Handbook on the Rights of Inmates and Defendants | Guard Instruments, Protective Restraint, and Protective Cells
Last edited: 2026-08-30
Introduction
The use of guard instruments, protective restraint, and placement in a protective cell are high-intensity correctional measures that severely restrict personal liberty. Under the rule of law, the more serious the restriction or infringement of rights, the more exacting the legal requirements governing it. Articles 23 and 24 of the Prison Act, Article 21 of the Enforcement Rules of the Prison Act, Articles 18 and 19 of the Detention Act, and Article 18 of the Enforcement Rules of the Detention Act govern how correctional institutions may use these measures. The relevant regulations are the "Regulations Governing the Management of Use of Guard Instruments, Protective Restraints and Placement in Protective Cell in Prisons" and the "Regulations Governing the Management of Use of Guard Instruments, Protective Restraints and Placement in Protective Cell in Detention Centers." The publicly available administrative interpretations also include Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice letters Fa-Jiao-Shu-An-Zi Nos. 10904000630, 10904000610, and 10904000620, dated July 14, 2020.
Below, we compile the rules governing the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, and placement in a protective cell so that "students" (a common colloquial term for inmates and defendants) can make a preliminary assessment of whether such measures are unlawful or improper when they encounter them. To download the PDF, click the button below. If you have other questions or need assistance, you are also welcome to write to us or call us.
- JRF Address: 7F, Lane 90, Sungkiang Rd., Chungshan Dist., Taipei City 10456, Taiwan
- JRF Appeal Hotline: 02-2542-1958
- JRF Appeal LINE ID: @jrftw
1. Use of Guard Instruments, Protective Restraint, and Placement in a Protective Cell Must Meet Statutory Requirements
Under Article 23, Paragraph 1 of the Prison Act and Article 18, Paragraph 2 of the Detention Act, correctional institutions may use guard instruments, apply protective restraint, or place inmates/defendants in a protective cell under the following circumstances:
- There is a risk of escape, self-harm, violent acts, or other acts disrupting order.
- Medical care or treatment is necessary, and danger cannot be prevented without restraint.
How does a court determine whether a person subjected to guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell presented a "risk of escape, self-harm, violence, or other conduct disrupting order"?
A common justification for the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell is that the correctional institution determined that the inmate/defendant presented a "risk of escape, self-harm, violence, or other conduct disrupting order." If the matter reaches court, the court must determine whether the person subjected to the measure actually presented one of those circumstances.
One example is litigation concerning an inmate at Ludao Prison who was placed in a "calming room" (the former term for a "protective cell") because of alleged emotional instability. Ludao Prison argued that the plaintiff had attacked the deputy warden of Hsinchu Prison on August 14, 2017 and, after being transferred to Ludao Prison on September 25, was placed in the calming room because of emotional instability. The inmate was removed on September 28 after their emotions stabilized. Taiwan Taitung District Court Judgment 107-Su-15 accepted the prison's position, finding records in the file documenting the reasons for the placement and concluding that the measure could not readily be deemed unlawful. On appeal, the inmate argued that "emotional instability" was not itself a statutory ground for placement in a calming room under then-Article 22 of the Prison Act and that the prison had failed to identify the specific conduct said to constitute emotional instability. The inmate sought testimony from the officers who escorted them that day-Lin Chao-Pin, Huang Chun-Kuei, and Feng Wan-Lung-as well as inmates Lin Tai-Wu, Chang-Chien Chien-Hung, and the dormitory attendant, asserting that they had behaved normally throughout the escort. The inmate further argued that the trial court had failed to investigate these matters or explain its refusal to do so.
The Kaohsiung High Administrative Court 108-Jian-Shang-70 Judgment revoked this part of the ruling and remanded the case, holding that the original trial court did not designate a date for evidentiary investigation nor notify the litigants to appear, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to make necessary statements regarding the results of the evidentiary investigation; moreover, it proceeded without oral argument, making it impossible for the parties to debate the investigative results. The original judgment directly adopted the inmate placement record table submitted by the appellee (hereinafter the disputed record table) as a finding unfavorable to the appellant, yet failed to explain how the circumstances recorded in the disputed record table aligned with the statutory reasons for placing an inmate in a calming room as stipulated in Article 22 of the Prison Act. Thus, both its evidentiary investigation procedure and the reasoning of its judgment were incomplete.
Taiwan Taitung District Court Judgment 109-Jian-Geng-Yi-2 dismissed the plaintiff's action. The court held that measures adopted by a prison to carry out a sentence involve highly specialized judgment and individualized assessment within the prison's statutory authority. In judicial review, the court therefore considered it appropriate to afford the administrative authority a margin of appreciation and apply a less intensive standard of review. The prison had assessed the plaintiff's conduct and the objective facts and concluded that the plaintiff was emotionally unstable, and the court deferred to that assessment. It also found no need to summon other inmates who had escorted the plaintiff, reasoning that their testimony would reflect only their subjective perceptions and could not replace the prison's professional judgment under its statutory authority. The plaintiff appealed, but Kaohsiung High Administrative Court Judgment 110-Jian-Shang-1 dismissed the appeal, making the judgment final.
These decisions show that some courts consider it necessary to substantively examine and allow argument on whether the reasons recorded by a correctional institution satisfy the statutory requirements, but that remains the minority approach. The majority approach treats such determinations as involving substantial correctional expertise and individualized assessment and therefore accords them considerable deference without further evidentiary inquiry. Under that view, other evidence cannot substitute for the correctional institution's professional judgment under its statutory authority.
From JRF's perspective as a civil-society organization, we disagree with that majority approach. The use of guard instruments, protective restraint, and placement in a protective cell all substantially interfere with personal liberty, so courts should not apply a reduced level of scrutiny. Where the person concerned disputes the measure, the court should substantively examine whether the reasons recorded by the institution satisfy the legal requirements.
Even when one of the circumstances above exists, the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell is not automatically lawful. The measure must still comply with the principle of proportionality, which consists of the following three elements:
- Suitability: The measure adopted must be capable of furthering the intended purpose. In other words, the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell, and the particular manner in which it is used, must help achieve the purpose. For example, if a correctional institution believes an inmate presents a risk of violence, it may consider guard instruments useful in preventing violent conduct.
- Necessity: When several measures can equally achieve the purpose, the measure that causes the least harm to the person's rights and interests must be chosen-the "least restrictive means" requirement. For example, a correctional institution seeking to prevent violence might have several available options, such as dialogue, providing a separate space in which the inmate can calm down, or using guard instruments. The institution must assess which options are actually available and whether they can equally achieve the objective. If so, it must choose the option that infringes the inmate's rights the least.
- Proportionality in the Narrow Sense: The harm caused by the measure must not be grossly disproportionate to the benefit it is intended to achieve-sometimes called the prohibition against excessive measures and illustrated by the saying, "Do not use a cannon to kill a sparrow." For example, guard instruments may prevent an inmate who presents a risk of violence from harming others, but applying them may itself involve force, injury, pain, and stigma. The institution must assess whether the benefit obtained is not grossly disproportionate to those harms.
These principles are set out in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations Governing the Management of Use of Guard Instruments, Protective Restraints and Placement in Protective Cell in Prisons and Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the corresponding regulations for detention centers.
In addition, under Article 24 of the Prison Act and Article 19 of the Detention Act, correctional institutions escorting inmates/defendants outside the institution may use guard instruments where there is a risk of escape, self-harm, or violence, provided that such use does not exceed the necessary degree. To reduce the use of guard instruments during outside escorts, these articles also authorize correctional institutions to utilize technological equipment and apply electronic monitoring measures as a substitute for guard instruments. The phrase "not exceed the necessary degree" means it must comply with the principle of proportionality.
Whether the explicit codification of the principle of proportionality in the new law will impact court and correctional practice remains to be observed. Points of potential observation include:
- How do correctional institutions conduct individualized risk assessments to determine, based on different levels of risk, whether an inmate/defendant needs guard instruments and, if so, what type and manner of restraint? For example, are guard instruments necessary for elderly or frail people, pregnant women, injured people or people whose illnesses impair mobility, people with severe physical disabilities, people serving short sentences, inmates working outside the institution, or inmates in open prisons?
- When inmates/defendants are escorted outside for medical treatment or home visits, the use of guard instruments requires particular attention to preserving their dignity. Some have been reluctant to seek outside medical treatment because of the shame of being restrained, allowing their condition to worsen; others have refrained from returning home for a funeral and were left with lasting regret. In such circumstances, could electronic monitoring measures be used as much as possible instead of guard instruments?
Will courts apply the principle of proportionality to substantively examine whether the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell is unlawful?
In the era of the old Prison Act, courts did not necessarily deem it necessary to examine measures such as guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell using the principle of proportionality. In the Taiwan Chiayi District Court 107-Jian-29 Judgment, regarding the controversy over the use of "back-cuffs," one can see that the principle of proportionality was not valued by the court at the time. The plaintiff in this case argued that after an argument with another inmate (which the prison deemed a disciplinary violation), the Chiayi Prison repeatedly escorted them in and out of their cell using back-cuffs, spanning the night of the violation when the interrogation record was made, as well as the following morning when they were asked to sign the disciplinary violation form. The plaintiff argued that if handcuffing was necessary, front-cuffing was sufficient; back-cuffing not only humiliated the plaintiff but also subjected them to unnecessary physical pain, violating the principle of proportionality. The court ultimately concluded that the Chiayi Prison's use of back-cuffs on the plaintiff was lawful, reasoning that the use of guard instruments was logged in the restraint record book and reported to and approved by superiors, all of which were documented in the restraint record book on file. Therefore, it was concluded that the reason, procedure, and method of restraint all complied with the Prison Act and related regulations.
If the court applied the principle of proportionality, it would need to examine whether back-cuffing satisfies suitability, necessity, and proportionality in the narrow sense. In the case above, the central issue was necessity. That inquiry requires asking: (1) what measures could achieve the same objective; (2) how each measure would restrict fundamental rights; and (3) which measure is the least restrictive. Thus, if the plaintiff posed a risk of disrupting order, the court should have considered whether handcuffs were necessary and whether front-cuffing could equally prevent the conduct, or whether front-cuffing was objectively unavailable at the time. Only then could it determine whether back-cuffing satisfied the necessity requirement.
In the era of the new Prison Act, we have yet to see courts genuinely apply the principle of proportionality to substantively examine whether the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell is unlawful. The new law has not yet brought about obvious changes.
Finally, both the Prison Act and the Detention Act provide that guard instruments, protective restraint, and placement in a protective cell may not be used as punishment. This also follows from the principle of proportionality even without an express provision. Because punitive use had occurred in practice, however, the prohibition is repeatedly emphasized in the relevant regulations and administrative interpretations. One example is riveting heavy leg shackles onto a person for two weeks as punishment for a serious disciplinary violation without considering whether the inmate continued to engage in conduct disrupting order or whether leg shackles remained necessary.
What circumstances constitute the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell as punishment?
Whether guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell are truly being used as punishment may be clear to staff and inmates within correctional institutions, but proving it in court is not easy.
Regarding the back-cuff controversy in the aforementioned Taiwan Chiayi District Court 107-Jian-29 Judgment, JRF intervened to assist. The party involved reported that the disciplinary violation involved a verbal dispute, and when they were escorted out of the cell, both parties' emotional states had already stabilized. However, every time they were escorted in and out of the cell, isolation cell, or disciplinary cell, back-cuffs were used. Back-cuffs cause tightness and pain more easily, leading them to believe the correctional institution used back-cuffs as punishment, but the court did not adopt the party's argument. Shortly after, JRF received reports from other inmates in the same correctional institution stating that disciplinary violations in that institution invariably resulted in back-cuffing.
A potential reflection from the aforementioned events is that understanding whether correctional institutions use personal coercive measures like guard instruments as punishment may require systematically collecting the customary patterns of using such personal coercive measures in that institution. Sometimes it is difficult to confirm through a single individual case.
2. Use of Guard Instruments, Protective Restraint, or Placement in a Protective Cell Must Follow Statutory Procedures
-
Must Be Approved According to Statutory Procedures
The approval procedures and authorized decision-makers for the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell on inmates and defendants within correctional institutions are shown below:
Status
General Approval Procedure
Approval Procedure in Emergency Situations
Inmate
Approved by the Prison Warden
Prison personnel may act first and immediately report to the Prison Warden for approval.
Defendant
Approved by a ruling of the court handling the detention
Detention center officers may act first in an emergency and immediately report to the detention center official for approval. Once approved, the matter must be reported to the court handling the detention for a ruling approving the measure.
When a correctional institution escorts an inmate/defendant outside, guard instruments may be used only after approval by the head of the institution; there is no emergency-approval procedure. As with inmates, the use of guard instruments on defendants during outside escorts does not have to be submitted to the detaining court for approval.
Does the court handling the detention substantively review the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell on defendants within the institution?
Article 18, Paragraph 2 of the Detention Act provides that a detention center's use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement of a defendant in a protective cell must be approved by a ruling of the court handling the detention. The legislative purpose was to subject these measures to more rigorous scrutiny through court review.
Among the rulings reviewed to date, the great majority concern guard instruments, with only one involving placement in a protective cell (Taiwan Yunlin District Court Criminal Ruling 109-Sheng-1158). Because defendants generally do not object, courts routinely approve the measures reported by detention centers using formulaic language. At present, the Fourth Criminal Division of the Taiwan High Court is the only court we have found that substantively reviews the use of guard instruments even where the defendant does not object and has issued rulings denying approval.
Defendant Tang OO, detained by order of the Fourth Criminal Division of the Taiwan High Court, was escorted from the cell on several holidays to the institution's medical unit and public-physician clinic because of physical discomfort. Citing reduced staffing on holidays, the detention center concluded that Tang OO presented an escape risk and treated the situation as urgent, applying guard instruments before reporting the matter to the detaining court.
The Fourth Criminal Division of the Taiwan High Court repeatedly questioned whether a defendant's request to visit the institution's public-physician clinic on a holiday truly constituted an urgent and unforeseeable situation that made prior court approval impossible. It also asked why a defendant escorted only from the cell to receive medical care, entirely within the detention center's multiple layers of security, should be deemed an escape risk. Because the record contained no material supporting those conclusions, the court denied approval for the use of guard instruments.
In another case, Defendant Chang OO, who was detained by order of the Fourth Criminal Division of the Taiwan High Court, was assaulted by another inmate. The detention center took Chang OO to the central control station for an investigation and applied handcuffs to prevent escape. The Fourth Criminal Division likewise denied approval, asking why a defendant who was the victim of an assault and was being escorted only from the cell to the central control station within the detention center should be deemed an escape risk, when the assault had occurred, why an investigation had to be conducted at 8:25 a.m., and what urgent or unforeseeable circumstance prevented the center from seeking court approval beforehand.
The problems highlighted here are:
- What circumstances truly qualify as "urgent" situations permitting the prior application of guard instruments?
- Based on what objective facts can the escort of inmates within an institution be deemed to warrant guard instruments due to a risk of escape?
-
Except During Outside Escorts, Medical Personnel Must Always Evaluate the Person's Physical and Mental Condition
Except where guard instruments are used during an outside escort, once the use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell within an institution has been approved, the institution must promptly arrange for medical personnel to assess the inmate's/defendant's physical and mental condition and provide appropriate assistance. If the medical personnel consider termination or modification of the measure necessary, they must immediately report that assessment to the head of the institution for appropriate action.
The law requires only that medical personnel be arranged "promptly" and does not specify a deadline for the assessment. As a result, a person may be subjected to guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell only briefly and be released before medical personnel arrive to conduct the assessment.
If a "student" experiences pain, injury, psychological distress, or another problem after being subjected to guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell, they may ask the institution to promptly arrange for medical personnel and report their condition. Medical personnel must provide assistance and assess whether the measure should be terminated or modified.
Why do internal institution uses of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell all require correctional institutions to promptly arrange for medical personnel to evaluate physical and mental conditions, whereas guard instruments during outside escorts do not?
The reason is that the circumstances contemplated for internal use of guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell differ from those for outside escorts. Internal measures are generally associated with higher-conflict situations in which inmates/defendants are more likely to have physical or mental-health concerns-for example, restraint or placement in a protective cell because of self-harm. Outside escorts, by contrast, generally involve guard instruments used to prevent escape during activities outside the institution, including outside medical visits and large-scale transfers.
However, internal guard instrument also encompasses lower-conflict scenarios, such as applying restraints when escorting inmates out of cells at night or on holidays for reasons of preventing escape. Because such inmates are generally not restrained due to unstable physical or mental conditions, and the restraints are promptly removed, medical personnel evaluation of their physical and mental state is less necessary. Construed legally, the restraints are removed before medical personnel arrive, presenting no issue of illegality.
-
Except During Outside Escorts, All Measures Are Subject to Time Limits
The time limits for guard instruments, protective restraint, and placement in a protective cell, whether for inmates or defendants, are set out below:
Type
Time Limit
Guard Instruments Used Inside the Institution
Each instance shall not exceed 48 hours at most.
However, this does not apply if an inmate engages in violent acts or other order-disrupting behavior resulting in commotion or riot accidents, and the prison deems continued restraint necessary.
Guard Instruments During Outside Escorts
Only required not to exceed the necessary degree; no explicit time limit.
Protective Restraint
Each instance shall not exceed 4 hours at most.
Placement in a Protective Cell
Each instance shall not exceed 24 hours at most.
In the past, some correctional institutions placed heavy riveted leg shackles on inmates who committed serious disciplinary violations for several weeks, raising concerns that guard instruments were being used as punishment. To eliminate such abuse, the new law treats internal use of guard instruments for more than 48 hours as an exceptional measure subject to strict conditions: the inmate must have engaged in violent conduct or other order-disrupting behavior causing a commotion or riot, and the prison must consider continued restraint necessary. This does not mean that an inmate involved in an incident such as a disturbance may simply remain restrained; continued necessity must still be assessed.
-
Records Must Be Kept
The records required for guard instruments, protective restraint, and placement in a protective cell are listed below:
Type
Required Records
Guard Instruments Used Inside the Institution
An Inmate/Defendant Guard Instrument Use Record must be completed.
If use continues beyond 48 hours, a Report on Continuous Use of Guard Instruments must also be completed for each continuation period.
Guard Instruments During Outside Escorts
An Outside Escort Guard Instrument Use Record must be completed.
Protective Restraint
An Inmate/Defendant Protective Restraint Use Record must be completed. The use of protective restraint must be video-recorded, and an Inmate/Defendant Protective Restraint Use Observation Record must be completed every 15 minutes to record the restrained person's emotional reactions, behavior, vital signs, circulation in the limbs, and other relevant conditions.
Placement in a Protective Cell
An Inmate/Defendant Protective Cell Placement Record must be completed. An Inmate/Defendant Protective Cell Observation Record must be completed every hour to record the inmate's/defendant's condition and conduct in the protective cell.
-
Except During Outside Escorts, Written Notice Is Required
The written-notice requirements for inmates and defendants subjected to guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell are as follows:
Status
Personal Coercive Measure
Written Notification Requirement
Inmate
Guard Instruments
Internal use of guard instruments: If use exceeds four hours, the prison must make a record, obtain the inmate's signature, and provide the inmate with a copy.
Guard instruments during an outside escort: No written-notice requirement.
Protective Restraint
The inmate shall be notified in writing, and their family members or nearest relatives shall be notified.
If there are multiple family members or nearest relatives, notification of only one of them suffices; if notification is impossible or unachievable, notification may be omitted.
Placement in a Protective Cell
Same as above.
Defendant
Guard Instruments
Internal use of guard instruments: If use exceeds four hours, the detention center must make a record, obtain the defendant's signature, and provide the defendant with a copy.
When guard instruments are used on a defendant, the detention center must issue a notice of the use of guard instruments and notify the defendant's defense counsel.
This does not apply if the defendant has no defense counsel. Guard instruments during an outside escort: No written-notice requirement.
Protective Restraint
The defendant must be notified in writing, and the defendant's defense counsel, family members, or nearest relatives must also be notified as required by law.
If there are multiple family members or nearest relatives, notification of only one of them suffices; if notification is impossible or unachievable, notification may be omitted.
Placement in a Protective Cell
Same as above.
3. Guard Instruments and Protective Restraint Devices Have Statutory Types and Specifications, and Protective Cells Must Meet Statutory Standards
-
Guard Instruments Are Limited to Statutory Types
Article 23, Paragraph 3 of the Prison Act and Article 18, Paragraph 5 of the Detention Act provide that guard instruments are limited to leg shackles, handcuffs, chains, ropes, and other guard instruments approved by the Ministry of Justice. Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Regulations Governing the Management of Use of Guard Instruments, Protective Restraints and Placement in Protective Cell in Prisons, and the corresponding provision of the regulations for detention centers, set out the types and specifications in an attached table.
Type of Guard Instrument
Specification
Function
Leg shackles
Made of metal, plastic, or other suitable materials, with a weight limit of 2 kilograms; if necessary, may be increased to 3 kilograms. For juvenile inmates, the limit is 1 kilogram, which may be increased to 2 kilograms if necessary.
Equipment used to bind an inmate's ankles to manage their movement.
Handcuffs
Made of metal, plastic, or other suitable materials, with a weight not exceeding half a kilogram.
Equipment used to bind an inmate's wrists, or connect to other appropriate fixed objects, to manage their movement.
Chains
Made of metal, plastic, or other suitable materials, with a weight limit of 2 kilograms; if necessary, may be increased to 3 kilograms. For juvenile inmates, the limit is 1 kilogram, which may be increased to 2 kilograms if necessary.
Chained around an inmate's waist and interconnected or connected to other appropriate fixed objects, used to restrict an inmate's freedom of movement to manage their activities.
Ropes
Made of plastic or other suitable materials.
Equipment used to bind an inmate's wrists or ankles to manage their movement.
Other guard instruments approved by the Ministry of Justice
Except for leg shackles, handcuffs, chains, and ropes, equipment used to restrict an inmate's movement, the types and approval procedures of which shall be determined by the Ministry of Justice.
--
From the perspective of an external civil-society organization, the table's definition of permissible specifications is not sufficiently concrete. For example, the table permits guard instruments to be made of "other suitable materials." Does that include leather? The table alone does not answer the question, but leather handcuffs are in fact prohibited. Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice Letter Fa-Jiao-Shu-An-Zi No. 10204002670, dated June 11, 2013, prohibits all correctional institutions from using leather handcuffs, and the letter remains in effect.
The Control Yuan Corrective Measure Resulting in the Ban on Leather Handcuffs
Control Yuan Corrective Measure 102-Si-Zheng-0008 pointed out that leather handcuffs, restraint jackets, and cotton restraint straps are all protective equipment used briefly during the manic phase of psychiatric offenders. Taking the United States as an example, their usage time is capped at one hour in principle, and continued use requires medical personnel to be present. Examining the current usage status across correctional institutions, it frequently spans days-leather handcuffs were found used for up to a year, restraint jackets for up to two weeks, and restraint straps for up to four days. Failing to act as a protective measure while amounting to punishment bordering on torture, this is highly inappropriate.
A "student" at one correctional institution once asked whether a self-modified "waist-connected handcuff," which makes it harder to scratch oneself than ordinary handcuffs, is a lawful guard instrument.
Answer: Article 9 of the Regulations Governing the Management of Use of Guard Instruments, Protective Restraints and Placement in Protective Cell in Prisons provides: "When the prison needs to purchase additional guard instruments due to service needs, the reason for the planned purchase, the style, specifications and quantity of the guard instruments shall be reported to the supervisory authority for approval before such purchase can be made." Guard instruments used by correctional institutions should therefore be limited to those purchased or distributed after being reported to the Agency of Corrections. Self-modified waist-connected handcuffs, other altered devices, and privately purchased restraints may all be unlawful. If a "student" encounters a guard instrument they have never seen before and suspects that it was modified or privately purchased, they may write to JRF.
-
Protective Restraint Is Limited to Statutory Protective Restraint Devices
Under Article 10 of the Regulations Governing the Management of Use of Guard Instruments, Protective Restraints and Placement in Protective Cell in Prisons and Article 10 of the corresponding regulations for detention centers, the types and specifications of protective restraint devices are as follows:
Type of Protective Restraint Device
Specifications and Function
Limb restraint straps
Made of cotton, cloth, or other suitable materials, used to bind and protect an inmate's wrists or ankles, restricting limb movement or securing them to a hospital bed.
Chest restraint straps
Made of cotton, cloth, or other suitable materials, used to bind and protect an inmate's chest, restricting body movement or securing them to a hospital bed.
Abdominal and waist restraint straps
Made of cotton, cloth, or other suitable materials, used to bind and protect an inmate's abdomen or waist, restricting body movement or securing them to a hospital bed.
Restraint gloves
Made of cotton, cloth, or other suitable materials, used to bind and protect an inmate's palms, restricting hand movement.
Other protective restraint devices approved by the supervisory authority
Note: Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice Letter Fa-Jiao-Shu-An-Zi No. 10204002670, dated June 11, 2013, prohibits correctional institutions from using restraint jackets and restraint blankets.
Put plainly, protective restraint means fastening an inmate/defendant to a hospital bed. Remaining in a fixed position for a long time is inherently uncomfortable, and struggling can cause additional pain. Being fastened to a hospital bed can also cause psychological trauma. Protective restraint is a high-risk measure and should be avoided whenever possible. Even in psychiatric care, other alternatives are recommended first to reduce the use of restraints on patients.
Case of Death Caused by Unlawful Protective Restraint
In 2015, a case occurred at the Taipei Prison where an inmate surnamed Lin died due to guard instruments and protective restraint. Inmate Lin suffered from "affective psychosis" and was previously transferred to the Peite Hospital of Taichung Prison for treatment. After being transferred back to Taipei Prison to serve their sentence, they failed to adapt, their condition worsened, and their physical and mental state became unstable. On December 1, 2014, because Inmate Lin failed to cooperate with dormitory routines, arbitrarily lay down, and ignored repeated admonitions, a correctional officer ordered them out of the cell and subjected them to movable and fixed handcuffs and leg shackles, making them sit tied to a corridor railing. They were only briefly released from the movable handcuffs and leg shackles during meal times to eat. Later, because Inmate Lin threatened suicide and had a history of self-harming their face with restraints and swallowing safety helmet buckles, they were fitted with a safety helmet and tongue depressor, with a blanket placed over their upper chest for over 5 hours. Inmate Lin could neither cry out for help nor move, and even when losing consciousness could not fall to the ground, ultimately dying of asphyxiation, respiratory failure, and metabolic failure.
The method of restraint in this case went well beyond an ordinary use of guard instruments. It left the inmate completely unable to move, and the intensity of the restraint reached or even exceeded that of ordinary protective restraint. The case shows that the officer involved did not appreciate the risk of death created by such high-intensity restraint.
-
Protective Cells Must Meet Statutory Standards
Under Article 15 of the Regulations Governing the Management of Use of Guard Instruments, Protective Restraints and Placement in Protective Cell in Prisons and Article 15 of the corresponding regulations for detention centers, a protective cell must be designed for single occupancy, have proper ventilation and lighting, and be kept clean. The surfaces of its walls, ceiling, door, and floor must be fitted with anti-collision cushions or other protective facilities, and the cell must have sound insulation and intercom facilities.
A "protective cell" is what was formerly called a "calming room." In the past, some inmates reported that the calming room in their institution was cramped and dim, that its anti-collision foam was dirty and foul-smelling, and that ventilation was poor. Being confined there did not calm them but instead increased their psychological distress. The new law therefore emphasizes that protective cells must have proper ventilation and lighting and be kept clean.
4. Guard Instruments, Protective Restraint, and Placement in a Protective Cell: Additional Safeguards
Guard instruments, protective restraint, and placement in a protective cell each involve specific safeguards. The most basic principle common to all three is that the measure must end as soon as it is no longer necessary. The following points concerning guard instruments and protective restraint warrant further explanation.
-
Guard Instruments and Protective Restraint Must Be Applied by Correctional Personnel
Internal use of guard instruments and protective restraint often arises in high-conflict situations involving an inmate whose emotions are unstable. Forced application is an exercise of public authority, and improper use may become punitive. Allowing inmate attendants to apply these measures therefore creates obvious controversy, and the regulations expressly require guard instruments and protective restraint to be applied by correctional personnel.
Controversy over Inmate Attendants Applying Guard Instruments: The 2019 Kaohsiung Prison Abuse-and-Death Case
In the 2019 Kaohsiung Prison abuse-and-death case, the Control Yuan's investigation report quoted the prosecutor's indictment describing inmate attendants applying guard instruments and concluding that the restraint was unlawful:
Li OO, a Kaohsiung Prison administrator, instructed inmate attendant Chiang OO to "bring out" inmate Chen OO from Cell Zl-13 to the calming area beside the clerical desk. The area was a blind spot between two iron gates on the north side of Jen Garden and was not the surveillance-equipped calming room referred to in the Prison Act. Chiang OO and attendants Huang OO and Liu OO, who arrived later, knew that guard instruments could not be used without an order from the prison warden. They were merely inmate attendants providing administrative assistance and had no public authority to apply guard instruments to inmates. Although no law or prison rule authorized them to exercise that authority, they allegedly acted with a common criminal intent to unlawfully deprive Chen OO of liberty. Chiang OO ordered Chen OO to sit down and intended to apply handcuffs.
Statements of Defendant Liu OO during questioning by the prosecutor's investigator, questioning by the prosecutor and judge, and sworn testimony as a witness: Li OO routinely permitted attendants to apply handcuffs, so Chiang OO retrieved handcuffs from the drawer on their own accord.
Defendant Huang OO went to the cabinet on their own accord to retrieve handcuffs and handcuffed Chen OO (applying 2 pairs of handcuffs consecutively).
Defendants Chiang OO, Huang OO, and Liu OO were inmate attendants providing administrative assistance and had no public authority to apply guard instruments to inmates. Current law and prison rules likewise did not authorize them to exercise that power. They nevertheless restrained Chen OO in the calming area and secured two pairs of handcuffs to a floor anchor near the iron gate. Defendant Li OO arrived but did not stop them, promptly report the incident, or timely record the circumstances and reasons for using the restraints. Instead, after Chen OO died and a judicial investigation began, an "Inmate Guard Instrument Use Record" was prepared retroactively, and the stated reasons for restraint were allegedly false. On that basis, the indictment concluded that the handcuffing was not a lawful exercise of official duties.
For guard instruments used during outside escorts, current regulations do not expressly require application exclusively by correctional personnel.
-
Avoid Damaged or Unclean Guard Instruments or Protective Restraint Devices
Damaged guard instruments or protective restraint devices should not be used because damage can impair their function and sharp edges can injure the person restrained. Unclean or foul-smelling equipment can unnecessarily increase suffering and may also cause infection.
-
Protective Restraint Must Secure the Person to a Gurney (Hospital Bed); Use of a Stretcher Is Strictly Prohibited
Protective restraint must secure the inmate to a gurney (hospital bed); fastening a person to a stretcher is strictly prohibited. This codifies the Ministry of Justice's March 12, 1996 Letter Fa-Jian-Zi No. 0600 under the "Implementation Plan for Strengthening Security and Medical Management." In the past, abuse occurred in which inmates were fastened upside down on stretchers. The regulations therefore require fastening only to a gurney (hospital bed).
-
Guard Instruments and Protective Restraint Must Avoid Causing Pain or Injury
Guard instruments and protective restraint must be used so as to avoid causing pain or injury, including the following:
-
Guard instruments must not be excessively tight or place the person in an improper posture that causes pain
Most guard instruments allow their tightness to be adjusted. Excessive tightness can impair circulation and cause pain and must therefore be avoided. Earlier Agency of Corrections guidelines also prohibited "cross-cuffing" one arm over the shoulder and the other upward from the waist behind the back, as well as interlocking the hands and feet. The purpose was to prevent pain caused by improper restraint positions.
-
Protective restraint devices must be applied with appropriate tightness
Put plainly, using protective restraint devices means fastening someone to a bed. They must not be applied too tightly, because doing so can impair circulation and cause pain-the same reason excessive tightness must be avoided when using guard instruments.
-
If an inmate has an arteriovenous fistula in a limb, protective restraint devices should not be applied to that limb
Hemodialysis patients may have an arteriovenous fistula surgically created in a limb for dialysis. Compression can impair blood flow and block the fistula, making dialysis impossible. Because protective restraint devices necessarily exert some pressure on the limbs, the regulations expressly require avoiding their use on a limb with an arteriovenous fistula.
-
A person with a history of epilepsy, or with neurological or skeletal problems in the limbs or spinal cord that protective restraint would worsen, must not be subjected to protective restraint; if restraint has already begun, it must be terminated promptly
Protective restraint is a high-intensity form of personal restraint that can cause substantial physical and psychological stress. In a person with a history of epilepsy, it may trigger a seizure, creating a risk of choking or additional injury from convulsions. For a person with neurological or skeletal problems affecting the limbs or spinal cord-such as fractures, ankylosing spondylitis, or osteogenesis imperfecta-high-intensity restraint may worsen the condition and should therefore be avoided.
-
If observation after protective restraint is applied reveals poor circulation in a limb, such as swelling, skin discoloration, or cyanosis, or unstable vital signs, the protective measure must be immediately terminated or modified and medical personnel must be arranged to provide appropriate assistance
Because protective restraint carries a heightened risk of injury and death, the inmate's condition must be closely observed after it is applied. Poor circulation or unstable vital signs require immediate action.
-
Head gear shall be kept clean, and its use shall avoid obscuring the inmate's line of sight
In past practice, safety helmets were sometimes used together with guard instruments or protective restraint. Some inmates reported that the helmets smelled foul, that the visor was covered with black tape, and that being unable to see made them even more anxious. At times they felt the helmet being struck or heard people scolding them but could not tell who was responsible. The original purpose of head protection was to prevent self-harm, such as an inmate striking their head against a wall; blocking the person's view was likewise intended to keep them from seeing where to strike. Because that practice departed from the protective purpose and created risks of abuse, it drew substantial criticism.
Improper Use of Head Gear: The 2019 Kaohsiung Prison Abuse-and-Death Case
In the 2019 Kaohsiung Prison abuse-and-death case, citing the Control Yuan's investigation report quoting the prosecutor's indictment, it mentions:
Although the deceased Chen OO was outside the cell for only 16 minutes, the indictment described Defendant Huang OO and others as forcefully restraining Chen OO on the floor with two pairs of handcuffs and forcing Chen OO to wear a full-face safety helmet whose visor had been covered with packing tape, blocking vision and preventing escape. Chen OO was then kicked and verbally abused, had iced coffee poured over them by Defendant Li Chen-Pin, and was kicked with slippers by Defendant Chiang OO, sustaining fatal traumatic injuries. The treatment was plainly inhumane, and the indictment concluded that the conduct fell within the amended definition of "abuse."
To prevent head protection from being abused as punishment, the new law provides that guard instruments or protective restraint may not block an inmate's line of sight. If an inmate engages in self-harming conduct such as striking their head against a wall, the institution may use foam or other anti-collision protective gear to protect the head. The gear may not exceed what is necessary and must be kept hygienic and clean.
-
Guard instruments must not be excessively tight or place the person in an improper posture that causes pain
5. What Can I Do If I Believe I Was Unlawfully Subjected to Guard Instruments, Protective Restraint, or Placement in a Protective Cell?
Guard instruments, protective restraint, and placement in a protective cell are usually used in emergency situations. At the moment they are imposed, it may be nearly impossible to stop the measure; the practical focus is often on what can be done afterward to prevent a recurrence. During the incident, protecting yourself from further harm should therefore be the highest priority. Afterward, promptly write down what happened, including the people involved and the relevant events, times, places, and objects.
It is also advisable to seek legal relief or submit a petition promptly and within the applicable deadlines. For inmates, available remedies include a complaint, which must be filed within 10 days beginning on the following day, and administrative litigation, which must be filed with the administrative litigation division of the district court where the prison is located within 30 days beginning on the day after service of the complaint decision. For defendants subjected to guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell, the measure requires approval by a ruling of the court handling the detention. A written submission may be filed before the court approves the measure; after an approval ruling is served, an interlocutory appeal may be filed with the court of immediate superior jurisdiction within five days beginning on the following day. As for petitions, available public information suggests that the Control Yuan has been a comparatively effective channel and more willing than courts to undertake investigations. Some matters accepted by the Control Yuan began as individual complaints and later developed into broader systemic investigations. Relevant materials are collected in the appendix, "Views of Courts and the Control Yuan on Disputes Concerning Guard Instruments, Protective Restraint, and Placement in a Protective Cell."
Prompt legal relief or a petition is especially important because Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations on the Installation, Use, and Management of Technological Equipment in Prisons and Detention Centers provides that audio and video data stored by institutional monitoring equipment must be preserved for at least 30 days. Surveillance footage may therefore be deleted after the retention period, making it much harder to reconstruct what happened. Under Article 15, however, if an institution learns of a petition, complaint, or litigation filed in accordance with law, or of a lawful investigation by a competent authority, and the matter concerns data stored by the institution's technological equipment, the institution must first copy and preserve the relevant data. Timely action can therefore ensure preservation of surveillance footage from the incident.
Official Record Forms Are Difficult to Challenge; Contrary Evidence Must Be Preserved Promptly
In the back-cuffing dispute addressed in Taiwan Chiayi District Court Judgment 107-Jian-29, one issue was how many times the person claimed to have been back-cuffed and when each instance occurred.
In the person's initial complaint and re-complaint, they stated only that their hands had "repeatedly" been restrained behind their back and that they had been forced to sign disciplinary forms, and that on June 27, 2017 they had been subjected to back-cuffing twice in succession from morning to noon while being escorted from Loyalty Cell. During the litigation, the person later identified seven separate instances of back-cuffing. The court declined to consider some of them because they had not been properly raised through the original administrative remedy. As to June 27, the court found only one instance because the guard-instrument record reflected only one use.
The case shows that where guard instruments are used multiple times, an initial complaint should identify the number and timing of each use rather than simply say "multiple times." Otherwise, a court may conclude that the relevant measure was not properly challenged through the administrative remedy. Adding specifics later can also create evidentiary problems. In the case above, the person said they had been back-cuffed twice in succession on the morning of June 27, 2017, but the official record reflected only one instance. If surveillance footage had been preserved at the outset, it might have helped establish what actually occurred.
Accordingly, if you believe you were unlawfully subjected to guard instruments, protective restraint, or placement in a protective cell, it is crucial to record the incident concretely-including the people, events, times, places, and objects involved-and to file a petition or complaint promptly. Otherwise, relevant evidence may disappear with the passage of time.
This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.