Wis. Admin. Code Department of Corrections DOC 308.04
Wis. Admin. Code Department of Corrections DOC 308.04
Administrative confinement under s. DOC 308.04 is a nonpunitive measure taken to ensure personal safety and security within the institution. This measure may be infrequently needed and of short duration but, as to a particular inmate, the reasonable needs of safety and security within the institution may require continued confinement for long periods of time.
Sub. (2) establishes the conditions under which administrative confinement may be used. Administrative confinement is a vehicle for removing inmates from the general population to protect and ensure the safety, security and orderly running of the institution. Without the ability to confine this type of inmate, the primary security objectives of the department, namely protecting the public, staff, inmates, and property, cannot be met.
Inmate misconduct is handled through the disciplinary process. Segregation in administrative confinement cannot be a penalty for misconduct, but may result either prior to or subsequent to a disciplinary proceeding or independent of any such proceeding.
Sub. (3) requires special review by the ACRC. This review incorporates components of the standard of the major disciplinary hearing procedure. This review is provided despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that due process does not require this review for these transfers. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976). In Caldwell v. Miller, 790 F2d 589 (7th Cir 1986), the court found no liberty interest in a transfer from one cell block in an institution to another. Due process protections are important and are afforded to few inmates affected by this provision because of the seriousness of the prolonged social isolation of administrative confinement. Nonetheless, by providing the review, the Department does not intend to create any protected liberty interest by using mandatory language. Administrative confinement is a typical approach used in prison to respond to situations listed in this chapter. See Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995).
At this special review, in this status, there must be proof, from evidence presented at the hearing and from the inmate's records, that he or she meets one of the criteria for administrative confinement under sub. (2). The responsibility for placement rests solely with the ACRC. An appeal is provided first to the warden and then to the administrator of the division of adult institutions, one of the highest levels in the department, in recognition of the potential serious consequences of prolonged segregation in administrative confinement.
Sub. (4) gives the inmates certain rights. It requires that adequate written notice of the review be given the inmate. If necessary, a verbal explanation of the notice should be made in accordance with the inmate's needs. The rights also include the right to present and question a witness in the same manner as for due process hearings, s. DOC 303.84.
Sub. (9) provides for a review of the inmate's status at least once every 6 months. A review may occur earlier at the discretion of the warden. This time period balances fairness to the inmate with the practicalities of providing for a meaningful review by the ACRC. Compliance with departmental rules alone may not be sufficient and an inmate may continue to be confined if there is still reasonable fear of violent behavior, harm to the inmate by others, harm to others or riots.
Sub. (10) reflects the view that administrative confinement may have serious consequences and that extreme care should be exercised at the highest level in assessing the need for continued confinement.
This chapter is in substantial accord with the provisions regarding the special management of inmates in the American Correctional Association's Manual of Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions (1993), standards 3-4237, 3-4249, 3-4254, 3-4255, and 3-4261.