Opinion
# 2012-015-540 Claim No. 114479
05-11-2012
DAVIS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Pro se inmate, purportedly a Rastafarian, alleged violations of his right to the free exercise of religion arising from damage to his dreadlocks caused by the use of a curette to probe for contraband. Notably, herein, marijuana and weapons were found in claimant's dreadlocks. Court found legitimate penological interest warranted intrusion into claimant's dreadlocks. Case information
UID: 2012-015-540 Claimant(s): SAMUEL DAVIS Claimant short name: DAVIS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 114479 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS Claimant's attorney: Samuel Davis, Pro Se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: May 11, 2012 City: Saratoga Springs Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
The trial of this matter was held via video teleconference on March 8, 2012.
Claimant testified that on August 30, 2007 he was selected for a pat-frisk while in the rotunda at Great Meadow Correctional Facility. The frisk was conducted and the claimant, who is a Rastafarian, was taken to the infirmary for a further search, where he requested that any search of his dreadlocks be conducted using X-ray technology. Instead, claimant testified that Nurse Lehman used a curette tool to probe claimant's hair searching for drugs and/or weapons. Claimant objected to this procedure as his religious beliefs consider his dreadlocks to be sacred and the curette tool tore and created holes in his hair. Claimant testified the defendant knew he was a Rastafarian and that physical manipulation of his dreadlocks was a violation of his religious rights. Claimant testified that he has been growing his dreadlocks since 1991 and that they were damaged as a result of the search conducted by Nurse Lehman. According to the claimant, neither drugs nor weapons were discovered as a result of the search of his dreadlocks.
On cross-examination the claimant agreed that a hand-held metal detector was used during the initial search which occurred in the rotunda area.
The defendant called Correction Officer James Taylor as its first witness. Officer Taylor testified that he was employed by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision on August 30, 2007 at Great Meadow Correctional Facility. On that date Officer Taylor was stationed in the rotunda area and selected the claimant for a random pat-frisk. Claimant was frisked and a hand-held metal detector signaled when waived around claimant's head. Claimant was placed in restraints and taken to the infirmary where a second hand-held metal detector again sounded when waived in the vicinity of the claimant's head. Claimant was asked to separate his hair and various items of contraband, including four latex balloons and weapons, were found hidden in the claimant's dreadlocks (see Exhibits D, E, F). In addition, latex gloves containing heroin and several marijuana cigarettes were also found in the claimant's dreadlocks. Officer Taylor testified that he was still not confident that the search had discovered all contraband contained within the claimant's hair and he therefore requested that Nurse Lehman inspect the claimant's dreadlocks. Officer Taylor had no further involvement with the search and took control of the contraband and prepared Exhibit A, a report of strip frisk, and Exhibit B, a memorandum from Officer Taylor to his area Sergeant describing the search of inmate Davis.
Sergeant Deborah Cooney testified that on August 30, 2007 she was working in the rotunda area where correction officers routinely conduct random frisks of inmates. Claimant was selected for a random frisk and a hand-held metal detector used during the frisk indicated the presence of contraband. Claimant was handcuffed and taken to the infirmary by the witness and Correction Officer Taylor. Correction Officer Taylor searched claimant's hair and found weapons and "little baggies" containing drugs. Although the claimant was given the opportunity to separate his own hair during the initial portions of the search, Sergeant Cooney indicated that he was not cooperative and that in her opinion a further search was required. The witness identified Exhibits D and E as photographs of contraband recovered from the claimant's dreadlocks including drugs (pot and heroin) and weapons (hacksaw blades). Although Sergeant Cooney was aware that Nurse Lehman examined the claimant's dreadlocks, she was not sure that she was present at the time the search was conducted.
David Lehman testified that he was a Registered Nurse employed at Great Meadow Correctional Facility on August 30, 2007. On that date he was asked by Sergeant Cooney to arrange an X-ray of the claimant's dreadlocks. The witness explained to Sergeant Cooney that the facility X-ray technician was "not on premises" and that, in any event, the X-rays would not find non-metallic items contained in the claimant's dreadlocks. After speaking to the facility watch commander, Nurse Lehman used a curette, a tool used to remove earwax, to search the claimant's dreadlocks. According to Nurse Lehman, he gently pushed the curette through the dreadlocks and any resistence to the curette would indicate the presence of contraband. The search of claimant's dreadlocks took approximately one-half hour and no additional contraband was found.
Received in evidence as claimant's Exhibit 1 was Nurse Lehman's testimony from claimant's Tier III disciplinary hearing. Consistent with his trial testimony, Nurse Lehman testified that the radiologist was not available following the discovery of the contraband in claimant's dreadlocks and, in any event, an X-ray would reveal only metallic objects for which the hand-held scanner had already been used. As a result, Nurse Lehman used a curette to "gently" probe claimant's hair (claimant's Exhibit 1, p. 3). He found nothing and his search caused no injury or harm. According to Nurse Lehman's testimony at the hearing, the curette was not used to "separate" claimant's dreadlocks but was pushed "directly through" the hair, (claimant's Exhibit 1, p. 4). An interdepartmental communication authored by Sergeant Cooney describes the manner in which the search of claimant's dreadlocks was conducted and states that weapons, 9.87 grams of heroin and 3.73 grams of marijuana were recovered (claimant's Exhibit 2).
To the extent discernable from the claim, claimant seeks damages for a violation of his religious rights and the use of excessive force arising from Nurse Lehman's use of the curette to search for contraband, which allegedly damaged his dreadlocks.
An individual's right to the free exercise of religion is secured by the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution and section 3 of article I of the NY Constitution. To the extent a cause of action arising from a violation of the Federal Constitution could be inferred from the claim, however, it is well settled that the State is not a "person" amenable to suit under 42 USC § 1983, the enabling statute for constitutional violations (Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 184-185 [1996]; Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58 [1989]; Matter of Gable Transp., Inc. v State of New York, 29 AD3d 1125 [2006]; Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496 [2001]).
To the extent the claim may be read to allege a violation of the NY Constitution it is equally meritless. While the Court of Appeals in Brown v State of New York (89 NY2d 172 [1996]) recognized a constitutional tort cause of action where it was necessary to vindicate claimants' constitutional rights under the equal protection clause, it subsequently made clear in Martinez v City of Schenectady (97 NY2d 78, 83 [2001]) that this right is a narrow one which is unavailable where there are alternate avenues of redress (see also Bullard v State of New York, 307 AD2d 676 [2003]). Where available enforcement mechanisms are inadequate to address the conduct complained of, a damages remedy may be necessary and appropriate to ensure full realization of a claimant's constitutional rights (Martinez v City of Schenectady (97 NY2d at 83). Such is not the case, however, here.
Article 1 § 3 of the NY Constitution states "[t]he free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State to all mankind." The right to the free exercise of religion has been expressly extended to inmates by Correction Law § 610. The statutory remedy afforded an aggrieved inmate is limited, however, to "proceedings in the supreme court of the district where such institution is situated, which is hereby authorized and empowered to enforce the provisions of this section" (Correction Law § 610 [3]).
In Matter of Rivera v Smith (63 NY2d 501 [1984]) the Court of Appeals made clear that the religious rights of inmates are subject to "the imposition of reasonable restrictions by prison officials" (Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d at 511, citing Matter of Shahid v Coughlin, 83 AD2d at 11; Bell v Wolfish, 441 US 520, 546 [1979]; Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539, 556 1974]). In this regard, the reasonableness of any such restrictions will be judged "against the institutional needs and objectives being promoted" (id). So long as the restrictions placed upon an inmate's religious freedoms is outweighed by a "legitimate" institutional interest or objective, no constitutional violation has occurred (Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d at 512). Here, it is abundantly clear that the "formidable tasks" of maintaining order and securing the safety of inmates and prison employees warranted the limited intrusion into claimant's dreadlocks with the use of a curette (Id. at 513). Heroin, marijuana and weapons had already been discovered and the only method of definitively ruling out the existence of additional, non-metallic contraband secreted within claimant's hair was with the use of a probe. That claimant attempted to use his dreadlocks as a safehaven for contraband not only undermines the sincerity with which his religious beliefs were purportedly held but underscores the difficulties encountered by prison officials in maintaining order and security in the prison setting, and in striking a balance between the religious rights of inmates and the institutional need for security and order. The Court finds no violation of claimant's constitutional right to freedom of religion occurred.
To the extent the claim may be read to allege a cause of action for excessive force resulting from the alleged damage to claimant's dreadlocks, the evidence adduced at trial indicates otherwise (Jones v State of New York, 33 NY2d 275 [1973]; Stein v State of New York, 53 AD2d 988 [1976]; Shirvanion v State of New York, 64 AD3d 1113 [2009]; Bush v State of New York, 57 AD3d 1066 [2008]; Passino v State of New York, 260 AD2d 915, 916 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 814 [1999]). The claim is dismissed.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
May 11, 2012
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims