Hedin v. Oregon State Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Hedin v. Oregon State Penitentiary

760 P.2d 901, 93 Or. App. 57

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 7, 1988

DocketAS-16; CA A43960

StatusPublished

This text of 760 P.2d 901 (Hedin v. Oregon State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hedin v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 760 P.2d 901, 93 Or. App. 57 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order that placed him in administrative segregation for one year, because he represents “an active and extreme threat to others within the prison population.” We affirm.

Petitioner first contends that no administrative rule authorizes his placement in administrative segregation. He is wrong. OAR 291-46-025(2) provides that an inmate may be involuntarily segregated if he “constitute^] an immediate and continuing threat to the safety and security of the institution, its staff, visitors and other inmates.”

Petitioner next contends that the evidence that he is a threat to the safety of other inmates in OSP is limited to uncorroborated allegations of unnamed informants.¹ He is wrong again. The record contains sufficient corroboration of the information supplied by the confidential informants. See Solar v. OSP, 87 Or App 222, 226, 742 P2d 611, rev den 304 Or 280 (1987); see also Bekins v. Cupp, 274 Or 115, 123, 545 P2d 861 (1976).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order that placed him in administrative segregation for one year, because he represents “an active and extreme threat to others within the prison population.” We affirm.

Petitioner first contends that no administrative rule authorizes his placement in administrative segregation. He is wrong. OAR 291-46-025(2) provides that an inmate may be involuntarily segregated if he “constitute^] an immediate and continuing threat to the safety and security of the institution, its staff, visitors and other inmates.”

Petitioner next contends that the evidence that he is a threat to the safety of other inmates in OSP is limited to uncorroborated allegations of unnamed informants.¹ He is wrong again. The record contains sufficient corroboration of the information supplied by the confidential informants. See Solar v. OSP, 87 Or App 222, 226, 742 P2d 611, rev den 304 Or 280 (1987); see also Bekins v. Cupp, 274 Or 115, 123, 545 P2d 861 (1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

760 P.2d 901, 93 Or. App. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hedin-v-oregon-state-penitentiary-orctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack