visits.

The lawsuit alleges Holman conducted a strip search of Forrest inside the hospital room before she returned to the prison.

Also named in the suit are Howard, who is the prison's warden, and two staff directors at the Michigan Department of Corrections.

Body-worn camera policy

Dig deeper:

The prison policy for body-worn cameras allowed the cameras be worn while operating in passive mode during strip searches. However, staff at the prison also received communication outlining the practice as illegal.

Prison staff defended allowing body-worn footage to be collected during strip searches.

Lawmakers also communicated to the prison about prohibiting recording during strip searches, eventually leading to a reversal of prison policy on March 24.

Data collected by body-worn cameras includes both audio and visual data that can be retrieved up to 18 hours after it was shot.

The lawsuit alleges that MDOC policy for recording with body-worn cameras does not include  the recording of incarcerated women's bodies during childbirth, medical care, or routine states of undress. 

Counts

Big picture view:

The offenses alleged include:

Fourth Amendment violations involving unreasonable observation and recording of Forrest.

Fourth Amendment violations involving observation and recording of J.F.

First Amendment retaliation or prior restraint based on the alleged threat against Larson.

Fourteenth Amendment bodily-privacy claims on behalf of J.F.

Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-punishment claims on behalf of Forrest.

Failure-to-intervene claims against officers who allegedly witnessed the conduct.

Supervisory-liability claims against MDOC officials who allegedly knew about the recording practices and allowed them to continue.

Michigan state-law claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.