The WRAP, a full-body restraint device initially designed as a safer alternative for erratic individuals, has become a focal point of controversy due to its use by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during deportations. An extensive investigation by The Associated Press reveals that ICE officers are deploying the device under circumstances far below the manufacturer’s recommendations, leading to allegations of intimidation and punishment, and raising significant human rights concerns.
For some immigrants facing deportation, the journey out of the U.S. has been made even more harrowing by the use of a black-and-yellow full-body restraint device known as the WRAP. This device, increasingly utilized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers on deportation flights, has drawn sharp criticism and ignited a vital conversation about the ethics of force within immigration enforcement. An investigation by The Associated Press has brought to light multiple instances of its deployment, prompting internal concerns and a growing number of federal lawsuits.
What is the WRAP? Unpacking the Device’s Origins
The WRAP device made its debut in law enforcement in the late 1990s. It was presented as a humane alternative to “hog-tying,” a practice of tying a subject’s hands and feet together that had been linked to positional asphyxia and in-custody deaths. The device was engineered to restrain erratic individuals, prevent them from remaining prone, and ultimately reduce fatalities caused by traditional restraints.
Manufactured by Safe Restraints Inc., the WRAP quickly gained traction, first in California jails and now in over 1,800 departments and facilities nationwide, with more than 10,000 devices sold. Charles Hammond, CEO of Safe Restraints Inc., confirmed that a modified version was developed specifically for ICE. This version features a front ring for cuffed hands, allowing limited use for eating and drinking, and “soft elbow cuffs” at the back to ensure circulation while preventing assaults.
Since late 2015, during the Obama administration, ICE‘s parent agency, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has spent $268,523 on these devices. Government purchasing records indicate that the two Trump administrations were responsible for approximately 91% of this expenditure. Despite requests from the AP, ICE has not disclosed records documenting the frequency of the WRAP‘s use.
The AP’s Startling Findings: A Pattern of Concern
The AP’s investigation uncovered multiple firsthand accounts and testimonies regarding the WRAP‘s use:
- Five individuals reported being restrained in the device for hours on ICE deportation flights since 2020.
- Witnesses and family members in four countries described its use on at least seven other people this year.
- The investigation revealed that ICE has continued using the device despite internal concerns raised in a 2023 report by the civil rights division of DHS.
- A key concern stems from reports of deaths involving the WRAP by local law enforcement; the AP identified a dozen fatal cases in the last decade where autopsies cited “restraint” as a contributing factor.
- A growing number of federal lawsuits challenge the device’s usage, likening improper deployment to punishment or even torture.
- Advocates are particularly worried that ICE is not tracking the WRAP‘s use as required by federal law for incidents involving force, making it challenging to determine the exact number of individuals subjected to it.
Crucially, the investigation found a significant disparity between the manufacturer’s intended use and ICE‘s deployment practices. While Safe Restraints Inc. designed the device as a “lifesaver” for officers confronting physically aggressive or self-harming individuals, ICE officials appear to have a much lower threshold. Detainees interviewed by the AP recounted being placed in the WRAP after already being shackled, often for expressing fear of deportation, asking for legal counsel, or for other forms of perceived non-compliance, suggesting it was used for intimidation or punishment.
Official Stance vs. Reality: ICE and DHS Speak Out (and Remain Silent)
When confronted with detailed questions regarding the WRAP‘s use and their specific policies, both ICE and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security declined to provide answers or a copy of their official policy. However, Tricia McLaughlin, DHS‘ spokesperson, offered a general statement via email, asserting that “the use of restraints on detainees during deportation flights has been long standing, standard ICE protocol and an essential measure to ensure the safety and well-being of both detainees and the officers/agents accompanying them.”
McLaughlin added that their practices “align with those followed by other relevant authorities and is fully in line with established legal standards.” Yet, the agency refused to specify which authorities or to elaborate on its practices, leaving critical questions unanswered and transparency elusive.
The Broader Implications: Human Rights, Accountability, and the Future of Restraints
The controversy surrounding ICE‘s use of the WRAP extends beyond individual incidents, touching upon fundamental questions of human rights, accountability, and the permissible limits of force within law enforcement. The device, designed to prevent harm, is now central to allegations of distress and abuse during a vulnerable moment for immigrants.
The lack of transparency from ICE and DHS regarding deployment protocols and usage data exacerbates concerns from civil rights advocates. Without proper tracking, it becomes nearly impossible to ensure accountability for potential misuse or to evaluate the actual impact of such restraints on detainees’ well-being. This ongoing investigation by The Associated Press underscores the urgent need for clarity and oversight regarding the use of advanced restraint devices in immigration enforcement, demanding a re-evaluation of current practices to align with both legal standards and humanitarian principles.
