Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1596-14T2
04-28-2016
D.D., Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents.
D.D., appellant pro se. Robert Loughy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondents (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Randy Miller, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Sabatino and Suter. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. D.D., appellant pro se. Robert Loughy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondents (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Randy Miller, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Appellant is confined to the Special Treatment Unit ("STU") as a sexual predator who has been civilly committed pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. The STU is administered by respondent Department of Corrections under a joint statutory arrangement with co- respondent Department of Human Services. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.34. Appellant seeks reversal of an October 2014 final agency decision denying his request to return his wireless headphones that were confiscated at the STU, or, alternatively, to pay him their market value.
The record shows that several years ago appellant purchased the wireless headphones from a commercial vendor, which were shipped to him at the STU. Appellant was allowed to possess and use them within the facility for a period of time. Eventually the headphones needed repair so appellant attempted to mail them back to the manufacturer under the product warranty. At that point, the STU staff confiscated the headphones and advised appellant that he could no longer retain them because the institution had recently changed its policies to disallow wireless headphones. The staff gave appellant thirty days to authorize disposal of the headphones or have them shipped to a relative or friend outside the facility.
Appellant contends that he was not provided with fair notice of the new policy, pointing to provisions in the STU handbook which state that certain electronics equipment purchased from a third-party vendor may be allowed within the facility. However, the current list of permissible items that governs the residential facilities at the STU plainly and explicitly excludes headphones which are "wireless." The prohibition has been adopted because of changes in technology that enable wireless headsets to utilize Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity, which can present increased security problems within the institution.
Under well-settled principles of administrative law, we must sustain an agency's decision unless it is arbitrary and capricious or lacks fair support in the record. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007). Applying that limited scope of review, we affirm the action taken by the STU in confiscating the headphones and declining to return them to appellant. The agency has articulated legitimate security reasons for its change in policy in light of evolving technology. Appellant was given fair and reasonable time to have the headphones sent outside of the facility and the opportunity to administratively appeal before they would be disposed. His claims of a lack of due process are without merit. Moore v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 103, 108 (App. Div. 2000) ("Administrative due process is generally satisfied if 'the parties had adequate notice, a chance to know opposing evidence, and the opportunity to present evidence and argument in response.'").
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION