IN THE MATTER OF JEHAN ABDUR-RAHEEM, APPELLANT, v. LOUIS MANN, AS
SUPERINTENDENT OF SHAWANGUNK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
85 N.Y.2d 113, 647 N.E.2d 1266, 623 N.Y.S.2d 758 (1995).
February 14, 1995
3 No. 1 (1995 NY Int. 022)
Decided February 14, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Robert Selcov, for Appellant.
Martin A. Hotvet, for Respondents.
TITONE, J.:
Petitioner brought this article 78 proceeding to challenge a prison
disciplinary determination that he was guilty of violating certain
inmate rules. The evidence on which the determination was based
consisted principally of information that had been provided to prison
authorities by confidential informants. The primary issue in this
appeal from the dismissal of petitioner's article 78 petition is
whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence even
though the hearing officer did not personally interview the
informants. We hold that a personal meeting between the hearing
officer and the confidential informants is not required and that the
informants' hearsay statements can constitute "substantial evidence"
as long as there are objective circumstances demonstrating the
informants' reliability and, based on those circumstances, the hearing
officer makes an independent finding that the informants' evidence is,
in fact, reliable.
I.
The charges in this case originated in the murder of an inmate named
Normaul Busjit. Following an in-house investigation, petitioner was
charged in a misbehavior report with breaching inmate rules
prohibiting assaults and violations of the Penal Law. The misbehavior
report, which was prepared by Corrections Lt. Annetts and served on
petitioner on June 9, 1992, stated:
Based on information provided by confidential sources, you * * *
are hereby charged, in conspiracy with others, with the assault on
inmate Normaul Busjit * * * , which occurred on May 4, 1992 in the
SNIPPETS:
SUPERINTENDENT OF SHAWANGUNK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Petitioner brought this article 78 proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary
The evidence on which the determination was based consisted principally of information that
The primary issue in this appeal from the dismissal of petitioner's article 78 petition is
We hold that a personal meeting between the hearing officer and the confidential informants
The charges in this case originated in the murder of an inmate named Normaul Busjit.
petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with breaching inmate rules prohibiting
Twelve inmates testified on petitioner's behalf, each stating that investigators had
Two additional inmate witnesses whom petitioner had identified declined to testify after
Among these arguments was the contention that the finding of guilt was defective because the
Rejecting petitioner's additional claims of procedural error, the court confirmed
It is beyond question that prison disciplinary determinations may be predicated on evidence
Further, it has been held that confidential information may be considered even though the
These tenets are consistent with the underlying premise that an inmate does not have a
Since the hearing officer in this case relied solely on the written material documenting the
While this Court has not expressly held as much, the lower courts of this State have long
r of Carter v Kelly, 159 AD2d 1006; Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 148 AD2d 779; Matter of Wynter v
Similarly, most of the federal courts that have considered the issue have held that it denies
Adoption of this principle in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings is supported by
The rule is derived from the selfevident premise that where the law requires the
This axiomatic principle is certainly applicable in this context, where the potential penalty
Similarly, it has also been held that the existence of a satisfactory "basis of knowledge"
This important channel of information would obviously be impaired if prison investigators
|
