Martin v. Oregon State Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Martin v. Oregon State Penitentiary

547 P.2d 641, 24 Or. App. 855, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 2463

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 22, 1976

DocketNo. 09-75-300, CA 5327

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 547 P.2d 641 (Martin 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

Martin v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 547 P.2d 641, 24 Or. App. 855, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 2463 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

FORT, J.

Petitioner and another prisoner were joint occupants of a cell in the Segregation and Isolation unit, each as a result of prior matters not here relevant. A guard, while shaking down the cell, a routine security practice, discovered a stainless steel spoon and also a piece of plastic mirror. Petitioner was charged with violation of Major Rule 8 — possession of dangerous contraband, to-wit, weapons.

The Disciplinary Committee, after hearing, found petitioner had violated the rule and imposed an authorized penalty. Petitioner appeals. Petitioner himself at the hearing testified that the plastic mirror was in the cell and that it belonged to him. That a plastic mirror, particularly a small one such as this one was, can be used as or easily converted into a weapon, as the committee found, is not seriously disputed. He contended that the spoon was a paper one which he was authorized to have. Whether it was paper or stainless steel was a question of fact for the committee. It is conceded that possession of dangerous contraband in an S & I cell is a violation of Major Rule 8. Whether such a spoon or piece of plastic mirror was capable of being used as a dangerous weapon was also a fact question for the Disciplinary Committee.

Affirmed.

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

FORT, J.

Petitioner and another prisoner were joint occupants of a cell in the Segregation and Isolation unit, each as a result of prior matters not here relevant. A guard, while shaking down the cell, a routine security practice, discovered a stainless steel spoon and also a piece of plastic mirror. Petitioner was charged with violation of Major Rule 8 — possession of dangerous contraband, to-wit, weapons.

The Disciplinary Committee, after hearing, found petitioner had violated the rule and imposed an authorized penalty. Petitioner appeals. Petitioner himself at the hearing testified that the plastic mirror was in the cell and that it belonged to him. That a plastic mirror, particularly a small one such as this one was, can be used as or easily converted into a weapon, as the committee found, is not seriously disputed. He contended that the spoon was a paper one which he was authorized to have. Whether it was paper or stainless steel was a question of fact for the committee. It is conceded that possession of dangerous contraband in an S & I cell is a violation of Major Rule 8. Whether such a spoon or piece of plastic mirror was capable of being used as a dangerous weapon was also a fact question for the Disciplinary Committee.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 P.2d 641, 24 Or. App. 855, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 2463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-oregon-state-penitentiary-orctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack