On appeal from a Final Decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 11, 2007
Remanded Resubmitted December 31, 2007
Before Judges Wefing and Parker.
Jeffrey Wilson is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections, who is currently incarcerated at Riverfront State Prison. He has appealed from a final decision of the Department refusing to return to him a remote control device used in connection with an Aiwa stereo system. In an unpublished opinion issued on September 28, 2007, we remanded this matter to the Department to permit it to supplement the record within thirty days with a statement of reasons why such a remote control device posed such a hazard that it should be confiscated. We retained jurisdiction. Wilson v. Dep't of Corrections, No. A-5973-05T3 (App. Div. Sept. 28, 2007).
The Department has since supplemented the record with a letter dated October 23, 2007, from Dr. R. David Parrish, Administrator of Riverfront State Prison. In his letter, Dr. Parrish noted the potential for modification of electronic devices to circumvent the electronic security controls within the prison. He also noted the potential for modification of such devices to create explosive devices. He further noted that for that reason, inmates at Riverfront State Prison are not permitted to have possession of individual remote control devices to operate televisions within their cells. Having had the opportunity to consider the record in its supplemented state, we now affirm. A final decision of an administrative body such as the Department of Corrections should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998). In that case, the Supreme Court directed that four questions should be considered when reviewing a final determination such as that at issue here.
(1) whether the agency's decision offends the State or Federal Constitution; (2) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies; (3) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (4) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.
[Ibid. (quoting George Harms Constr. Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Author., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994)).]
We are satisfied that viewed within that analytical framework, the decision of the Department of Corrections should be affirmed.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...