NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1089-24
OSCAR PORTER,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. __________________________
Submitted May 7, 2026 ‒ Decided July 15, 2026
Before Judges Bishop-Thompson and Puglisi.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Oscar Porter, self-represented appellant.
Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Oscar Porter, an inmate at East Jersey State Prison, appeals from a final
agency decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) imposing discipline
for committing prohibited act *.203, possession or introduction of any
prohibited substance such as drugs, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not
prescribed by medical or dental staff. Porter contends the decision was arbitrary,
capricious, and unreasonable because the alleged prohibited substance was not
confirmed by the state laboratory; and therefore, the evidence was insufficient
to find him guilty of the infraction. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
I.
On September 18, 2024, Correctional Police Officers C. Anastasio and M.
Patella ordered Porter to exit his cell and conducted a pat-frisk. During the
search, Officer Anastasio found three packages of rolling paper in Porter's left
pocket. He also observed and retrieved three blue glove fingertip balloons from
Porter's bed: two balloons contained "suspected" tobacco, and the third
contained "suspected" marijuana. The rolling papers and balloons were
photographed and confiscated. The officers then conducted a strip-frisk of
Porter, but no additional contraband was found. After returning to Porter's cell,
the officers found no further contraband. Porter's urinalysis specimen tested
negative for prohibited substances.
A-1089-24 2 That same day, Porter was charged with committing prohibited act *.203.
The following day, he was served with the disciplinary charge.
The initial hearing, scheduled for September 19, 2024, was adjourned to
allow the Special Investigations Division (SID) to complete its investigation.
The following week, an SID investigator received an email from a DOC
employee that the MobileDetect field test conducted on the substance found in
the third ballon tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids. However, no
confirmatory test was performed by a state laboratory.
The hearing was held on October 8, 2025. Porter's request for counsel
substitute was granted. In the single adjudication report covering both days of
the hearings, the written findings by the same Disciplinary Hearing Officer
(DHO) noted Porter declined to present any witnesses or cross-examine adverse
witnesses and instead pleaded guilty to the charge. The counsel substitute
argued the DOC did not send the substance to the state laboratory for
confirmatory testing. Additionally, the counsel substitute highlighted Porter
was attending school and requested leniency.
Based on the SID reports, the DHO upheld the disciplinary charge. The
DHO then imposed the following sanctions upon Porter: 365 days of urine
monitoring, a permanent loss of contact visits, a 120-day loss of commutation
A-1089-24 3 time, a thirty-day loss of telephone privileges, a thirty-day loss of recreation
privileges, a thirty-day loss of access to his email and JPay accounts, a thirty-
day loss of canteen privileges, and 120 days in the Restorative Housing Unit.
Porter filed an administrative appeal challenging the disciplinary finding
of guilt and the imposed sanctions, but the DOC affirmed the decision. Porter
then appealed the final agency decision. We granted the DOC's motion to
remand the matter in order to amplify the record, specifically regarding the
evidence relied upon to find Porter guilty and the reasons for not obtaining a
confirmatory laboratory test. Porter v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., Docket No. A-1089-
24 (App. Div. Aug. 7, 2025).
The DOC conducted a re-hearing on September 3, 2025, during which
Porter was again assisted by counsel substitute. The counsel substitute asserted
the DOC violated Porter's due process. Porter pleaded not guilty and declined
to make a statement, present witnesses, or cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A different DHO upheld the charge and imposed the same sanctions. The
adjudication form included written findings supporting the decision, stating: the
MobileDetect field test identified the substance; the substance was not sent to
the state laboratory for a confirmatory test because it weighed less than six
ounces; the SID investigator provided a professional opinion that the substance
A-1089-24 4 was marijuana; and photographs of the rubber glove finger were included as
evidence.
Porter filed another administrative appeal, asserting a violation of his due
process rights. The DOC issued its second final agency decision upholding the
DHO's findings and all sanctions. It explained the decision was based on
substantial evidence in the record and the sanctions imposed were appropriate
for the infraction. Porter's request for the reduction or suspension of the
sanctions was denied.
II.
Porter contends the DOC's failure to follow the standard procedure—
requiring investigation and evaluation of the substance by a state laboratory for
confirmation as a controlled dangerous substance—warrants reversal of the
guilty finding. He maintains that the finding was not supported by substantial
credible evidence because the DOC did not establish the reliability of the field
test. Porter asserts the DOC's refusal to submit the substance for confirmatory
testing violated departmental policy and denied him his due process right to
present exculpatory evidence.
Our review of a final agency decision is limited. Zimmerman v. Diviney,
477 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div. 2023). We do not substitute our judgment for
A-1089-24 5 that of the agency and will not disturb the agency's determination unless it is
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or is not supported by substantial credible
evidence in the record. Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n,
234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018). In making this determination, we consider in part
"whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on
which the agency based its action." Id. at 157-58 (quoting In re Stallworth, 208
N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). "'Substantial evidence' means 'such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Figueroa
v. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Pub.
Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)).
However, our review is not "perfunctory[,]" nor is "our function . . .
merely [to] rubberstamp an agency decision." Id. at 191 (first quoting Blackwell
v. Dep't of Corr., 348 N.J. Super. 117, 123 (App.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-1089-24
OSCAR PORTER,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. __________________________
Submitted May 7, 2026 ‒ Decided July 15, 2026
Before Judges Bishop-Thompson and Puglisi.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Oscar Porter, self-represented appellant.
Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Oscar Porter, an inmate at East Jersey State Prison, appeals from a final
agency decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) imposing discipline
for committing prohibited act *.203, possession or introduction of any
prohibited substance such as drugs, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not
prescribed by medical or dental staff. Porter contends the decision was arbitrary,
capricious, and unreasonable because the alleged prohibited substance was not
confirmed by the state laboratory; and therefore, the evidence was insufficient
to find him guilty of the infraction. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
I.
On September 18, 2024, Correctional Police Officers C. Anastasio and M.
Patella ordered Porter to exit his cell and conducted a pat-frisk. During the
search, Officer Anastasio found three packages of rolling paper in Porter's left
pocket. He also observed and retrieved three blue glove fingertip balloons from
Porter's bed: two balloons contained "suspected" tobacco, and the third
contained "suspected" marijuana. The rolling papers and balloons were
photographed and confiscated. The officers then conducted a strip-frisk of
Porter, but no additional contraband was found. After returning to Porter's cell,
the officers found no further contraband. Porter's urinalysis specimen tested
negative for prohibited substances.
A-1089-24 2 That same day, Porter was charged with committing prohibited act *.203.
The following day, he was served with the disciplinary charge.
The initial hearing, scheduled for September 19, 2024, was adjourned to
allow the Special Investigations Division (SID) to complete its investigation.
The following week, an SID investigator received an email from a DOC
employee that the MobileDetect field test conducted on the substance found in
the third ballon tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids. However, no
confirmatory test was performed by a state laboratory.
The hearing was held on October 8, 2025. Porter's request for counsel
substitute was granted. In the single adjudication report covering both days of
the hearings, the written findings by the same Disciplinary Hearing Officer
(DHO) noted Porter declined to present any witnesses or cross-examine adverse
witnesses and instead pleaded guilty to the charge. The counsel substitute
argued the DOC did not send the substance to the state laboratory for
confirmatory testing. Additionally, the counsel substitute highlighted Porter
was attending school and requested leniency.
Based on the SID reports, the DHO upheld the disciplinary charge. The
DHO then imposed the following sanctions upon Porter: 365 days of urine
monitoring, a permanent loss of contact visits, a 120-day loss of commutation
A-1089-24 3 time, a thirty-day loss of telephone privileges, a thirty-day loss of recreation
privileges, a thirty-day loss of access to his email and JPay accounts, a thirty-
day loss of canteen privileges, and 120 days in the Restorative Housing Unit.
Porter filed an administrative appeal challenging the disciplinary finding
of guilt and the imposed sanctions, but the DOC affirmed the decision. Porter
then appealed the final agency decision. We granted the DOC's motion to
remand the matter in order to amplify the record, specifically regarding the
evidence relied upon to find Porter guilty and the reasons for not obtaining a
confirmatory laboratory test. Porter v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., Docket No. A-1089-
24 (App. Div. Aug. 7, 2025).
The DOC conducted a re-hearing on September 3, 2025, during which
Porter was again assisted by counsel substitute. The counsel substitute asserted
the DOC violated Porter's due process. Porter pleaded not guilty and declined
to make a statement, present witnesses, or cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A different DHO upheld the charge and imposed the same sanctions. The
adjudication form included written findings supporting the decision, stating: the
MobileDetect field test identified the substance; the substance was not sent to
the state laboratory for a confirmatory test because it weighed less than six
ounces; the SID investigator provided a professional opinion that the substance
A-1089-24 4 was marijuana; and photographs of the rubber glove finger were included as
evidence.
Porter filed another administrative appeal, asserting a violation of his due
process rights. The DOC issued its second final agency decision upholding the
DHO's findings and all sanctions. It explained the decision was based on
substantial evidence in the record and the sanctions imposed were appropriate
for the infraction. Porter's request for the reduction or suspension of the
sanctions was denied.
II.
Porter contends the DOC's failure to follow the standard procedure—
requiring investigation and evaluation of the substance by a state laboratory for
confirmation as a controlled dangerous substance—warrants reversal of the
guilty finding. He maintains that the finding was not supported by substantial
credible evidence because the DOC did not establish the reliability of the field
test. Porter asserts the DOC's refusal to submit the substance for confirmatory
testing violated departmental policy and denied him his due process right to
present exculpatory evidence.
Our review of a final agency decision is limited. Zimmerman v. Diviney,
477 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div. 2023). We do not substitute our judgment for
A-1089-24 5 that of the agency and will not disturb the agency's determination unless it is
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or is not supported by substantial credible
evidence in the record. Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n,
234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018). In making this determination, we consider in part
"whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on
which the agency based its action." Id. at 157-58 (quoting In re Stallworth, 208
N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). "'Substantial evidence' means 'such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Figueroa
v. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Pub.
Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)).
However, our review is not "perfunctory[,]" nor is "our function . . .
merely [to] rubberstamp an agency decision." Id. at 191 (first quoting Blackwell
v. Dep't of Corr., 348 N.J. Super. 117, 123 (App. Div. 2002); and then citing
Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 330 N.J. Super. 197, 204 (App. Div. 2000)). Instead,
"our function is 'to engage in a careful and principled consideration of the
agency record and findings.'" Ibid. (quoting Williams, 330 N.J. Super. at 204).
Porter relies on our decision in Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J.
Super. 231 (App. Div. 2019) in making his contentions. He contends, under
Blanchard, the DOC was required to submit the substance for confirmatory
A-1089-24 6 testing by a state laboratory, and its failure to do so undermines the finding of
guilt. The MobileDetect pouch states it is approved for "presumptive field drug
testing" and results "should be confirmed using laboratory equipment."
In contrast, the DOC maintains that Porter's interpretation of Blanchard
goes beyond the scope of our limited holding in that case. The DOC further
asserts there is ample evidence in the record, including the additional reasons
provided on remand, to support the finding of guilt.
In Blanchard, we held the DOC acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or
unreasonably in denying the inmate's request for a confirmatory laboratory test.
In reaching our conclusion, we considered four factors: (1) the field test's
unproven reliability and the lack of evidence that a properly-trained special
investigator performed the test; (2) the amount of evidence corroborating the
claim the inmate possessed the drug; (3) the DOC's policy of routinely sending
specimens for confirmatory testing, which recognized a field test's limitation
and was "not unduly burdensome"; and (4) the DOC's failure to provide any
reasoned explanation for refusing Blanchard's request for a confirmatory test.
461 N.J. Super. at 243-48. "[T]he test's reliability is pertinent to whether the
agency has provided a fundamentally fair hearing, and met its burden of proof."
Id. at 243.
A-1089-24 7 The DOC does not directly address the factors outlined in Blanchard.
Based on our review of the record, three of the four factors are present in this
matter.
Regarding the first factor, the record contains no information regarding
the reliability or accuracy of MobileDetect, nor does it identify the officer who
administered the field test. Although the written findings note the DHO relied
on the SID investigator's professional opinion, no report documents an opinion
that the substance was synthetic cannabinoids. Instead, the special custody and
disciplinary reports, as well the inmate receipt and contraband seizure form, note
the third ballon was suspected to contain marijuana.
Concerning the third factor, the DHO also considered an undated and
unsigned handwritten note, which questioned whether a field test should be
conducted, or whether the substance should be sent to the state laboratory, and
requested pictures of the test results. The only documentation of testing was an
email stating, "Inmate Porter Mobile[]Detect test (DSY) positive for [s]ynthetic
[c]annabinoids." The DHO's written findings of the re-hearing did not address
the request for either a confirmatory test or additional detail.
Finally, with respect to the fourth factor, the DOC did not provide any
reasoned explanation for not submitting the substance for confirmatory testing.
A-1089-24 8 The record shows Porter, along with other inmates, requested to see a picture of
the test results and sought additional details regarding the testing process. Based
on the handwritten note, we infer sending the substance for confirmatory testing
would not have been unduly burdensome for the DOC, as the DOC has sent
substances to a state laboratory on prior occasions. In this matter, the DHO
merely stated the substance weighed less than six ounces; but this assertion was
not supported by any DHO policy or administrative directive.
The DOC maintains the non-routine cell search, the discovery of the
rolling papers, and the third ballon containing "suspected" marijuana constitutes
substantial credible evidence. The DOC's reliance on the positive field test and
an undocumented "professional opinion" support the need for a confirmatory
test to assure fundamental fairness. We are not persuaded the written findings
are based on "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion." Id. at 238 (quoting Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super at 192). We
therefore conclude the additional findings made by the DHO do not amount to
substantial credible evidence supporting the finding of guilt.
Reversed.
A-1089-24 9