Main Menu

Matter of Vern H.

HEALTH LAW

Emma Giusto

In Matter of Vern H., 486 P.3d 1123 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that (1) probable cause is the proper standard for review hearings when detaining an individual awaiting transportation for a civil commitment mental health evaluation, and (2) to detain the individual in jail while awaiting transport, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention is the least restrictive alternative. (Id. at 1125). Vern’s attorney petitioned the superior court for an order to hospitalize him for a mental health evaluation, as Vern had threatened to hang himself. (Id.). The next day, the police filed a notice stating they had placed Vern in jail as he had called the police and stated he was experiencing delusions and expressed a desire to kill himself and others. (Id.). The superior court found probable cause and granted the order, with Vern to remain in jail until transport to the hospital. (Id.). Vern then filed a motion for a review hearing, stating that detention must be reviewed under clear and convincing evidence, not probable cause, and that the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued jailing was the least restrictive alternative. (Id.). The superior court held there was probable cause to conclude Vern had a mental illness and, given the probability he would harm himself, continued jailing was necessary. (Id. at 1128). In affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court reasoned procedural protections are adequate to guard an individual’s liberty interests and that a higher standard than probable cause could create a “revolving door.” (Id. at 1130). The court further reasoned that the State must prove continued detention is the least restrictive alternative by clear and convincing evidence. (Id. at 1130–31). While the State failed to meet this burden, the evidence at the hearing supported the superior court’s decision to not release Vern, so the error was harmless. (Id. at 1132). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) probable cause is the applicable standard in review hearings for an individual detained while awaiting transportation for a mental health evaluation, and (2) the State must prove jail is the least restrictive alternative by clear and convincing evidence. (Id. at 1125).

Matter of Vern H.

HEALTH LAW

Emma Giusto

In Matter of Vern H., 486 P.3d 1123 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that (1) probable cause is the proper standard for review hearings when detaining an individual awaiting transportation for a civil commitment mental health evaluation, and (2) to detain the individual in jail while awaiting transport, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention is the least restrictive alternative. (Id. at 1125). Vern’s attorney petitioned the superior court for an order to hospitalize him for a mental health evaluation, as Vern had threatened to hang himself. (Id.). The next day, the police filed a notice stating they had placed Vern in jail as he had called the police and stated he was experiencing delusions and expressed a desire to kill himself and others. (Id.). The superior court found probable cause and granted the order, with Vern to remain in jail until transport to the hospital. (Id.). Vern then filed a motion for a review hearing, stating that detention must be reviewed under clear and convincing evidence, not probable cause, and that the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued jailing was the least restrictive alternative. (Id.). The superior court held there was probable cause to conclude Vern had a mental illness and, given the probability he would harm himself, continued jailing was necessary. (Id. at 1128). In affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court reasoned procedural protections are adequate to guard an individual’s liberty interests and that a higher standard than probable cause could create a “revolving door.” (Id. at 1130). The court further reasoned that the State must prove continued detention is the least restrictive alternative by clear and convincing evidence. (Id. at 1130–31). While the State failed to meet this burden, the evidence at the hearing supported the superior court’s decision to not release Vern, so the error was harmless. (Id. at 1132). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) probable cause is the applicable standard in review hearings for an individual detained while awaiting transportation for a mental health evaluation, and (2) the State must prove jail is the least restrictive alternative by clear and convincing evidence. (Id. at 1125).