Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Vern H. (5/14/2021) sp-7531

In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Vern H. (5/14/2021) sp-7531

           Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                      ACIFIC  REPORTER.  

           Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                           

           303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                             

           corrections@akcourts.us.  



                       THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                         



In  the  Matter  of  the  Necessity  for  the                      )  

Hospitalization  of                                                )    Supreme  Court  No.  S-17438  

                                                                   )  

             

VERN H.                                                                                                                           

                                                                   )    Superior Court No.  1SI-19-00016 PR  

                                                                   )  

                                                                                             

                                                                   )    O P I N I O N  

                                                                   )  

                                                                                                           

                                                                   )    No. 7531 - May 14, 2021  



                                                                                                                  

                      Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First  

                                                                                              

                      Judicial District, Juneau, Trevor Stephens, Judge.  



                                                                                                         

                      Appearances:  Kelly R. Taylor, Assistant Public Defender,  

                                                                                                                    

                      and  Samantha  Cherot,  Public  Defender,  Anchorage,  for  

                                                                                                       

                      Vern H.  Anna Jay, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage,  

                                                                                                                 

                      and Kevin G. Clarkson, Attorney General, Juneau, for State  

                           

                      of Alaska.  



                                                                                                                  

                      Before:          Bolger,  Chief  Justice,  Winfree,  Maassen,  and  

                                                                                                                      

                      Carney, Justices.  [Borghesan, Justice, not participating.]  



                                           

                      WINFREE, Justice.
  

                                                                 

                      BOLGER, Chief Justice, concurring.
  



I.         INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                               

                      This appeal raises two questions about involuntarily detaining an individual  



                                                                                                                                                 

in jail pending transport to a hospital for a civil commitment mental health evaluation.  



                                                                                                                                    

First, when transport is not immediately available and the individual requests a review  



                                                                                                                                   

hearing, what standard of proof applies to the individual's continued detention?  Second,  



                                                                                                                                        

is the  State required to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that jail  is the least  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

restrictive alternative available for the detention?                                                                                    We hold that the probable cause                                          



standard applies to review hearings regarding an individual's continued detention, and                                                                                                                                 



we hold that the State must prove detention in jail is the least restrictive alternative                                                                                                            



available while an individual awaits transport to a hospital for evaluation.                                                                                                                     



II.              FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS                  



                                                                                                                                                                                    1  

                                   On March 18, 2019, an attorney representing Vern H.                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                        in an unrelated  



                                                                                                                                                                                           

matter petitioned the Sitka superior court for an order authorizing Vern's hospitalization  



                                                                              2  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

for a mental health evaluation.                                                    The attorney indicated that Vern had said he needed to  



                                                                                                                                                                                                          

go to a behavioral health unit and threatened to hang himself.  The  attorney believed  



                                                                                                                                                         

Vern was mentally ill and likely to cause harm to himself.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                3  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The  

                                   On March 19 the superior court ordered a screening investigation. 



                                                                                                                                                                                                         

court authorized both Sitka Counseling and Prevention and Southeast Alaska Regional  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Health Corporation - Clinic II (SEARHC) to conduct the screening investigation, noting  



                                                                                                                                                                                                

that "if necessary, the investigating agency may seek the assistance of law enforcement  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

to interview the respondent."  The court ordered that the screening investigation report  



                                                                                    

be filed no later than March 20.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                   Also on March 19 the Sitka police filed a notice stating that Vern had been  



                                                                                                                                                                                                      

taken into emergency detention at the Sitka jail on the night of March 18 and requesting  



                  1                We use a pseudonym to protect Vern's privacy.                                                                                



                 2                 See  AS 47.30.700 (permitting any adult to petition for ex parte order for                                                                                                            



                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

mental  health  evaluation  of  individual  who  is  "reasonably  believed  to  present  a  

likelihood of serious harm to self or others or is gravely disabled as a result of mental                                                                                                                      

illness").  



                 3                 See  AS  47.30.700(a)  (requiring  court  to  conduct  or  order  screening  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      

investigation upon  receiving petition for mental health evaluation).  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



                                                                                                             -2-                                                                                                   7531
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

                                                                                                     4  

a mental health evaluation for him.                                                                      The notice included statements indicating that Vern                                                                                     



had made several calls to the police department threatening to kill himself and others;                                                                                                                                                    



that he was experiencing delusions, including his legs being made of plastic; and that                                                                                                                                                              



probable cause existed to support the assertion that Vern was mentally ill and as a result                                                                                                                                                    



likely to cause serious harm to himself and others.                                                                                                    



                                       Also on March 19 a Sitka Counseling licensed social worker petitioned the                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             5  The social  

superior court for an order authorizing Vern's hospitalization for evaluation.                                                                                                                                                                 



worker stated that she had interviewed Vern at the Sitka jail that morning and that he  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



posed a substantial risk of harm to himself.  She noted that Vern "present[ed] with a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



mental impairment negatively impacting his ability to exercise conscious control of his  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



actions, as evidenced by delusional thoughts and statements."  She also noted that Vern  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



had made threats to the police department about hanging himself and that he had told her:  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



"I don't want to live the way I'm living." She indicated Sitka Counseling had confirmed  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



that Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) in Anchorage and Bartlett Regional Hospital in  



Juneau had capacity to see Vern in the next 24 hours.  

                                                                                                                                                                 



                    4                  See  AS 47.30.705(a) (permitting, among others, peace officer "who has                                                                                                                                        



probable cause to believe that a person is gravely disabled or is suffering from mental                                                                                                                                                    

illness and is likely to cause serious harm to self or others . . . [to] cause the person to be                                                                                                                                                          

taken into custody and delivered to the nearest . . . evaluation facility" under certain                                                                                                                                                   

circumstances).  



                    5                  See  AS  47.30.710  (requiring  mental  health  professional  to  perform  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

emergency examination within 24 hours of respondent's detention under AS 47.30.705  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

and  to  apply  for  ex  parte  order  authorizing  hospitalization  for  evaluation  under  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

AS 47.30.700 if one has not yet been obtained); see also In re Hospitalization of Gabriel  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

 C., 324 P.3d 835, 837 (Alaska 2014) (noting that "[a]fter a person is detained by a police  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

officer and brought to an evaluation facility, a physician and a mental health professional  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

must conduct an emergency evaluation within 24 hours" and that "[i]f warranted, the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

mental health professional may apply for an ex parte order authorizing hospitalization  

                                                                                                                                                               

for a full evaluation").  

                                                                    



                                                                                                                            -3-                                                                                                                  7531
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                       That same day the superior court authorized Vern's hospitalization for                                                      



                   6  

evaluation.                                                                                                                                   

                       The court found probable cause to conclude that Vern was likely to cause  



                                                                                                                                    

harm to himself. The court noted threats of suicide Vern made to the police department;  



                                                                                                                                      

collateral reports of his erratic behavior, including "suicidal ideation and delusional  



                                                                                                                                                

claims of persecution"; and his statements to the social worker, including: "I don't want  



                                                                                                         

to live the way I'm living."  The superior court stated in its order:  



                                                                                                                            

                       The respondent is not [to] be held at the Sitka jail, except for  

                                                                                                             

                       protective custody purposes.  If the respondent has already  

                                                                                                                             

                       been transferred to or is being detained in the Sitka jail, he  

                                                                                                                               

                        shall be transported to SEARHC unless SEARHC believes a  

                                                                                                              

                       justification  of  protective  custody  exists[;  i]f  SEARHC  

                                                                                                           

                       believes  a  justification  of  protective  custody  exists,  then  

                                                                                                                      

                        SEARHC shall provide a detailed statement, sworn under  

                                                                                                                

                       oath, as to the facts and circumstances that make it necessary  

                                                                                                                

                       for the respondent to be held in the Sitka jail.  This statement  

                                                                                                                                  

                       must be filed with the court prior to or immediately after  

                                                                                       

                        [Vern's] detention in the Sitka jail.  



                                                                                                                                    

                       On March 20 the State filed a status report stating that Vern's information  



                                                                                                                                                    

had been sent to Bartlett Regional Hospital.  The State indicated that Vern would not be  



                                                                                                                                        

transported to Juneau - and, implicitly, would remain in jail - until Bartlett Regional  



                                                 

Hospital accepted him as a patient.  



                                                                                                                                            

                       That same day Vern filed an unopposed expedited motion for a review  



                                                                                                                                                     

hearing, stating that as a civil detainee without a pending criminal case his "restraint in  



                                                                                                                                                

a correctional setting justifie[d] immediate review" by the superior court.  By then Vern  



                                                                                                                                                   

had spent nearly three days in the Sitka jail. Vern contended that "he no longer [met] the  



            6          See   AS   47.30.700(a)   (permitting   court   to   grant   ex   parte   order   for  



hospitalization   for   mental   health   evaluation   upon   showing   of   probable   cause   that  

"respondent   is   mentally   ill   and   that   condition   causes   the   respondent   to   be   gravely  

disabled or to present a likelihood of serious harm to self or others").                                                   



                                                                         -4-                                                                   7531
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

 criteria for involuntary detention and/or commitment and that he should be released."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 Vern   alternatively   sought   "immediate   physical   and   mental   evaluation  to   determine  



 whether continueddetention[was]warranted"or if"aless restrictiveenvironment"could                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



 meet his "treatment needs."                                                                                    



                                                     Vern argued that his continued detention in a "penal setting" required                                                                                                                                                                                     



 review under a clear and convincing evidence standard, not the probable cause standard                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



 that had applied to the initial order authorizing his hospitalization for evaluation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Vern  



 also asked that the State be required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 less restrictive alternative to confinement in a penal setting existed while he awaited                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



 transport to the hospital for evaluation.                                                                                                                 



                                                     The State did not oppose Vern's hearing request - it agreed that a review                                                                                                                                                                                      



 hearing was consistent with our                                                                                               In re Hospitalization of Gabriel C.                                                                                                         statement that the                                        



 court should take "appropriate action" when an individual is detained awaiting transport                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                     7          But  the  State  asserted  that  the  appropriate  standard  for  

 to   an   evaluation   facility.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



 establishing the need for continued detention pending transport to an evaluation facility  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



 is probable cause.   The State also indicated it had asked SEARHC to have someone  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



 appear to "explain why [Vern] cannot be held there pending transport."  The court set  



 a review hearing for March 21.  

                                                                                                                             



                                                     At the hearing Vern was represented by the Public Defender Agency, and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



 an  Assistant  Attorney  General  appeared  for  the  State.                                                                                                                                                                              Both  Vern  and  the  Sitka  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



 Counseling social worker testified.   Despite the superior court's previous order, the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 record before us does not contain a sworn statement from SEARHC about its ability or  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                           7                         See  324 P.3d at 838 ("[W]e take this opportunity to stress that the assigned                                                                                                                                                                              



judicial officer should not hesitate to take appropriate action to expedite an evaluation                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 if   the   respondent   cannot   be   transported   to   the   initially   designated   facility  without  

 delay.").   



                                                                                                                                                                    -5-                                                                                                                                                        7531
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                                                                                                                         

willingness to admit Vern pending transport to an evaluation facility, and the hearing  



                                                                                                                               

transcript reflects that no SEARHC representative participated in the hearing.  At one  



                                                                                                                              

point the State's attorney said that "ideally [Vern] would be at [SEARHC], and I was  



                                                                                                              

hoping to get an explanation as to why that's not possible in this case."  



                                                                                                                                

                     The social worker testified that she had been meeting daily with Vern at the  



                                                                                                                                

jail.  She stated that in her initial assessment she had "asked him questions about the  



                                                                                                                                 

circumstances of his arrest[] and assessed whether . . . he was going to be able to  



                                                                                                               

maintain his own safety and the safety of others on his own or whether [commitment]  



                                                                                                                                 

criteria [were] met."  She stated her belief that Vern had a mental illness was based on  



                                                                                                                              

his:  (1) statements regarding self harm, including, "I would only hurt myself if I was  



                                                                                             

stopping myself [sic] from hurting someone else," and "if I wanted to die I could do it  



                                                                                                                            

right now and take myself out with just my hands"; (2) rapidly fluctuating affect, which  



                                                                                                                      

she described as "intermittently very agitated and intermittently rageful"; (3) "[g]eneral  



                                                                                                                                

motor agitation"; and (4) delusional statements regarding his own health.  She said she  



                                                                                                                             

believed Vern's mental illness would cause him to pose a danger to himself if he were  



                                                                                                                               

released  from detention.                She  stated  that  she  understood  Vern  was  not  taking  any  



                                                                                                                               

psychiatric medications, that by his own reports he had not been receiving treatment, and  



                                                                                                                             

that he did not appear to have any social supports.  She said that she did not think Vern  



                                                                                                                          

posed a danger to others and that she "ha[d] no stake in" whether, pending the mental  



                                                                                                                                

health evaluation, Vern was in jail as opposed to a hospital.  On cross-examination she  



                                                                                                                             

acknowledged having no information whether Vern had attempted to harmhimself since  



                                                 

the original petition was filed.  



                                                                                                                                

                     The superior court questioned the social worker about why Vern could not  



                                                                                                                          

be held at SEARHC pending transport to Bartlett Regional Hospital.  The social worker  



                                                                                                                            

statedher general understanding that in Sitka an individual jailed pending amental health  



                                                                                                                  

evaluation generally remains jailed unless "medical necessity" requires transport to  



                                                                -6-                                                         7531
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                                                                                            

 SEARHC. The court then, expressly directing the question to the State's attorney, asked  



                                                                                                              

why  Vern  was  not  at  SEARHC.                        The  State's  attorney  said  that  he  had  contacted  



                                                                                                                          

 SEARHC and was advised someone would call in to the hearing, presumably to discuss  



                                                                                                                      

why Vern could not be held there.  Acknowledging that he could not provide testimony  



                                                                                                                             

on the issue, the State's attorney said a SEARHC doctor indicated that if Vern were  



                                                                                                                       

homicidal he would not be admitted.   The State's attorney concluded that although  



                                                                                                                                

having Vern held in a medical setting pending transport would be preferable, it could not  



                                       

"force SEARHC to take him."  



                                                                                                                          

                     Vern  testified  and  was  questioned  by  the  superior  court,  the  State's  



                                                                                                                               

attorney, and his own attorney.  He testified that his statements to the social worker and  



                                                                                                                           

others regarding his health had not been delusions because he had undergone cancer  



                                                                    

treatment in Fairbanks.  He asserted that he recently had been prescribed psychotropic  



                                                                                                                                 

medication but that he had been unable to access medication in jail.  He stated that he  



                                                                                                                     

needed mental health treatment and that he had been attempting to secure outpatient  



                                                                                                                           

counseling. He agreed that a court order to attend outpatient treatment "probably would  



                                                                                             

not be a bad idea."  He denied that his statements such as "I don't like living like this"  



                                                                                                                        

were indicative of plans to harm himself.   He argued that being held in jail prior to  



                                                                                                                                

transport for evaluation was counterproductive, because "you don't throw a guy that has  



                                                                                                                               

hard times on a concrete floor and tell him he's no good," and that the social worker was  



                                                                                                                  

"just . . . digging at me and digging at me and trying to get me to go off."  



                                                                                                                        

                     After the evidentiary presentation, the State argued that there was probable  



                                                                                                                                 

cause to believe Vern would likely harm himself if released and that, although ideally he  



                                                                                                                                  

would have been held in a medical setting pending transport for evaluation, his delay in  



                                                                                                                            

jail was permissible under In re Gabriel C.  Vern's attorney responded that even under  



                                                                                                                     

a probable cause standard the evidence regarding Vern's mental illness and likelihood  



                                                                -7-                                                         7531
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      8  

he would harm himself did not meet the statutory threshold.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                She also suggested that the                                                                                                   



court could continue with the case but order that Vern not be held in jail.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                                                                       The   superior   court   concluded   there   was   probable   cause   to  find  Vern  



 suffered from a mental illness, as evidenced by his numerous suicidal statements and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



apparent recent decompensation. The court also concluded that there was an established                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



likelihood of Vern harming himself.   The court concluded that protective custody was                                                                                                                                                                        



necessary and observed that being held in jail was "not therapeutic" but was "necessary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



to protect [Vern]."                                                                                 



                                                                       The   superior   court   issued   a   written  order   indicating   that   its   previous  



hospitalization authorization for Vern's evaluation remained in effect and that Vern                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



could continue to be detained in the Sitka jail because "the record reflects that [Vern] has                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



no social supports in the community and SEARHC . . . is presently not willing to have                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



him stay there pending transport to the nearest available evaluation facility."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               But the   



court ordered that Vern be monitored daily by qualified personnel and be released if at                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



any point he did not meet detention criteria.                                                                                                                                                                                            The court ordered the State to file a status                                                                                                                                                



report the next day updating SEARHC's willingness to admit Vern pending transport.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



The court ordered the State and Sitka Counseling to continue making diligent efforts to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



 secure Vern's admission to an evaluation facility.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  And the court scheduled another                                                                                                            



review hearing for the next business day, March 26.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       On March 22 the State filed a status report indicating that Bartlett Regional                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



Hospital had accepted Vern for evaluation.                                                                                                                                                                                                    The State also indicated that it had not                                                                                                                                                                 



contacted SEARHC since the court's March 21 order.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Vern was transported to Juneau                                                                                                       



that same day and admitted for evaluation. Vern was released on March 25 after Bartlett                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                                    8  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                       Cf. AS  47.30.915(11),  (14)  (defining  "least restrictive  alternative"  and  

                                            

"mental illness").  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -8-                                                                                                                                                                                                                7531  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

Regional    Hospital's    personnel    determined    he    no    longer    met    hospitalization    or  



commitment criteria.                                         



                                     Vern   appeals,   asking   us to vacate the March                                                                                     21   order   authorizing   his  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                  9  

continued protective custody in Sikta jail pending transport for evaluation.                                                                                                                                            



III.               STANDARD OF REVIEW  

                                                                       



                                     We review factual findings in involuntary commitment proceedings for  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



clear error, and we overturn such findings only if a review of the record generates "a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."10  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                             Whether factual findings  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               11  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

comport with statutory requirements presents a legal issue that we review de novo. 



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Constitutional issues and questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law to  



                                                                                                                                      12  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                              "When reviewing questions of law,  

which we "appl[y our] independent judgment." 



                   9                 Appealofan                          orderauthorizingdetention and hospitalization for psychiatric                                                                               



purposes generally is subject to the public interest exception of the mootness doctrine,                                                                                                                                  

whether the appeal is premised on a question of statutory or constitutional interpretation                                                                                                                   

or on an evidence-based challenge.                                                                In re Hospitalization of Naomi B.                                                           , 435 P.3d 918, 930                        

n.60  (Alaska 2019) ("We hold today that regardless of the type of involuntary admission                                                                                                                               

or medication proceeding being challenged or the legal basis for appeal, the public                                                                                                                                             

interest exception authorizes us to consider any such appeal on the merits.");                                                                                                                                       see also In              

re Hospitalization                                    of Daniel G.                           ,   320 P.3d                    262, 268                     (Alaska 2014) (holding                                                public  

interest exception to mootness applied to appeal of ex parte order authorizing up to 72                                                                                                   

hours confinement for psychiatric evaluation pursuant to AS 47.30.715).                                                                                                                                       



                   10                In re Hospitalization of Stephen O., 314 P.3d 1185, 1191 (Alaska 2013)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

(quoting  Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 375 (Alaska 2007)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

overruled on other grounds by In re Naomi B., 435 P.3d at 918).  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



                   11                Id.  

                                               



                   12                In re Hospitalization of Paige M., 433 P.3d 1182, 1186 (Alaska 2018)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

(quoting In re Hospitalization of Heather R., 366 P.3d 530, 531-32 (Alaska 2016)).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



                                                                                                                      -9-                                                                                                            7531
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

[we]   adopt[]   'the   rule   of   law   most   persuasive   in   light   of   precedent,   reason,   and  



               13  

policy.' "         



IV.       DISCUSSION  



                                                                                          

          A.         Probable Cause Standard At The Review Hearing  



                                                                                                                           

                     The due process clauses of the United States Constitution and the Alaska  



                                                                                                                               

Constitution prohibit the State from depriving  an individual  of  liberty  without due  



                       14  

                                                                                                                      

process of law.            The emergency detention of an individual while awaiting evaluation  



                                                                          15  

                                                                                                                    

at a hospital implicates due process protections.                             In assessing procedural due process  



                                                                        16  

                                                                  

claims, we apply the Mathews v. Eldridge test: 



                                                                                                        

                     [D]ue  process  generally  requires  consideration  of  three  

                                                                                                     

                     distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected  

                                                                                           

                    by  the  official  action;  second,  the  risk  of  an  erroneous  

                                                                                                            

                     deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and  

                                                                                                 

                    the  probative  value,  if  any,  of  additional  or  substitute  

                                                                                                      

                    procedural safeguards; andfinally,theGovernment'sinterest,  

                                                                                                          

                     including        the     function        involved         and      the    fiscal      and  

                                                                                                 

                     administrative  burdens  that  the  additional  or  substitute  

                                                                              [17]  

                                                                     

                    procedural requirement would entail. 



                    Vern asserts that the superior court erred by applying the probable cause  

                                                                                                                             



standard  at  the  review  hearing  because  due  process  mandates  that  the  clear  and  

                                                                                                                               



convincing evidence standard apply. He argues that the court should have used the clear  

                                                                                                                               



          13        Id.  (quoting  In  re  Heather  R.,  366  P.3d  at  532).   



          14        U.S.  Const.  art.  XIV,  §   1;  Alaska  Const.  art.   1,  §  7.  



          15        In  re  Hospitalization  of  Daniel  G.,  320  P.3d  262,  269  (Alaska  2014).   



          16        Id.  at  270  (citing  Mathews  v.  Eldridge,  424  U.S.  319,  334-35  (1976)).   



          17        Mathews,   424   U.S.   at   334-35;   see   also   id.   at   333   ("The   fundamental  



requirement of  due process is the opportunity to  be  heard  'at a meaningful time and in  

                                     

                                                                                                                                   

a meaningful manner.' " (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo , 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965))).  



                                                               -10-                                                          7531
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

and convincing evidence standard because he was being held in a "punitive facility" and                                                                                       



                                                                                             18  

his detention had already exceeded 72 hours.                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                  The State responds that although Vern's  



                                                                                                                                                              

interest in being free from detention was significant, the risk of an erroneous deprivation  



                                                                                   

of that interest with the probable cause standard was low given procedural protections  



                                                                                                                                                                

already in place. The State also contends that it has an interest in "protecting vulnerable  



                                                                                                                                                                                  

people from harming themselves, protecting society from people who are dangerous to  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

others, providing appropriate treatment for people who are mentally ill and in need of  



                                                                                                                                                                           

care, and more generally, properly administering the civil commitment statutes."  



                                                                                                                                                                     

                            An individual detained by court order but not yet transported to a hospital  



                                                                                                                                                                               

for a full evaluation has an important liberty interest at stake.  But, as both Vern and the  



                                                                                                                                                                           

State recognize, potential liberty curtailment is not as great an interest at the review stage  

                                                                                             19      Risk  of erroneous deprivation  is low  

                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                            

as at the involuntary  commitment hearing. 



because several procedural protections attach after  an  individual is detained  for  an  

                                                                                                                                                                                

                       20       And  using  the  clear  and  convincing  evidence  standard  would  be  

evaluation.                                                                                                                                                                    



inconsistent with the purpose of a review hearing: determining whether cause exists for  

                                                                                                                                                                                



detention pending hospitalization for a medical evaluation of whether a person is in need  

                                                                                                                                                                            



of mental health treatment.   As the State points out, using the clear and convincing  

                                                                                                                                                              



evidence standard could create a revolving door in which a respondent is released at the  

                                                                                                                                                                               



              18            Vern argues that he should be afforded greater due process protections                                                            



because   the   72-hour   statutory   limit   for   evaluations   already   had   expired.     But,  as  

explained below, the time limit had not expired because it does not begin to run until an                                                                                        

individual is transported to a hospital for evaluation.                                                      See In re Gabriel C.                     , 324 P.3d 835,        

837-38 (Alaska 2014).                             



              19            See AS 47.30.735(c) (requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence  

                                                                                                                                                                   

before court can commit individual to treatment facility for up to 30 days).  

                                                                                                                                                              



              20            See AS 47.30.725 (providing rights of respondent detained for evaluation).  

                                                                                                                                                                                       



                                                                                      -11-                                                                                 7531
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

review hearing stage because the heightened standard cannot be met without evidence   



from the requested                                                         evaluation, only to have another ex parte petition filed and the                                                                                                                                                                        



respondent again detained based on probable cause. Finally, the State has a clear interest                                                                                                                                                                                                           



in protecting the welfare and safety of its citizens at the review hearing stage.                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                                                 Weighing these considerations, we conclude that a review hearing is more                                                                                                                                                                                    



similar   to   the   initial   determination   whether   the   respondent   should  be   involuntarily  



hospitalized for evaluation than to an involuntary commitment hearing.                                                                                                                                                                                                             And to the                       



extent a respondent's liberty interest is greater at the review hearing than at the initial                                                                                                                                                                                                               



determination   because   of   the   extended   time   the   respondent   has   been   detained,   the  



additional procedural protections afforded by AS 47.30.725 adequately alleviate the risk                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



of a greater deprivation.                                                                      We therefore conclude that due process requires only that                                                                                                                                                         



courts apply the probable cause standard at review hearings, not the clear and convincing                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                     21        The fact that Vern was held in jail rather than a hospital does not  

evidence standard.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



alter  this  analysis;  the  detention  location  is  relevant  only  to  whether  it  is  the  least  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



restrictive available alternative.  

                                                                           



                         B.                      Least Restrictive Alternative  

                                                                                                                      



                                                 AlaskaStatute47.30.705(a) provides,inrelevantpart: "Aperson taken into  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



custody for emergency evaluation may not be placed in a jail or other correctional facility  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



except for protective custody purposes and only while awaiting transportation to a . . .  



treatment facility."   Although some of our previous cases have involved individuals  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                         21                       To the extent Vern argues that evidence presented at the review hearing did                                                                                                                                                                                        



not satisfy the probable cause standard, we disagree.                                                                                                                                                      Adequate evidence before the                                                                             

superior court supported a finding of probable cause that Vern was suffering from a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

mental illness and that he presented a likelihood of harm to himself.                                                                                                                                                                                      See supra                               pp. 5-8.   



                                                                                                                                                         -12-                                                                                                                                                 7531
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

                                                                                                                                     22  

detained in jail while awaiting evaluation,                                                                                                we have not considered the meaning of                                                                                  



AS 47.43.705(a)'s prohibitions.                            



                                         Vern and the State agree that the definition of protective custody is relevant                                                                                                                          



to considering whether AS 47.43.705(a) was properly applied, and the parties point to                                                                                                              



Black'sLawDictionary'sprotectivecustodydefinition: "Thegovernment'sconfinement                                                                                                                                                       



of a person for that person's own security or well-being, such as a witness whose safety                                                                                                                                                               



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     23  

is in jeopardy or an incompetent person who may harm him-                                                                                                                                          or herself or others."                                                    



Although this is a useful starting point, the meaning of protective custody also must be  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

understood in light of legislative policies underlying Title 47 of Alaska Statutes.24                                                                                                                                                                        The  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



legislature explicitly adopted several policy principles during its 1981 revisions to Title  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

47.25  Among these principles is that "persons be treated in the least restrictive alternative  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

environment consistent with their treatment needs."26  

                                                                                                                                        



                                         We previously have held that this policy requires courts to find, by clear  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



and convincing evidence, that involuntary commitment is the least restrictive alternative  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                     22                  See, e.g.                ,  In re Hospitalization of Stephen O                                                                      ., 314 P.3d 1185, 1186 (Alaska                                       



2013) (noting that for logistical reasons respondent remained in Haines jail for six days                                                                                                                                                                   

before being transported to Juneau for evaluation).                                                                                                            



                     23                  Protective Custody, BLACK 'S  LAW  DICTIONARY  (11th ed. 2019).                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                       



                     24                  Title 47 contains statutes relating to welfare, social services, and related                                                                                                                               



institutions.  See  AS 47.05.010-47.90.070.                                                                                         



                     25                  AS  47.30.655  (explaining  purpose  of  1981  revisions  was  "to  more  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

adequately protect the legal rights of persons suffering from mental illness" and noting  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

principles that guided revision).  

                                                                                                    



                     26                  AS 47.30.655(2); see also In re Hospitalization of  Mark V.,  375 P.3d 51,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

57 (Alaska 2016), abrogated on other grounds by In re Hospitalization of Naomi B., 435  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

P.3d 918 (Alaska 2019).  

                                                       



                                                                                                                               -13-                                                                                                                       7531
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

                                                        27  

available   to   the   individual.                            The   least   restrictive   alternative   is   "no   more   harsh,  



hazardous, or intrusive than necessary to achieve the treatment objectives of the patient"                                                                 



and   "involve[s]   no   restrictions  on   physical   movement   nor   supervised   residence   or  



inpatient care except as reasonably necessary for the administration of treatment or the                                                                            

                                                                                                               28    This policy also applies to  

protection of the patient or others from physical injury."                                                                                                            

protective  custody  while  awaiting  transport  for  evaluation.29                                                            We  conclude  that  an  

                                                                                                                                                                    



individual may be jailed while awaiting transport to a hospital only if the State shows by  

                                                                                                                                                                     

clear and convincing evidence that jail is the least restrictive available alternative.30  

                                                                                                                                           



                          The State argues that no less restrictive alternative to jail was available for  

                                                                                                                                                                    



Vern.  Vern argues that detention in jail was not the least restrictive option because the  

                                                                                                                                                                    



State could "have detained Vern at SEARHC" and because the State did not adequately  

                                                                                                                                                     



explore creative solutions such as a hotel room with a nurse and security guard or a  

                                                                                                                                                                       



halfway house where mental health professionals could visit him. We consider only the  

                                                                                                                                                                    



possibility that SEARHC was a less restrictive alternative than jail because the parties  

                                                                                                                                     



             27           In re Mark V.              , 375 P.3d at 57-58.         



             28           Id.  at 57 (quoting AS 47.30.915(11)).                                      



             29           We note that "least restrictive alternatives" are options providing some form  

                                                                                                                                                                 

of treatment.  See AS 47.30.915(11).  But conditions necessary to protect a respondent  

                                                                                                                                                    

awaiting evaluation are "conditions of treatment" because they guarantee the respondent  

                                                                                                                                                    

eventually will receivetheformal medical treatmentand careneeded. Protective custody  

                                                                                                                                                           

therefore is a least restrictive alternative option so long as custody is necessary for the  

                                                                                                                                                                    

respondent's protection.  

                           



             30           TheStateneed only consider alternatives that are feasibleand would satisfy  

                                                                                                                                                              

the State's interests in protecting respondents and the public.                                                                  Cf. Bigley v. Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                            

Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168, 185 (Alaska 2009) ("Although the state cannot intrude  

                                                                                                                                                            

on a fundamental right where there is a less intrusive alternative, the alternative must  

                                                                                                                                                                

actually  be  available,  meaning  that  it  is  feasible  and  would  actually  satisfy  the  

                                                                                                                                                                   

compelling state interests that justify the proposed state action.").  

                                                                                                                                  



                                                                                 -14-                                                                           7531
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

and superior court considered that                                                              possibility; Vern did not raise the possibility of                                                                          



additional creative solutions in the superior court, raising only the possibility of simply                                                                                                                      

releasing him from jail to await transport.                                                                  31  



                                                                                                                                  

                                   The superior court sought to ensure that Vern was detained in jail only if  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                

it was the least restrictive alternative available.   When the court authorized Vern's  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

hospitalization, it ordered that he not be held at the Sitka jail but rather be transported to  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

SEARHC unless SEARHC responded that justification of protective custody in jail  



                                                                                                                                                                                      

existed.  The court also ordered:  "SEARHC shall provide a detailed statement, sworn  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

under oath, as to the facts and circumstances that make it necessary for [Vern] to be held  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

in the Sitka jail. This statement must be filed with the court prior to or immediately after  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 [Vern's] detention in the Sitka jail."  But SEARHC was not a party to the case.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                   It is the State's burden to prove that detention is in the least restrictive  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

available setting, and the State thus was required to obtain the evidence showing that  



                                                                                                                                                                                                  

SEARHC was not available for Vern's detention.  The State could have collaborated  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

with SEARHC to obtain a satisfactory affidavit or subpoenaed SEARHC to require a  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

representative to testify at the hearing.   The State did neither.   There thus is scant  



                                                                                                                                                                                                           

evidentiary support for the superior court's March 21 finding that SEARHC"is presently  



                                                                                                                                                                                                       

not willing to have him stay there pending transport to the nearest available evaluation  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

facility."  There was no evidence of SEARHC's specific position on admitting Vern;  



                 31                The State is not required to prove the unavailability of every imaginable                                                                                         



alternative, but if an alternative is proposed by the superior court, as in this case, or by                                                                                                                                

the respondent, it is at minimum the State's burden to prove the proposed alternative is                                                                                                                                      

inadequate.    Cf. In re Luciano G.                                                       , 450 P.3d 1258, 1264-65 (Alaska 2019) (rejecting                                                              

petitioner's argument that "the evidence was insufficient to show what alternatives to                                                                                                                                       

confinement were considered and by whom, or why a less restrictive alternative was not                                                                                                                                    

viable"   because   testimonial   evidence   supported   superior   court's   conclusion  that  

respondent "did not appear to have anywhere to stay and was unlikely to follow up with                                                                                                                                 

treatment if not committed").                                                 



                                                                                                            -15-                                                                                                     7531
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

there was evidence only of the social worker's general understanding of SEARHC's                                                                                     



practice regarding detaining respondents pending transport for hospital evaluation. This                                                                                              



is not clear and convincing evidence that SEARHC would not admit Vern pending                                                                                                

transport.32  



                              The Sitka Counseling social worker explicitly testified that she did not  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



believe Vern had any social supports.   Given the evidence actually produced at the  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



hearing, this supported the superior court's rejection of simply releasing Vern and left  



only the jail as the immediately available least restrictive alternative for his protection  

                                                                                                                                                                         



while he was detained awaiting transport. The court correctly ordered the State to again  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



communicate with SEARHC about holding Vern pending transport and to put that  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



information in a status report due the next day. Given the expedited timing of the review  

                                                                                                                                                                                



hearing and the facts and circumstances of this case, the court's continuing order that the  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



State seek a less restrictive alternative to the jail rendered any factual error by the court  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



harmless.                 The remedy  for  the State's failure to  follow the court's direction  about  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



obtaining evidence of SEARHC's availability as a less restrictive alternative to jail is not  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



a reversal of the court's March 21 detention order.  

                                                                                                   



               D.            Vern's Remaining Arguments  

                                                                          



                             Vern's other arguments are foreclosed by our precedent.  His remaining  

                                                                                                                                                                         



statutory argument fails; we held in Gabriel C. that the 72-hour evaluation period in  

                                                                                                                                                                                           



AS 47.30.715 begins running on an individual's arrival at an evaluation facility, not  

                                                                                                                                                                     

when first detained.33                              Vern's detention in jail therefore did not violate the 72-hour  

                                                                                                                                                                             



evaluation period.  As to Vern's substantive due process claim, we recently held that a  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



               32             Cf. In re Mark V.                     , 375 P.3d at 58 ("[The State] must prove, by clear and                                                            



convincing   evidence,   the   petition's   allegation   that   there   are   no  less   restrictive  

alternatives.").  



               33             324 P.3d 835, 837-38 (Alaska 2014).  

                                                                                                                  



                                                                                           -16-                                                                                     7531
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

substantive due process violation occurs in this context when a person has been held for                                                                                                                                                                                        



                                                                                                                                                                                                      34  

an unreasonable period of time awaiting a 72-hour evaluation.                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Vern was held awaiting  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

transport for approximately four days, and we see no substantive due process violation  



                                                                                                                                                                       

under the facts and circumstances of his detention.  



          

V.                    CONCLUSION  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                           We AFFIRM the superior court's March 21, 2020 review hearing order.  



                      34                   In   re   Mabel   B.   & Sarah                                                        D.,   ___   P.3d   ___     Op.   No.   7525,   2021   WL  



________ (Alaska May 7, 2021) (holding that 17 and 18 day holds in medical facilities                                                                                                                                                                        

while awaiting 72-hour evaluation bore no reasonable relation to evaluative purpose of                                                                                                                                                                                            

hold and therefore violated substantive due process).                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                      -17-                                                                                                                               7531
  


----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

                                        

BOLGER, Chief Justice, concurring.  



                                                                                                                           

                    I  agree  with  this  court's  decision  to  affirm  the  superior  court's  order  



                                                                                                                            

following the review hearing. But I disagree with the suggestions that the superior court  



                                                                                                                          

made a "factual error" because there was "no evidence" that SEARHC would not accept  



                                                                                                                         

Vern pending transport.  I believe that it would have been counterproductive to require  



                                                                                                                     

this undisputed fact to be established by clear and convincing evidence at an expedited  



                                                                   

hearing scheduled with less than 24-hours' notice.  



                                                                                                                  

                    Vern was taken into emergency detention by a Sitka Police Department  



                                                                                                                 

officer after he made numerous calls to the department threatening to kill himself.  He  



                                                                                                                           

also made death threats to a local pastor and "a staff member at SEARHC."  A social  



                                                                                                                     

worker from a local counseling center examined Vern the following day and requested  



                                                                                                                               

a mental health evaluation, based in part on reports of "homicidal statements" from the  



                                                           

pastor and a SEARHC staff member.  



                                                                                                                        

                    The superior court relied on these "homicidal statements" when it ordered  



                                                                                                                            

the State to transport Vern to Bartlett Regional Hospital for evaluation.  But the order  



                                                                                                                                 

also  required  Vern  to  be  transported  to  SEARHC  unless  the  hospital  provided  a  



                                                                                                                            

statement detailing why it was necessary for him to be held at the Sitka jail.  The order  



                                                                                                                            

more generally required the State to ensure that "no less restrictive alternatives" were  



                                                                                                                    

available for Vern's detention.  The court also provided that the order for evaluation  



                                                                                                                   

would expire within seven days unless Vern had been transported to an evaluation  



                                                                                    

facility or held at a medical facility awaiting transport.  



                                                                                                                                  

                    Vern requested an expedited review hearing, and the court scheduled a  



                                                                                                                         

hearing for the following day. Neither the judge nor counsel for either party was present  



                                                                                                                  

in Sitka; out-of-town participants were authorized to appear by telephone.  



                                                                                                                                 

                    Immediately before the hearing, the State's attorney filed a response to  



                                                                                                                              

Vern's request.  The attorney stated that he had spoken to a doctor at SEARHC and  



                                                              -18-                                                         7531
  


----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

requested that someone from SEARHC appear at the hearing to explain why Vern could                                                                                                                      



not be held there pending transport.                                                          At the hearing, the attorney explained that the                                                                 



doctor indicated that the hospital "did not want to take" Vern "because of . . . indications                                                                                             



that he . . . might be homicidal." And the doctor also indicated that "someone would call                                                                                                                    

                                                                                   1  I believe the attorney's explanation was an adequate  

into the hearing and explain that."                                                                                                                                                             



responseto thecourt's previous ordersat an expedited telephonic hearing scheduled with  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           



less than a day's notice.  

                                           



                                 It is true that we have encouraged judicial officers "to take appropriate  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



action to expedite an evaluation if the respondent cannot be transported to the initially  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

designated facility without delay."2                                                          But we have declined to require a due process  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



hearing prior to an evaluation order because the delay to schedule a formal hearing could  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                3    We should not here  

result in a longer detention than required for the evaluation itself.                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                                   



establish a pre-evaluation procedural requirementthat could actually result in longer pre- 

                                                                                                                                                                                                            



evaluation detention.  

                            



                                 In  this case,  the State's attorney was obviously  unprepared  to  present  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   



formal proof that SEARHC was unavailable when the doctor unexpectedly failed to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                



appear or remain on the line at the telephonic hearing. The superior court dealt with this  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             



situation by continuing the order that Vern was to be transported to SEARHC whenever  

                                                                                                                                                                                              



it was willing to accept him.  Fortunately, Vern was instead transported for evaluation  



                 1               The court clerk indicated that someone had joined the telephonic hearing,                                                                                        



"but then they dropped right off."                                                   Neither party asked the judge to clarify exactly who                                                                  

had been on the line.                    



                2                In re Hospitalization of Gabriel C., 324 P.3d 835, 838 (Alaska 2014)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      

(emphasis added).  

                           



                3                In re Hospitalization of Daniel G., 320 P.3d 262, 273 (Alaska 2014).  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



                                                                                                      -19-                                                                                               7531
  


----------------------- Page 20-----------------------

                                                                                                                                   

at Bartlett the day after the hearing.  And Vern was released following his evaluation, a  



                                                            

day before the next scheduled review.  



                                                                                                                             

                    I believethesuperior court'sorderswereappropriate. Theevaluation order  



                                                                                                                                  

required the State to arrange for Vern's immediate transport to the first available bed at  



                                                                                                                                

Bartlett. It appears that Vern was indeed transported to Bartlett three days later when the  



                                                                                                                          

first bed became available. Pending transport, the State was required to file daily reports  



                                                                                                          

to ensure that no less restrictive alternative placement was available.  



                                                                                                                        

                    Butas thecourt's opinion implies, to present clear and convincing evidence  



                                                                                                                               

that SEARHC would not accept Vern would have required the State to identify and  



                                                                                                                            

subpoena a witness for testimony when all parties could be available.   In an urban  



                                                                                                                             

location, the State might be required to prepare and present several witnesses from  



                                                                                                                         

various alternative placements.  If the respondent is entitled to a pre-evaluation hearing  



                                                                                                                                 

on this topic, then the superior court will need to allow the parties sufficient time to  



                                                                                                                              

prepare for the hearing. In my opinion, this preparation could easily take more time then  



                        

the evaluation itself.  



                                                                                                                                 

                    In this case, the superior court sought to prevent excessive detention by  



                                                                                                                                  

setting the evaluation order to expire within seven days unless Vern was transported to  



                                                                                                                                 

a medical facility.  In view of this backstop, I see no error in the court's decision to  



                                                                                                                        

accept the State's representations about SEARHC's position at this expedited hearing.  



                                                               -20-                                                         7531
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC