NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0508-07T20508-07T2
R.R.,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________
Submitted October 2, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges Stern, Payne and Waugh.
On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
R.R., appellant pro se.
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and Keith S. Massey, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PAYNE, J.A.D.
R.R., who was civilly committed to the State's Special Treatment Unit (STU) as a sexually violent predator, as defined by N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26, following service of the maximum term of a sentence imposed for kidnapping and other crimes, appeals from the denial by the Department of Corrections of his request for marital privacy and conjugal visitation. On appeal, he raises the following arguments in a pro se brief:
POINT I
APPELLANT ARGUES THAT THE VISITATION RULES, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES PROMULGATED BY THE DOC AT THE SPECIAL TREATMENT UNITS ARE EXCESSIVELY RESTRICTIVE WITHIN A CIVIL COMMITMENT FACILITY AND VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO MARITAL PRIVACY WITH HIS LAWFUL SPOUSE.
POINT II
APPELLANT ARGUES THAT A STATE AGENCY'S RELIANCE ON A CIVIL STATUTE TO DISENFRANCHISE HIM FROM HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATES HIS 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th 13th and 14th AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
POINT III
APPELLANT ARGUES THAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO MARITAL PRIVACY AND FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT INTRUSION.
Following our review of R.R.'s arguments in light of the record in the matter and applicable legal precedent, we affirm.
I.
The record on appeal discloses that, after R.R. had been temporarily committed to the STU and while he was awaiting a final adjudication on the State's commitment petition, he filed a marriage application with the STU administration, which was subsequently granted. A marriage between R.R. and L.A. took place on September 17, 2004.
On May 20, 2005, R.R. requested that the Department of Corrections (DOC) grant him "marital privacy and conjugal visitation." That request was denied as unauthorized, as were requests in 2006 and 2007. This appeal followed.
II.
On appeal, R.R. first challenges the State's failure to adopt regulations explicitly governing visitation at the STU, and the alleged determination by the Commissioner of the DOC to "merely clone . . . pre-existing prison-penal visitation rules, regulations, and policies set forth in the NJ Administrative Code." In this regard, R.R. notes that relevant provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38, require that the rules of conduct applicable to persons subject to involuntary commitment as sexually violent predators "shall be established by regulation promulgated jointly by the Commissioner of Human Services and the Commissioner of Corrections in consultation with the Attorney General." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.34(d). That statute further provides:
The regulations promulgated under this subsection shall take into consideration the rights of patients as set forth in [N.J.S.A. 30:4-24.2, governing rights of the mentally ill, tuberculous, and mentally retarded], but shall specifically address the differing needs and specific characteristics of, and treatment protocols relating to, sexually violent predators. In developing these regulations, the commissioners shall give due regard to security concerns and safety of residents, treatment staff, custodial personnel and others in and about the facility.
[Ibid.]
R.R. interprets this statute as expressing the Legislature's intent that "the DOC [not] merely use a civil statute as a tool to create another prison-penal institution under the fa