A10699 establishes detailed procedures for the use of body imaging scanners in New York state and local correctional facilities when screening incarcerated individuals, employees, and visitors. The bill amends the public health law and adds a new section to the correction law to define key terms, authorize scanner use for facility security, and set rules for how searches must be conducted, documented, reviewed, and appealed. It also requires facilities to provide alternative search methods when scanners are unavailable, when a person cannot be scanned for medical reasons, or when a scan reaches exposure limits, and it sets special procedures for handling alleged scan abnormalities.
The bill creates a structured process for visitor screening decisions, including same-gender searches where possible, second-opinion review by trained supervisors during an initial period, and consultation with an on-call radiologist in certain disputed cases. It also requires notice to visitors and incarcerated individuals when contact visits are denied, allows access to video and scan images for appeals, mandates medical exemptions, and imposes discipline on employees who repeatedly make wrongful scan-based denials. In addition, it requires regular reporting on scanner use, contraband detections, injuries or illnesses, appeals, retraining, and related enforcement actions, and it requires the law to be posted publicly in multiple languages.
The bill would significantly affect the regulation of correctional facility security procedures by standardizing how body scanners are used and by limiting when scans can be used to deny entry or contact visits. It amends the public health law’s existing body-scanner framework and adds correction law provisions governing state and local correctional facilities, including requirements for training, recordkeeping, camera recording, medical exemptions, and reporting to state oversight officials. It also addresses radiation exposure limits and requires facilities to use alternative screening methods rather than automatically canceling visits or defaulting to non-contact visits.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is protective of visitors, employees, and incarcerated individuals while still preserving correctional security objectives. The measure appears designed to reduce arbitrary or mistaken denials, improve transparency, and create accountability for scanner use, suggesting a reform-oriented approach rather than a punitive one. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes available, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the provided materials.
The main points of contention likely concern operational burden, staffing, and security discretion. The bill imposes extensive procedural requirements, including radiologist consultation, video retention, appeals timelines, reporting obligations, and employee discipline, which may be viewed as administratively demanding by correctional agencies. It also limits the ability to rely solely on scanner results, requires accommodation for medical and religious items, and restricts the use of scanners for pregnant individuals and minors, which could raise concerns among those prioritizing maximum security flexibility.
The bill would amend Public Health Law section 3502 and add new Correction Law section 138-c to regulate body scanner use in state and local correctional facilities. It would require detailed screening, training, documentation, appeal, exemption, and reporting procedures for scanners used on visitors, employees, and incarcerated individuals, and it would impose new oversight duties on the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the State Commission of Correction, and local correctional facilities. The measure would also affect facility staff, visitors, and incarcerated individuals by creating enforceable rights to alternative screening methods, notice, and appeal when scanner results are disputed.
No votes or committee transcript excerpts are provided, so the formal legislative record in the supplied materials does not show recorded support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, the sentiment appears generally reform-minded and protective of due process, medical accommodation, and transparency in correctional screening. The bill also preserves security screening authority, indicating an attempt to balance safety concerns with limits on scanner-based denials.
Likely points of contention include the bill’s operational complexity, the requirement for radiologist review, the mandate for extensive video/audio recording and retention, and the discipline provisions for staff who improperly deny access. Correctional administrators may object to staffing and cost impacts, while advocates for visitors and incarcerated individuals are likely to support the bill’s safeguards against wrongful denials, its medical and religious accommodations, and its requirement that contact visits not be automatically downgraded because of scanner malfunction or exposure limits. The bill also narrows discretion by requiring alternative screening and structured appeals, which may be controversial among those favoring broader security discretion.