Who has the authority to authorize the use of restraint equipment in non-routine circumstances?

The authority to authorize the use of restraint equipment in non-routine circumstances lies primarily with the Institutional Head or their delegate due to their overall responsibility for the safety and security of the institution and its occupants. This authority is rooted in the understanding that restraint measures can significantly affect the physical and emotional wellbeing of individuals involved, and thus should be implemented with careful consideration.

The Institutional Head is typically well-versed in the policies regarding the use of restraints and understands both the legal framework and institutional guidelines that govern such actions. Their position allows them to assess the specific situation and make informed decisions regarding the need for restraints while ensuring compliance with regulatory and ethical standards.

In contrast, while healthcare professionals may have expertise in the medical implications of using restraint equipment, they may lack the broader context regarding institutional policy and security considerations. Correction officers often implement restraint measures but typically do not have the authority to authorize their use in non-routine situations. Legal advisors can provide counsel regarding the legality of such actions, but they do not have the authority to grant approval in practice.