Disciplinary Evidence Case Study

Issue No. 1: In the appeal you state Lt. J. Ratliff was your hearings officer and that he had prior knowledge regarding details of your offense. Response: Alternate hearings officer Lt. Ratliff would have had knowledge about your offense due to preparations for hearing of this infraction; which would deem this issue irrelevant.

Issue No. 2: You state that you sent a letter to Lt. J. Ratliff asking him to dismiss the charge. You state in the appeal that Lt. Ratliff should have not handled anything regarding this disciplinary hearing. Response: The information regarding the letter you allegedly sent to Lt. Ratliff is irrelevant, as this was your choosing to send the alleged letter to Lt. Ratliff.

Issue No. 3: You state in your appeal that the hearings officer did not request or obtain permission from the Offender Discipline Unit and your hearing was scheduled outside the deadline. Response: In review of your disciplinary hearing you were notified during the hearing that permission was received by the Offender Discipline Unit in regards to where your hearing was scheduled outside the calendar day deadline. There was no violation of policy.

OFFENDER M. HAIRSTON #1064200
#218 (05/27/17)
Page 2
4: You state in your appeal that the Disciplinary Offense Report was written on the next day after the offense. Response: OP 861.1 states regarding the Disciplinary Offense Report “This report should be submitted during the shift when evidence supporting the Disciplinary Offense Report is discovered, or when the investigation is completed, and in time to allow the Disciplinary Offense Report to be served on the offender by midnight of the working day following discovery of the offense.” The reporting officer C/O J. Keen reports the offense date and time was 5/27/17 at 3:08PM and the Disciplinary Offense Report was served by C/O M. Belcher on 5/28/17 at 2:40PM. There was no violation of