Having worked years in inpatient mental health under several different states' laws, I can affirm that this is absolutely not true. During takedowns staff do not remove clothing beyond that necessary to secure restraints. Once four-point restraint is secure, outerwear then may be removed to a point vital signs and continued restraint integrity may be checked. Outside of dramatic fiction and p0rn0graphy, there is absolutely no reason to strip a person who is properly restrained. It is rare for suicidal people to require takedown; I doubt Steffey was suicidal at all.

The removal of underwear seen in the Steffey video is particularly egregious. If the presence of urine or feces required it, cleaning would be done only after physical safety of staff and patient is assured by proper in-place restraint. Infection control (such as is possible under such circumstances) as well as staff/patient safety is deeply compromised by trying to do both at once. Clothing removal would be done piecemeal in hospital fashion, by only one or two same-gender staff. The person would re-dressed or at least covered before monitoring resumed.

Also, real suicide restraint is never punitive, although inadequately trained corrections or LEO staff sometimes act as though it is. Staff behavior in the video very much supports the idea their purpose was to demonstate power over her, not safeguard her welfare. It's a macrocosm of the corrections-based attitude often seen in screeners.

After Steffey's treatment became public, numerous other women came forward to report identical treatment by mixed-gender staff at the Stark County jail, and at least one other sued.

Which also begs the question: Why once restrained, would deputies not call paramedics to bring her to an hospital and place her on suicide watch? Clearly they'd be more equipped to handle such cases. If anything, I'd think the sheriff's dept would do that to avoid the liability associated with someone committing suicide on their watch.

When I first encountered the Steffey case, I remember reading a news article claiming it was not settled, but dismissed, over an issue related either to their expectation of privacy in uniform, or to the acts being committed on county property. Now can neither locate nor verify it, so may have been inaccurately reported. Either way, this may relate to other threads here about citizen monitoring of screener behavior.

Well said! (Although I opine the world needs LEOs and screeners who are NOT tools ;) ). I don't think this topic hijacks the thread, what you've pointed out is the basis of many of the problems aired in this forum.

In several situations I've had the good luck to work with superb LEOs: they strove (sadly not always formally supported by either training or policy) to defuse rather than escalate bad situations, as well as maintaining control as required. They understood the greater consequences of their actions, and maintained their humanity despite daily contact with nasty and stupid people. Their agencies too often seemed to dismiss these skills as minor extras: the greater law enforcement culture remains satisfied with the easier task of measuring technical skills.

Voters and politicians who want everything done on the cheap exacerbate the problem: people with more skills generally have more options, so cost more money. Public funds wasted on trimmings and gadgetry short the most essential part of enforcement or security; good people, with the right training.

The Steffy Lawsuit cost that county $475,000 USD, of which Steffy received $100,000.

A sizeable penalty, and well deserved. It is a shame that anyone would have to go through this, yet those responsible still don't believe they did anything wrong. The same county did the same thing to at least one other woman (valentian dyshko) who also won a big award. Evidently, liability premiums have escalated for that county.

The technical answer: most jails have at least minimal procedures/locations to "manage" incarcerated people believed to be suicidal, whereas inpatient psychiatric units (almost extinct in U.S. health care) may have no beds as securable as a jail. Suicide itself is no crime in most jurisdictions. A person jailed on charges may also be suicidal, but their incarceration status is based on their alleged offense, not their mental state.

I should point out that use of the type of restraints I described is a last and very temporary resort. They are used only when patients or staff are in immediate and severe danger; the person restrained would be released in minutes to an hour or so. Weeks and months may pass without need for them. In some places their use is all but illegal now.

The real answer: they never considered her suicidal at all, no more than the screeners who caused this thread believed a 95-year-old cancer patient to be an al Qaeda operative. Stark County employees had a sadistic and/or ignorant (I'm guessing 95% sadistic, as it was against their own rules) pattern of using male officers to help strip female prisoners, then force them to remain nude in their cells. The "suicidal" justification was created out of thin air when it came to light that this person had been arrested on false charges, as well.

Sorry, I did not make it clear I was referring to the deputies' countersuit against a newspaper, claiming that publishing the video violated their privacy: referencing VegasCableGuy's link.

From this link I can't determine whether their agreement to withdraw their countersuit might have meant they got money out of Gannett, or Gannett (with presumably deeper pockets) promises not to countersue them in turn, or something in between. Long commentary follows with many other references, have not followed all.

Can Anyone Verify This Happened?
 

==================================================
:confused:I am having difficulty with crediblity if no one else can verify this.
The terminology used seems different than someone "the sunny side of 70."

I'm still amazed that she only got 1/5 of that money. She deserved 100% of it, if not more. I can't figure out why she didn't hook up with the ACLU and go all the way.

And thank you for the insight into REAL suicide watch. I have to shake my head when people say "Oh, well if they're suicidal, you strip them. Case closed." I fail to see why forced nudity would ever be a requirement for suicide watch. ESPECIALLY with cross gender participation or monitoring. If its perfectly normal, why the outrage over Abu Ghraib? The scary thing is the Steffey case isn't such an isolated incident. Our politicians and judges are failures at interpreting the 4th and 8th amendments, so people end up at the mercy of local jail policy, if the jailers even bother following it.

We have fallen into the habbit of making assumptions in favor of public servants. People assume that Hope was suicidal and combative, even though there is no evidence she was offered the chance to surrender her clothing voluntarily without the presence of males. Honestly, does anyone think she was given that option, and informed that if she didn't then she would be stripped by men? Does she look like she knows what is going to happen to her on the way to the cell? Remember the screams of "What are you doing?" "Why are you doing this to me?".

Even if she was uncooperative(which there is zero evidence of), there are restraint chairs for that. Give the detainee a couple hours, see if she's ready to change with the ladies. Even with a continuing refusal and you HAVE to get them into a suicide garment, use the four point restraints YCTTSFM described, get everyone out but 1 or 2 people of the same gender, remove clothing, remove restraints, leave garment behind. There are a hundred alternatives to sexually assaulting people with suicidal thoughts, but why bother when we keep buying the Nuremburg defense?

The train of thought that leads to "we have to strip suicidal people naked and the gender of those involved are of no consequence because its for their saftey" is the same train of thought that leads to "We have to conduct prison in-processing frisks to keep the skies safe. If you don't like it, follow the rules and you won't get patted down."

Both assumptions are false. We have to stop assuming that current procedures are necessary (or even moral), or that we couldn't possibly do it any other way.

Not sure I would call that even a remotely reasonable amount of money given what she went through. She was already an assault victim when the police were called. They then assaulted her a second time. Can you imagine what she goes through every day knowing the people who were supposed to help her harmed her even further? I would imagine she's got some serious post-traumatic stress.

I think the $475k figure was what it cost the county, not the size of the settlement. Clearly they were incurring expenses even before (perhaps after) a final settlement was decided upon.

I agree -- this is one of the most horrible things I've ever seen. Those cops belong IN jail, not managing one.

Agree wholeheartedly.
^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Its really nice being able to discuss this case without a gaggle of appologists.

Yes. I'll admit, I tend to be more LEO-sympathetic than most, but here you're dealing with human garbage, plain and simple - people who, at best, deserve 15-20 behind steel and concrete. Definitely in the "I wouldn't p!ss on them if they were on fire" category...

Unfortunately, this doesn't prove guilt.