Title: King v. Gorczyk

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

King v. Gorczyk (2002-180); 175 Vt. 220; 825 A.2d 16

2003 VT 34

[Filed 28-Mar-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 34

                                No. 2002-180

  Mark W. King	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Franklin Superior Court

  John Gorczyk, Commissioner,	                 October Term, 2002
  Department of Corrections  

  David A. Jenkins, J.

  Mark W. King, Pro Se, Swanton, Plaintiff-Appellant.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Douglas R. Marden,
    Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, (FN1) Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.  Plaintiff Mark W. King, an inmate of the North
  West Correctional Facility ("NWCF") in Swanton, appeals from the superior
  court's denial of his cross-motion for summary judgment and grant of
  summary judgment in favor of defendant, commissioner of the Vermont
  Department of Corrections ("DOC"), dismissing plaintiff's claims contesting
  the propriety of the random drug test he underwent, the analysis and
  results of that drug test, and plaintiff's subsequent conviction for a
  disciplinary rule violation based on that drug test.  We affirm.  
   
       ¶  2.  Plaintiff is currently committed to the custody and control
  of the DOC based on a charge of second-degree murder.  On the morning of
  July 11, 2000, plaintiff was selected for a random drug test and submitted
  a urine sample to a NWCF correctional officer for testing.  An initial
  on-site test of plaintiff's sample indicated the presence of
  delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active chemical in marijuana,
  otherwise known as THC.  Plaintiff's urine sample was then sealed and sent
  to the Vermont Department of Health Laboratory (the "Lab").  The Lab
  received plaintiff's sample on July 12, 2000.

       ¶  3.  Random drug testing is governed by DOC policy 367 and described
  in guidelines set forth in policy directive 367.01.  In accordance with
  policy directive 367.01, the Lab conducted two tests on plaintiff's urine
  sample, a screening test followed by a confirming test, both utilizing
  "technologies having a 90% . . . reliability rating or any testing process
  approved by the federal courts for criminal prosecution."  On July 18,
  2000, the Lab performed the screening test, which confirmed the presence of
  THC in plaintiff's urine sample.  Two days later, the Lab performed the
  confirmation test, which again demonstrated that plaintiff's urine sample
  contained THC.  The Lab reported these positive test results to the DOC on
  July 20, 2000. 
   
       ¶  4.  As a result of testing positive for THC, on August 2, 2000,
  plaintiff was charged with violating DOC disciplinary rule Major B#20
  ("DR"). (FN2)  At a disciplinary hearing held on August 8, 2000, plaintiff
  was convicted of violating the DR by a preponderance of the evidence.  The
  hearing officer based plaintiff's conviction on the incident report,
  offender drug testing report, chain of custody log, and the request for
  drug analysis form.  As punishment, plaintiff received "2 days lock in,"
  which was suspended for thirty days.  Plaintiff was allowed to maintain his
  current employment, as well as visits with his children.  Plaintiff
  appealed his DR conviction to the disciplinary board on August 20, 2000. 
  His appeal was denied by the disciplinary board on September 4.

       ¶  5.  Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 75 (review of governmental action),
  plaintiff filed a complaint in superior court in September, 2000, alleging
  that his due process rights were violated by the DOC's failure to follow
  policy directive 367.01 because the department failed to provide plaintiff
  with the actual laboratory reports of his drug test and failed to address
  plaintiff's claims on appeal with specificity at the disciplinary board
  level.  Plaintiff also claimed that, because the actual laboratory reports
  of the screening and confirmation tests were not part of the evidence
  relied on by the hearing officer, there was insufficient evidence to
  convict him of the DR.  Plaintiff later filed a motion to amend his
  complaint, arguing that because the DOC failed to properly promulgate
  policy directive 367.01 pursuant to the Vermont Administrative Procedures
  Act ("VAPA"), 3 V.S.A. §§ 801-849, the seizure and testing of plaintiff's
  urine were unlawful, and the punishment imposed for his conviction was a
  violation of due process.
   
       ¶  6.  The DOC then moved for summary judgment and plaintiff filed a
  cross-motion for summary judgment.  Following a January 17, 2002 hearing on
  both motions, the superior court granted the DOC's motion for summary
  judgment and denied plaintiff's cross-motion.  The court found sufficient
  evidence in the record to support plaintiff's DR conviction and found that
  the hearing officer's reliance "on the relevant Incident Report, Offender
  Drug Testing Report, the Chain of Custody Log, and the Request for Drug
  Analysis" was proper.  The court also determined that the DOC had the
  authority to conduct random drug tests and searches; that the drug test was
  not unreasonable under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
  Constitution, and was valid under Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont
  Constitution; that the DOC provided specific documentation detailing the
  chain of custody of the urine sample; and that plaintiff failed to provide
  any evidence in support of his due process allegations.  Plaintiff's appeal
  to this Court followed.
         
       ¶  7.  Our review of summary judgment is de novo.  This Court applies
  the same standard as the trial court.  Cooper v. Cooper, 173 Vt. 1, 6,