Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 112 (1995)

A prison disciplinary determination may be based on confidential informant hearsay statements, provided the Hearing Officer independently assesses the informant’s reliability based on objective circumstances; a personal interview with the informant is not always required.

Summary

Abdur-Raheem, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating inmate rules based on information from confidential informants after an investigation into a fellow inmate’s murder. The Hearing Officer didn’t personally interview the informants but relied on written material. Abdur-Raheem challenged the determination, arguing the lack of personal interviews prevented an independent credibility assessment. The Court of Appeals held that while a Hearing Officer must independently assess informant reliability, a personal interview isn’t mandatory. Objective evidence and corroboration can suffice, balancing inmate rights with prison safety needs. The court affirmed the dismissal of Abdur-Raheem’s petition.

Facts

Following the murder of inmate Normaul Busjit, Abdur-Raheem was charged with violating prison rules prohibiting assaults and Penal Law violations, based on information from confidential sources. The misbehavior report indicated Abdur-Raheem conspired with others in the assault that led to Busjit’s death in the facility gymnasium. Abdur-Raheem denied the charges, claiming ignorance of the incident and never entering the bathroom where the homicide occurred. Several inmates testified investigators pressured them for cooperation. The Hearing Officer restricted questioning aimed at revealing informant identities or statement contents.

Procedural History

A Tier III hearing was conducted where Abdur-Raheem was found guilty based on confidential data deemed coherent, detailed, and believable by the Hearing Officer. The determination was administratively affirmed, resulting in a nine-year Special Housing Unit penalty and loss of privileges, later reduced after a Grand Jury failed to indict Abdur-Raheem for second-degree murder. Abdur-Raheem then filed an Article 78 proceeding, which was dismissed by the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a Hearing Officer must personally interview confidential informants to assess their credibility when their information forms the primary basis for a prison disciplinary determination.

Holding

1. No, because while the Hearing Officer must independently assess the informant’s reliability, a personal interview is not the only acceptable method; objective circumstances and corroborating evidence can suffice to establish reliability.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court acknowledged that prison disciplinary determinations can rely on hearsay, even solely on confidential information, provided it’s sufficiently reliable. A Hearing Officer can’t simply adopt an investigator’s reliability assessment; an independent evaluation is required, mirroring the standard for warrant applications based on informant tips. However, the Court rejected a rigid rule mandating personal interviews, finding that objective indicia of reliability can suffice. Quoting People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, the court emphasized basing determinations on ” ‘the kind of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in serious affairs’.” Corroborating details can validate an anonymous informant’s tip (People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693). The Court emphasized the need to protect inmate-informants and defer to prison authorities’ judgments in maintaining order. The Hearing Officer found the confidential information “coherent,” “detailed,” and “made sense,” which are valid bases for credibility assessment. The Court’s in-camera review confirmed the information’s reliability and corroboration by independent evidence. The notice given to Abdur-Raheem was adequate as it provided enough particulars to prepare an effective response.