D.G. v Rodriguez

Holding The court annulled the disciplinary determination and ordered the expungement of the record, finding that the possession of cellular phones does not meet the HALT Act’s statutory requirements for extended segregated confinement. The court held that the hearing officer’s reliance on speculative testimony and a policy of ‘inherency’ rather than specific factual findings violated the statute and fundamental fairness.

The court’s words

hearing officers have no authority to disregard the HALT Act’s statutory limitations and requirements by substituting their own judgment and imposing penalties beyond those which the law allows

89 Misc 3d 988, at the official text

the possession of contraband, specifically cellular telephones, is not remotely within the general category of offenses outlined in Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) (A)-(G)

89 Misc 3d 988, at the official text

the acts of petitioner, specifically, the possession of multiple cellular phones, is not, absent more specific testimony, by its nature, heinous nor destructive as contemplated by the legislature

89 Misc 3d 988, at the official text

the finding that he is guilty of the tier III violation, the finding that the offense was a heinous and destructive act as defined in the HALT Act, and the resultant penalty must be expunged from his disciplinary record

89 Misc 3d 988, at the official text