View Case Details
Peter Peranzo Isadore Felix Oscar Roman Ferdinand Frilando Robert Lawrence Marcella Phipps James Boyd on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated Plaintiffs-Appellants
vs.
Thomas A. Coughlin III Commissioner New York State Department of Correctional Services and Ramon Rodriguez Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole Gerald M. Burke Joseph V. Salo William J. Barnwell Maurice Dean Theodore Kirkland Manuel Perron Irving Greenberg Maria Buchanan Samuel D. Sherrid Joseph Mulholland Barbara Treen and J. Kevin McNiff Commissioners of New York State Board of Parole in their Official Capacities Defendants-Appellees
Location:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Date:
June 24, 1988 Argued
June 27, 1988 Decided
Attorneys:
John A. Gresham New York New York (David C. Leven Robert Selcov William D. Gibney Prisoners' Legal Services of New York New York New York on the brief) for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Maryellen Chomsky Asst. Atty. Gen. New York New York (Robert Abrams Atty. Gen. New York New York on the brief) for Defendants-Appellees.
Court:
Newman Kearse and Cardamone Circuit Court.
Author:
The Hon. Justice Per Curiam
This is an appeal by New York State prisoners from a judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Leonard B. Sand Justice) granting summary judgment in favor of New York corrections officials in the prisoners' suit challenging the reliability of urinalysis drug test results for use as evidence sufficient to warrant prison discipline. The tests are performed by State officials using the Syva Company's EMIT-st urinalysis drug detection kits. Evidence before Justice Sand established that the testing procedure -- an initial test and a subsequent confirming test -- has an accuracy of at least 98%. Though the risk of false positives has not been entirely eliminated we agree with Justice Sand that use of the test results may be relied upon as sufficient evidence to warrant prison discipline under the standards of Superintendent v. Hill 472 U.S. 445 454-55 86 L. Ed. 2d 356 105 S. Ct. 2768 (1985). We also agree that the detention prior to the disciplinary hearings was administrative and conformed to the requirements of due process. See Hewitt v. Helms 459 U.S. 460 74 L. Ed. 2d 675 103 S. Ct. 864 (1983); Bolden v. Alston 810 F.2d 353 (2d Cir.) cert. denied 484 U.S. 896 108 S. Ct. 229 98 L. Ed. 2d 188 (1987).
On the basis of Justice Sand's well-reasoned opinion reported at 675 F. Supp. 102 we affirm the judgment of the District Court.