WASHTENAW COUNTY, Mich. – 20 women inmates at the prison in Washtenaw County provided their experience with corrections officers using body cameras while conducting strip searches in a lawsuit.
A lawsuit was filed alleging that the Michigan Department of Corrections instructed guards to use body cameras during routine strip searches at the Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Washtenaw County.
Previous coverage: Lawsuit claims Michigan Department of Corrections records inmates in showers, strip searches
About the lawsuit
The $500 million lawsuit filed against the Michigan Department of Corrections, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, MDOC Director Heidi Washington, Deputy Director Jeremy Bush, Warden Jeremy Howard, Assistant Deputy Warden Steve Horton, and numerous other officials, states that women at the state’s only women’s prisons were subjected to lewd comments and behavior from corrections officers during strip searches, especially since the implementation of body-worn cameras.
The lawsuit alleges multiple violations, including invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sex-based discrimination under Michigan’s Elliot-Larson Civil Rights Act, and violations of Michigan constitutional rights.
Beginning in January 2025, MDOC forced hundreds of women, the vast majority of whom are rape survivors, to submit to illegal video recording while completely nude during strip searches.
Although MDOC officially amended its policy to prohibit recording during strip searches in March 2025, corrections officers reportedly continued to record women in showers, bathrooms and other situations that involve the women becoming undressed.
The names of the plaintiffs, the 20 women inmates, were not revealed in the lawsuit. They were all referred to as “Jane Doe.”
Here are what the inmates have said regarding their experience with the use of body-worn cameras at the facility and how it has impacted them:
Jane Doe 1
A 33-year-old woman who has been incarcerated since 2013 said she’s required to be strip-searched before seeing her child for visitation, making her experience about 100 searches during her time at the facility.
She claimed searches have been more invasive since the implementation of the cameras in January 2025. She said the recent strip searches have been triggering her memories of past abuse.
She said it felt as though there was “an audience watching everything over the camera” when she was being thoroughly searched, as the camera could be seen recording with the green light lit.
She said one officer conducted a strip search followed by a body scan and mouthed “this is dumb” during the procedure. She then understood that the officer expressed frustration with the “excessive” security measures that require a strip search and body scan.
Jane Doe 2
A 32-year-old woman who has been incarcerated since 2013 said she asked her father to contact media outlets about the more frequent and longer strip searches since the body-worn cameras were implemented. Shortly after, she said a corrections officer conducted a “shakedown” of her cell. She believed this was a form of punishment.
According to the lawsuit, the 32-year-old woman completed the Beyond Violence Program, staff described her as “pleasant in group” and “helpful with others who shared.”
With her extensive history of sexual abuse, the recent prolonged strip searches became traumatizing for her, and she felt a profound betrayal of trust that undermined years of rehabilitation work.
Jane Doe 3
This plaintiff, a 43-year-old woman who’s been incarcerated since 2002, is a survivor of sexual assault. According to the lawsuit, she “carries deep psychological wounds that have made her particularly vulnerable to the privacy violations” following MDOC’s body camera recording policy.
During her time in prison, she has been strip-searched more than 100 times for job assignments and visits and was never found with contraband.
Between January and March 2025, she was being recorded during these strip searches.
After the Department of Corrections changed its policy on March 24, 2025, she said she continued to experience privacy violations that disrupted her access to legal counsel.
On April 1, 2025, she was strip-searched as she was heading to the facility’s control center for a legal visit, and she was told she was wearing the wrong shoes. She was told to return to her cell to change. When she left and came back with the correct shoes, she was then strip-searched for a second time. Then, after her legal visit, she was strip-searched for a third time.
She claimed that the recording policy extended beyond strip searches when it comes to a pervasive atmosphere of surveillance and violation. She said that officers “no longer knock, they just bust in,” making her undergo a constant state of hypervigilance and fear of being recorded while in various states of undress.
“For someone who has spent the majority of her adult life incarcerated and has worked diligently to heal from trauma and build a meaningful life within the constraints of the prison system, these privacy violations represent not merely a momentary indignity but a profound disruption to hard-won psychological stability,” the lawsuit stated.
According to the suit, the recording policy undermined her ability to continue her work as a legal writer and complete her coursework at Jackson Community College.
Jane Doe 4
A 38-year-old woman, who’s been incarcerated since 2010, is a sexual assault survivor with a history of physical, emotional and mental abuse in relationships. The lawsuit said it’s been a pattern that began in her childhood home, where she saw her alcoholic father physically abuse her mother and siblings before her parents’ divorce when she was a child.
She undergoes frequent strip searches, 15 to 20 times a month, as she’s a Prisoner Observation Aide and needs to move throughout the facility to perform her duties.
When body-worn cameras were implemented during strip searches, she asked an officer about why it was being used. The officer reportedly became “noticeably standoffish,” which created what she felt was an atmosphere of intimidation.
She eventually became “hypersensitive and hyper-aware” following the recording policy, leading to her being in a constant state of fear of being recording in states of vulnerability. She also became overwhelmed while in emotional distress, causing her to stop doing work assignments and avoid visits with her family and children until the policy changes.
One officer reportedly told her, “I didn’t lose my right to my body, you did,” when the inmate raised concerns about the violations of her bodily privacy.
She also expressed discomfort while she was being recorded naked, and an officer allegedly told her, “Have you seen some of y’all? No one is going back to stare.”
Jane Doe 5
A 50-year-old woman who has been in prison since 1994 is part of the lawsuit and experienced the evolution of prison policies and their implementation over time.
She reported that she immediately noticed that searches have been more intrusive since the implementation of body-worn cameras in January 2025.
She recalled that she was particularly disturbed when she was strip-searched by an officer on March 6, 2025, before she started her work at the facility. The lawsuit stated she associated her workplace as a zone of dignity and accomplishment, but she experienced the most degrading aspect of her prison life before starting work.
In the lawsuit, she expressed concern about the potential misuse of the recorded footage. She worries about being “completely naked and exposed” on recordings that can be accessed by staff members.
Jane Doe 6
A 59-year-old woman who has been in prison since 1997 said she has been strip-searched over 100 times due to prison job requirements and an additional 100 times for visits.
She reported that she not only has been recorded during her strip searches since the body-worn cameras were implemented, but she was also recorded while using the toilet.
She said officers at the facility have become more aggressive, and the recorded strip searches are “another way for them to intimidate us.” This resulted in her refusing visits from her grandchildren and other family members.
“This body cam situation/policy is just another way for MDOC to blame prisoners for contraband inside prisons,” she said in a statement in the lawsuit. “The staff are bringing phones, drugs and other contraband into prison. Sure occasionally someone does something on a visit, but it does not compare to what staff bring in. MDOC is just deflecting. And on our work assignments—rarely are things brought in.”
Jane Doe 7
A 44-year-old woman who’s been incarcerated since 2001 said she had been taking blood pressure medications to manage her anxiety attacks since she has been recorded during strip searches.
She reported that one deeply humiliating experience she had during a strip search was when she was being recorded while she was menstruating. She asked if she could change her tampon or pad, and the officer let her do so. However, she reported this as an extraordinary violation of dignity at a moment of particular vulnerability.
She also stated in the lawsuit that she began to cry during one of her strip searches that was being recorded. The officer questioned her, “What are you crying about?”
She tried to report the body-worn cameras through proper channels, saying “I am filing a grievance on Officer Calligton for the use of body camera to record me while I was in a state of undress, in violation of PREA (the non-consensual recording of female inmates in a state of undress constitutes a form of sexual harassment or voyeurism). Also, in violation of MCL 750.539j (Michigan Privacy Law) and constitutional rights.” She specifically requested “immediate policy change to prohibit body camera recording during strip searches” and “a written response within 15 days, per policy.”
She never received receipts, despite filing at least three grievances. She reported that she was never interviewed about her complaints, and the grievances were never assigned identifier numbers.
After attending a legal visit in April to talk about the body camera practices, she was told by a staff member of her removal from the Chance for Life program.
She said she now “avoids officers with body cameras because the cameras are used to threaten, intimidate, and control us. Some officers will activate the record function on the camera if they are challenged for giving an unreasonable order. If we show any emotion while talking to the officers they can use the recording to say we were displaying threatening behavior and write us a misconduct.”
She also requested mental health treatment for her anxiety, but the facility “won’t see her.”
In the lawsuit, she stated, “The prison environment should be made more therapeutic and less punitive. Family visitation, spiritual visits, and any program that allows women to connect with others should be a focus. Programs should be structured and ran by professionals trained in gender specific classes that focus on healing from trauma.” She believes that incarcerated women “should not be referred to as prisoners or inmates but should be called by our names and be respected as individuals, as adults, not treated like we are all manipulative children. The environment should empower us instead of oppressing us.”
Jane Doe 8
A 35-year-old woman who has been incarcerated since 2007 reported that the use of body-worn cameras forced her to make a choice of seeing her father, who suffers from dementia, or protecting her privacy.
“I can’t afford to be giving up my visits with my family, especially my dad, when who knows how much time I have left with his mind being the way it is,” she stated in the lawsuit.
She expressed concern to staff members at the facility regarding being recorded while she’s being strip-searched.
She was told by staff that the body camera implementation was “the fault of the women at WHV” and questioned why she was “making such a big deal out of it.”
She states in the lawsuit that the camera policy “takes away the little dignity that I possibly have left.”
Jane Doe 9
A 42-year-old woman who had been incarcerated since 2013 reported she experienced shame, embarrassment, anxiety, panic attacks, fear of undressing or using facilities, and intrusive thoughts since going through recorded strip searches.
The lawsuit states her experience with recorded strip searches retraumatized her as she was working through her rehabilitation journey.
Jane Doe 10
A 49-year-old who has been in prison since 1999 stated in the lawsuit that she refused to comply with strip searches, in general, and recorded strip searches made the process more invasive.
In 2009, she refused to comply with the strip search after she was told to sit naked on a chair, lift her legs up and spread. She was then placed into solitary confinement for 12 days.
She reportedly “went into a dissociative trauma response, immediately,” when she was told to expose herself for strip searches.
“I had a problem with the invasive, demeaning, humiliating strip searches prior to cameras,” she said in the lawsuit. “The cameras made it other level horrible.”
She stated women were even told to remove tampons while standing naked during strip searches, resulting in bleeding onto their legs or the floor.
She said she decided not to attend visitations with her family due to the invasion of privacy with recorded strip searches.
Jane Doe 11
A 27-year-old who has been in prison since 2017 stated in the lawsuit that she is a survivor of sexual assault and abuse, and her trauma has made her vulnerable to the recorded strip searches.
The lawsuit claims the recorded strip searches exacerbated her conditions, such as PTSD, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. She said the recorded strip searches triggered a trauma response similar to what she experienced in the past with abuse.
She reported that she would be recorded using the toilet, showering and changing clothes. She also said the conduct of prison is similar to the dynamics of her past abusive relationships, “The trauma that we have faced in the past is completely disregarded, whether it be physical, sexual, or mental abuse. Instead of treating us with empathy to heal, we are traumatized even more over and over again.”
Jane Doe 12
A 46-year-old woman who has been in prison since 2007 recalled five specific recorded strip searches that made her vulnerable.
She said she feared that “the institution’s body cams will be hacked and my pictures will be on the internet.”
She tried to address her concerns through the proper channels, but the lawsuit said she never got a response.
In the lawsuit, she said she experienced shame, anxiety and fear of surveillance as a result of recorded strip searches.
Jane Doe 13
A 63-year-old woman who’s been incarcerated since 1988 stated in the lawsuit that the recorded strip searches made her vulnerable to psychological harm after enduring years of abuse from her husband.
She stated that even after the new policy that guards are required to put body-worn cameras in sleep mode during strip searches in March 2025, she saw a guard’s camera still recording.
“I had seen her [corrections officer] push the button (I guess off), but the light was still flashing green,” she stated.
She reported being recorded while changing clothes, while wearing undergarments, and while showering.
She said she gets flashbacks to past trauma, as well as shame, embarrassment, anxiety and panic attacks.
When she tried to report her concerns to the proper channels, she said she never received a response.
“Women should be offered more help as needed to save their life,” she said while reflecting on what she believes in the failures of the prison system. “The prison system is responsible for these women’s well-being.”
Jane Doe 14
A 61-year-old woman who’s been in prison since 2003 reported that although she went through over 100 strip searches during her time at the facility, she said recorded strip searches became more degrading than what they were already.
She also reported that she was being recorded while showering and using the toilet by multiple corrections officers.
She said in the lawsuit that she felt humiliated by the recordings and felt she experienced a level of degradation.
She tried to report her concerns through proper channels, but the lawsuit said she never received a response.
“For a woman who has spent 22 years in the correctional system and who had taken on a role specifically designed to support others in crisis, the recording policy represented not merely an invasion of privacy but a fundamental disruption of the rehabilitative environment she had worked to create for herself and others,” the lawsuit stated.
Jane Doe 15
A 49-year-old woman who has been in prison since 2007 said she has been particularly vulnerable, with recorded strip searches from her history of trauma she endured.
She reported that she was recorded using the toilet in addition to being recorded during strip searches.
She said in the lawsuit that she felt “mortified” after being recorded during strip searches.
“The prison staff keep treating this as no big deal,” she stated in the lawsuit. “They make excuses then talk to us degrading as if our concerns about being seen on this footage is not valid.”
She recalled one interaction where an officer allegedly dismissed her concerns, saying, “This is how they do it in the streets.”
Jane Doe 16
A 55-year-old woman reported that during her 33 years of incarceration, she felt a psychological impact from the recorded strip searches.
She reported that recorded strip searches made her feel more exposed and uncomfortable to the point that she lost enjoyment in visits and activities at the facility.
“I feel there should have been an explanation about these cameras, I feel it shows a total disregard to females, and towards those who have sexual abuse. No consideration,” she said in the lawsuit.
She then critiqued the prison system, saying it is “designed by men, for men, and fails to provide adequate therapy and resources for women,” and said “women have more needs than men” in terms of gender-specific healthcare and psychological support.
Jane Doe 17
A 48-year-old woman who has been in prison since 2006 recalled her experience with recorded strip searches during her first shift working as a POA in February 2025.
The lawsuit said the timing is particularly significant because she was working a role that aimed to help other incarcerated women in crisis and was met with an invasive procedure.
She reported she was not only recorded during strip searches, but also when she was showering and using the toilet.
She said in the lawsuit that she felt shame, embarrassment, and degradation as a result of the recorded strip searches.
Jane Doe 18
A 58-year-old woman who had been in prison for 23 years reported that her coping mechanism and psychological adaptations to survive in the prison system were disrupted by the implemented recorded strip searches.
She recalled during one particular recorded strip search, a corrections officer told her she was “lucky it’s just the camera because I could make you lift your vagina apart.”
The 58-year-old reported feeling shame, embarrassment, humiliation and feelings of degradation as a result of being recorded while naked. She describes it feels like she’s “being prepped for a porno.”
Jane Doe 19
A 66-year-old who has been in prison since 1997 reported she’s been recorded by corrections officers during strip searches, while showering and while using the toilet.
She states in the lawsuit that she “had just moved past my trauma of rape in my life and leave it to MDOC to always violate you.”
She talked about the implemented body camera policy, saying “I guess since they prevailed in strip search lawsuit ‚they said, ‘Oh let’s try this body cam -- no one cares about women inmates and no one does.’”
Jane Doe 20
A 52-year-old woman reported that during her 31 years of incarceration, she became vulnerable to psychological harm caused by the use of body-worn cameras at the facility.
She used to work as a POA for over a decade until 2025. She had to resign from her role because the recorded strip searches triggered traumatic memories related to her conviction. She reported that the recording practices reminded her of “the man she killed because he recorded others.”