28 C.F.R. § 115.113

Supervision and monitoring

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) For each lockup, the agency shall develop and document a staffing plan that provides for adequate levels of staffing, and, where applicable, video monitoring, to protect detainees against sexual abuse. In calculating adequate staffing levels and determining the need for video monitoring, agencies shall take into consideration;

(1) The physical layout of each lockup;

(2) The composition of the detainee population;

(3) The prevalence of substantiated and unsubstantiated incidents of sexual abuse; and

(4) Any other relevant factors.

(b) In circumstances where the staffing plan is not complied with, the lockup shall document and justify all deviations from the plan.

(c) Whenever necessary, but no less frequently than once each year, the lockup shall assess, determine, and document whether adjustments are needed to:

(1) The staffing plan established pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section;

(2) Prevailing staffing patterns;

(3) The lockup's deployment of video monitoring systems and other monitoring technologies; and

(4) The resources the lockup has available to commit to ensure adequate staffing levels.

(d) If vulnerable detainees are identified pursuant to the screening required by § 115.141, security staff shall provide such detainees with heightened protection, to include continuous direct sight and sound supervision, single-cell housing, or placement in a cell actively monitored on video by a staff member sufficiently proximate to intervene, unless no such option is determined to be feasible.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2021–2021 · leading case: Edward Gladney v. United States (9th Cir. 2021).
Edward Gladney v. United States (9th Cir. 2021). “Plaintiff’s argument that the Attorney General’s regulations for temporary lockups, which require continuous monitoring of certain people, 28 C.F.R. § 115.113 , should also apply to prisons is unpersuasive.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.