Preview:

a3073-05.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3073-05T13073-05T1
DAVID BATTLE,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Submitted November 8, 2006 - Decided December 14, 2006
Before Judges Holston, Jr. and Grall.
On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections.
David Battle, appellant pro se.
Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Lisa A. Puglisi, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant, David Battle, appeals the January 14, 2006 disposition of disciplinary decision of the Department of
Corrections (DOC), upholding the January 6, 2006 decision of the hearing officer (HO). This decision found appellant
guilty of committing prohibited act *.009, misuse or possession of electronic equipment not authorized for use or
retention by an inmate such as, but not limited to, a cellular telephone, other communication device and/or
computer and/or related device and peripheral. Fifteen days detention, 365 days administrative segregation, 365
days loss of commutation time, and 365 days loss of contact visits were imposed as sanctions. We affirm the
adjudication of guilt but remand for reconsideration of sanctions.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3073-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:43:20 PM]




a3073-05.opn.html
Appellant is an inmate (IM) currently incarcerated at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton. On December 22, 2005,
a wing search was conducted on the unit where appellant is housed. Senior Correction Officer (SCO) Russo
conducted a search of appellant's cell, where he discovered on the floor a small dark colored power supply unit with
a two to three foot black cord and plug. The brand name "Seimens," the model Astec DA2-3101US-(L), and serial
number B419 R7 0332 C8 appeared on the device. SCO Russo suspected that the power supply unit was a cellular
telephone charger, which inmates are prohibited from possessing. As a result, the charger was seized,
photographed and secured. Appellant was charged with disciplinary infraction *.009.
On December 23, 2005, Sergeant (Sgt.) Daniels served appellant with the disciplinary charge. Appellant plead not
guilty. He admitted possession of the item but claimed that the charger was an adapter to a beard and mustache
trimmer. Appellant contended that SCO Maze had previously seized the charger and returned it to him. Appellant
requested a witness statement from SCO Maze. SCO Maze confirmed that "[he] did take the item earlier in the year
but gave it back to the I/M."
A court line adjudication on the charge was adjourned several times so that further investigation into the use
of the charger could be conducted. In conducting further investigation, Sgt. Daniels found "on line" the identical
charger, based on the model displayed on the charger. The internet website print-outs identify this charger as a
"wall unit travel charger for [] cellular phone [use]," and as a "power supply for telephone and desktop charger." The
unit is not identified for use as a mustache or beard trimmer charger. At court line, appellant did not produce the
trimmer to which he claimed the charger fit.
On January 6, 2006, the HO adjudicated appellant guilty of the charge. The HO found substantial evidence to
support the disciplinary charge, based on the reports of SCO Russo and Sgt. Daniels, the photograph of the charger,
and the website reports admitted into evidence, which demonstrated the charger was designed to charge cellular
telephones.
On January 7, 2006, appellant appealed the decision to the Administrator of the prison. On January 14, 2006, the
assistant superintendent (AS) upheld the guilty finding and sanctions.
I.
Appellant contends that the HO was biased, that the investigation was unauthorized, and that the finding was not
supported by substantial credible evidence. These contentions are without merit.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3073-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:43:20 PM]




a3073-05.opn.html
Appellant claims that his due process rights were violated because the investigating sergeant conducted an
unsolicited investigation. An investigating officer is authorized, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.5, to conduct an
investigation to determine whether the charge has merit. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.5(e) states, "the investigator shall
thoroughly investigate the incident." Sgt. Daniels investigated the incident based upon appellant's claim that the
charger was for an electric beard trimmer. In order to investigate whether the charger was intended for use with a
beard trimmer, Sgt. Daniels conducted "on line" research regarding the designed uses for the charger.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.5(g), the investigator may include in his investigative report his "conclusions of what in
fact happened" as a result of his investigation. Sgt. Daniels included in his investigation report his conclusion that
based on his on line investigation of the uses for the charger that the charger was for a cell phone, not a beard
trimmer. We are satisfied this research was entirely appropriate and necessary to the adjudication of the charge.
Appellant contends that the Department's Special Investigations Division (SID) should have conducted the
investigation, not the investigating officer. In some instances, the DOC may forward a matter to SID. However, this
determination is within the DOC's discretion. We are satisfied, that the investigation was appropriate and consistent
with N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.5.
"Ordinarily, an appellate court will reverse the decision of the administrative agency only if it is arbitrary, capricious
or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway
State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). As explained in In re Application of Hackensack Water Co., 41 N.J. Super.
408, 418 (App. Div. 1956), substantial evidence is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion."
Here, the disciplinary charge was supported by the officers' reports, appellant's admission that the charger was his,
and Sgt. Daniels' investigation showing that the charger's use was for a cell phone, not a beard trimmer. Although
appellant claimed that the charger was for his beard trimmer, he failed to produce the trimmer to which he claimed
the charger fit. The HO found that an identical charger listed on the internet was "specific for the charging of
electronic equipment including cell phones." Based on the foregoing, we are satisfied that there was substantial
credible evidence to support the charge and appellant's adjudication of guilt.
II.
A decision as to appropriate sanctions for a disciplinary violation made by a HO must be reasonable and guided by
the concept of fundamental fairness. Ramirez v. Dep't Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 24 (App. Div. 2005). N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3073-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:43:20 PM]




a3073-05.opn.html
9.17(a) states that disciplinary sanctions may be individualized. Among the factors that should be considered are
the "setting and circumstances of the prohibited behavior." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.17(a)2.
Appellant claims that earlier in the year SCO Maze had found the charger and returned it to him. Appellant further
contends that because SCO Maze returned the item to him he believed the item was not contraband. SCO Maze
confirmed that he had previously found the item and returned it to appellant, in a statement made to Sgt. Daniels.
The HO did not consider that circumstance as a mitigating factor. The HO imposed 15 days detention, 365 days
administrative segregation, 365 days loss of commutation credit, and 365 days loss of contact visits, the maximum
allowed under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1 for an asterisk offense, and the sanction was affirmed by the AS on administrative
appeal.
We are satisfied that the AS's failure to take this "circumstance[] of the prohibited behavior" into consideration
constituted a mistaken exercise of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the DOC's decision upholding the HO's
adjudication of guilt but remand the matter to the AS to reconsider the sanctions imposed, so that the sanctions
imposed consider the "circumstances of the prohibited behavior."
Affirmed as to conviction; remanded for reconsideration of sanctions.
(continued)
(continued)
7
A-3073-05T1
December 14, 2006
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3073-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:43:20 PM]




a3073-05.opn.html
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3073-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:43:20 PM]

Download a3073-05.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law