MICHAEL LASANE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1870-09T2

MICHAEL LASANE,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

 
Respondent.

_________________________________________________

June 20, 2011

Submitted February 28, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Kestin and Newman.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Michael Lasane, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Megan J. Harris, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Michael Lasane, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, appeals from a final disciplinary determination adjudicating a violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)*.011, prohibiting "possession or exhibition of anything related to a security threat group"; and imposing a sanction consisting of ten days of detention, 180 days of administrative segregation, and a 180-day loss of commutation time. We affirm.

The charge arose when a corrections officer saw Lasane hand an envelope to inmate Wanger. According to Lasane, he and Wanger were attending a class. Wanger placed a manila envelope on a table and left the room. He returned a short while later and, from the entrance to the room, asked Lasane to hand him the envelope. The corrections officer who witnessed the exchange inspected the envelope and, according to the disciplinary report he filed, found it to contain an "entire copy of a 'Latin Kings Manifesto.'"

The corrections officer believed the document constituted materials relating to a security threat group; and he filed the disciplinary report on that basis. A "security threat group" is "a group of inmates possessing common characteristics, interests and goals which serve to distinguish the inmates from other inmates or groups of inmates and which, as a discrete entity, poses a threat to the safety of staff, other inmates or the community and to the orderly operation of the correctional facility." N.J.A.C. 10A:1-2.2.

Following a hearing on the charge contained in the disciplinary report, the hearing officer sustained the charge and imposed the sanction. In an internal appeal, the Assistant Superintendent upheld that disciplinary decision.

Lasane advances two arguments on this appeal: that "the hearing officer's finding of guilt was not supported by sufficient evidence and was arbitrary and capricious;" and that "the hearing officer violated [Lasane's] right to due process by denying his request to present witnesses at . . . [the] hearing." Even though the latter argument may be raised for the first time on appeal (the record contains no indication that Lasane requested the opportunity to present witnesses), we dispose of it on its merits.

We reject both proffered arguments for the same reason. The security needs of the State prison system require that the *.011 disciplinary provision that prohibits "possession or exhibition of anything related to a security threat group" be seen to embody a strict liability standard. It is possession or exhibition of the material that is the violation. If the material is in a container or otherwise concealed from plain view, knowledge of the contents by the person possessing it is immaterial. Were prison authorities required to establish that the inmate charged either produced the material or had knowledge of the contents, they would be less able than they should be to control the environment and protect it from pernicious or threatening influences.

Thus, the finding that gives rise to this appeal must be sustained because Lasane has acknowledged throughout that he possessed the material, however briefly, and that he passed it on to another. The testimony of Wanger or anyone else regarding the circumstances would have had no capacity to overcome the fact of possession that was the basis for the result reached.

Affirmed.