CHRISTIAN VASILE VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3015-18T2
CRISTIAN VASILE,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
______________________________
Submitted March 2, 2020 – Decided May 12, 2020
Before Judges Vernoia and Susswein.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Cristian Vasile, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Sookie Bae, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Beonica A. McClanahan, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Cristian Vasile, is a State Prison inmate. He appeals pro se
from a Department of Corrections (DOC) final agency decision finding that he
used an unprescribed prohibited substance, Suboxone, in violation of N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(xvi). The hearing officer imposed 120 days of administrative
segregation; a 120-day loss of commutation credits; 365 days of urine
monitoring; a 365-day loss of contact visits; and a 15-day loss of recreation
privileges.
Vasile contends on appeal that DOC did not prove the chain of custody of
the urine specimen that tested positive for Suboxone. He also contends that the
corrections officer who collected the specimen inappropriately served as the
investigating officer after the disciplinary charge was filed. Finally, Vasile
contends his due process rights were violated because the hearing officer denied
his request for the urinalysis results of the nine other inmates who were tested
at the same time. After reviewing the record in light of the applicable legal
principles, we reject Vasile's contentions and affirm the disciplinary conviction.
I.
In January 2019, Vasile and nine other inmates were administratively
transferred from the Bayside State Prison Farm Unit to the medium unit. As a
routine procedure, all ten inmates were required to submit a urine specimen for
A-3015-18T2
2
on-site analysis. Corrections Officer Alvarez collected the specimens. After
Vasile's specimen tested positive for Suboxone, Corrections Sergeant Probst
conducted an initial interview with Vasile and filed a disciplinary report. The
urine specimen was refrigerated and sent to a laboratory for confirmatory
testing. That test confirmed the initial on-site results. Corrections Sergeant
Saduk served the resulting disciplinary charge on Vasile, conducted a follow-up
investigation, and referred the matter to a hearing officer.
At the disciplinary hearing, Vasile was represented by counsel substitute.
Vasile was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine Sergeant Probst. Counsel
substitute argued that Vasile had not used unprescribed drugs. 1 However, Vasile
presented no evidence to support that claim. Vasile declined the opportunity to
call witnesses, and he did not testify on his own behalf at the hearing.
II.
We begin our analysis by acknowledging certain legal principles that
govern this appeal. We will disturb the DOC's final agency decision only if we
determine it is "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable," or is unsupported "by
1
On appeal, Vasile now also claims that the specimen cups were not labeled.
At the hearing, Probst testified on cross-examination that he did not witness the
specimen cups being labeled. However, Vasile presented no testimony or other
evidence that the cups were unlabeled.
A-3015-18T2
3
substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State
Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579–80 (1980) (citing Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39
N.J. 556, 562 (1963)). Despite this deferential standard, our review is not
"perfunctory," nor is "our function . . . merely [to] rubberstamp an agency's
decision[.]" Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 191 (App. Div.
2010) (citations omitted). Rather, "[w]e are constrained to engage in a 'careful
and principled consideration of the agency record and findings.'" Williams, 330
N.J. Super. at 204 (quoting Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85,
93 (1973)).
In doing so, we remain mindful of DOC's important mission to maintain
prison safety and security, which is threatened by unauthorized drug use. See
Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231, 238 (App. Div. 2019)
(noting that prisons are dangerous, volatile places and that "inmates'
unauthorized narcotics use and possession seriously threaten[s] prison safety
and security" (citing Hamilton v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 366 N.J. Super. 284, 289
(App. Div. 2004))).
Applying those foundational principles, we reject Vasile's contention that
DOC failed to establish a proper chain of custody of his urine specimen. The
record shows to the contrary that every step from collection to initial on -site
A-3015-18T2
4
testing to refrigerated storage to delivery to the laboratory for confirmatory
testing was properly documented and proved at the hearing.
So too, Vasile's contention that Sergeant Probst improperly served both as
an officer involved in the specimen collection process and as the investigating
officer is belied by the record.2 Sergeant Probst served neither of those roles.
Rather, it was Officer Alvarez who collected and documented the collection of
Vasile's urine. Similarly, it was Sergeant Saduk who conducted an investigation
after a confirmatory lab test confirmed that Vasile's urine specimen was positive
for Suboxone. Sergeant Saduk played no role in the collection, handling, or
testing of Vasile's urine specimen.
We also reject Vasile's contention that his due process rights were violated
because the hearing officer denied his request for the urinalysis results of the
nine other inmates who were tested at the same time. Vasile has failed to
demonstrate the relevancy of the other test results. He was disciplined based on
the urinalysis results of his own specimen.
Likewise, we reject Vasile's contention he was denied due process because
he was not permitted to call as witnesses the other inmates who were tested. The
2
N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.5(b) requires that the investigation of a suspected
disciplinary infraction must be conducted by "an employee of supervisory level
who has not been involved in the particular incident to be investigated."
A-3015-18T2
5
record shows, contrary to his contention on appeal, he was offered the
opportunity to call witnesses and declined to do so. We thus conclude that DOC
afforded Vasile with all of the rights and procedural protections to which he was
entitled at the hearing. See Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975)
(specifying the procedural due process requirements at a disciplinary hearing).
In sum, we hold DOC's findings are supported by substantial credible
evidence in the record as a whole, and is not arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable. Henry, 81 N.J. at 580. To the extent we have not addressed them,
any additional arguments Vasile raises in his pro se brief lack sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3015-18T2
6