pecor v. menard ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • STATE or VERMONT
    SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
    Washington Unit QNDE -8 FP 405 Docket No. 202-3-17 Wnev
    DAVID PECOR
    Plaintiff ae eK
    v.
    LISA MENARD, Commissioner,
    Vermont Dep’t of Corrections
    Defendant
    DECISION
    Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
    Defendant the Vermont Department of Corrections disciplined Plaintiff-Inmate David -
    Pecor for attempting to introduce drugs into prison through two visitors. Mr. Pecor seeks Rule
    75 review of that determination, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to show that he had any
    foreknowledge of or involvement in any such scheme. The parties have filed cross-motions for
    summary judgment.
    The basic narrative is undisputed. On January 21, 2017, a correction officer found a
    “slug” of drugs on the walkway near the prison toward the public parking lot. It was presumed
    that a recent visitor had dropped it accidentally. The most recent visitors were identified as two
    women who had come to see Mr. Pecor and were still at the facility. When they left, they
    walked around the walkway and parking lot obviously looking for something on the ground and
    in their car. Mr, Pecor later spoke with one of the visitors on the phone. The two spoke about
    the “key” getting lost and whether it had been found. It had not.
    Based on those facts, Mr, Pecor was alleged to have attempted to introduce drugs into the
    facility. After a hearing, he was found guilty. The finding essentially required two factual
    inferences: that the two women possessed and then dropped the slug, and that the drugs were
    intended for Mr. Pecor and he was in on the plot.
    In Vermont, due process requires the DOC to prove a disciplinary infraction by a
    preponderance of the evidence at the disciplinary hearing. LaFaso y. Patrissi, 
    161 Vt. 46
    , 51
    (1993). On review, the court will uphold the DOC’s determination if “there is any evidence in
    the record to support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent v. Hill,
    
    472 U.S. 445
    , 455-56 (1985); Lafasa, 
    161 Vt. at 49
     (prison determination “must be upheld if it is
    supported by ‘some evidence’ in the record” (citation omitted)). “Requiring a modicum of
    evidence to support a decision . . . will help to prevent arbitrary deprivations without threatening
    institutional interests or imposing undue administrative burdens.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455.
    Mr. Pecor effectively concedes that the evidence was sufficient to support the inference
    that his visitors possessed the slug and then dropped it in the walkway. He argues, however, that
    there is no evidence from which one could infer that he was in on any plot to introduce the drugs
    into the facility. He argues that the phone conversation about the “key”—even if “key” is
    understood to be code for drugs—could only show awareness that the women had attempted to
    introduce the drugs after the fact. It could not, he argues, show that he knew anything about the
    attempt before the fact.
    The court is not persuaded. The transcript of the phone conversation provides adequate
    evidence from which one could infer that Mr. Pecor was speaking in “code” about a plot to
    introduce drugs into the facility and how it went wrong. It was reasonable in these
    circumstances to infer that the visitors were bringing the drugs to Mr. Pecor and he knew it. The
    “some evidence” standard does not require more.
    ORDER
    For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Pecor’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the
    State’s is granted.
    Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this gm day of December 2017.
    Mary(! Miles Teachout,
    Superior Judge
    S83 ROR VERMONT
    SUPERIORCOURT  &” “x CIVIL DIVISION
    Washington Unit Docket No. 202-3-17 Wncv
    2 DEC -8:'P & 05
    David Lee Pecor,
    Plaintiff
    “ FiLE JUDGMENT
    Lisa Menard,
    Shannon Marcoux,
    Defendants
    This action came before the court for consideration of the parties’ Cross Motions for
    Summary Judgment. The Court, on this day, having denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
    Judgment and granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
    It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall take nothing on the claim..
    Date at Montpelier, Vermont this 8" day of December, 2017.
    cis Len hecBa St
    Hon. MaryMiles Teachout
    Superior Court Judge
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 3/1/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/1/2024