STEPHEN PERRY v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

(NOTE: The status of this decision is published.)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1542-05T51542-05T5

STEPHEN PERRY,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted January 17, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Lisa.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Stephen Perry, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dewan N. Arefin, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Stephen Perry, a New Jersey State Prison inmate, appeals from a final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) adjudicating him guilty of committing prohibited act *.204, use of any prohibited substances such as drugs, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not prescribed for the inmate by the medical or dental staff. See N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). The sanctions imposed were 10 days of detention, 180 days of administrative segregation, 180 days of loss of commutation time, permanent loss of contact visits, and 365 days of urine monitoring. Appellant argues that the DOC lacked probable cause to order a urine sample from him, and that the adjudication of guilt was arbitrary and capricious and deprived him of due process of law. We reject these arguments and affirm.

During a routine search of appellant's cell, a corrections officer discovered three prescription pills, tightly wrapped in plastic and concealed within appellant's mattress. Appellant admitted he did not have a prescription for the pills. The pills were confiscated. Lieutenant Timothy P. Clark ordered appellant to submit to a urinalysis test. The test was positive for opiates.

The thrust of appellant's argument, both in the administrative proceedings and before us, is that the confiscated pills did not test positive for any controlled dangerous substance, and therefore probable cause to order the urinalysis test was lacking. Thus, appellant contends the proceedings were impermissibly tainted because he was denied due process. We do not agree.

A custody staff member above the rank of sergeant is authorized to order urine testing of an inmate when, based upon the officer's education and experience, the officer believes "there is a reasonable factual basis to suspect the inmate of using or possessing a non-alcoholic prohibited substance." N.J.A.C. 10A:3-5.10(b)6. The facts here provided Clark with the requisite probable cause. It is of no moment that the prescription pills were not controlled dangerous substances. Inmates are not permitted to possess prescription pills without a valid prescription, which was admittedly the case.

We have reviewed the record and we are satisfied that the September 22, 2005 final decision of the DOC is supported by substantial evidence. See McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 195 (1995); N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a). We will not interfere with final administrative decisions that are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We are further satisfied from our review of the record that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with all applicable due process requirements. See Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Appellant's arguments that he was deprived of his due process rights lack sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

 

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-1542-05T5

February 1, 2007