SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERS EY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 4948

- 17T4 LESLIE HILL, Appellant,

v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

__________________ ___________

Submitted September 24, 2019

- Decided Before Judges Fisher and Accurso. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Leslie Hill, appellant pro se
. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent ( Melissa Dutton Schaffer , Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Tasha Marie Bradt , Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36

- 3.

November 14, 20192 A

- 4948

- 17T4

Leslie Hill, an inmate at Northern State Prison, appeals from a final agency decision of the Department of Corrections adjudicating him guilty of prohibited acts *.203, possession or introduction of any prohibited substances, and *.215, possession with int ent to distribute or sell prohibited substances , in
violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4

- 4.1(a). We affirm. Hill was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison in Rahway when subjected to a non
- routine cell search revealing heroin in seventy

- nine individually wrap ped pieces of magazine paper hidden in the light fixture
above his bed area. I nterviewed by a sergeant , Hill admitted the items were his and said he would wait for the lab report. He subsequently refused to sign the confiscation paperwork . The State Pol ice lab confi rmed the substance was
heroin.
H ill was provided written notice of the charges and pleaded not guilty. His request for a polygraph was denied. Hill was assigned counsel substitute
and confronted the officers who conducted the search

. At t he hearing, Hill
made a statement saying "I gave them my explanation. I accept responsibility." He complained of being treated unfairly by the custody staff, asserting his cellmate should also have been locked up and provided " the
chance to say whether they were his drugs."3 A

- 4948

- 17T4

T he hearing officer f ound Hill guilty of the charges. The officer noted the custody officers who conducted the search answered all of Hill 's questions without any defensiveness , that Hill did not choose to confront the sergeant who reported that Hill admitted the drugs were his , and also did not seek a
statement from his cell mate, whom he claimed at the hearing might know something about the drugs. Under the circumstances, the hearing officer found nothing to warrant a polygraph examination of Hill and that seventy

- nine packets of heroin was well in excess of what one would consume for personal

use. The assistant superintendent of the priso n affirmed the decision o n Hill's administrative appeal. On this appeal, Hill claims the administrator's decision uphold ing the guilty finding was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable; the hearing officer's findings were not based on substantial eviden ce in the record; the hearing
officer shifted the burden to him ; the failure to implicate Hill's cellmate denied
Hill due process and a fair hearing; and that the denial of his request for a polygraph denied him due process.
Our review of the decision of an administrative agency is , of course,
limited. In re Herrmann , 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). We will not upset an4 A

- 4948

- 17T4

agency's decision absent " a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." Id. at 27

- 28. Applying that standard here, we are satisfied the reports and statements
on which the agency relied provided ample evidence to support t he charges against Hill , and that he was provided with all of the substantive and procedural due process to which he was entitled , McDonald v. Pinchak , 139 N.J. 188, 195 (1995) . H is arguments to the contrary are entirely without merit.
R. 2:11

- 3 (e)(1)(E)

. The agency presented substantial evidence the drugs belonged to Hill, and Hill, by failing to confront the sergeant who claimed Hill admitted the drugs were his or to seek a statement from his cellmate , simply
f ailed to put the critical facts in issue , making a polygraph examination
unnecessary, s ee N.J.A.C. 10A:3

- 7.1 ; Johnson v. Dep ' t of Corr. , 29 8 N.J. Super. 79, 83 (App. Div. 1997).
Affirmed.