A prisoner claimed he suffered injuries during a fight with officers that occurred because he refused to exit his cell. By the time he notified the prison of the incident and that a videotape "probably" existed, the tapes were recorded over. Besides an excessive force claim, he asserted a claim for spoiliation of evidence. The prisoner was denied appointed counsel as he was sufficiently competent to handle the straightforward claims himself. The prisoner lost at trial. A federal appeals court affirmed, and ruled that the prisoner failed to show that there was any duty to preserve the videotape, or that the recording was destroyed in bad faith. Bracey v. Grondin, #12-1644, 712 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2013).
     Video recordings of two cell extractions showed that correctional officers used only that force needed in light of the prisoner's refusal to comply with orders, and that the prisoner was not injured. His excessive force claim was therefore rejected. Adderly v. Ferrier, #10-3636, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4904 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Pennsylvania court rules that it did not violate the privacy rights of detainees in police department holding cells for their cells to be monitored from the mayor's home through the use of video surveillance. The detainees had no legitimate expectation of privacy in their cells, and the video images were not communicated to the public at large, or distributed on an overly broad basis. DeBlasio v. Pignolia, No. 213 C.D. 2006, 2007 Pa. Commw. Lexis 113.
     Prison employees were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for strip search of prisoners conducted in an outside area, which may have inadvertently been viewed by prison visitors leaving the facility. Sabree v. Conley, No. 02-P-1267, 815 N.E.2d 280 (Mass. App. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
     Sheriff's action in placing web cameras in a pre-trial detention center to broadcast images of the detainees on the Internet violated their 14th Amendment substantive due process right by subjecting them to punishment, federal appeals court rules, and therefore was properly enjoined. Demery v. Arpaio, No. 03-15698, 378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
     The fact that a city's policy on monitoring suicidal pre-trial detainees allowed the clerk doing so to perform other duties at the same time did not, by itself, demonstrate deliberate indifference to the risk of harm, nor did the fact that the video equipment used for monitoring in this particular instance turned out to be defective. Serafin v. City of Johnstown, #02-1281, 53 Fed. Appx. 211 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
     Male prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights were not violated by his being restrained naked on a table for two days and being videotaped and observed by female prison personnel after he provoked a violent disturbance. Prisoner had been stripped to ensure that he did not possess contraband or a weapon, and had himself removed a blanket which prison personnel attempted to use to cover him. Use of stun gun earlier to control prisoner was not excessive. Camp v. Brennan, #02-2003, 54 Fed. Appx. 78 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
     247:110 Warrantless video surveillance of county jail office in which inmate property was stored did not constitute a violation of deputy sheriffs federal or California state constitutional rights, or an actionable "invasion of privacy." Sacramento Co. Deputy Sheriff's Assoc. v. Sacramento Co., 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 (Cal.App. 1996).