Prisoners are still being treated cruelly by the carceral state, despite the use of body scanners and body cameras. Instead of using these tools for accountability and maintaining the basic human dignity of those incarcerated, the prison system is weaponizing them for sexual violence: Prison guards are making pornographic movies starring the prison population using body cameras.
In the summer of 2025, Otisville, a medium security prison in the New York Carceral State, equipped security staff with body cameras. Following this policy change, prisoners who opted to be strip-frisked instead of body scanned during weekend visitations were captured on video by the guards fitted with their brand new body cameras. This led to video footage of prisoners' naked bodies and cavities, viewed by other persons besides the strip-frisk officer and stored in a database. This is pornographic sexual violence produced by the carceral state.
New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Directive 4910 states that strip-frisking incarcerated people for weapons, drugs, and contraband is lawful. However, it's silent on the use of body cameras. Fortunately, two fistfuls of men weren't.
In June 2025, at least 10 men who chose to be stripped-frisked reported to me that after a visit, the guards who searched them filmed it all on camera. Some other prisoners informed me about a new directive authorizing this policy. I've been a prisoner of the New York Carceral State for 30 years, enduring over a thousand strip-frisks, and something didn't seem right. I needed to see the directive with my own eyes.
On June 16, 2025, I went to the facility's law library and obtained Directive 4910. I asked a few officers if they knew about a new directive regarding strip-frisk. They all said they didn't.
After three readings of the most recent edition of this document, I found no evidence justifying these acts of sexual violence. I interviewed a few staff members about the use of body cameras during strip-frisks and one officer said he was just as shocked as I was when he reported to the strip-frisk area and was told by his superior to, "Strip em, on camera. Then swap the camera out each time you do a new one."
I spoke with Captain Barlow the next day. He told me, "Filming the strip-frisk after a visit is one of those grey areas. There's a new directive out. It clearly states that 'All strip-frisks are to be filmed on the body camera.'"
I informed him that the law library didn't have a copy of this new directive, nor is it referenced in Directive 4910, which governs search and control of contraband. He told me that the directive was so new, everyone was still trying to figure out what it means.
I was determined to get eyes on this directive—any eyes. I contacted two of my closest collaborators through Securus eMessaging. I asked them to look on the DOCCS website and get the directive on the use of the body camera. Both confirmed that such a directive, Directive 4943, did indeed exist:
"Strip search/Strip frisk: While the use of a body scanner is the first and most desired option, when the incarcerated individual declines the body scanner or when a strip search or strip frisk is necessary, it shall be recorded, and the incarcerated individuals shall be given verbal notice that they are being recorded."
Directive 4943, IV. INCIDENT/ACTIVITY WITH BWC, Section J
This means the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision is recording and storing videos of naked, mostly Black and brown people under the threat of violent force.
There are three rules outlined on how this violation is supposed to happen:
- The first deals with the officer wearing the body camera and administrative control of the recording. It's the typical chain of custody and authorization manifesto, stating that the wearer of the BWC must be the same gender as the inmate's gender designation and that the video shouldn't be viewed by anyone unless they've been authorized in writing by higher authority.
- The second rule is the most troublesome: "A BWC recording of any strip search or strip frisk will immediately be turned over to the BWC Control Officer for uploading and storage."
- The third rule states that the video footage must be viewed by someone of the same gender as the person getting strip-frisked.
Why is the carceral state storing recordings of typical strip-frisks without incident involved?
In November 2002, I resisted the strip-frisk while imprisoned at Attica Correctional Facility. As a result, guards brutally beat me and ripped the clothing from my body. Afterward, they probed my mouth with gloved fingers. In February 2021, almost two decades later, I published an essay with the Marshall Project about my experiences with the strip-frisk policy. I followed this up by joining this legacy of my forefolk Resisters and pressing the carceral state to abolish the strip-frisk practice.
Soon after, I spoke with Deputy Superintendent of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and Deputy Superintendent of Administration Mr. Hibbs about the new policy and the way it was being administered.
When I questioned Hibbs about the morality of the directive, he swore back on it, as if the directive had a mind or conscience of its own. I attempted to inform him that the process was sadistic, pornographic, and went way too far. "There's a sign on the door of the Strip Frisk booth giving you notice of Directive 4943," Hibbs countered. But a vague sign isn't sufficient notice for the depth that one's privacy gets violated.
He said, "It's in the directive." However, prisoners are prohibited from reviewing this directive as a matter of policy.
When I pressed about the directive that authorized it, Hibbs became defensive. "It's new. It's how we do things. And you are not allowed to see it," he shot off.
The PREA deputy superintendent chimed in, "It's not a PREA violation because we tell you before we start."
"You're informing me of a policy that I can't read. How do I verify the integrity of the policy if I can't read it?"
She shut down the conversation by saying I had a choice: "Comply with the body scanner or get caught on camera."
I alerted them to the other coercive nature of the policy. The behavior is an intimidating exercise of power. In the interest of being fair, I suggested we could just use the audio until a situation occurs. They didn't have answers, since we all knew that those who made decisions like this were way above us. At most, I was hoping for some sympathy. Instead, I got more bullshit and bureaucracy.
Where the administration seemed clueless and indifferent, Orisanmi Burton's 2023 book Tip Of The Spear provided some answers. The practice of visually documenting mostly naked Black and brown men dates back to the 1971 Attica riots. Burton also mentioned the McKay Commission Report. He wrote about the cover image:
"It invited [white men] to identify, not with the denuded, disgraced, and niggerized figures in the coffle, but with the generic stand-in for legitimized white/state power, authority, and domination—the uniformed man with the big stick standing in the center of the frame."
Several low-level law enforcement agencies like the New York State Police organized themselves into an orgy-like operation, making it fashionable to film naked Black and brown bodies being sexually violated.
Burton shared many accounts. For example, a national guard "who took it upon himself to photograph the events as a 'private citizen' [and] then sold the same photos to the press." And on September 17, 1972, the New York Times staff "found [Attica] images so irresistible that they circumvented publication standards prohibiting the display of frontal nudity by pictorially castrating at least three Black men located in the bottom right-hand corner of the frame." The accompanying headline was "Anatomy Of A Prison Riot." Acts like this are sexually violent and socially lynching dark art.
Like Burton said, Attica was a "sport" rooted in white supremacy—a "contest to see who among the mob could most completely obliterate, dominate, and possess the male form" though there "can be no masculinity except for that which belongs to the White Man," according to patriarchal knowledge.
Scholar and author of The Isis Papers Dr. Francis Lewis gave a detailed forensic look at society's fascination with the Black male penis. Her critique also explained why white patriarchy seeks to crush it and maintain trophies of their endeavors. Burton backs her analysis with his own: "Representation of anti-Black violence circulates as ubiquitous technologies of white subject formation, as sources of covert enjoyment, and as semiotic stabilizers of white civilization."
There are also consequences for denying a scan. For example, when visitors decline it, they are then forced to have a non-contact visit for a fraction of the time a normal visit would last. Furthermore, the prisoner isn't permitted to have their visitor purchase them food from the vending machine. For some prisoners, that is the only time they can have non-prison food and break bread with their loved ones. Nor are they permitted to take photos with their visitor. This privilege is taken away without any just cause or due process.
On July 20, 2025, I had a visit from a friend of mine. After 30 years of being threatened with the violent use of force and then made to strip, I finally had a choice. I could endure the humiliation of the strip-frisk or I could undergo the body scanning process. Since the struggle continued, I chose the former. I was waging that an act of humanity would be enough to quash the carceral state's need for this perversion. After the visit, I chose to be strip-frisked and, by default, filmed—but not before being informed about a directive I am not supposed to see.
Since I've been officially objectified by the state and made into a thing, let's use this same object—objectively—as evidence of the offense. I did not feel any safer with the body scan. In fact, I felt twice as violated. I did not experience an elevated sense of professionalism. Rather, I felt punked, shamed, and immortalized in that moment. The one saving grace is that I was given a choice. Freedom is the worthier fight than happiness. Yet, even with a choice, the policy is still flawed because it comes with cruel consequences for choosing not to be stripped. Consequences that were not a part of the original legislation. This is corruption.
I've volunteered to be strip-frisked over a thousand times. Once, when I resisted, I paid dearly for it. This last time was the first time I was clear about why I was bending over. I subjected myself to this form of sexual violence to show—not tell—what the carceral state does to prisoners. I hope to show society its shame in motion and make it stop sexually preying on a vulnerable population. Prisoners are our loved ones. They are people and deserve to be treated as such by the state.
It's important for the public to know how their tax dollars continue to fund unusual cruelties forced upon prisoners. These acts of both masked and outright cruelty can be challenged and conquered by strong community effort. Contact your elected leaders. Hold them accountable. Let them know you know what is going on, and you want it to stop. There is no just cause to treat prisoners or any human being like this. Please help us.