Opinion ID: 2270747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Facts Surrounding the Discovery of the Marijuana in Three of the Incidents Satisfy the Some Evidence Standard

Text: In reaching its decision, the circuit court focused on the field tests. Once it determined the field tests did not satisfy reliability requirements, the circuit court concluded the some evidence standard simply had not been met. The Appellants argue this ignores the additional facts surrounding the recovery of the other substances. It is Appellants' position that even without the field tests, the facts surrounding the three incidents involving marijuana satisfy the some evidence standard. The Appellees respond by arguing the remaining evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the some evidence standard. Rather than review the facts underlying the three incidents involving marijuana, we will set out a general summary of circumstances common to each incident. In each case, officers observed and reported their first hand impressions of the substance recovered; including odor, texture, and color. As noted in Cooper v. Commonwealth, It is a fundamental principle that a policeman may observe with any of his five senses[.] 577 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Ky.App. 1979). [4] See also Commonwealth v. Hagan, 464 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Ky.1971), wherein this Court recognized that an officer could base his opinion on what he see or hears. In addition to the officers' impressions as to the nature of the substance recovered, the hearing officer heard evidence as to the way the inmate reacted when the substance was discovered. In each case the inmate attempted to conceal the substance. In all three of the incidents, the inmates went to great lengths to destroy the substance either by flushing it down the toilet or by swallowing it. In fact, in two of the incidents the inmates openly scuffled with the officers in an attempt to prevent the officers from recovering the substance. Finally, in each of the three incidents involving marijuana, the inmates elected not to testify or assert that the substance was not what the officers believed it to be. As a result, the inmates neither denied ownership nor challenged the nature of the substance recovered. We are mindful of the principle that common sense must not be a stranger in the house of the law. Cantrell, supra . Common sense supports the hearing officers' conclusions that in each of the incidents involving marijuana, the inmates possessed dangerous contraband. In reviewing prison disciplinary actions, we recognize that the standard of proof is the some evidence standard. Further, the some evidence standard does not require that the evidence logically preclude any conclusion but the one reached by the hearing officer. Such is the case sub judice. The facts surrounding the three incidents involving marijuana, even with the field test results excluded, are sufficient to conclude there is some evidence of record to support the decision reached by the hearing officers in Sharp's May 30, 2003 incident, and in the incidents involving Thomas occurring on July 19, 2003, and July 25, 2003. For this reason we reverse the Court of Appeals, and find the circuit court erred in granting declaratory judgment in favor of the Appellees as to these three incidents.