Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rimkis v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


February 27, 2007

STEVEN RIMKIS, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections, #789555A.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 14, 2007

Before Judges Coburn and Axelrad.

Steven Rimkis appeals from a final administrative decision of the Department of Corrections, which imposed disciplinary sanctions, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1, for possession or introduction of a weapon, prohibited act *.202. We affirm.

During a routine search of Rimkis's cell at Bayside State Prison, a corrections officer found an altered razor blade in an inmate cup covered with clothing inside Rimkis's locked footlocker. The razor blade was attached to a handle and fashioned into a weapon.

Rimkis was duly served with notice and pled not guilty. At the hearing, he said he leaves his locker unlocked, implying that someone else must have placed the weapon in the locker while he was asleep. But the locker was locked when the search began and the weapon was found in the locker only after it was opened in the officer's presence.

Rimkis argues that the decision violated his due process rights because the officer had not indicated that others shared the cell. But the decision found that immaterial, and concluded that Rimkis's possession was shown by the presence of the weapon in his locked locker. When an administrative decision is supported, as here, by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), we are obliged to affirm.

Next, Rimkis argues that the prison authorities violated his right to due process by denying his request for a polygraph, but since he was not entitled to such a test, Johnson v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrs., 298 N.J. Super. 79, 83 (App. Div. 1997), Ramirez v. Dep't of Corrs., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23-24 (App. Div. 2005), this argument provides no basis for reversal.

Rimkis's remaining arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

20070227

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.