Court Opinion

ID: 9604691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:25:30.277464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:57:58.959965
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding in Solar v. OSP and Nelson v. OSP. In Solar, I would find that the hearings officer’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, I would affirm the Superintendent’s final order. The informant was an eyewitness. The hearings officer found that he was credible. He passed a polygraph examination, and petitioner did not object to the polygraph evidence. That is sufficient. See Grisel v. OSP, 290 Or 719, 625 P2d 651 (1981); Wiggett v. OSP, 85 Or App 635, 738 P2d 580 (1987); Hartman v. OSP, 50 Or App 419, 623 P2d 681 (1981).
In Nelson, I would also hold that the hearings officer’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, I would affirm the Superintendent’s final order. The informant was an eyewitness. Petitioner does not raise the issue of whether the informant is a person who can be believed. Some of the informant’s information is consistent *232with facts that are conceded by petitioner. I would find that petitioner’s failure to pass a polygraph examination is significant, especially when he does not challenge the examination or its result. See Grisel v. OSP, supra; Atkins v. OSP, 85 Or App 224, 228, 736 P2d 196 (1987); Hartman v. OSP, supra.1
I agree with the majority’s results in Zimmerlee, Taylor and Merrifield.

 Parker v. OSCI, 87 Or App 354, 742 P2d 617 (1987), is factually distinguishable. In that case, the hearings officer relied solely on the fact that the petitioner (prisoner) had failed a polygraph examination in which he had denied participating in the conduct charged. We concluded that the examination results were not affirmative evidence that the petitioner acted as charged. I do not disagree with that conclusion. However, in this case, there are also the additional facts that the informant was an eyewitness, that petitioner does not argue that the informant is untruthful and that petitioner does not challenge the polygraph examination or its result. See Atkins v. OSP, supra.