Expands the use of body scanners to facilities operated by the office of mental health and the office for people with developmental disabilities; establishes alternative methods of screening.
This bill amends the Public Health Law to expand authorization for body imaging scanning equipment, including scanners that use ionizing radiation, beyond state and local correctional facilities to certain state-operated facilities run by the Office of Mental Health (OMH) and the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD). It authorizes use of the scanners to screen visitors, clients, employees, and other individuals in those facilities as part of security programs, and directs OMH and OPWDD to adopt regulations governing when the scanners may be used.
The bill also requires alternative screening methods for people who cannot or do not want to be scanned for medical or other reasons, unless security concerns require otherwise. It prohibits harassment, intimidation, or discipline against anyone who chooses an alternative screening method, and specifically states that an employee’s request for alternative screening cannot itself be grounds for discipline. The bill further requires training for personnel operating the scanners, registration of each machine with the relevant agency, and annual reporting on scanner use and exposure levels.
The bill would amend section 3502 of the Public Health Law to add OMH- and OPWDD-operated state facilities to the existing body-scanner framework that already applies to correctional facilities. It would create new regulatory duties for OMH and OPWDD, including rules on when scanners may be used, employee-search policies, alternative screening procedures, training requirements, machine registration, and annual reporting to state legislative leaders and the Department of Health. It would also define “state-operated facilities” by reference to Mental Hygiene Law provisions, thereby extending the statute’s reach to a broader set of secure residential and treatment settings.
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee debate. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a security and operational bill with an emphasis on balancing institutional safety with individual accommodation and anti-retaliation protections. The inclusion of alternative screening options and explicit protections against discipline suggests an attempt to address privacy, medical, and civil-liberties concerns alongside security goals.
The main points of potential contention are the expansion of ionizing body-scanner use into mental health and developmental disability facilities, and the privacy, health, and dignity implications of scanning visitors, clients, and employees in those settings. Supporters are likely to emphasize contraband prevention and facility security, while critics may focus on radiation exposure, the appropriateness of such screening in therapeutic or residential environments, and the risk of coercion or retaliation. The bill tries to mitigate those concerns by requiring alternative screening methods and prohibiting harassment or discipline for choosing them, but it still allows security-based exceptions and leaves implementation details to agency regulations.