JESSE LACEY VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS(NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)
A-1414-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 14, 2017Background
- On October 8, 2015 an anonymous note alleged inmate Jesse Lacey "has a shank." A search of Lacey's secured wall locker produced a homemade shank concealed in a sock.
- Lacey was charged under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a) for possession/introduction of a weapon (.202 offense).
- Lacey denied ownership, requested an investigation, a polygraph, and the opportunity to confront the reporting officer; the hearing officer (HO) denied the polygraph but allowed confrontation.
- At the disciplinary hearing SCO Cavagnaro testified and the HO credited the officer’s report that the shank was found in Lacey’s secured locker; Lacey did not call additional witnesses.
- The HO found Lacey guilty and imposed sanctions: time served in detention, 180 days administrative segregation, and 180 days loss of commutation time.
- The Associate Administrator affirmed the HO’s findings and sanctions; Lacey appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession of a weapon | Lacey: shank not his; evidence insufficient | DOC: shank was found concealed in a sock in Lacey's secured locker — direct and circumstantial evidence of possession | Held: Substantial credible evidence supports the guilty finding |
| Denial of polygraph; procedural fairness | Lacey: denial of polygraph compromised fairness | DOC: polygraph discretionary; no serious credibility question and physical recovery of contraband obviated need | Held: Denial proper under regulation; no fundamental unfairness |
| Right to confront witnesses / hearing procedures | Lacey: sought to confront and present defense; alleged procedural violations | DOC: Lacey was given notice, could confront and did confront SCO; no denial of other due-process rights shown | Held: Procedural protections under Avant/McDonald satisfied |
| Excessiveness of sanctions | Lacey: sanction excessive for first offense and positive treatment record | DOC: sanctions within regulatory authority and supported by findings | Held: Sanctions upheld as not arbitrary or capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8 (1994) (standard for reviewing administrative agency decisions)
- Johnson v. Dep't of Corr., 375 N.J. Super. 347 (App. Div. 2005) (courts defer to agency findings supported by substantial credible evidence)
- Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975) (procedural due-process protections for prison disciplinary hearings)
- McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995) (reaffirming procedural protections for inmates)
- Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995) (discussion of prisoner administrative hearing protections)
- Figueroa v. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div. 2010) (applying deferential review to DOC disciplinary findings)
- Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div. 2005) (polygraph requests are discretionary; grant when serious credibility question exists)
- In re Application of Hackensack Water Co., 41 N.J. Super. 408 (App. Div. 1956) (definition of substantial evidence)
- In re Vineland Chem. Co., 243 N.J. Super. 285 (App. Div. 1990) (agency choice governs when record supports multiple conclusions)
- Bowden v. Bayside State Prison, 268 N.J. Super. 301 (App. Div. 1993) (burden on appellant to show agency action was arbitrary or capricious)