Title: Carey v. Commissioner of Correction

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12369 
 
MICHAEL CAREY & others1  vs.  COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     January 8, 2018. - April 19, 2018. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. 
 
 
Commissioner of Correction.  Regulation.  Administrative Law, 
Agency's interpretation of regulation, Administrative 
Procedure Act.  State Administrative Procedure Act. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on 
January 2, 2014.  
 
 
The case was heard by Joseph F. Leighton, Jr., J., on 
motions for summary judgment.  
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative 
transferred the case from the Appeals Court. 
 
 
 
Leonard M. Singer for the plaintiffs. 
 
William D. Saltzman for the defendant. 
 
 
                     
 
1 Gatewood West and Brenda Frazier.  David Nathanson, Andrew 
W. Cowan, and Adriana Contartese, who were plaintiffs in the 
action in the Superior Court, have not participated in this 
appeal.  See note 3, infra. 
2 
 
 
 
BUDD, J.  In 2013, the Department of Correction 
(department) announced that visitors to correctional facilities 
would be subject to search by drug-detecting dogs.  The 
plaintiffs, who are visitors to correctional facilities who are 
not attorneys, allege that this canine search policy (policy) 
violated the department's existing regulations and that the 
department failed to follow requirements of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA), G. L. c. 30A, §§ 1 et seq., in implementing 
this new policy.  The defendant Commissioner of Correction 
(commissioner) contends that the policy is consistent with the 
department's existing regulations and is exempt from the APA. 
 
We conclude that although the policy is not inconsistent 
with the department's existing regulations, it is not exempt 
from the APA.  Given the policy's substantial impact on 
institutional security, however, entry of judgment shall be 
stayed for 180 days to permit the department to take action 
consistent with this opinion, during which time the department 
may continue to enforce the policy. 
 
1.  Background.  In early 2013, the department announced 
that it would begin subjecting prison visitors to search by 
drug-detecting dogs.2  The plaintiffs commenced this action to 
                     
2 In early 2013, the Department of Correction (department) 
announced its intention to implement canine searches via a video 
recording that played in correctional facility lobbies.  The 
department posted a similar video on the Internet Web site 
3 
 
 
prevent the department from implementing the new policy.  The 
plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that the policy was not 
authorized by the department's existing regulations, as well as 
a preliminary injunction to enjoin the department from 
implementing the policy without its being promulgated pursuant 
to the APA.3  A judge in the Superior Court denied the 
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that 
the wording of the regulation governing visits by members of the 
general public was broad enough to allow for canine searches. 
                     
YouTube.  In March, 2013, the department posted a fact sheet 
regarding the new policy on its own Web site, stating in part:  
"In response to an increase in drug and other contraband-related 
incidents involving visitors, the [department] will soon employ 
the use of dogs, trained to detect the presence of drugs, to 
address this problem."  The department also distributed and 
posted documents regarding the policy, stating in pertinent 
part:  "To further its ability to detect and prevent [drug 
smuggling] activity, the [department] will implement the use of 
non-aggressive, highly trained narcotic detection dogs in 
certain prison facilities for visitor and staff searches 
beginning the first full week in November." 
 
 
3 The complaint alleged a violation of the regulation 
governing attorney visits, see 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 486.07(4) 
(2015), and sought a judgment declaring that the policy was not 
authorized.  The judge in the Superior Court who granted summary 
judgment permanently enjoined the department from enforcing the 
policy with regard to attorney visitors, on the ground that the 
regulation governing attorney visits did not allow for 
additional search procedures.  The Commissioner of Correction 
(commissioner) did not appeal from that portion of the judgment.  
Those plaintiffs who were attorneys have not participated in 
this appeal. 
 
4 
 
 
 
The policy was thereafter implemented.  The dogs performing 
the searches are not aggressive and remain leashed at all times.4  
They "alert" to the presence of a banned substance by sitting; 
they do not snarl, lunge, or bite.  There are alternative 
procedures for those visitors who are allergic to, or afraid of, 
dogs. 
 
A second Superior Court judge granted summary judgment for 
the commissioner, entering a judgment declaring that the 
commissioner had the authority to establish the policy without 
having to comply with the procedural requirements of the APA 
because the policy is "sufficiently similar to the searches 
specifically enumerated in the regulatory language."  The 
instant appeal followed.  We transferred the case to this court 
on our own motion. 
 
2.  Discussion.  Because this matter comes before us 
following a grant of summary judgment, we look to the summary 
judgment record and review de novo.  Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 
671, 676 (2007). 
 
a.  The viability of the policy.  The plaintiffs argue that 
the policy is prohibited by the department's existing 
regulations.  We disagree. 
                     
4 As of January, 2014, there were four department dogs, all 
golden or Labrador retrievers:  Sophie, Bailey, Greta, and Rudy.  
Each dog has a handler, one of whom serves as canine commander 
and oversees the dogs' training program. 
5 
 
 
 
By statute, the commissioner is required to "make and 
promulgate necessary rules and regulations incident to the 
exercise of his powers and the performance of his duties 
including but not limited to rules and regulations regarding 
. . . visiting privileges."  G. L. c. 124, § 1 (q).  The 
governing regulation states: 
"Each superintendent shall establish a search procedure 
that is effective in preventing the smuggling of articles 
into the visiting area of the institution.  The search 
procedure may include as a prerequisite to admission that 
visitors successfully pass through a metal detector and/or 
scanner, and/or a personal search, and that any articles 
they are carrying be thoroughly searched. . . ." 
 
103 Code Mass. Regs. § 483.14(2) (2004). 
 
A plaintiff challenging an agency interpretation has a 
"formidable burden."  Ten Local Citizen Group v. New England 
Wind, LLC, 457 Mass. 222, 228 (2010), quoting Northbridge v. 
Natick, 394 Mass. 70, 74 (1985).  Unless an agency's 
interpretation of its own regulation is "arbitrary, 
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the plain terms of the rule," 
such interpretation is entitled to deference.  Manor v. 
Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Cedar Junction, 416 
Mass. 820, 824 (1994), quoting Finkelstein v. Board of 
Registration in Optometry, 370 Mass. 476, 478 (1976). 
 
Here, the plaintiffs allege not that the policy is 
arbitrary or unreasonable, but that it is inconsistent with the 
existing regulation because, they claim, the policy only permits 
6 
 
 
searches that are similar to metal detectors and personal 
searches.  We see nothing in the language of the general 
regulation that precludes a canine search.  On the contrary, by 
using "shall," the regulation mandates that the search procedure 
be effective in preventing smuggling of contraband into 
correctional facilities.5  See Galenski v. Erving, 471 Mass. 305, 
309 (2015).  Further, as to the specifics of any such procedure, 
the regulation uses broad, permissive language (i.e., "search 
procedure may include" [emphasis added]).6  103 Code Mass. Regs. 
                     
 
5 The plaintiffs argue that the policy is also inconsistent 
with the regulation because the commissioner instituted it, 
whereas the regulation states that the "superintendent [of each 
correctional facility] shall establish a search procedure."  103 
Code Mass. Regs. § 483.14(2) (2004).  This argument is 
unpersuasive.  By statute the ultimate authority over the 
operation of all correctional facilities lies with the 
commissioner.  G. L. c. 124, § 1 (q). 
 
 
6 We disagree with the plaintiffs' contention that the 
doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the department to searches 
similar to those enumerated.  Ejusdem generis is a canon of 
statutory construction that applies to lists "[w]here general 
words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration" 
(citation omitted).  Banushi v. Dorfman, 438 Mass. 242, 244 
(2002).  It limits the "general terms which follow specific ones 
to matters similar to those specified."  Commonwealth v. 
Gallant, 453 Mass. 535, 542 (2009), quoting Powers v. Freetown–
Lakeville Regional Sch. Dist. Comm., 392 Mass. 656, 660 n.8 
(1984).  Ejusdem generis does not apply here because rather than 
beginning with specific terms, this list begins with a general 
term, "a search procedure that is effective," then provides 
nonexclusive examples.  103 Code Mass. Regs. § 483.14(2).  Cf. 
United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 581-582 (1981) 
(declining to apply ejusdem generis where statute did not 
conform to structure of list of specific terms preceding 
disputed general term); Trustees of Andover Theological Seminary 
v. Visitors of the Theological Inst. in Phillips Academy in 
7 
 
 
§ 483.14(2).  See Wiedmann v. Bradford Group, Inc., 444 Mass. 
698, 709-710 (2005) (use of "may" is permissive, not mandatory).  
Notwithstanding the possibility of a false positive,7 there is no 
dispute that canine searches are effective in detecting 
contraband that metal detectors and personal searches may not 
detect.  Giving due deference to the department's interpretation 
of its regulation, we conclude that the existing regulation 
permits canine searches. 
 
b.  The APA.  Apart from the question whether the canine 
search policy is permissible under the department's current 
regulations is the question whether the department was required 
to follow the procedures set forth in the APA for promulgating 
or amending regulations.  The APA details procedures that State 
agencies, including the department, must follow when adopting 
new regulations (as defined in the statute).  Its purpose is to 
"establish a set of minimum standards of fair procedure below 
which no agency should be allowed to fall" and to create 
                     
Andover, 253 Mass. 256, 270 (1925) (declining to apply ejusdem 
generis where general words preceded disputed list). 
 
 
7 The plaintiffs direct our attention to case law 
recognizing that dogs sometimes "alert falsely" either to 
remnants of drugs or in order to please their handlers.  See 
Commonwealth v. Ramos, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 773, 776 (2008).  The 
plaintiffs do not allege, however, that canine searches are 
ineffective. 
 
8 
 
 
uniformity in agency proceedings.8  Curran & Sacks, The 
Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act, 37 B.U. L. Rev. 70, 
76-77 (1957).  See Reid v. Acting Comm'r of Dep't of Community 
Affairs, 362 Mass. 136, 144 (1972); Palmer v. Rent Control Bd. 
of Brookline, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 110, 115 (1979). 
 
Among other requirements, prior to promulgating a 
regulation (as defined by the APA), a State agency must "give 
notice and afford interested persons an opportunity to present 
data, views, or arguments."  G. L. c. 30A, § 3.  The notice and 
comment period provides an "opportunity for 'input' and debate 
by the persons affected, and deliberate resolution of issues."  
Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. v. Rate Setting Comm'n, 371 Mass. 705, 
707 (1977). 
 
The commissioner contends that the policy is not subject to 
the APA because it does not fall within the APA's definition of 
a regulation.  Although we accord substantial deference to an 
agency's interpretation of its own regulations, Northbridge, 394 
Mass. at 74, we do not defer to its interpretation of the APA. 
 
Under the APA, a regulation "includes the whole or any part 
of every rule, regulation, standard or other requirement of 
general application and future effect, including the amendment 
                     
 
8 The purpose of the Massachusetts Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA) is similar to that of the comparable Federal statute.  
Milligan v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 348 Mass. 491, 
500 (1965). 
9 
 
 
or repeal thereof, adopted by an agency to implement or 
interpret the law enforced or administered by it."  G. L. 
c. 30A, § 1 (5).  Given the purpose of the APA, we interpret its 
definition of regulation broadly.  See Commonwealth v. Trumble, 
396 Mass. 81, 88 (1985), citing Curran & Sacks, supra at 77.  
Nevertheless, the definition excludes "regulations concerning 
only the internal management . . . of the . . . agency, and not 
substantially affecting the rights of or the procedures 
available to the public or that portion of the public affected 
by the agency's activities."  G. L. c. 30A, § 1 (5) (b).  Upon 
review, we conclude that the policy is not exempt from APA 
requirements as it is not one that concerns internal management 
alone, and, at a minimum, it substantially affects the 
procedures available to visitors to correctional facilities. 
 
Simply put, the introduction of the new policy 
substantially affected the procedures available to the public 
because, prior to the implementation of the policy, visitors to 
correctional facilities were not subject to dog sniff searches, 
but now they are.  This change could have a potentially 
significant impact on the visiting public's experience, 
including increased wait times, increased anxiety due to a fear 
of dogs or of false positives, and concerns in connection with 
allergies.  Compare Trumble, 396 Mass. at 89 (policy not subject 
to APA where it concerned how State police should conduct 
10 
 
 
roadblocks already taking place).  The fact that the department 
publicized the new policy by way of a coordinated multimedia 
campaign well before the policy's planned implementation date is 
a strong indicator that the department was well aware that 
implementing canine searches would be of substantial concern to 
those affected.9 
 
Given the department's efforts to publicize the policy, the 
commissioner cannot credibly argue that the policy concerns only 
internal management issues.  Rules or regulations that concern 
"only the internal management" of an agency are those that 
concern the organizational structure of that agency, or those 
that are directed toward agency employees, instructing them on 
how they should perform their duties.  See Trumble, 396 Mass. at 
89 (State police document detailing how State troopers should 
conduct roadblocks considered to be for internal management 
purposes and not subject to APA).  Clearly the department 
intended to, and did, broadcast information about the new policy 
to the public.  Indeed, it was the publication of the 
                     
 
9 In addition to the video recording that the department 
showed in correctional facility lobbies and uploaded to the 
Internet, the fact sheet that the department featured on its Web 
site, and the notice that the department posted in its 
facilities announcing the policy to the public, the commissioner 
wrote a letter about the policy to governmental officials and 
distributed written explanations to department staff and 
inmates. 
11 
 
 
department's planned implementation of the policy that prompted 
the instant action. 
 
The commissioner argues additionally that the department's 
policy is "intend[ed] to fill in the details or clear up an 
ambiguity" of the regulation governing searches of visitors, 
rather than to initiate a material change, and that thus the 
policy is not subject to the APA.  Arthurs v. Board of 
Registration in Med., 383 Mass. 299, 313 n.26 (1981), quoting 
Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 371 Mass. at 707 ("Agencies 'intending 
to fill in the details or clear up an ambiguity of an 
established policy' may issue interpretation or informational 
pronouncements without going through the procedures required for 
the promulgation of a regulation").  We are not persuaded.  An 
agency's interpretation of its own regulations may trigger the 
APA if that interpretation leads to a rule or policy that meets 
the APA's definition of a regulation.  See, e.g., Electronic 
Privacy Info. Ctr. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 653 
F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ("the purpose of the APA would be 
disserved if an agency with a broad statutory command . . . 
could avoid notice-and-comment rulemaking simply by . . . 
invoking its power to interpret that statute and regulation in 
12 
 
 
binding the public to a strict and specific set of 
obligations").10 
 
For the foregoing reasons we conclude that, at a minimum, 
the policy "substantially affect[s] . . . the procedures 
available to the public or that portion of the public affected 
by the agency's activities" such that the policy is subject to 
the APA.11  G. L. c. 30A, § 1 (5) (b).  See Electronic Privacy 
Info. Ctr., 653 F.3d at 6 (use of advanced imaging technology 
rather than magnetometers at airports was subject to Federal APA 
as it "substantively affect[ed] the public to a degree 
sufficient to implicate the policy interests animating notice-
and-comment rulemaking"). 
 
3.  Conclusion.  The case is remanded to the Superior Court 
for entry of a judgment declaring that the department was 
required to, but did not, meet the requirements of the APA when 
it adopted this regulation, but that such a regulation, if 
                     
 
10 The Federal APA has a similar definition of regulation 
and similar exceptions thereto.  See 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(4), 553(b).  
The Federal jurisprudence interpreting these provisions is 
similar, but not identical, to our jurisprudence.  Compare 
Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. v. Rate Setting Comm'n, 371 Mass. 705, 
711-712 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81, 88-90 
(1985), with Electronic Privacy Info. Ctr. v. United States 
Dep't of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1, 5-7 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 
 
 
11 Because we conclude that the policy substantially affects 
the procedures available to the visiting public, we need not 
reach the question whether it also substantially affects the 
rights of the visiting public. 
13 
 
 
properly adopted in conformance with the APA, would not conflict 
with existing department regulations.  Entry of the judgment 
shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the department to take 
such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion, 
including, if it wishes, adopting the regulation anew in 
conformance with the APA.  In light of the security concerns and 
risks involved, the department may continue to enforce the 
regulation in the interim.  See Electronic Privacy Info. Ctr., 
653 F.3d at 11. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.