Warren, Matter of

• Citation: 117 N.J. 295,566 A.2d 534
• Parties: In the Matter of John E. WARREN and Gerald Sowa.
• Decision Date: 04 December 1989
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Page 295

117 N.J. 295

566 A.2d 534

In the Matter of John E. WARREN and Gerald Sowa.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Oct. 24, 1989.

Decided Dec. 4, 1989.

Carol A. Blasi, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant New Jersey Dept. of Corrections (Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney; Michael R. Clancy, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel).

Robert A. Fagella, for respondent John E. Warren (Zazzali, Zazzali, Fagella & Nowak, Newark, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on appeal as of right under Rule 2:2-1(a)(2) because of a disagreement among the Appellate Division members over whether the Merit System Board had properly determined that a period of suspension, and not removal, was the appropriate discipline for a prison guard. The dissent concerns only the discipline of John E. Warren, one of the parties charged.

All agree that a court may not contravene the Board's measure of discipline unless the court finds that the Board's action was arbitrary and capricious. This shorthand expression for the scope of judicial review really encompasses three inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violates the enabling act's express or implied legislative policies; (2) whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred by reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. Campbell v. Department of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562, 189 A.2d 712 (1963).

A useful calculus for the first prong of this agency review test, violation of express or implied legislative policies, is the inquiry whether the decision "was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors * * * [or conversely] a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors." State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93, 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (guiding judicial supervision of an executive branch decision to admit a defendant to PTI).

In Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 410 A.2d 686 (1980), the Civil Service Commission (predecessor to the Merit System Board) was found to have acted arbitrarily in reducing a penalty from removal to a ninety-day suspension because it failed to consider a relevant factor, namely, the seriousness of a single instance of a State corrections officer's falsification of a report. Specifically, the Court found that the Commission failed to consider the seriousness of the officer's offense in the context of the prison setting, where order and discipline are necessary for safety and security. In other words, the Commission had failed to consider the effect on the environment of a State prison, and therefore on public safety itself, of a correction officer's falsifying a report. Id. at 580, 410 A.2d 686. "The falsification of a report can disrupt and destroy order and discipline in a prison." Ibid.

The Warren case was primarily tried as a "neglect of duty" infraction that resulted in the escape of four prisoners under the officer's supervision. The prisoners were detained in a special, independently-functioning unit of the Trenton State Prison. The unit is designed to house prisoners suffering from medical problems that require their separation from the general prison population. Some of the inmates are terminally ill. Consequently, in a humane gesture, the Department of Corrections has relaxed some of the ordinarily prevalent restraints against prisoner movement within the unit; namely, inmates in the unit have complete access to recreational areas from 8:00 a.m. till 10:00 p.m. However, the unit originally was designed to be a...