Corrections and custodial authority
Class E custodial authority under Act VIII, lawful intake and JusticeLink booking, classification, detainee and prisoner rights, force, searches, discipline, medical and suicide duties, and contraband and escape (SAPC ch. 38C).
Required for Class E
The exam draws 30 questions from a bank of 57. You have 45 minutes, and you need 80% to pass. Questions apply the law to situations. To prepare, read this guide alongside the cited sections of the San Andreas codes, the 2026 Law Enforcement Reform Package and the federal authorities below. The U.S. Constitution binds every San Andreas officer. Supreme Court decisions are binding; federal circuit decisions are accepted authority, and where circuits differ the academy teaches the rule that protects rights more.
Correctional and detention officers hold Class E commissions: the custodial authority needed to supervise, control, secure and transport people lawfully committed to their custody (Act VIII §8.02). Within their lawful duties they maintain custody and security, conduct authorized searches, control movement, prevent escapes, use force as correctional law allows, detain or restrain where expressly authorized, and transport people in lawful custody (§8.06). These are not general criminal enforcement powers. Correctional certification does not confer general patrol or criminal investigative authority, so a Bolingbroke officer who sees a burglary on the drive home has no Class E power to act on it and calls the agency with jurisdiction. Prisoner transport is the one task that regularly takes Class E officers off the grounds, and Act VII lists authorized prisoner transport and custody as a lawful basis for acting outside primary jurisdiction (§7.03): an officer whose transport van breaks down in Sandy Shores keeps full custodial authority over the prisoner there. Certification covers custodial law and prisoner rights, security, searches and contraband, use of force, emergency response, medical and behavioural emergencies, transport, reports and professional conduct (§8.05).
State facilities such as Bolingbroke Penitentiary are run by the agency the law designates, which keeps primary responsibility for security, custody and operations (§8.03). Other agencies may assist under agreement or emergency authority, as LSCSO deputies might during a riot, without taking over institutional jurisdiction. County sheriffs may run detention facilities (§8.04). A deputy assigned to the county jail may keep a separate Class A commission where lawfully appointed and qualified, and may use it; detention-only staff hold no general police authority because of their custodial appointment. A detention officer who sees two visitors fighting in the jail parking lot keeps the facility secure and calls a general-authority deputy. Institutional misconduct and security violations may be investigated by the corrections agency (§8.08), but criminal investigations go to separately commissioned investigators or an agency with criminal jurisdiction. Specialized correctional units, such as emergency response teams, contraband-detection canines, transport units and search teams, meet any mandatory COLE certification (§8.09), and they remain correctional units: an emergency response team is not a statewide tactical unit.
Custody begins with lawful authority. No one may release, transfer or take custody of a detained person except through lawful procedures (§8.12): booking staff accept a person on a lawful arrest, warrant or commitment, and release only on a verified order or other lawful basis. A relative waving a letter that 'the judge said' is a reason to verify with the court, not to open the door. The custody record lives in JusticeLink, and booking enters the person, the charges, the arresting agency and property into it. The booking desk refuses to book a minor (anyone younger than 18, SAPC §1.37), and a minor's case goes to the county juvenile court; an officer may not work around the refusal by entering a false date of birth, which would be Tampering with a Government Record (SAPC §39.02). A person arrested without a warrant is entitled to a prompt judicial determination of probable cause (Gerstein v. Pugh); a determination within 48 hours is generally prompt, and beyond that the State must show an emergency (County of Riverside v. McLaughlin). Taking a DNA cheek swab at booking for a serious offense, supported by probable cause, is a reasonable search (Maryland v. King).
Intake is a screening job as much as a paperwork job. Before a person goes into a cell, staff look for injuries, intoxication, withdrawal, medical conditions and medication needs, mental illness, suicide risk, and anything that makes the person vulnerable or dangerous to others. Classification then decides housing: separating people who threaten each other, keeping known enemies and rival gang members apart, protecting the vulnerable, and housing pretrial detainees according to the facility's lawful rules. The constitutional floor is Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994): a custodial official is deliberately indifferent, and liable, when the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's safety. A classification officer told at intake that a slightly built first-time arrestee has been threatened by a cellmate-to-be, who houses them together anyway, has knowledge and disregard. Once the State takes a person into custody it takes on a duty to protect that person that it does not owe to the public at large (DeShaney v. Winnebago County). Intake findings are written down and travel with the person, including to the transport officer and the receiving facility, because the next shift cannot act on a risk it was never told about.
Pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners are protected by different constitutional provisions. A pretrial detainee has not been convicted and may not be punished at all; conditions and restrictions must be reasonably related to legitimate institutional goals such as security and order, and a restriction that is arbitrary or purposeless may be inferred to be punishment (Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)). Those protections come from due process (U.S. Const. amend. XIV), and they are at least as great as the protections a convicted prisoner has. A convicted prisoner is protected by the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The difference matters most for force. Force against a pretrial detainee is excessive if it is objectively unreasonable, and the officer's state of mind is not required (Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015)) In practice that means asking whether the force used matched the real need for it at each moment, not whether the officer meant well. The jail holds both kinds of people, often on the same tier, so the officer must know who is who; the academy trains every custodial officer to the objective-reasonableness standard, the stricter of the two.
For convicted prisoners, force used in a disturbance is judged by whether it was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm (Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986)). Malicious force violates the Eighth Amendment even without serious injury (Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)): a beating of a shackled prisoner that leaves bruises and a loosened tooth is enough. Restraint carries its own dangers. Holding a restrained person prone with pressure on the back must be judged with attention to the known risk of positional asphyxia and how long the pressure lasted (Lombardo v. City of St. Louis); kneeling on the back and neck of a handcuffed, compliant, prone man was excessive (Drummond v. City of Anaheim), and keeping pressure on after the need ended could be excessive (Weigel v. Broad). Once the person is controlled, relieve the pressure and watch their breathing. Leaving pepper spray on a compliant, restrained person and refusing decontamination can be excessive (LaLonde v. County of Riverside). Officers who use excessive force face Police Misconduct - Excessive Use of Force (SAPC §39.01), Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law (§38.82) and federal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As general professional practice, an officer who sees a colleague using excessive force intervenes when it is safe to do so and reports it.
Searches in custody follow their own rules. A prisoner has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a cell, so cell searches need no warrant or individual suspicion (Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)). Palmer removes only the Fourth Amendment privacy claim. It does not license searches meant to harass or to destroy property: a search done to punish a pretrial detainee is punishment Bell forbids, a rule or practice with no legitimate penological purpose fails Turner, and agency policy controls how searches are done and documented. Jails may visually strip-search arrestees who will enter the general population, even for minor offenses (Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012)). Florence decided the general-population case; it did not approve strip-searching everyone who passes through a holding cell. For an arrestee held briefly apart from the general population and awaiting release, the academy rule is individualized reasonable suspicion and strict adherence to agency policy. A visual strip search is not a physical body-cavity search, which is far more intrusive and, as general practice, is done only with a warrant or by medical staff under policy. Every search is done professionally, in private, with the least embarrassment the security purpose allows, and is recorded: who searched, why, what was found and where it went.
Prison walls do not strip people of all their rights, but rules may limit them. A prison rule affecting a constitutional right is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)). The core question is whether the rule has a rational connection to a legitimate interest such as security, order or rehabilitation; Turner does not require the least restrictive rule possible, and it is not strict scrutiny. A rule that limits mail between inmates at different facilities, to stop gang coordination, can pass; a rule that bans all religious reading for no stated security reason is unlikely to. Officers apply the facility's written rules as written and do not invent personal ones. Mail, phone and visit restrictions are imposed and lifted by the rule, and a restriction imposed to punish a detainee for complaining fails both Turner and Bell. Questioning a prisoner apart from the general population is not automatically custody for Miranda (Howes v. Fields), and an undercover officer posing as a cellmate need not give warnings (Illinois v. Perkins); but criminal questioning about a new crime belongs to the investigators who have criminal jurisdiction (§8.08).
Discipline carries due process. When prison discipline can take away good-time credit, the prisoner is entitled to advance written notice of the charge, an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence when that is consistent with institutional safety, and a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the decision (Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)). As academy practice, the hearing officer should not be the officer who wrote the charge, and the written report should say exactly what the inmate did, where and when, who saw it and what evidence exists. Institutional discipline and criminal prosecution are separate tracks. A shank found in a cell supports an institutional violation and also Possession of a Weapon by an Inmate (SAPC §38C.28); the officer documents and preserves the weapon with a chain of custody, and the criminal case goes to commissioned investigators or the agency with criminal jurisdiction (§8.08). Staff misconduct is handled the same way from the other side: a correctional officer accused of selling contraband faces agency discipline, COLE certification action and criminal prosecution where the law applies (§8.11).
Medical care is a constitutional duty, not a favour. Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs is cruel and unusual punishment (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)), and pretrial detainees are protected at least as much through due process. Deliberate indifference is more than an honest mistake about a diagnosis; it is knowing of an excessive risk and disregarding it (Farmer v. Brennan), which includes ignoring a known need, delaying care for no legitimate reason, or withholding treatment a doctor has ordered. A diabetic detainee who tells booking staff he needs insulin and begins to shake, a drunk arrestee with a head wound who cannot be roused, and an inmate whose prescribed medication is withheld as punishment are all serious medical needs. The officer's job is not to diagnose; it is to recognise distress, summon medical staff or emergency medical services at once, keep watching, and document what was seen and done. Custodial staff do not decide that someone is faking a medical emergency and walk away. When a person refuses treatment, staff record the refusal and keep the medical staff informed, because a refusal does not end the duty to watch for a worsening condition.
Suicide prevention is the custodial version of the same duty. The risk is highest around arrest and the first period of custody, after court bad news, after a loss, during withdrawal and in isolation. Professional practice is to screen at intake and whenever circumstances change; to take every statement of intent seriously; to remove items that could be used for self-harm from a person at risk; to place them where they can be watched under the facility's observation level and to make the checks that level requires, honestly logged; and to pass the information to every shift and every transport officer who will hold the person. An officer who knows a detainee said she would kill herself tonight and puts her alone in a cell with her shoelaces and belt, without telling anyone, has knowledge and disregard of an excessive risk (Farmer). Falsifying an observation log to show checks that never happened is Tampering with a Government Record (SAPC §39.02) and destroys the record that would have shown what really happened. If a person is found hanging or unresponsive, officers enter as soon as it is safe, cut the person down, begin aid and summon medical help; the scene and logs are then preserved for the investigation.
Contraband and escape law is in SAPC ch. 38C. Taking or attempting to take contraband into a correctional facility is a 3rd Degree felony for ordinary items (§38C.14) and a 2nd Degree felony for controlled substances (§38C.15) or weapons (§38C.16). Using a visitor, minor or unwitting person as a carrier is §38C.21; smuggling phones is §38C.22; flying a drone over a facility without authorization is §38C.26, whatever the intent; bribing a correctional officer is §38C.27; an inmate's improvised weapon is §38C.28; and an unauthorized pass during a visit is §38C.29. Escape is a Class A misdemeanor when held on a misdemeanor (§38C.01), a 3rd Degree felony on a felony charge (§38C.02), a 2nd Degree felony with force or threat against an officer (§38C.03) and a 1st Degree felony with a deadly weapon (§38C.04). Failing to return from furlough or work release is §38C.06. A custodian who negligently permits or intentionally aids an escape commits §38C.05, and any person who helps an escape commits Aiding Escape (§7.09). Assault on a correctional officer is §38C.17, aggravated assault §38C.18, a riot §38C.19, a threat §38C.20 and hostage taking §38C.23.
Escapes are the hardest edge of custodial authority (§8.07). Correctional staff may use the powers specifically authorized to prevent an escape or keep lawful custody; pursuit or recapture beyond the facility follows law, training and agency policy; and when general law-enforcement help is needed, the corrections agency notifies an agency with jurisdiction. Nothing in Act VIII grants statewide patrol authority. Force to prevent escape must still be reasonable. San Andreas law justifies force reasonably believed immediately necessary to prevent escape, but deadly force only where the officer reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury, or to prevent the escape of a person who poses such a threat (SAPC §9.09). That matches Tennessee v. Garner: deadly force may not be used to stop a fleeing person unless there is probable cause the person poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury, with a warning where feasible. An unarmed inmate on a misdemeanor charge running across a field is not a deadly-force case. Existing jail staff who held posts before the reform have a reasonable transition period to meet certification and registry requirements (§8.13).
Constitution and case law
The federal authorities this module's questions rely on, and the rule the academy takes from each.
Ready to sit it? Open your character's academy file from the COLE page.