When Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2003, it promised a new standard: zero tolerance for sexual abuse in correctional facilities. PREA created legally binding national standards for prevention, detection, response, and reporting of sexual assault in prisons, jails, police lockups, juvenile facilities, and other places of confinement.
The idea was simple: people in custody are uniquely vulnerable; physically, psychologically, often with prior trauma, limited recourse, and extreme power imbalance. They deserve basic constitutional protections. Over two decades later, however, routine violations of PREA remain far too common.
What PREA Requires—and What Happens When It’s Ignored
Some key PREA requirements include:
- Zero tolerance for sexual abuse and harassment by staff, inmates, or others.
- Policies and training to prevent abuse and correctly respond if it happens.
- Grievance procedures and oversight so people can report abuse without retaliation.
- Protection of incarcerated individuals’ privacy, especially during searches, showers, use of the bathroom, etc.
When these fail, the consequences are severe: mental health harm, re-traumatization, physical abuse, loss of dignity, further exclusion. And often, there is little accountability.
The Michigan Case: Strip Searches, Body Cams, and Psychological Harm
A recent lawsuit filed in Michigan shines a light on how PREA violations continue, especially where institutional oversight is lax or official policy is vague or violated. Here’s what we know so far:
- What’s alleged: At Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility (the only women’s prison in Michigan), guards wearing body cameras allegedly recorded nude women during strip searches, showers, and bathroom use. The recordings were made during a period beginning in January 2025. Roughly 500 women are alleged to have been recorded. The lawsuit claims these actions constituted invasion of privacy, intentional abuse, and sex-based discrimination, among other things.
- Policy change & timing: In March 2025, MDOC officially amended its policy to prohibit video recording during strip searches. However, the suit claims the guards continued to record in showers and bathrooms even after the policy change.
- Trauma and history: A large majority of the women in custody at Huron Valley are survivors of sexual abuse, which means such recordings could trigger deep psychological harm. One plaintiff described strip-searches before family visitation (sometimes 100+ over her incarceration), and said that since the implementation of body cameras, the searches have been more invasive and triggering.
- Legal claims: The lawsuit names not just the guards, but MDOC, its leadership, the prison, the governor, and other officials. Among the causes of action are violations of Michigan law regarding recording or photographing people’s private parts, invasion of privacy, the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (sex-based discrimination), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and constitutional violations.
So Michigan provides a vivid example: right policies on paper, but gaps in implementation, oversight, and deference to power that lead to violations.
Why Violations Happen Every Day
The Michigan case isn’t an isolated incident. Across the U.S., many correctional facilities violate PREA or operate in its grey zones. Some reasons why:
- Lack of accountability or enforcement
Although the DOJ audits and facilities are supposed to comply with standards, enforcement mechanisms are often weak. Facilities may lack funding, active oversight, or consequence when standards are violated. Courts sometimes refuse to enforce PREA directly, citing lack of a private right of action under PREA itself. - Institutional culture and power dynamics
Guards hold extreme power over people in custody. When training is weak, supervision is lax, or abuse is normalized, violations proliferate. Victims are often silenced by fear of retaliation, disbelief, or lack of outside access. - Trauma history and vulnerability of incarcerated populations
Many prisoners are survivors of sexual violence, with mental health issues, disabilities, or prior abuse. They may fear consequences for reporting, have distrust in the system, or lack legal representation. - Unclear policies or loopholes
Sometimes policies are ambiguous, or the facility delays implementing changes. Technology (e.g., body cams) may be adopted without fully considering privacy consequences. What qualifies as “private parts” or when privacy must be fully respected may be under‐defined or ignored. - Underreporting and lack of transparency
Victims often don’t report. Administrations may undercount or misclassify incidents. Public and judicial scrutiny is uneven. As long as these abuses stay hidden, change is slow.
How the Michigan Case Maps to PREA Standards
Using the Huron Valley case, we can see multiple PREA standards that seem to have been violated:
- Standard on Searches: PREA requires that strip searches (and similar procedures) respect privacy, be conducted by qualified personnel of the same sex when possible, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary exposure. Recording fully nude searches, showers, or bathroom use violates this. Several Michigan jails are also at fault.
- Reporting and Grievance Procedures: If inmates cannot safely or effectively report such abuses, or if the agency delays or obstructs such reports, that violates the standards.
- Training and Policy: PREA requires staff to be trained on the policies, and that policies are clearly implemented. The fact that recording was happening in “passing mode” or by default until forced to change suggests blatant policy implementation failures.
- Psychological Safety: While not always explicit in every standard, PREA’s framework assumes that trauma and vulnerability must be considered with policies to reduce re‐traumatization. Recording strip searches of women, many of whom are survivors of sexual abuse, with no warning or control, runs contrary to that ethos.
What Needs to Change: From Lawsuits to Real Reform
The Michigan lawsuit is necessary, but lawsuits alone won’t stop daily violations. Here are steps toward meaningful change:
- Clearer Laws & Regulations about Recording
State laws should explicitly ban recording of nude persons during searches/showers, with strong sanctions for violations. Policy changes need to be enforced and audited, not just announced. - Independent Oversight & Auditing
External monitors, non‐correctional agencies, victim advocates should have regular access. Oversight bodies should hold facilities accountable, not merely rely on self‐reporting. - Trauma‐Informed Care and Privacy Protections
Recognizing that many incarcerated people are survivors, facilities need robust protocols: prior notice, choice whenever possible (same sex staff, etc.), minimization of exposure, privacy screens, restrictions or disablement of recording devices in certain contexts, etc. - Stronger Enforcement of PREA Standards
Though PREA has teeth, the enforcement is uneven. There must be consequences: funding penalties, loss of certifications, legal liability, and when appropriate, criminal charges. - Empowering Incarcerated Individuals
Safer, anonymous reporting; protections against retaliation; legal assistance; public awareness; access to outside support and counsel. - Legislative Action
Both at the state and federal levels: clarify the scope of laws (e.g. recording laws), mandate stronger transparency, ensure that constitutional rights are enforced in practice, not just courts saying “yes, that is a violation” after the harm is done.
Beyond Michigan: Other Examples & How Widespread the Problem Is
- Studies have consistently found underreporting of sexual abuse in prison and jail populations. Many inmates cite fear of retaliation or inaction when they report.
- Some audits of prisons find that standards about searches, staff training, reporting/grievance processes, and privacy are often among the weakest.
- There are instances in other states where prisoners have alleged that they were recorded without consent (or warned) during strip searches or while undressed. (Though the Michigan case is unusually well‐documented and recent.)
This MATTERS.
Having a law like PREA is vital; no one should suffer sexual abuse, or humiliating, undocumented invasions of privacy, no matter where they are. But as we know all too well, laws alone don’t protect people. The Huron Valley case raises serious questions: What is the cost of silence? What are the harms when institutions treat inmates as objects rather than human beings with dignity?
Clutch justice, what I consider real, accountable, victim‐centered justice, means ensuring that PREA is not just words on paper but standard operating procedure enforced daily. It means not allowing the powerful to skirt both moral and legal responsibility, and ensuring that incarcerated persons finally receive the protections and dignity they deserve.
🖤 Love what we do? Support Clutch.
