Opinion ID: 2040693
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: summary of confidential informant's statements

Text: Mr. Hoover's counsel also contends that the failure to include the informant inmate's actual statement in the return to writ denied Mr. Hoover a record adequate for review. Counsel places significant reliance upon this court's decision in State ex rel. Staples v. DHSS . Staples involved a review of a formal hearing and the application of HSS 303.86(4). Staples, 115 Wis. 2d at 367-368. In Staples, this court states: In this record, there is no finding that the unidentified informant's statement was under oath. If a return to the writ of certiorari had been ordered, the statement would have been brought up to the trial court. It could have been sealed for the judge's inspection to protect the identity of the witness. In that way, the judge could see if the requirement of the administrative rule that the statement be under oath was met. In Staples, the obvious concern of this court was compliance with the provisions of HSS 303.86(4). HSS 303.86(4), however, is inapplicable to this case because Mr. Hoover waived his right to a formal hearing. Therefore, there was no need to include the actual statement of the informant to determine if the statement was made under oath. We conclude that the use of the summary of the informant's statement in this informal proceeding did not deprive the accused of an adequate record on review. The conduct report and the summary of the statement were sufficient to show the factual basis for the imposition of the penalty by the adjustment committee. [5] Finally, Mr. Hoover's counsel asserts that the informal procedures provided for minor violations do not provide adequate due process for a major penalty deprivation. We disagree. The parties do not dispute that the formal proceeding provided under HSS 303 does comply with minimum constitutional due process requirements. Mr. Hoover was entitled to such a hearing, yet knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived that right. He was informed what the informal hearing would entail prior to waiving that right. At the informal hearing, he was given the right to speak in his own defense. The finding of guilty was in writing as were the reasons for the committee's decision. Mr. Hoover also had the right to appeal to the superintendent under Wis. Admin. Code section HSS 303.75(8) (1980). The constitution does not require more. The adjustment committee acted within its jurisdiction, it did not err as a matter of law, its action was not arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable, and the evidence reasonably supported its decision and order. By the Court. The decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the circuit court is reversed. The decision of the adjustment committee and the discipline imposed against Mr. Hoover are reinstated. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). I would affirm the decision of the circuit court and the court of appeals vacating the decision of the adjustment committee. Because the record before this court is incomplete, the decision of the adjustment committee must be vacated. The adjustment committee based its decision first on the informant's confidential statement, which the committee said was freely given, sworn to, and notarized. Yet the informant's sworn and notarized confidential statement is not in the record. The record before the circuit court, court of appeals, and this court contains only a summary of the informant's confidential statement. The summary was not prepared by the informant. Furthermore, there are discrepancies between the summary of the informant's confidential statement and other documents in the record. Significantly, the summary of the statement in no way indicates that the informant ever actually saw Hoover breaking the glass of the bathroom. An officer's conduct report, however, specifically states that Hoover cut a screen out and was observed smashing a window out in A wing bathroom of housing unit 4. HSS 303.76 provides in part that [t]he hearing officer or adjustment committee may question the inmate and otherwise investigate the case and shall decide the guilt or innocence of the inmate and the punishment to be imposed. (Emphasis added.) Thus, although the majority concludes that Hoover waived his right to a formal hearing, it is clear that Hoover did not plead guilty and that under the rules he was entitled to a decision based on facts in the record by which the institution established his guilt. HSS 303.75(4), 303.78(2). As the majority correctly sets forth, In reviewing the committee's order on certiorari the reviewing court is limited to determining: (1) Whether the committee kept within its jurisdiction; (2) whether it acted according to law; (3) whether its action was arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable; and (4) whether the evidence was such that it might reasonably make the order or determination in question. P. 140 (citing State ex rel. Staples v. DHSS, 115 Wis. 2d 363, 369, 370, 340 N.W2.d 194 (1983)). Given that the informant's confidential statement played a major part in the adjustment committee's decision, that report should have been a part of the record on appeal. Without it, and in light of the contradictions between the summary of the statement and the other documents in the record, no reviewing court can determine whether the committee acted according to law or acted arbitrarily or whether the evidence was such that the committee might reasonably make the decision in question. Although the evidence apart from the informant's statement is adequate to support the adjustment committee's decision, I cannot affirm the committee's decision which rests substantially on a document not before the court.