MICHAEL VANCE VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)
A-4553-18
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Jul 21, 2021Background
- While incarcerated at South Woods, corrections staff found a clear plastic bag containing a green leafy substance wrapped in tissue inside an altered sewn pocket of Vance's pants during a non-routine strip search.
- A special investigator used a NARK II field reagent test that yielded a presumptive positive for synthetic cannabinoids; Vance was charged with a *.203 prohibited act and found guilty by a hearing officer.
- Sanctions included 180 days administrative segregation, loss of commutation time, permanent loss of contact visits, and other penalties.
- Vance requested a confirmatory laboratory test and color photos of the substance; the Department denied those requests and the hearing officer relied on the field test and the corrections officer’s report.
- The Appellate Division held that the Department relied on a field test of unproved reliability, denied a confirmatory test without explanation, and that the asserted corroborating facts (hidden pocket, presence in a restricted area) did not supply substantial credible evidence to cure that defect; the guilty finding was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance on a single field test and denial of confirmatory testing | Vance: field test is presumptive/unreliable; denial of confirmatory lab test denied due process | DOC: Blanchard is distinguishable; field test plus reports supplied sufficient proof | Reversed — reliance on unproven field test without permitting confirmatory testing was arbitrary; DOC offered no reason for refusal |
| Whether corroborating facts (hidden pocket, unauthorized area) suffice | Vance: those facts do not prove synthetic cannabinoid possession; tobacco or other contraband plausible | DOC: hidden pocket and being in restricted area corroborate possession | Court: corroborating facts insufficient to overcome the unreliable field-test evidence; harmless-error not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231 (App. Div. 2019) (reversing *.203 finding where agency relied on a single positive field test and denied confirmatory laboratory testing)
- State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482 (2018) (scientific test admissibility requires showing general acceptance of technique)
- Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995) (harmless-error analysis applies to denial of procedural rights)
- In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (2007) (agency findings must be supported by substantial credible evidence)
- Cinque v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 261 N.J. Super. 242 (App. Div. 1993) (mootness inquiry considers potential for collateral consequences)