Case Title: Daye v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Daye v. State (99-133); 171 Vt. 475; 769 A.2d 630 

[Filed 29-Dec-2000]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 99-133

Kathleen Daye, Kade Barre, 	                 Supreme Court
Fred Lee, Niholas Bania, 
Darla Lawton and Vermont Cure	                 On Appeal from
     	                                         Washington Superior Court
     v.	

State of Vermont	                         March Term, 2000
John Gorczyk, Commissioner
Department of Corrections

David A. Jenkins, J.

James A. Dumont of Keiner & Dumont PC, Middlebury, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Marie J. Salem, Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Defendants-Appellees.

Robert Appel, Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate Attorney, for 
  Amicus Curiae Office of Defender General.

PRESENT: Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Suntag, D.J., Specially 
         Assigned

       JOHNSON, J.   Plaintiffs Vermont CURE and four of its members appeal
  from a superior  court judgment dismissing their complaint against
  defendants the State of Vermont and John  Gorczyk,  Commissioner of the
  Vermont Department of Corrections.  Plaintiffs contend: (1) the  transfer
  of Vermont inmates to out-of-state correctional facilities violates the
  Interstate Corrections  Compact, 28 V.S.A. §§ 1601-1621, and exceeds the
  Commissioner's statutory authority; (2) the  transfer of Vermont inmates to
  out-of-state facilities violates Chapter II, § 64 of the Vermont 

 

  Constitution; and (3) the court erred in concluding that plaintiffs lacked
  standing to assert the  statutory and constitutional claims.  We affirm. 

       Plaintiffs are members of Vermont CURE, an organization whose
  self-described mission is to  meet with and advocate on behalf of Vermont
  prison inmates.  They claim to have close personal,  religious, or
  mentoring relationships with one or more inmates, and to have organized and
  attended  numerous meetings with inmates within Vermont correctional
  facilities.  In July 1998, plaintiffs  instituted this action against
  defendants, alleging that the Commissioner had entered into contracts  with
  Monmouth County, New Jersey and the State of Virginia for the transfer of
  Vermont inmates in  contravention of the Interstate Corrections Compact and
  provisions of the Vermont and United States  Constitutions.

       Specifically, plaintiffs alleged as follows: that the Commissioner was
  not authorized to enter  into the contract with Monmouth County because the
  Interstate Corrections Compact (Compact)  authorizes agreements for the
  transfer of prisoners only with member "states;" that the contract with 
  Virginia violated the Compact by delegating to Virginia officials the
  authority to determine inmate  assignments; that the out-of-state
  transfers, and the visitation policies of Virginia and Monmouth  County,
  prevented plaintiffs from conducting group meetings with Vermont inmates,
  in violation of  the Compact, as well as plaintiffs' constitutional rights
  of free speech, association, and assembly;  and, finally, that the transfer
  of Vermont inmates to out-of-state correctional facilities violated 
  Chapter II, § 64 of the Vermont Constitution, which calls for "visible
  punishments" of persons  convicted of crimes.

       The State moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the
  out-of-state transfer policy and  implementing contracts fully complied
  with statutory and constitutional law, and further that 

 

  plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the claims.  The trial court granted
  the motion, ruling that  plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the
  violations of the Compact and the Vermont Constitution, and  that neither
  the transfers per se, nor the visitation policies of the out-of-state
  facilities, violated  plaintiffs' constitutional rights of speech,
  assembly, or association.   This appeal followed.

       Plaintiffs contend on appeal:  (1) that the court erred in concluding
  they lacked standing, and  (2) that the out-of-state transfers violated
  both the Compact and the Vermont Constitution. (FN1)   On the standing
  issue, plaintiffs assert that they fall within the "zone of interests"
  protected by the  Compact.  Allen v. Wright,