Opinion ID: 1816937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether adequate evidence supports the committee's decision.

Text: Key further contends that the disciplinary committee improperly relied upon confidential information in finding him guilty of violating prison rules. He claims that the confidential information in this case does not meet the some evidence test because it was unreliable and not sufficiently corroborated. As support for this argument, Key points out that the committee rejected some of the confidential information by finding him innocent of several charges. The district court rejected these claims. On appellate review of a prisoner's challenge to the evidentiary support of a disciplinary matter, we ask whether the committee had some evidence to support its decision. Id. at 709. Under this standard, `the relevant [legal] question is whether there is any evidence in the record' that could support the disciplinary committee's decision. James, 541 N.W.2d at 874 (quoting Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2774, 86 L.Ed.2d 356, 365 (1985)). Confidential statements of informants standing alone are sufficient under the some evidence standard to support a prison disciplinary committee's decision. Id. (citing James v. State, 479 N.W.2d 287, 291 (Iowa 1991)). In considering this issue, we largely defer to the committee's findings, refraining from a de novo review of the proceedings. Backstrom, 508 N.W.2d at 709. Although prison officials may rely on confidential information as a matter of discretion, we have stated: When an inmate is disciplined on the basis of confidential information, however, his interest in a fair hearing requires that there be some indication of the confidential informant's reliability. Howard, 439 N.W.2d at 195. To that end, there must be sufficient information in the record to convince a reviewing authority that the disciplinary committee undertook such inquiry and correctly concluded that the confidential information was credible and reliable. Id.; Niday, 353 N.W.2d at 94. The reliability of confidential information may be established by inter alia, in camera review of material documenting an investigator's assessment of the credibility of a confidential informant. James, 479 N.W.2d at 291 (citations omitted). Based on our in camera review of the confidential statements, we conclude that the disciplinary committee's decision finding Key guilty of violating prison rules is supported by some evidence in the record. In its written decision, the committee stated that it relied on confidential statements of the victim, statements of confidential informants, and the statement of prison captain Burton, [6] and that it found this information to be reliable. The committee also stated in its decision that Key did not request witnesses to appear at the hearing. We believe that the committee's decision shows that it weighed Key's unsubstantiated denial against the credibility and substance of the evidence against him and reasonably concluded that Key committed the acts with which he was charged. The district court's ruling reveals that it likewise weighed the credibility and reliability of the confidential information, stating: [T]he confidential information contains a great many details which provide a cogent and consistent pattern of conduct by the Applicant and other inmates. There appears to be no bias motivating the source of the confidential information. No undue influence was exercised by institutional officials and the source of the confidential information did not profit or benefit. The Court concludes that the confidential information is credible and internally reliable. We believe the district court's statement accurately summarizes the evidence supporting the committee's findings and we adopt it as our own. We also point out that a prison disciplinary committee has the right to rely on a confidential informant's statements and to disbelieve an inmate's denials, and need not state why it believes the informant rather than the inmate. Id. We therefore reject Key's contention that the disciplinary committee's decision is somehow infirm because the decision does not identify what confidential facts the committee accepted and what facts the committee rejected. We conclude that the confidential statements were reliable and credible and that there was some evidence to support the disciplinary committee's findings that Key violated prison disciplinary rules. The district court's conclusion on this issue is affirmed.