Illinois rules provide that questioning of witnesses is done by the submission of written questions which the hearing officer asks. Questions which are cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the institution are not allowed. Similarly, an inmate's request to call witnesses may be denied if the testimony is deemed to be cumulative, irrelevant, or would jeopardize the safety or disrupt the security of the institution. (20 ILAC 504.80 (h) (2), (4), and (5)) Wisconsin permits the direct questioning of witnesses and the submission of written questions but prohibits repetitive, disrespectful, or irrelevant questions. (DOC 303.80 (5))
Illinois rules specifically state that an inmate is not entitled to retained or appointed counsel. Also, an inmate may only request the assistance of a staff member in the preparation of his or her defense if the inmate is illiterate or does not speak English or when other circumstances exist that preclude the inmate from adequately preparing his or her defense. (20 ILAC 504.80 (i)) Wisconsin does not limit the assignment of staff representatives. (DOC 303.83)
Illinois rules specify that the provisions dealing with penalties following a hearing do not restrict or limit the Illinois department of corrections from administratively changing an inmate's job, educational, program, or housing assignment, to restrict privileges, or to transfer the inmate to another institution. (20 ILAC 504.80 (k) (5)) Wisconsin has a similar provision.
Illinois rules provide for the director, deputy director or chief administrative officer to remand a decision to the administrative committee for new proceedings if the proceedings are found to be defective due to: procedural error, lack of impartiality, improper exclusion of witnesses, failure to provide exonerating information to the inmate prior to the hearing. In addition, a new proceeding may be ordered in other circumstances as determined by one of the named officials. Finally, one of the named officials may request clarification, correction, or additional information. (20 ILAC 504.90) Wisconsin has no similar provision. However, Wisconsin provides for an inmate appeal process (DOC 303.82). In addition, if an inmate is not satisfied with the decision following appeal, the inmate may file an inmate complaint (Ch.
DOC 310). At any time, the warden may review the conduct report (DOC 303.91).
Illinois rules limit the penalty for multiple offenses arising out of one incident to the maximum penalty for the most serious offense of which the inmate is found guilty. (20 ILAC 504.110 (a)). Wisconsin has a similar provision (DOC 303.87(2)).
Illinois has a provision for the placement of an inmate into indeterminate segregation. (20 ILAC 504.115) Wisconsin has a provision for administrative confinement which is a non-punitive status (Ch.
DOC 308).
Illinois rules provide for credit against the term of segregation placement for the time spent in TLU. (20 ILAC 504.120 (a)) Wisconsin specifically does not permit the crediting of time spent in TLU. (DOC 303.87 (2) (f)) Wisconsin has a process to reduce time spent in segregation based on adjustment.
Illinois rules provide for the reduction in grade for inmates in centers who are found guilty of a disciplinary offense. (20 ILAC 504.130) Wisconsin has no similar provision.
Illinois rules list offenses in Appendix A and penalties in Appendix B. (20 ILAC 504 App. A and B) Wisconsin lists and defines offenses and sets maximum penalties based on major and minor offenses.
Iowa:
Iowa statutes have one provision which addresses inmate disciplinary procedures. ICA s.
904.505 (1) provides that inmates who disobey disciplinary rules of the institution shall be punished in accordance with the following: (1) to ensure that sanctions are imposed only at such times and to such a degree as is necessary to regulate inmate behavior and to promote a safe and orderly institution; (2) to control inmate behavior in an impartial and consistent manner; (3) to ensure that disciplinary procedures are fair and that sanctions are not capricious or retaliatory; (4) to prevent the commission of offenses through the deterrent effect of available sanctions; (5) to define the elements of each offense and the penalties which may be imposed for violations, in order to give a fair warning of prohibited conduct; and (6) to provide procedures for preparation of report or disciplinary actions, for conducting disciplinary hearings, and for processing of disciplinary appeals.
ICA s.
904.505 (2) requires the warden to maintain a register of all penalties imposed on inmates and the penalties imposed.
ICA s.
904.505 (4) provides that a reasonable administrative fee for tiling a report of a major disciplinary rule infraction for which an inmate is found guilty may be charged. The fee must be deposited in the general fund of the state.
Iowa does not have administrative rules which govern the discipline of inmates in prison. The Iowa department of corrections has issued a policy and procedure which addresses rules and discipline in institutions. (Policy Number IO-RD-01 (eff. 4/2009))
Michigan:
Michigan rules provide that a violation of department rules by an inmate is classified as a major or minor misconduct on the basis of the seriousness of the act and the disciplinary sanction imposed. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.5501 (1)) Wisconsin has a similar provision. An inmate charged with a major misconduct is entitled to a formal hearing. An inmate charged with a minor misconduct is entitled to a fact-finding hearing. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.5501 (2)) The Michigan department of corrections has a hearings division which conducts administrative hearings regarding inmates. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.3301) Wisconsin also differentiates between the processes for handling major and minor violations.
All hearings have two phases: fact determination phase and disposition phase. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.3305) At a fact finding hearing, an inmate shall be permitted to be present and speak on his or her own behalf and to receive a copy of any department document specifically relevant to the hearing unless disclosure of the document would threaten the order and security of the institution or a person. An inmate may waive the fact finding phase. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.3310) While Wisconsin's rules are not identical, there is a similarity between the two processes.
At least 24 hours prior to a formal hearing, an inmate shall receive written notice of a formal disciplinary hearing. The notice shall include the charges, a description of the circumstances giving rise to the hearing, and the date of the hearing. The inmate shall identify necessary witnesses the inmate wishes to have interviewed, request documents specifically relevant to the issue for the hearing, and request assistance of a staff investigator to gather evidence or speak for the inmate. An inmate may waive the 24 hour notice requirement in writing. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.3315 (1) – (3))
At a formal hearing the inmate has the right to be present and offer evidence, to compel disclosure of documents specifically relevant to the issue being heard, unless disclosure poses a threat to safety and security, to call witness who can give necessary, relevant, and material evidence, unless to do so would be unduly hazardous to institutional or safety goals, to present the report of the staff investigator, to submit questions to the hearing officer to ask of witnesses, and to request disqualification of a hearing officer for personal bias based on an affidavits containing specific evidence of personal bias. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.3315 (6)) The hearing officer shall render a written decision or recommendation in every case, setting forth the reasons for the decision, a statement of facts, and the evidence relied upon, and any sanctions imposed. With 48 hours of the conclusion of a hearing on a major misconduct charge the decision shall be post for staff information the name of the inmate charged, the violations charged and whether the inmate was found guilty. The information should be posted in an area accessible to staff but not usually accessible to inmates. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.3315 (8) and (9))
An inmate may appeal a determination made at a fact finding or informal hearing. The inmate must indicate orally his or her intention to appeal at the conclusion of the hearing and within 24 hours of receiving the written decision file a written appeal. The procedures are found in policies and procedures, not the rules. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.3320 (1)) An inmate may appeal a determination made at a formal hearing within 30 days of the determination. Appeals shall be reviewed based on a written summary or record of the hearing. The decision may be affirmed, reversed, or remanded for a new hearing. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.3320 (2) and (4))
Michigan rules provide for the earning of good time and disciplinary credit. Violations of prison rules may result in the forfeiture of additional earned and special good time and disciplinary credits. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.5513 (1)) In addition, an inmate may be subject to disciplinary time when he or she is found guilty of a violation of prison rules. The range of time includes: all disciplinary time for a homicide; 180 days of disciplinary time for any act that constitutes a felony under state law, assault resulting in serious physical injury, escape, possession of a weapon, inciting a riot or a strike or rioting or striking, and sexual assault; 35 days of disciplinary time for assault and battery, creating a disturbance , possession of dangerous contraband, possession of money, substance abuse, failure to disperse; 15 days of disciplinary time for bribery, fighting, sexual misconduct, threatening behavior, and smuggling; 10 days disciplinary time for destruction or misuse of property with value of $10.00 or more, disobeying a direct order, insolence, theft or possession of stolen property, and unauthorized occupation of a cell or room; 7 days of disciplinary time for failure to maintain employment, gambling or possession of gambling paraphernalia, interference with the administrative rules, out of place, possession of forged documents or forgery. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.5515 (2))
If an inmate is found guilty of more than one violation arising from the same incident, the disciplinary time must run concurrently. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.5515 (3)) Disciplinary time may be reduced for exemplary good conduct. However, the director of the department of corrections must establish the amount of disciplinary time that may be reduced for exemplary good conduct. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.5515 (4)) If an inmate is subsequently found guilty of a major misconduct, the some portion of the reduced time may be restored. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.5515 (5))
Minnesota:
Minnesota statutes permit the imposition of a sanction on an inmate who refuses to perform an available work assignment either through the loss of good time or by the serving of disciplinary confinement period. (MSA s.
243.18) Minnesota statutes also permit the development of disciplinary sanctions for an inmate who submits a frivolous or malicious claim to a court or licensing agency or who is determined by a court or licensing agency to have testified falsely or to have submitted false evidence. The sanctions may include loss of privileges, punitive segregation, loss of good time, or adding discipline confinement time. (MSA s.
244.035) The department of corrections operating statute authorizes the commissioner of corrections to enact rules and procedures that govern the operations of prisons. (MSA s.
241.01)
Minnesota does not have administrative rules which govern the discipline of inmates in prison. The Minnesota department of corrections has issued a policy which addresses rules and discipline in prisons. (Polices, Directives and Instructions Manual, Policy 303.010 (eff. 9/1/2005))
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The department of corrections has determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses since the rule does not regulate small businesses as that term is defined in s.
227.114, Stats.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
Not applicable.
Effect on Small Business
Not applicable.
Fiscal Estimate
Assumptions used in arriving at fiscal estimate
DOC Rule 303 is the Administrative Rule relating to inmate conduct, inmate discipline, and procedures for the imposition of discipline. This rule has not been updated since December 2000.
This revision repeals, amends, and creates several definitions related to offenses for which inmates may be disciplined to increase consistency in application of the rule and to more clearly identify inmate misconduct. Additional offenses for which inmates may be disciplined are created to reflect changes in practice and technologies. The use of program segregation and adjustment segregation as penalties is eliminated, as the loss of good time associated with these penalties has had an insufficient deterrent effect. The revised rule eliminates due process hearings for minor offenses and allows inmates to voluntarily waive the right to due process hearings for major offenses, consistent with due process requirements established by the courts. Finally, the rule requires consideration of an inmate's serious mental illness during due process hearings and the disposition stage.
In FY10, the Division of Adult Institutions incurred $27,663,400 in overtime costs. While the Department can not identify the exact amount of Salary & Fringe cost avoided through passage of this rule, in each case, the proposed rule may result in more effective allocation of DOC staff time.
In calendar year 2010, 34 lawsuits occurred arising from disciplinary actions. Each lawsuit filed requires the use of DOC staff time to collect information as part of a court record. It is anticipated that the proposed revised rule clarifying definitions related to disciplinary actions may result in fewer lawsuits, lawsuits resolving more quickly, or due process hearing outcomes which are more defensible in a court of law.
State fiscal effect
Decrease costs.
Fund sources affected
GPR.
Affected Chapter
20 Appropriations
20.410 (1) (a).
Local fiscal effect
No local government costs.
Agency Contact Person
Kathryn R. Anderson, Chief Legal Counsel, Department of Corrections 3099 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 7925, Madison, WI 53707-7925; (608) 240-5049; FAX (608) 240-3306;
Kathryn.Anderson@Wisconsin.gov.
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. DOC 303 is repealed and recreated to read:
Subchapter I — General Provisions
DOC 303.01 Applicability and purposes.
DOC 303.02 Definitions.
DOC 303.03 Lesser included offenses.
DOC 303.04 Conspiracy.
DOC 303.05 Attempt.
DOC 303.06 Aiding and abetting.
DOC 303.07 Institutional regulations and procedures.
DOC 303.08 Notice of disciplinary rules.
DOC 303.09 Seizure and disposition of contraband.
DOC 303.10 Temporary lockup: use.
Subchapter II — Offenses Against Bodily Security
DOC 303.11 Assault.
DOC 303.12 Aggravated assault.
DOC 303.13 Assault on staff.
DOC 303.14 Sexual conduct.
DOC 303.15 Sexual contact or intercourse.
DOC 303.16 Sexual assault.
DOC 303.17 Sexual assault-aggravated.
DOC 303.18 Threats.
DOC 303.19 Stalking.
Subchapter III — Offenses Against Institutional Security
DOC 303.20 Endangering safety.
DOC 303.21 Inciting a disturbance.
DOC 303.22 Participating in a disturbance.
DOC 303.23 Taking a hostage.
DOC 303.24 Group resistance and petitions.
DOC 303.25 Cruelty to animals.
DOC 303.26 Escape
DOC 303.27 Disguising identity.
Subchapter IV — Offenses Against Order
DOC 303.28 Disobeying orders.
DOC 303.29 Disrespect.
DOC 303.30 Soliciting staff.
DOC 303.31 Lying.
DOC 303.32 Lying about staff.
DOC 303.33 Disruptive conduct.
DOC 303.34 Unauthorized forms of communication.
DOC 303.35 False names and titles.
