220 A.3d 488
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2019Background
- During a cell-property search, corrections staff found a white powder wrapped in paper inside a paperback book belonging to Kevin Blanchard; a Sirchie reagent field test indicated cocaine.
- A senior investigator wrote the powder was being sent to the State Police Forensic Laboratory for confirmation, but no confirmatory lab report appears in the record.
- Blanchard produced negative urine tests taken before and after the seizure; strip and cell searches produced no other contraband; Blanchard said the powder was coffee sweetener and asked for lab testing.
- A hearing officer found Blanchard guilty of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(o)(1) (possession of prohibited substances) solely on the field-test result; the Assistant Superintendent affirmed the sanction (loss of commutation, recreation, and segregation) without explaining refusal to order confirmatory testing.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded, holding the Department acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in denying confirmatory laboratory testing given (1) limitations of reagent field tests, (2) lack of corroborating evidence, (3) the Department’s routine confirmatory-testing practice for specimens, and (4) absence of any reasoned explanation for denial.
- The court remanded for a new disciplinary hearing only if the Department preserved the powder and submits it for confirmatory laboratory analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a confirmatory lab test rendered the proceeding unfair | Blanchard: field test unreliable; requested confirmatory test; denial deprived him of ability to present exculpatory evidence | Dept.: field test is substantial credible evidence; confirmatory-testing rule applies only to bodily specimens (urine) | Denial was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable under the circumstances; confirmatory testing required to assure fundamental fairness |
| Whether the field reagent test alone suffices as substantial evidence of guilt | Blanchard: reagent tests can produce false positives; no training or reliability shown | Dept.: field test result is probative and was sufficient for the hearing officer | Court did not hold field test inadequate in all cases; but here, given lack of corroboration and unproven reliability, reliance on it alone was unfair |
| Whether agency regulations required a confirmatory laboratory test of seized contraband | Blanchard: Department policy and practice compels confirmation; he was entitled to testing | Dept.: regulation requiring confirmation applies only to specimens (e.g., urine), not seized materials | Court assumed regs do not plainly compel testing of contraband but found the Department’s routine confirmatory regime supports requiring testing here |
| Whether the decisionmaker’s failure to explain denial violated procedural fairness | Blanchard: no reasoned explanation for denying lab test | Dept.: no substantive justification offered | Court held absence of any reasoned explanation compounded arbitrariness; decisionmaker must state reasons when denying requests that affect fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (N.J. 1980) (standard for disturbing agency adjudications)
- Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (N.J. 1975) (prisoners’ procedural rights in disciplinary hearings)
- In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (N.J. 2007) (framework for reviewing agency action)
- Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div. 2005) (when creation of forensic evidence may be required for fairness)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) ("some evidence" standard for federal due process in prison disciplinary revocations)
- State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482 (N.J. 2018) (proponent of scientific testing bears burden to establish general acceptance)
- Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div. 2010) (definition of substantial evidence in corrections context)
- Balagun v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 361 N.J. Super. 199 (App. Div. 2003) (agency must provide reasoned explanation of findings)