Opinion ID: 1668903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Imposition of Discipline for Conduct After Escape.

Text: The disciplinary committee found Mabrier had violated nine disciplinary rules. Only two of these rule violations involved conduct occurring at the correctional facility, escape and unauthorized absence. Mabrier does not challenge his discipline for these rule violations. The remaining seven rule violations were based on Mabrier's actions in breaking into the sawmill, stealing the petty cash and truck, and attempting to elude the deputy sheriff. Mabrier challenges the imposition of discipline for this conduct because it occurred after he had successfully escaped from the confines of the institution. He argues that the disciplinary committee had no authority to discipline him for conduct that took place outside the institution and when he was not in the physical custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). In determining whether the prison disciplinary committee had authority to punish Mabrier for his actions while on escape status, we need look no further than the DOC's own policies and rules. The DOC's disciplinary policy states that its purpose is to maintain discipline within the correctional institution.  (Emphasis added.) The policy provides that sanctions are to be imposed only as necessary to promote a safe and orderly institutional environment. (Emphasis added.) Finally, the DOC disciplinary policy also says that the disciplinary rules are applicable to inmates only while under the physical custody of the Iowa Department of Corrections. (Emphasis added.) We believe that these policy statements by the DOC evidence its intent that the disciplinary rules apply only to inmates in an institution or otherwise in the physical custody of the DOC. Consequently, the rules do not apply to an inmate while on escape status. Alexander v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 99 Or.App. 659, 783 P.2d 1034, 1036 (1989) (disciplinary rules did not encompass conduct of inmate that occurred while the inmate was escaped); see Fichtner v. Iowa State Penitentiary, 285 N.W.2d 751, 755 (Iowa 1979) (penitentiary could not impose penitentiary discipline on reformatory inmate for violation of reformatory rules where no statute or rule authorized such discipline). Because the discipline Mabrier has challenged here rests on actions that took place while he was escaped, the disciplinary committee had no authority under the DOC's rules to impose sanctions for these actions. Mabrier also argues that the committee was without authority to discipline him because he did not have notice that he could be disciplined for conduct that occurred while he was on escape status. Because we have concluded that the committee did not have authority under its rules to discipline Mabrier for conduct while he was escaped, we need not address the notice issue.