In re the Detention of D.W., 332 P.3d 423

Washington ITA authorizes brief detention for evaluation, stabilization, and treatment of individuals with mental disorder who are imminent risk or gravely disabled.
Overcrowding leads Pierce County to use single bed certifications placing detainees in emergency rooms or acute care centers not certified as evaluation and treatment facilities.
DMHPs would locate beds first, but if none available, they obtain single bed certifications for outside-certified facilities, often with limited care.
Court-ordered evidentiary hearing found single bed certifications to be unlawful as a method to avoid overcrowding.
Regulations (WAC 388-865-0526) limit single bed certifications to cases with medical justification or continuity of care, not mere room shortages.
Trial court and Court of Appeals decisions concluded ITA does not authorize psychiatric boarding to evade certified facility capacity.]
Note: The Court ultimately affirmed the trial judge’s ruling and did not sustain the boarding practice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ITA allows single bed certifications to avoid overcrowding	Pierce County argues ITA and regulations permit single bed certifications to address capacity constraints.	State/County contends regulations authorize single bed certifications for non-certified settings when justified by patient needs.	No; ITA does not authorize boarding solely due to lack of room.
Scope of certified facilities under ITA	DHS/County claim broader interpretive latitude for non-certified settings.	ITA and RCW definitions require treatment in certified evaluation and treatment facilities.	Certified facilities are required; non-certified settings cannot be used for involuntary detention under ITA.
Interpretation of WAC 388-865-0526 on single bed certifications	Rule allows single bed certifications when medical needs or continuity of care justify outdoor detention.	Rule may be read to permit only medical or continuity-of-care justification, not purely capacity-based detentions.	Rule does not justify detentions solely for overcrowding; medical justification or continuity of care required.
Whether ITA permits warehousing without treatment due to lack of funds	Constitutional rights require adequate treatment; warehousing is unlawful.	No explicit exception; ongoing treatment is expected within ITA framework.	Court rejected warehousing without adequate treatment; boarding unlawful.

In re Det. of G.V., 124 Wn.2d 288 (1994) (due process standards for civil commitment; strict construction of ITA)
Ohlinger v. Watson, 652 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1981) (incapacity rights to treatment; right to therapeutic care)
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (necessity of mental illness + danger for civil commitment)
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992) (due process in civil commitment; danger standard)
Oviatt ex rel. Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1992) (limits on state detention of non-criminals; due process)
Or. Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003) (funding constraints cannot justify inadequate treatment)
In re Det. of Albrecht, 147 Wn.2d 1 (2002) (due process and mental illness standards; treatment requirement)
In re Det. of Swanson, 115 Wn.2d 21 (1990) (due process in detention decisions)
Soltero v. Wimer, 159 Wn.2d 428 (2007) (standards for review of law and findings)
Nordstrom Credit, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 120 Wn.2d 935 (1993) (deference and standard of review principles)