Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restrictions On Shackling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs LB996 to end routine shackling of juveniles during transport
Summary
LB996 would stop routine shackling and chaining of youth during transport, medical visits, and detention absent individualized findings. Youth and child-welfare advocates described trauma from long transports and routine shackling; sheriffs, transport carriers, and DHHS warned the bill could impede safety and operations and urged carefully crafted exceptions and implementation language.
Sen. Victor Rountree introduced LB996 to restrict routine shackling of juveniles outside courtroom settings, seeking individualized, documented justification when restraints are used for transport, medical appointments, and facility movement.
Multiple youths and adults with lived experience described being transported for hours while shackled and chained, reporting humiliation, physical pain, and long-term trauma. Krysta McIntyre and Andrew Whitlow described multi-hour transports with belly chains and leg restraints that left them unable to move comfortably and anxious during public appointments; witnesses and advocates urged the committee to require least-restrictive measures, clear behavior-based justification, immediate removal once the risk subsides, and documentation/review of restraint use.
Child-welfare and advocacy witnesses (Boys Town, Voices for Children, Children's Commission, ACLU) cited national medical and psychiatric organizations condemning routine shackling of youth and recommended narrow exceptions (documented flight or assault risk) and training for transport staff.
Opponents including the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, Nebraska Sheriffs Association, Police Chiefs Association, and the Nebraska Public Service Commission said the bill could unacceptably constrain front-line officers and third-party transporters who must assess safety in real time. They warned third-party carriers—some staffed by older or retired drivers—might refuse transport if restraints are restricted, and they described vehicle and staffing limitations that could make alternatives impractical without additional funding or provider buy-in.
The Department of Health and Human Services testified that it already limits restraint use and favors trauma-informed, individualized decisions; it warned, however, that statutory language should not unintentionally remove discretion needed for initial transports when limited assessment information is available.
Senators asked technical questions about definitions (shackles vs. handcuffs), what constitutes "recent" dangerous behavior, whether handcuffs alone suffice in some transports, and how to handle contractor refusal to transport without restraints. The sponsor and committee members signaled an interest in negotiation and possible amendments to balance youth dignity and safety for transport personnel.
