Michigan Prison Films Women in Showers — and Caught Guards Saying Lewd Things, Lawsuit Says
A $500 million lawsuit filed Monday in Washtenaw County Circuit Court is taking aim at the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging that prison officials subjected hundreds of incarcerated women to illegal surveillance by recording them during strip searches, while showering, and even as they used the toilet.
The suit describes the violations as a profound breach of privacy and basic human rights.
At the heart of the case is a deeply controversial and, according to experts, unprecedented policy implemented at Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility, the only women's prison in Michigan.
Under the Michigan Department of Corrections policy directive, prison guards were instructed to wear activated body cameras while conducting routine strip searches, capturing video of women in states of complete undress.
The suit, brought by the firm Flood Law, alleges a range of abuses, including lewd comments from prison guards during recorded searches, and long-term psychological trauma inflicted on women, many of whom are survivors of sexual violence. 'What these women continue to endure is nothing short of horrific.'
'What these women continue to endure is nothing short of horrific. This case exposes a grotesque abuse of power that directly retraumatizes survivors of sexual assault,' Todd Flood said in a Tuesday press release ahead of announcing the suit. 'Despite multiple warnings about the policy's illegality from advocacy organizations and state legislatures, MDOC officials have failed to fully halt these privacy violations.'
Attorneys for the 500 plaintiffs — 20 named women, with hundreds more expected to join — argued that this practice not only deprived women of their dignity, but also violated widely accepted detention standards. No other state in the country permits such recordings; many have explicit prohibitions against filming individuals during unclothed searches, recognizing the inherent risk of abuse and the acute vulnerability of the people being searched. Michigan, the attorneys said, stands alone.
The plaintiffs are suing the Michigan Department of Corrections, Department of Corrections head Heidi Washington, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and more than a dozen other high-ranking officials.
Neither the Department of Corrections nor Whitmer's office immediately responded to requests for comment.
The lawsuit lays out a sweeping series of alleged legal violations, accusing state officials of crossing constitutional and moral lines.
It claims the officials are ultimately responsible for a blatant invasion of privacy through the unauthorized recording of women in vulnerable states; the deliberate infliction of emotional trauma through policies that retraumatized sexual assault survivors; and systemic sex-based discrimination in violation of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
The Elliott-Larsen law, which protects against sex-based discrimination, was meant to protect against precisely this kind of gendered abuse. The suit says the policy suggests that women in state custody are being surveilled in ways no male prisoner would be.
The complaint also asserts that the policy and its continued enforcement stand in direct conflict with multiple protections enshrined in the Michigan Constitution, suggesting a failure at every level of oversight and accountability.
According to the complaint, the body camera policy began in January 2025 and was only partially rolled back in March after public pressure. Although the Department of Corrections changed its policy to stop recording strip searches, the suit alleges that officers continue to film women in showers, bathrooms, and other private settings — actions that the complaint says amount to felonies under Michigan law.
[/newsetter]
The trauma has taken a measurable toll. Women have reported acute anxiety, disrupted sleep, digestive problems, and worsening of chronic health conditions.
The psychological impact has led many to isolate themselves, quit their work assignments, and disengage from educational programs. One woman, who had served as a Prisoner Observation Aide for 11 years, resigned from the role due to repeated exposure to recorded searches.
The plaintiffs are seeking not just financial damages, but also an injunction to halt any remaining recordings, destruction of existing footage, and mandatory staff training to prevent further abuse.
'This isn't just about privacy,' Flood said in the statement. 'It's about dignity, trauma, and the state's responsibility to uphold the basic rights of every person in its custody.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Protestors seek justice after Manatee judge dismisses case under 'Stand Your Ground' law
More than two dozen people gathered outside the Manatee County Clerk of Court's Office Monday to protest a judge's decision to dismiss a case against a man accused of fatally shooting a 49-year-old Bradenton man after a car crash. Organizers with the Party for Socialism and Liberation Tampa Bay Chapter hosted the press conference seven days after Manatee County Circuit Court Judge Frederick Mercurio released his order dismissing the case against Jordan Glanz based under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Glanz, 28, was arrested in July 2024 in connection to a car crash which turned into a fatal altercation between Glanz and the second driver, Deondrick Anderson. More: Bradenton bar shooting suspect pleads no contest to charges, sentenced to 17 years in prison In case you missed it: Minnesota man indicted in connection to throwing Molotov cocktail at army tank in Sarasota Glanz has claimed he fired his gun in self-defense in fear for his life after Anderson began punching him through his truck's window, according to court records. A probable cause affidavit states Glanz had stopped by the Oneco Rose bar to meet his girlfriend on July 10, 2024. As Glanz pulled away from a drive-thru window at an intersection, Anderson's car drove forward and hit Glanz's truck causing minor damage. Anderson stopped his car in the middle of the road, got out and approached Glanz's window, according to the affidavit. Anderson didn't want to involve police and preferred to exchange insurance information with Glanz, the affidavit states. Witnesses told investigators they saw Glanz's girlfriend approach the truck and that she became belligerent before climbing into the truck. A witness who was behind Anderson at the time of the argument told police she saw Glanz purposely spit in Anderson's face, according to the affidavit. Punches were exchanged before Glanz fired one shot at Anderson, hitting him in the abdomen. Glanz then drove to his home where he called police. Glanz was initially charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The charge was later upgraded to second-degree murder following Anderson's death. Glanz's defense filed a motion to dismiss in December 2024 under Florida's Stand Your Ground law claiming Glanz acted in self-defense and fired the gun out of fear for his and his girlfriend's lives. Following a hearing in May, Mercurio sided with the defense. In his order, Mercurio said that even though he found that Glanz had a duty to retreat, there was no reasonable opportunity for him to do so. Mercurio explained given how quickly the situation escalated, the fact that Anderson's car was parked in the middle of the street impeding Glanz's ability to drive away, the crowd of people around Glanz's truck and a car behind Glanz stopping him from backing up, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that Glanz could have reasonably retreated from the fight once it begun. Members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Voices of Florida, the Manasota Re-entry Program and the Florida chapter of Black Lives Matter Grassroots said on Monday that they feel the justice system continues to fail them. 'Enough is enough,' said Deanna Joseph, founder of the Florida chapter of BLM Grassroots. 'We stand 10-toed style, demanding that this case be reexamined, demanding that the Anderson family receive full accountability to the fullest extent of the law.' Joseph's family founded BLM Grassroots after her 14-year-old son, Andrew Joseph III, was killed in Tampa in 2014. Since then, the chapter has stood by other parents who have lost their children. The activists said their advocacy and holding people in power accountable for their actions has become their life's work. "There is a problem in America. There is a problem in this state when Stand Your Ground can be misconstrued and applied to this situation and to this case," Joseph said. Tracey Washington, local activist and mother of Breonte Johnson-Davis who was killed after being tased by a Palmetto police officer, demanded more transparency by officials in power. She encouraged the community to use their power as voters to hold those in positions of authority accountable. More: Lawsuit against New College of Florida over violation of public records law settled More: Mother of slain Palmetto man commemorates son, others who have died in police custody Angela Anderson once described herself as being a fearless lioness. That all changed almost a year ago when she got the call that her son, Deondrick "Dee" Anderson, had been shot. For Angela Anderson, it's like that phone call happened yesterday. She recalled how after several surgeries, the family thought Dee was out of danger and that he would pull through. Soon after returning home, the family learned he had internal bleeding. Deondrick Anderson died on July 21 — 10 days after he was shot. Born and raised in Bradenton, Deondrick Anderson went to Manatee County High School, graduated from the University of South Florida with a bachelor's degree in social work and later an master's in business from Florida International University. A sports and news buff, he spent time with Pop Warner football where he helped to make sure under-privileged kids could participate. He was a beloved son, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, nephew, cousin and dear friend to many, Angela Anderson said. He was also a teacher who loved helping children in his community. Two weeks before he'd been shot, her son had received his teaching certificate so he could teach anywhere in Florida, Angela Anderson said. A member of the Saint Paul Missionary Baptist Church, Deondrick Anderson regularly helped the homeless population, often stopping by into the camps in Manatee County to feed and care for them. Angela Anderson recalled one time her son brought one homeless gentleman home with him and helped him get his life back on track. The 49-year-old also worked at AMIkids, a nonprofit that empowers youth by providing services for them to develop skills, confidence and achieve their goals. There he acted as a teacher, mentor, bus driver and social worker, often taking the kids on expeditions and teaching them life skills. 'I could go on and on and on and on about my Dee, but that won't bring him back,' Angela Anderson said. 'Jordan, you took my boy's life and a man that was loved by many, including his family and friends.' The activists are demanding that the State Attorney's Office file an appeal of Mercurio's decision. The group doesn't want the case to be decided solely by the judge. Instead, they are demanding a full investigation and a trial with a jury so that justice can be brought to Anderson's family. Angela Anderson is ready to fight for her son's justice. 'He was my child, and that lioness spirit, that fearless Victoria Barkley spirit, is coming back,' Angela Anderson said. 'I'm going to put on my fighting armor, and I'm going to fight for justice for my Deondrick Anderson.' Gabriela Szymanowska covers the criminal justice, courts and legal system for the Herald-Tribune. Reach out with a news tip to gszymanowska@ This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Mother: Justice denied as case dismissed in fatal Bradenton shooting
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Hearing held for judge accused of allowing immigrant to escape ICE custody
BOSTON (AP) — A hearing began Monday for a Massachusetts judge facing civil charges over allegations that she allowed an immigrant in her court to evade an immigration enforcement agent. The case stems from a 2018 incident in which Shelley Joseph, a district court judge, is accused of colluding with the immigrant's attorney and a court officer to allow him escape out a back door of the courthouse after a hearing on charges that included drug possession. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer had been waiting outside the courtroom to detain the defendant, Jose Medina-Perez. 'This case is about the integrity, impartiality and independence of the Massachusetts judiciary and the appearance of the integrity, impartiality and independence every judge must uphold,' Judith Fabricant, special counsel for the commission, told the hearing. A lawyer for Joseph, Elizabeth Mulvey, said the case had been distorted over time and that everyone had come to believe that her client 'let an illegal immigrant out of the door" with half of those people believing she should be jailed and the other half calling her a 'folk hero.' She argued Joseph had been vilified in the media and people were giving the impression that 'dozens of people' had seen Joseph 'get off the bench, escort the defendant to the door, give him a hug and wish him god speed.' 'Today in this court room and we are going to have opportunity to hear all the evidence,' Mulvey said. The case is similar to a Milwaukee judge accused in April of helping a man evade immigration authorities. The case has escalated a clash between the Trump administration and local authorities over the Republican president's sweeping immigration crackdown. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is accused of escorting the man and his lawyer out of her courtroom through the jury door after learning that immigration authorities were seeking his arrest. The man was taken into custody outside the courthouse after agents chased him on foot. In the Massachusetts case, federal obstruction of justice charges against Joseph were dropped in 2022 after she agreed to refer herself to a state agency that investigates allegations of misconduct by members of the bench. That agency, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, concluded last year that Joseph 'engaged in willful judicial misconduct that brought the judicial office into disrepute, as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and unbecoming a judicial officer.' Denis McInerney, the hearing officer assigned to the case by the Supreme Judicial Court, said he will hear the evidence and then make a recommendation afterward based on whether he find Joseph violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct. The hearing is expected to last about a week. Much of the first day was dominated by the first witness, lawyer David Jellinek, who told the court he had been hired that day to represent Medina-Perez and had been granted immunity by federal prosecutors. Along with the drug charges, Medina-Perez was in court on a warrant out of Pennsylvania. After doing some research, Jellinek believed his client wasn't the same person wanted on the warrant. 'I was worried they were going to take a US citizen into custody,' he told the court. 'I was quite concerned for my client.' Jellinek failed to convince the ICE agent that they had the 'wrong guy" so he came up with a plan to release Medina-Perez out the back door. Fabricant argued that Joseph signal her approval for the plan - including an off the record conversation during a side bar — when she appeared sympathetic to Jellinek's desire for his client to avoid ICE. But another attorney for Joseph, Thomas Hoopes, suggest that Jellinek might have misinterpreted Joseph's comments when she raised the possibility that Medina-Perez could be detained, rather than be released. The prosecutor had agreed Medina-Perez wasn't the man wanted in Pennsylvania and moved to drop the fugitive from justice charge. She also wasn't seeking bail on the drug charges so he was free to go. Much will hinge on what was said during that off the record conversation, which lasted only 52 seconds and is being disputed by both sides.
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Hearing held for judge accused of allowing immigrant to escape ICE custody
BOSTON (AP) — A hearing began Monday for a Massachusetts judge facing civil charges over allegations that she allowed an immigrant in her court to evade an immigration enforcement agent. The case stems from a 2018 incident in which Shelley Joseph, a district court judge, is accused of colluding with the immigrant's attorney and a court officer to allow him escape out a back door of the courthouse after a hearing on charges that included drug possession. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer had been waiting outside the courtroom to detain the defendant, Jose Medina-Perez. 'This case is about the integrity, impartiality and independence of the Massachusetts judiciary and the appearance of the integrity, impartiality and independence every judge must uphold,' Judith Fabricant, special counsel for the commission, told the hearing. A lawyer for Joseph, Elizabeth Mulvey, said the case had been distorted over time and that everyone had come to believe that her client 'let an illegal immigrant out of the door' with half of those people believing she should be jailed and the other half calling her a 'folk hero.' She argued Joseph had been vilified in the media and people were giving the impression that 'dozens of people' had seen Joseph 'get off the bench, escort the defendant to the door, give him a hug and wish him god speed.' 'Today in this court room and we are going to have opportunity to hear all the evidence,' Mulvey said. The case is similar to a Milwaukee judge accused in April of helping a man evade immigration authorities. The case has escalated a clash between the Trump administration and local authorities over the Republican president's sweeping immigration crackdown . Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is accused of escorting the man and his lawyer out of her courtroom through the jury door after learning that immigration authorities were seeking his arrest. The man was taken into custody outside the courthouse after agents chased him on foot. In the Massachusetts case, federal obstruction of justice charges against Joseph were dropped in 2022 after she agreed to refer herself to a state agency that investigates allegations of misconduct by members of the bench. That agency, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, concluded last year that Joseph 'engaged in willful judicial misconduct that brought the judicial office into disrepute, as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and unbecoming a judicial officer.' Denis McInerney, the hearing officer assigned to the case by the Supreme Judicial Court, said he will hear the evidence and then make a recommendation afterward based on whether he find Joseph violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct. The hearing is expected to last about a week. Much of the first day was dominated by the first witness, lawyer David Jellinek, who told the court he had been hired that day to represent Medina-Perez and had been granted immunity by federal prosecutors. Along with the drug charges, Medina-Perez was in court on a warrant out of Pennsylvania. After doing some research, Jellinek believed his client wasn't the same person wanted on the warrant. 'I was worried they were going to take a US citizen into custody,' he told the court. 'I was quite concerned for my client.' Jellinek failed to convince the ICE agent that they had the 'wrong guy' so he came up with a plan to release Medina-Perez out the back door. Fabricant argued that Joseph signal her approval for the plan - including an off the record conversation during a side bar — when she appeared sympathetic to Jellinek's desire for his client to avoid ICE. But another attorney for Joseph, Thomas Hoopes, suggest that Jellinek might have misinterpreted Joseph's comments when she raised the possibility that Medina-Perez could be detained, rather than be released. The prosecutor had agreed Medina-Perez wasn't the man wanted in Pennsylvania and moved to drop the fugitive from justice charge. She also wasn't seeking bail on the drug charges so he was free to go. Much will hinge on what was said during that off the record conversation, which lasted only 52 seconds and is being disputed by both sides. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
