et al.] have clearly, positively, and repeatedly violated orders of this court. … In fact, in the nineteen years of this case, Defendants have demonstrated a galling pattern of disrespect for the inmates they hold, the taxpayers of the State of Michigan, and the dignity of this court." (676)

National and International Law Protections

As discussed in the legal background chapter of this report, sexual misconduct is clearly prohibited under both U.S. constitutional law and international treaty law that is binding on the the U.S. federal government and its constituent states. (677) The eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bars cruel and unusual punishment, has been interpreted by U.S. courts to protect prisoners against rape and sexual assault. This constitutional shield is further augmented by the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of the rights to privacy and personal integrity, which, in a series of lower court cases, has been interpreted to prohibit male guards from strip searching female prisoners, conducting intrusive pat-frisks, or engaging in inappropriate visual surveillance.

Constitutional protections on prisoners' rights are enforceable via lawsuits filed by or on behalf of prisoners, or by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Historically, U.S. prisoners have achieved most of their landmark prison victories through private litigation, particularly by suits litigated by prisoners' rights groups such as the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union or the National Prison Project of the National Women's Law Center. However, if certain stringent intent requirements are met, the DOJ may criminally prosecute abusive prison officials under federal civil rights provisions. In addition, the DOJ has the statutory right to investigate and institute civil actions under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) whenever it finds that a state facility engages in a pattern or practice of subjecting prisoners to "egregious or flagrant conditions" in violation of the constitution.

In addition to constitutional protections, prisoners' rights are also protected under international and human rights treaties that are legally binding on the United States. The primary international legal instruments protecting the rights of U.S. prisoners are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by the United States in 1993, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, ratified in 1994. Both treaties bar torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which authoritative institutional fora have interpreted as including sexual abuse. To constitute torture, an act must cause severe physical or mental suffering and must be committed for a purpose such as obtaining information from the victim, punishing her, intimidating her, coercing her, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment includes acts causing a lesser degree of suffering that need not be committed for a particular purpose. The ICCPR guarantees the prisoners' right to privacy, except when limitations on this right are demonstrably necessary to maintain prison security.

When prison staff members use force, the threat of force, or other means of coercion to compel a prisoner to engage in sexual intercourse, their acts constitute rape and, therefore, torture. Torture also occurs when prison staff use force or coercion to engage in sexual touching of prisoners where such acts cause serious physical or mental suffering. Instances of sexual touching or of sexual intercourse that does not amount to rape may constitute torture or cruel or inhuman treatment, depending on the level of physical or mental suffering involved. Other forms of sexual misconduct, such as inappropriate pat or strip searches or verbal harassment, that do not rise to the level of torture or of cruel or inhuman treatment, may be condemned as degrading treatment. (678)
ABUSES (679)

The abuses discussed in this section occurred over a ten-year period from 1986 to 1996. Our own investigation took place from March 1994 through November 1996. We found a serious problem of sexual misconduct in Michigan women's prisons, including rape, sexual assault and abuse, criminal sexual contact, inappropriate visual surveillance, and verbal degradation. Unless indicated by the use of a full name, the names of the prisoners have been changed to protect their anonymity. In some cases, the location and exact date of prisoner interviews have also been withheld.

Rape, Sexual Assault or Abuse, and Criminal Sexual Contact

On March 27, 1996, prisoners' rights attorney Deborah Labelle filed a class action suit, Neal/Nunn, on behalf of seven female prisoners and all other females incarcerated in Michigan charging MDOC and several other named defendants with various degrees of sexual assault, sexual harassment, violations of privacy, and physical threats and assaults. (680) Two of the plaintiffs, Tracy Neal and Ikemia Russell, allege sexual assault by male officers at the Scott Correctional Facility in 1994. A third, Helen Gibbs, alleges that she was sexually assaulted by a male officer at the Florence Crane Women's Facility in 1994. Bertha Clark alleges that a male officer at Scott squeezed her breasts and grabbed her crotch during pat-frisks, and Linda Nunn alleges sex-based, derogatory and abusive name calling and sexually threatening comments by a male officer at Scott. Stacy Barker, whose case is described in more detail below, alleges constant harassment and retaliation at Scott for reporting sexual misconduct by staff members, and "Jane Doe" alleges that male officers at Crane subjected her to constant viewing while dressing and undressing, showering, and using the toilet facilities. All seven women report experiencing sex-based insults, sexual harassment, excessively intrusive cross-gender body searches, constant viewing by male staff and threats of retaliation for reporting staff misconduct.

Such allegations of sexual misconduct are not new to Michigan's women's prisons. Documentation we obtained indicates that these charges are consistent with a pattern and practice of conduct in the women's prisons since, at least, the mid-1980s. In 1984 a prisoner accused a resident unit officer, Alfred Beaster, at Huron Valley Women's Facility, (681) of rape. He ultimately confessed to having sexual relations with a prisoner, but asserted the prisoner was the aggressor. He told the prison investigator that:

The prisoner dropped her pants, he took his penis out, but she did all of the manipulation. That is, she backed onto his erection. Officer Beaster maintained he didn't lay a hand on her. Beaster told the officers that he wasn't sure if he was inside of her or not as she was backing up on him. He did tell the officers that he ejaculated and that she asked him if he squirted inside of her. (682)

Then, in 1986, a corrections officer at Crane, Raymond Raby, was dismissed after admitting during a police interview that he had sexual relations on a nightly basis with different women incarcerated at Crane. Raby's exploits came to light after a prisoner, Jackie K., reported that Raby molested her. According to Jackie K.'s statement, Raby entered her cell at night and woke her up. He took her into a visiting room where he grabbed her and kissed her, then fondled her breasts and put his finger in her vagina. (683) Shortly after Jackie K. complained about him, another prisoner reported seeing an officer fitting Raby's description having oral intercourse with a third prisoner. (684)

In 1988 another woman incarcerated at Crane, Kim J., alleged that she was raped by an officer during the night shift. Kim J. reported the incident to the prison psychologist, who then informed other officials in the prison. (685) According to a statement Kim J. made, the officer raped her in the laundry room after she submitted to a "shakedown" (pat-frisk). The next morning, she awakened to find the officer in her cubicle with his hand between her legs. The authorities took no action against the officer because the only evidence was her accusation.

In another incident, Officer Bernard Rivers in 1990 admitted entering a prisoner's segregation cell and sexually assaulting her. According to the prisoner, Lisa G., Rivers entered her cell in April 1988 and told her he could positively or negatively affect her parole, depending on how she responded to his sexual advances. (686) She involuntarily submitted to sexual relations with him. Lisa G. came forward eighteen months later, after Rivers was again assigned to her housing unit, out of fear that he would force her to have sexual relations with him again. MDOC largely ignored Lisa G.'s allegations for four months until she, with the help of her attorney Deborah LaBelle, obtained a court order and wore a wire inside the prison. (687) She successfully taped a conversation with Rivers. His statements acknowledged the sexual assault and resulted in the sheriff's office recommending prosecution. He committed suicide before trial.

In 1992 the Michigan Women's Commission, a governor-appointed body, launched an investigation into the problems facing incarcerated women, focusing in particular on women incarcerated in county jails. (688) The commission interviewed fifty-nine women who were formerly held in jail and were either released or transferred to Michigan's prisons or community-based programs. (689) In each interview, a pre-established series of questions was asked regarding jail conditions including a final, open question, "Are there any concerns you would like to share about conditions here at the prison?" (690)

The prisoners raised a number of concerns in response to the final question, including incidences of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment committed by corrections officers. A majority of the women reported sexual harassment and sexual abuse by the guards, ranging from corrections staff demanding sex or sexual favors, often in exchange for certain items, to intrusive pat-downs, to male guards walking through the showers and rooms while the women were undressed. (691) The women's responses to the last question were used to create a final chapter, "Special Report: Women in Prison," of the Women's Commission's Report. At MDOC Director McGinnis's insistence, the section was ultimately deleted from the published report, released in July 1993; the chapter has never been made public in any form. (692)

In February 1993 the Office of the Legislative Corrections Ombudsman, a post attached to the state legislature, conducted a second investigation of sexual misconduct at both Scott and Crane. (693) McGinnis asserts that the ombudsman's findings refuted the information compiled by the Women's Commission, even though a significant percentage of the women surveyed reported that sexual harassment and sexual misconduct were problems in the prison. (694)

In June 1994 the U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into prison conditions for women incarcerated at the Scott and Crane facilities pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA). The purpose of the investigation was to determine whether there were any violations of the prisoners' constitutional rights. On March 27, 1995, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick wrote a twelve-page letter to Michigan Governor John Engler that detailed the DOJ's findings. The DOJ concluded:

[T]he sexual abuse of women prisoners by guards, including rapes, the lack of adequate medical care, including mental health services, grossly deficient sanitation, crowding and other threats to the physical safety and well-being of prisoners, violates their constitutional rights. (695)

According to the DOJ letter, "nearly every woman . . . interviewed reported various sexually aggressive acts of guards." (696) The DOJ found that prisoners at Scott and Crane had been raped, sexually assaulted, and subjected to groping and fondling during pat-frisks. Additionally, they were subjected to "improper visual surveillance by guards" who:

routinely stand outside the cells of individual prisoners and watch them dress or undress, stand in the shower areas and observe showers and use of toilet facilities. Male maintenance workers stand and watch women inmates who are naked or in various states of undress as well--all on a regular basis without legitimate need. . . . We are unaware of any effort to accommodate the legitimate privacy interests of prisoners. (697)

The status of the DOJ's investigation is discussed in more detail below.
In 1994 we interviewed two women--Stacy Barker and Charlene Billups-Hein--who both sued MDOC for repeated sexual abuse by male corrections officers that they endured at the Huron Valley Women's Prison, now closed, and Scott. Barker was raped and sexually assaulted by the same officer, Craig Keahy, over a period of nearly a year and a half, beginning in October 1989. (698) She told us, "He would come to my room or detail [once or twice a week] and force me to perform different sexual acts on him. He would threaten or harass me, like 'I'll make your time hard for you … I have the keys.'" (699) He was discovered by other officers on various occasions leaving Barker's room off-duty but was always allowed to return to her unit and never reprimanded for violation of rules. After a while, his attacks became more violent. She told us, "He'd say things like, 'Come on and suck my dick'. … He'd pull my hair, unzip his pants and force himself in my mouth." Keahy was subsequently discovered by other prison officers, in August 1991, leaving the room of a second woman prisoner. They looked into the prisoner's room and saw that she was naked. While the prisoner initially denied anything had occurred, she was taken to the hospital and an examination was performed which detected the presence of semen. Keahy was convicted in December 1991 on two counts of fourth-degree sexual conduct with a prisoner, a misdemeanor. (700) He was sentenced to community service.

Charlene Billups-Hein was housed in segregation when a male corrections officer, David Rose, started coming to her cell in the early mornings in June and July 1992. (701) According to Billups-Hein, Rose came and spoke with her one night when she was crying and upset. Rose told her he had been having sexual relations with other prisoners and asked her to have sexual intercourse with him. He listed the names and identification numbers of the women with whom he was having sex, many of whom were housed in the segregation unit. According to Billups-Hein, he stated that he had been watching her for a long time and that she would be his fourteenth resident. He had not approached her earlier, Rose said, because she was "with women," implying that she was a lesbian. She told us that she submitted to sexual relations with the officer because she felt that she did not have any choice. When he approached her on subsequent occasions, the officer allegedly brought her various things, such as cigarettes, makeup, perfume, candy, and cookies. She said they had sexual intercourse and that she performed oral sex on him a number of times. Officer Rose was charged with criminal sexual conduct third degree and acquitted. He was returned to Scott where he is currently employed and is reportedly under investigation for renewed charges of sexual misconduct with a different prisoner.

Other women we interviewed in 1994 reported similar assaults by male officers and staff. In late 1993, Anne B. was taking a break from her work assignment in a back room when her supervisor came in. (702) He approached her from behind and started kissing her. He then pulled her to the ground and had sexual relations with her. She told us, "I felt uncomfortable. It wasn't something I wanted. . . . After that, he acted as if nothing happened. He did his job, I did mine." Anne B. discussed the rape with other women on her work assignment, who described similar encounters with the same employee, although none of them admitted actually submitting to sexual intercourse.

Another incarcerated woman we interviewed, Gloria P., told us that Officer A was assigned to guard her room when she was admitted to a hospital outside the prison for medical treatment. (703) During her stay in the hospital, he became increasingly assertive, touching her, making comments like, "You need a man like me," or suggesting she take a shower and helping her undress. He once turned on a nude dance show on the television in the hospital room and made comments such as, "I like women with a lot of butt" or made reference to their breasts. One day, he sat on the edge of her bed and kissed her. On another occasion, she told us, he kissed her breasts and she performed oral sex on him.

According to Gloria P., "It went on from there, and we had a relationship in the sexual sense" in the hospital and once she returned to the prison. Everyone, including staff, she said, knew about the relationship. She explained, "That person never gets tickets [disciplinary write-up], never needs a pass, could go wherever they wanted and, if anybody ever had a problem with her, he'd [take care of it]." (704) During this time, he brought her various things, such as nail polish, money, a ring, and candy. One night, she stated, the relationship "got really intense"--he started rubbing her hair while other prisoners were watching, and they went into a nearby closet to kiss. Within days, Gloria P. was moved to another unit but continued to see Officer A in the yard, or he would switch shifts with officers on either her unit or a neighboring unit in order to see her.

On February 22, 1996, we interviewed an attorney representing a female prisoner who was charging a male officer at Scott with sexual assault. (705) The assault occurred during the midnight shift on July 31, 1995. The prisoner was asleep in her cell when the officer entered, tied her down to her bunk, sexually abused her, and hit her repeatedly. The officer eventually left and during the early hours of the morning, another officer found the prisoner tied to her bed and badly beaten. The prisoner was taken to the hospital and then returned to Scott. The officer was placed on leave immediately and eventually charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct. He pled guilty to assault with intent to commit criminal sexual contact and received four years probation, one of which he must serve in jail. (706)

In mid-1996, we obtained information about a December 26, 1995, sexual assault by a male officer on a female prisoner at Scott. The assault allegedly occurred during the midnight shift when the officer on duty came into the prisoner's cell, unzipped his pants, and raped her. After hearing a noise outside her cell, he told her to meet him in the bathroom area, where he raped her again. After coming into her cell later in the night and raping her another time, he told her the rapes would be "our little secret." The prisoner reported the rapes on January 9, 1996. She was visited by an inspector at the facility that same day and by a state police officer the following day. At this writing, the prisoner is still incarcerated at Scott and has no knowledge about the progress of the investigation. The officer has not been assigned to her unit but is still working at the facility.

On November 4, 1996, we received reports of an alleged sexual assault at the Camp Branch facility. The assault occurred on October 29, 1996 and was allegedly committed by a civilian food service employee. State troopers were contacted and are investigating the case. To date, no warrant has been issued.

Prisoners who are not involved with officers often witness their sexual activities with other prisoners. According to Frances U., when she worked nights in the school building, she often saw officers in the library with their pants down with a prisoner. She told us, "We would watch officers taking women to the basement. If you couldn't find an officer, you would wait to see which room he came out of. It runs rampant." (707)

Mistreatment of Prisoners Impregnated by Guards

As a result of custodial sexual misconduct, some prisoners have been impregnated by corrections staff. These women are particularly vulnerable to harassment by staff and to the punitive investigatory measures at times employed by MDOC. The experience of one woman, Anne B., whom we interviewed in 1994, is particularly telling. In 1993 Anne B. reported that she had been sexually assaulted by a corrections employee and requested a pregnancy test. Almost immediately after the test results returned positive, the authorities removed her from the prison where the assault occurred and placed her in a segregated cell at Huron Valley Men's Prison (HVM) infirmary.

While at HVM, Anne B. was locked in for nearly twenty-four hours a day and denied access to a phone. Attorney Deborah LaBelle told us that she learned of Anne B.'s predicament only through another prisoner at HVM who contacted LaBelle. (708) Anne B. was removed from her cell only for meetings with MDOC staff investigating her pregnancy. According to Anne B., these investigators repeatedly interrogated her about the circumstances of her pregnancy. One investigator threatened to keep her in segregation throughout her pregnancy, take away her accrued good time, and return her to the facility where she was assaulted unless she assisted with the investigation. Anne B. also told us that this investigator pressed her to have an abortion, repeatedly asking her, "Don't you think it'd just be better for you and the child to just have an abortion?" (709) She resisted this pressure and carried her pregnancy to term.

Anne B. was released from segregation after nearly three months and placed in the general population at another women's prison in the state. She told us that in this new facility she had been continuously harassed by prison staff about what she had told investigators and whether she reported who impregnated her. The doctor at this prison reportedly refused to treat Anne B. during her pregnancy, and she had to receive prenatal care from a doctor in a nearby town.

In February, 1996, we learned of another female prisoner who had been sexually assaulted by a male officer during an August 1995 stay in a hospital at the Huron Valley Men's Prison, where she had been sent for treatment for an ongoing medical problem. The prisoner had taken a shower and was toweling off in the bathroom when the officer, an employee of the HVM who had been guarding her, entered the room and had sexual relations with her. Subsequent to the incident, she requested a pregnancy test and was found to be pregnant. The baby was determined by a paternity test to be his, and he was charged with fourth degree criminal sexual misconduct, to which he pled no contest. (710) A person familiar with the case told us that after the prisoner decided to report the officer, she was harassed by other officers at Scott. One officer reportedly told her that it might make her time easier if she did not pursue the case.

Privacy Violations

Despite clear decisions in U.S. courts and relevant international law, Michigan has no policy in place to ensure the privacy of incarcerated women. MDOC makes no distinction between male and female corrections officers in conducting pat-frisks or searches of a prisoner's cell or the shower and toilet areas. (711) In practice, male corrections officers patrol these areas and are in a position to view incarcerated women in a state of undress or while using the shower or toilet facilities.

MDOC's use of male corrections staff in the housing units of the women's prisons and the dearth of restrictions on their job assignments appear to be rooted in a 1982 federal court decision, Griffin v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections. (712) Griffin was a class action lawsuit filed by female corrections officers who alleged that they were unfairly discriminated against, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act banning sex discrimination, because MDOC limited their job assignments to female facilities and they were denied positions in the over twenty men's prisons. These assignments, in turn, adversely affected their professional advancement. At the time, the MDOC restricted female corrections officers from working on the housing units in the men's prisons for the security and safety of the female officers and for reasons of prisoner privacy and rehabilitation. (713)

The judge in Griffin flatly dismissed the contention that prisoners had a constitutionally protected right to privacy. He found that:

Any contention by [MDOC] that they are entitled to the Title VII [bona fide occupational qualification] exception on the basis of the prisoner's right to privacy . . . is without merit. Prisoners do not possess any protected right under the Constitution against being viewed while naked by corrections officers of the opposite sex. (714)

The judge's blunt denial to prisoners of a constitutionally protected right to privacy was made without reference to or consideration of any legal precedent and was strikingly inconsistent with similar decisions from other jurisdictions that predated Griffin. Prior to 1982, other courts repeatedly recognized that prisoners had a constitutionally protected right of privacy, including the right to be protected from being unduly observed while naked or while using the toilet. (715) Where the employment rights of corrections officers were at issue, the courts directed the state to balance the equal employment opportunities of the corrections officers with the need to protect the prisoners' right to privacy. Griffin, however, decided otherwise.

MDOC has chosen to rely on Griffin rather than on other federal court decisions since Griffin that ordered or allowed prison officials to protect prisoners from unwanted and unwarranted intrusions on their privacy by guards of the opposite sex. (716) The court did not address the privacy rights of female prisoners which subsequent courts have acknowledged are entitled to a different analysis. A number of decisions have specifically dealt with the role of male corrections officers, upholding or directing limitations on cross-gender pat-downs or frisks by corrections officers of the opposite sex, (717) and permitting the removal of male officers from the housing units. (718) In some of these decisions, the court has explicitly stated that Griffin is the exception rather than the rule. (719) Strikingly, in contrast MDOC's combative approach to Glover and its tendency to appeal virtually every adverse district court ruling, it did not appeal Griffin.

Abusive Pat-Frisks

MDOC does train corrections officers in the proper procedure for conducting pat-frisks: they should use the back of their hand, rather than the palm, when searching the chest and genital areas. (720) MDOC policy requires each nonhousing corrections officer to search at least five "randomly selected" prisoners per shift. These searches are intended to prevent prisoners from possessing contraband; under departmental policy "no search shall be conducted for the purpose of harassing or humiliating a prisoner." (721)

Nonetheless, male corrections officers frequently abuse their power to conduct random pat-frisks in a degrading and sexually hostile manner. During pat-frisks and pat-searches, male officers often use their open hands and fingers to grope or grip a women's breasts and nipples, vagina, buttocks, anus, and thighs. They reportedly target certain women, usually the younger ones, while older, long-term prisoners are rarely frisked. Joann F. told us:

The male officers sit by the door to the kitchen and shake the women down as they leave. We watch the way they do it and who they pick. I watched one who felt a woman down in front of everyone else as she left. It's always male officers at the door in the kitchen who do the shakedowns. (722)

Carol H. noted, "The [women] look ashamed because they have the officer pawing at their body. It depends on what you look like, what you have on. You can guess who and when they are going to shake a [woman] down." (723)
Corrections officers have used the frisks and pat-searches to exercise undue power and control over incarcerated women. When ordered to submit to a frisk or pat-search, a woman must comply or risk disciplinary action. In some instances, women who have requested that a female corrections officer conduct the frisk or who have pulled away during an offensive frisk have received major misconduct tickets for disobeying a direct order. Such tickets have resulted in administrative segregation and loss of good time and disciplinary credits. According to one grievance we reviewed, prisoner Maxine Q. was being pat-frisked by Officer W when, she alleged, he cupped her breasts and then groped her vagina as he ran his hands between her legs. Maxine Q. pulled away and requested the presence of a female officer. A second prisoner who witnessed the frisk contacted a female officer. Maxine Q. then agreed to con