Vasquez v. Coughlin
| Decision Date | 06 March 1986 |
| Parties | In the Matter of William VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William Vasquez, Comstock, for petitioner.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Martin A. Hotvet, of counsel), Albany, for respondents.
Before MAIN, J.P., and CASEY, WEISS, MIKOLL and HARVEY, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of a Superintendent's proceeding finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
On November 7, 1984, while petitioner was a prisoner at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, a urine specimen was taken from him. On November 9, 1984, the sample was tested twice for cannabinoids on the Syva Emit/st drug system (hereinafter Emit test). Two positive results were shown as a result of these tests. A misbehavior report was served on petitioner on November 11, 1984 and, attached thereto, were two "urinalysis procedure" forms, four "result cards" and a "request for urinalysis test" form. The form requesting the urinalysis test indicated that petitioner had been selected at random for the test. The urinalysis procedure form for the first test was completely filled out, while the form for the second test had two blank spaces. Finally, the result cards, dated November 9, 1984, gave instructions for using the Emit test.
At a hearing held on November 14, 1984, petitioner denied the charges and did not request any assistance or witnesses. Petitioner was thereafter found guilty of violating an institutional rule prohibiting the use of a controlled substance. Petitioner was assessed 45 days in the Special Housing Unit and 45 days' loss of commissary, packages and phone-home program privileges. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding claiming that reliance on an uncorroborated Emit test, absent a second independent test, denied him due process. The matter was transferred to this court by order of Special Term.
The determination should be confirmed and the petition dismissed. The determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Petitioner's contention that Emit test results are not reliable enough to constitute substantial evidence is rejected. The reliability of Emit test results for use in prison disciplinary proceedings has been established by ample scientific evidence (see, Wykoff v. Resig, N.D.Ind., 613 F.Supp. 1504, 1508-1512; Peranzo v. Coughlin, S.D.N.Y., 608 F.Supp. 1504, 1509-1512). In Peranzo, the court noted that due process does not require scientific exactitude and that testing procedures such as breathalyzers, which are not foolproof, have been accepted in criminal trials as well as administrative proceedings ( Peranzo v. Coughlin, supra, pp. 1507-1508, citing People v. Gower, 42 N.Y.2d 117, 397 N.Y.S.2d 368, 366 N.E.2d 69). In Peranzo, a study conducted by an expert witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. U.S., 86-31.
...and judicial opinions sufficient, without expert testimony of record, to show general acceptance of EMIT); Vasquez v. Coughlin, 118 A.D.2d 897, 898, 499 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1986) (reliance on other judicial decisions to establish EMIT); Walker, 164 Ill.App.3d at 135-37, 115 Ill. Dec. at 269-......
-
Thomas v. McBride
...1261 (1987); Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 524 N.Y.S.2d 30, 33, 518 N.E.2d 924 (1987); Vasquez v. Coughlin, 118 A.2d 897, 898, 499 N.Y.S.2d 461 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1986). 2. The lab report prepared by Witham Memorial Hospital Toxicology Laboratory for another inmate, submitted by Mr. Thomas in sup......
-
Lahey v. Kelly
...thus the admissibility of the EMIT test results. Because the Fourth Department and the Third Department ( see, Matter of Vasquez v. Coughlin, 118 A.D.2d 897, 499 N.Y.S.2d 461) had reached different results on the use of EMIT tests, we granted respondents leave to appeal. It is well establis......
-
Lahey v. Kelly
...met. The EMIT test is of relatively recent origin, and although it has been accepted by some courts (see, e.g., Matter of Vasquez v. Coughlin, 118 A.D.2d 897, 499 N.Y.S.2d 461; Jensen v. Lick, 589 F.Supp. 35; Smith v. State, 250 Ga. 438, 298 S.E.2d 482), other courts have rejected it requir......