Carr v. State, 303 Ga. 853

Ricky Lee Carr was indicted on sexual and other violent charges and released on bond; a department evaluator found him incompetent to stand trial and recommended outpatient restoration if attempted.
The trial court found Carr incompetent and, under OCGA § 17-7-130(c), ordered him taken into the Department of Behavioral Health custody for a 90‑day inpatient evaluation to determine restorability.
Carr challenged the statute as violating due process (and equal protection), arguing (1) the statute permits indefinite or unreasonably extended detention and (2) it mandates detention for all defendants charged with violent offenses without individualized findings.
The trial court upheld the statute and ordered detention; Carr obtained interlocutory review in the Georgia Supreme Court.
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the incompetency finding but reversed the trial court insofar as the statute was applied automatically; it vacated the detention order and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCGA § 17-7-130(c) permits unconstitutional indefinite or unreasonably long detention	Carr: The statute allows indefinite detention because it lacks time limits on pre- and post-evaluation steps	State: The statute’s 90-day evaluation period is facially reasonable; procedural timeliness objections	Court: Construed the statute to limit detention to a reasonable time necessary to accomplish evaluation; Carr could not show an as-applied unreasonable duration yet
Whether mandatory inpatient detention for all defendants charged with violent offenses (without individualized findings) violates due process	Carr: Automatic commitment of those charged with violent crimes is not reasonably related to the State’s evaluative purpose and lacks individualized determination	State: Mandatory detention is constitutional and Carr’s challenge was untimely	Court: Automatic detention without individualized finding is unconstitutional as applied to defendants not already lawfully detained; courts must consider inpatient vs outpatient and make a case-specific finding before committing for evaluation

United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (pretrial detention must be narrowly tailored to regulatory purpose and not excessive)
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) (due process forbids indefinite commitment solely for incompetency; confinement must be reasonable in duration and related to purpose)
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992) (commitment must bear reasonable relation to its purpose; commitment is a significant liberty deprivation)
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (involuntary medication for competency restoration requires case-specific balancing of government interests)
United States v. Dalasta, 856 F.3d 549 (8th Cir.) (upholding federal time limits for competency hospitalization; discussing diagnostic advantages of in-custody evaluations)
Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir.) (holding prolonged jail detention pending transfer to treatment violates due process and requires reasonably timely transfer)