In re Detention of Stanbridge
2012 IL 112337
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Consolidated appeals challenge postcommitment discharge or conditional release under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (725 ILCS 207/1 et seq.).
- Stanbridge previously found to be a sexually violent person; petition for discharge and State motion for no probable cause were heard jointly in 2010.
- Lieberman previously found to be a sexually violent person; petition for discharge/conditional release followed periodic reevaluation and expert testimony.
- Trial court ruled no probable cause for Stanbridge and denied Lieberman’s discharge/conditional release petitions.
- Appellate court reversed Stanbridge, but affirmed Lieberman; the court then granted leave to appeal and consolidated the cases.
- This Court held the Stark principle: postcommitment probable-cause standard and scope require a change in circumstances not previously adjudicated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of proof governs postcommitment probable cause? | Stanbridge: same as Hardin; plausible evidence suffices. | State: same standard applies across sections; weighs conflicting expert opinions. | Standard is the same as Hardin; plausible basis suffices. |
| What scope of evidence is required to show 'no longer' or 'not still' sexually violent? | Stanbridge and Lieberman: new or changed circumstances can establish probable cause. | State: relitigating commitment should be limited; evidence must show change since prior adjudication. | Evidence must show a change in circumstances not previously adjudicated. |
| Is paraphilia NOS-nonconsent a valid basis for discharge reasoning? | Lieberman: diagnosis debated; DSM validity not controlling for discharge evidence. | State: diagnosis supports future risk; testing different opinions is permissible. | Schmidt’s paraphilia NOS-nonconsent diagnosis not sufficient to establish probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Detention of Hardin, 238 Ill. 2d 33 (2010) (set the unified standard for probable cause in postcommitment proceedings)
- In re Commitment of Combs, 2006 WI App 137, 295 Wis. 2d 457, 720 N.W.2d 684 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (no longer requires reliance on prior adjudication if no new facts or methods)
- In re Commitment of Kruse, 2006 WI App 179, 296 Wis. 2d 130, 722 N.W.2d 742 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (supports gatekeeping intent of probable-cause review)
- Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (U.S. 2001) (ex post facto considerations in civil commitment contexts)
- Hendricks v. Oklahoma, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (civil commitment requires mental illness and dangerousness; procedures barred from punitive use)
- State v. Watson, 595 N.W.2d 403 (Wis. 1999) (probable-cause standard analogized to preliminary criminal hearings)