ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. TRCI 0083-04
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant Tracy Jeffcoat appeals the decision of
Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department) to revoke
ninety days of his “good-time” credit and temporarily suspend certain of his
prison privileges as punishment for the use of cocaine in violation of DOC
Disciplinary Code § 1.10. Having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and
the briefs filed by the parties in this matter, I conclude that the decision of
the Department must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On
April 25, 2004, Lieutenant David Walls, a DOC corrections officer, administered
a urinary drug test on Appellant based upon a claim of reasonable suspicion.
The test returned a positive result for the use of cocaine. A subsequent
confirmation test also indicated the presence of cocaine in Appellant’s
system. In addition to these tests, Lieutenant Walls also contacted the prison
infirmary to ensure that Appellant was not taking any prescribed medications
that would affect the drug test results. Based upon these positive test
results, Appellant was charged with violating DOC Disciplinary Code § 1.10, The
Use or Possession of Narcotics, Marijuana or Unauthorized Drugs, Including
Prescription Drugs.
Appellant
was notified of the charge against him on April 27, 2004, and a hearing on the
charge was held before a DOC Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) on April 30,
2004, and May 4, 2004. At the initial hearing, the incident report filed by
Lieutenant Walls regarding Appellant’s drug test was read into the record and
Appellant offered testimony concerning the procedures used by Lieutenant Walls
during the drug test. Because Appellant had not requested that his accuser be
present, Lieutenant Walls did not attend the hearing. However, given the nature
of the allegations raised by Appellant at the initial hearing, the DHO
continued the disciplinary hearing until May 4, 2004, so that Lieutenant Walls
could appear and offer testimony. At the second hearing, both Appellant and
Lieutenant Walls described the handling of Appellant’s drug test specimen.
Specifically, Lieutenant Walls testified that Appellant’s sample was properly
sealed and stored after it was tested.
At
the close of the hearing, the DHO found Appellant guilty of the charge against
him and prepared a written report containing his findings. As punishment for
the offense, the DHO revoked 90 days of Appellant’s good-time credit, suspended
his telephone and canteen privileges for 30 days, suspended his visitation
privileges for 120 days, and imposed 5 hours of extra duty upon Appellant.
Appellant appealed his disciplinary conviction to the Department and then to
this Court. On appeal, Appellant challenges his disciplinary conviction on the
grounds that his urine sample was improperly handled and stored after it was
taken and that his positive test results may have been false positives caused
by a prescription pain medication he had been prescribed after a recent
surgery. While Appellant raised his concerns with the handling of his sample at
the disciplinary hearing, he did not raise his concerns about a false positive
result from his medication at the evidentiary hearing conducted by the DHO.
DISCUSSION
This
appeal is before this Court pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C.
354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), and Slezak v. South
Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004).
Having carefully reviewed the record in this matter under the due process
standards set out in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), Al-Shabazz
v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), and their progeny, I find
that Appellant’s disciplinary conviction must be affirmed. The disciplinary
hearing conducted by the DHO was procedurally sound and the DHO’s conclusions
are sufficiently supported by the evidence in the record. In particular, there
is no evidence to suggest that the results of Appellant’s drug test were
inaccurate or compromised in any way, even if Appellant’s urine sample was
subsequently improperly handled as alleged. Further, as Appellant did not
raise his concerns regarding his possible false positive at the evidentiary
hearing, that concern was not preserved as a ground for appeal and cannot now
be addressed for the first time on appeal. Moreover, the evidence in the
record indicates that Lieutenant Walls was informed by the prison infirmary
that Appellant was not taking any prescription medications that would cause him
to have a false positive drug test for cocaine.
ORDER
For
the reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s May 4, 2004 disciplinary conviction for the
use of cocaine is AFFIRMED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D.
GEATHERS
Administrative
Law Judge
Post Office Box
11667
Columbia, South
Carolina 29211-1667
June 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |