People v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 16 December 1985
• Citation: 115 A.D.2d 597,496 N.Y.S.2d 258
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Plaintiff, v. Alfredo LEWIS, Defendant. Alfredo LEWIS, Respondent, v. COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 258

496 N.Y.S.2d 258

115 A.D.2d 597

The PEOPLE, etc., Plaintiff, v. Alfredo LEWIS, Defendant.

Alfredo LEWIS, Respondent, v. COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF the

STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Dec. 16, 1985.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Maryellen Weinberg and Esther R. Furman, of counsel), for appellant.

Alan E. Kudisch, Kew Gardens, for respondent.

Caesar D. Cirigliano, New York City (Arnold S. Cohen, of counsel), for The Legal Aid Soc. and Wayne Overton amici curiae.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, NIEHOFF and EIBER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Directive No. 4914 of New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) violates respondent's First Amendment rights, defendant DOCS appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated August 21, 1985, as, after a hearing, declared that the directive's requirement of an initial haircut is unconstitutional as applied to respondent and held that respondent may retain his dreadlocks.

Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Respondent is an avowed Rastafarian who has not cut his hair in 20 or 25 years. He has worn the hair in "dreadlock" fashion since he was five years old. He is also a convicted felon who is awaiting sentencing and transfer to a State correctional facility. Following his conviction, he commenced this declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of DOCS's Directive No. 4914 which would require him to submit to a haircut and shave upon commencing his sentence, in violation of his religious convictions which appellant concedes are sincere.

Directive No. 4914 provides:

"Males received as new commitments shall get an initial haircut and shave for reasons of health and sanitation as well as to permit the taking of the initial identification photograph. Hair length upon completion of this initial haircut shall not exceed one (1) inch on any part of the head. For the purpose of the initial clean shaven identification photograph, inmates who have a beard upon reception shall be permitted the option to use an electric razor, hand razor, hand clippers, or a depilatory to remove their beard".

Inmates may thereafter grow their hair to any length and beards and mustaches to a length of no more than one inch. Appellant DOCS asserts this rule is needed for reasons of security and sanitation. A Deputy Commissioner of DOCS testified at the hearing. He stated that photographs of each inmate are taken after the haircut and shave so that DOCS has a picture that shows the facial features and contours unobstructed by hair. Such photographs can facilitate the apprehension of escaped convicts, especially if they drastically change their appearances by cutting off long hair. He also noted that the haircut makes it easier to decontaminate incoming prisoners of lice. Respondent conceded that there was justification for the requirement that he shave in order to ensure a full facial view in his photograph. Therefore, he did not vigorously press his challenge to that part of the directive.

The hearing court found that the identification objective would be fully achieved by pulling respondent's locks back tightly behind...