In re Snyder, C082275

Background

Douglas Snyder, to be released from prison, was referred for SVP evaluation under Welfare & Institutions Code §6601; two psychologists (Drs. Karlsson and Asgarian) were originally designated.
Dr. Karlsson concluded Snyder was an SVP; Dr. Asgarian concluded he was not.
Department supervisors reviewed Asgarian’s draft, flagged numerous errors, and the QA team and supervisor sought multiple revisions. With limited time before release, the chief psychologist "undesignated" Asgarian, revoked her report, and a third evaluator (Dr. Korpi) was designated. Korpi concluded Snyder was an SVP.
The director requested a commitment petition; the county filed it and a probable-cause hearing followed. Snyder moved to dismiss, arguing the department should have arranged two independent evaluators under §6601(e) when the initial evaluators disagreed (rather than undesignating Asgarian). The trial court denied the motion.
Snyder sought habeas relief. The Court of Appeal held the department’s undesignation violated §6601 (and Ghilotti principles) but declined to order release; instead it remanded for the department to obtain two independent evaluators per §6601(e) and to proceed accordingly.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Snyder)	Defendant's Argument (People/Dept.)	Held
Whether the department lawfully "undesignated" an evaluator and revoked her report instead of arranging two independent professionals under §6601(e) when evaluators disagreed	Undesignation and QA veto exceed statutory scheme; §6601 commits evaluative judgment to designated evaluators and requires independent evaluators if disagreement exists	Department must ensure evaluations comply with the standardized assessment protocol; supervisory QA preventing a deficient report from proceeding is inherent and necessary	Court held undesignation violated §6601; supervisors cannot substitute their judgment for designated evaluators or revoke a designated evaluator’s report to avoid §6601(e) obligations
Whether the department's internal quality-assurance procedures are part of the §6601 standardized assessment protocol	Department’s QA process is an unauthorized overlay that lets supervisors veto evaluator conclusions, contrary to statute	Department claimed QA is part of the protocol and necessary to ensure protocol compliance	Court held QA processes are supervisory review mechanisms, not part of the standardized assessment protocol; they cannot be used to circumvent statutory evaluator roles
Remedy for the statutory violation — dismissal/release vs. remand for compliance	Snyder: petition must be dismissed and he should be released	People: department acted to ensure legally/factually sufficient evaluations; dismissal unnecessary and harmful to SVPA purposes	Court denied immediate release; fashioned equitable relief: remand to obtain two independent evaluators under §6601(e) and adjourn probable-cause hearing
Whether supervisors may revoke a report for timeliness/quality to meet administrative deadlines	Snyder: timeliness/quality do not authorize undesignation or revocation that negates statutory evaluator role	Dept.: practical necessity to meet deadlines and ensure clinically sound reports justifies reassignment when completion unlikely	Court held deadlines/quality concerns do not authorize revocation of a designated evaluator’s report in a way that bypasses §6601; but remand rather than dismissal is appropriate remedy

Key Cases Cited

People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti), 27 Cal.4th 888 (Supreme Court) (designated evaluators’ judgments control whether petition may be filed)
State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.4th 339 (Supreme Court) (overview of SVPA procedures and evaluations)
Reilly v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 641 (Supreme Court) (discussion of department assessment protocols and OAL review)
In re Ronje, 179 Cal.App.4th 509 (Court of Appeal) (2007 protocol invalidated as underground regulation)
Rabuck v. Superior Court, 221 Cal.App.4th 1334 (Court of Appeal) (2009 assessment protocol explained and upheld)