In re the Detention of Johnson
179 Wash. App. 579
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Johnson was involuntarily detained for 72 hours under RCW 71.05.153 due to imminent danger or gravely disabled claim.
- Initial detention had no judicial review provided by the statute, raising due process concerns.
- Designated Mental Health Professionals (DMHP Bonicalzi and ARNP Buxton) found Johnson gravely disabled with imminent risk.
- Hospital petitioned for 14 additional days; Johnson moved to dismiss for lack of imminence and sought a hearing.
- Trial court denied an imminence hearing and granted 14-day involuntary treatment after evidence from three witnesses.
- On appeal, the court held that emergency detention procedures satisfied due process and no imminent-review was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is judicial review of imminence required at the 72-hour emergency detention? | Johnson: due process requires immed. judicial review of imminence. | State: no imminence review for emergency detention is provided by statute. | No; emergency procedures satisfy due process without imminence review. |
| Is the appeal moot, or ripe for merits review despite release from detention? | Johnson: merits review should proceed despite mootness. | State: moot but substantial public interest justifies review. | Case deemed reviewable on the merits due to public interest and recurrence risk. |
| Do emergency detention safeguards suffice to protect due process rights? | Johnson: safeguards are insufficient without immed. imminence review. | State: multiple procedural safeguards exist to prevent erroneous detention. | Procedural safeguards are adequate; no due process violation. |
| Should V.B. and related precedents govern the necessity of immediacy review in emergency detention? | Johnson relies on cases requiring immediacy review after detention. | State: V.B. supports proceeding without officer-immediacy testimony at initial hearing when necessary. | V.B. supports the result; immediacy review not required at initial emergency detention. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of Swanson, 115 Wn.2d 21 (1990) (mootness but public-interest review allowed)
- Harris, 98 Wn.2d 276 (1982) (distinguished emergency vs nonemergency detention; imminence standard)
- In re Det. of V.B., 104 Wn. App. 953 (2001) (imminence safeguards and procedural protections in detention)
- In re Det. of C.W., 147 Wn.2d 259 (2002) (due process protections in civil commitment statutes)
- In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196 (1986) (massive curtailment of liberty cited in due process context)