Swafford v. McKune
263 P.3d 791
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Swafford, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility, was charged with lewd acts based on surveillance video in the visiting room on July 26, 2009.
- Disciplinary report alleged Swafford reached into a visitor's sleeve and fondled her breast; officers testified to the conduct observed on video.
- Swafford moved to dismiss the charges; disciplinary hearing began August 3, 2009; video request was denied, but he received a continuance to obtain video.
- Swafford requested the video or a summary thereof and sought to view the video during the hearing; he did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the hearing.
- Hearing officer found Swafford guilty of both charges; warden approved the decision; Secretary of Corrections affirmed one charge and disapproved the other; Swafford filed a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice | Swafford argues notice was insufficient to charge the specific conduct. | McKune contends the disciplinary report clearly identified the violations and underlying facts. | Notice adequate; disciplinary report clearly identified charges. |
| Impartiality of the hearing | Swafford claims the hearing officer was biased against him. | McKune asserts no bias; record shows fair and impartial handling. | Hearing conducted impartially; no demonstrated bias. |
| Opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence | Swafford asserts he was denied adequate opportunity to present documentary evidence and view video. | McKune argues Swafford had opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence; video viewing was governed by regulation. | Swafford afforded opportunity to present evidence; video viewing was not required, and no due process violation found. |
| Written findings and reasons for decision | Swafford contends the written findings did not adequately reflect the video and testimony. | McKune maintains a written decision with findings and rationale was provided. | Written findings and reasons provided; due process satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. McKune, 23 Kan. App. 2d 803 (1997) (administrative flexibility in prison discipline)
- Sammons v. Simmons, 267 Kan. 155 (1999) (sufficiency of evidence standard in disciplinary proceedings)
- Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620 (2001) (due process standards in prison disciplinary cases)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process in prison disciplinary proceedings; basic safeguards)
- Shepherd v. Davies, 14 Kan. App. 2d 333 (1990) (inmate's right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence)
- Washington v. Roberts, 37 Kan. App. 2d 237 (2007) (due process in disciplinary proceedings; evidentiary considerations)
- Howard v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808 (10th Cir. 2007) (exculpatory video evidence and due process considerations)