In re the Detention of Sease, 190 Wash. App. 29

Michael Sease was civilly committed as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) in 2007 following convictions for kidnapping and rape; commitment is reviewed annually under RCW 71.09.
Sease has a long clinical and behavioral history (self‑mutilation, suicidality, institutional infractions) and multiple personality/behavioral diagnoses over decades (narcissistic, antisocial, borderline traits; alcohol dependence; rule‑out paraphilia; borderline intellectual functioning).
In 2013 Sease petitioned for release; at a show‑cause hearing the State’s expert (Dr. Newring) concluded Sease still presented a mental condition that impairs control and posed a risk of sexual reoffense; Static‑99R placed him in a moderately high risk category.
Sease’s retained expert (Dr. Abbott) opined Sease no longer suffered the disorder(s) underlying commitment and attributed improvement to treatment at the Special Commitment Center.
The trial court found the State had made a prima facie showing that Sease remained an SVP and that Sease had not shown probable cause that his condition had "so changed" to warrant release; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sease)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the State presented prima facie evidence that Sease still meets the statutory SVP definition	Sease argued changed diagnoses (loss of antisocial/borderline labels) show his condition changed and the State failed to prove continued SVP status	State relied on current diagnoses, consistent underlying symptoms, actuarial (Static‑99R) and dynamic risk factors, and expert opinion that risk remains	Court held State met prima facie burden: evolving diagnoses based on the same symptoms do not negate SVP status (Meirhofer/Klein logic applied)
Whether Sease established probable cause that his condition has "so changed" through treatment to warrant release	Sease relied on Dr. Abbott’s report asserting treatment‑driven change and current absence of prior diagnoses	State argued statute requires change in the condition, not merely a change in diagnostic label; record showed persistent underlying symptoms and resistance to treatment	Court held Sease failed to show probable cause: diagnosis changes alone insufficient — must show substantial change in mental condition from treatment

In re Personal Restraint of Meirhofer, 182 Wn.2d 632 (Wash. 2015) (holding that evolving or different diagnostic labels do not defeat a prima facie showing when underlying symptoms persist; clarifies show‑cause standard)
State v. Klein, 156 Wn.2d 102 (Wash. 2005) (permitting reliance on evolving diagnoses when symptoms remain substantially the same; cautions against semantic releases)
In re Det. of Petersen, 145 Wn.2d 789 (Wash. 2002) (explaining show‑cause hearing standards and burdens under the SVP statute)
State v. McCuistion, 174 Wn.2d 369 (Wash. 2012) (describing trial court's limited role at show‑cause hearings — assume truth of evidence but do not weigh competing facts)
In re Det. of Stout, 159 Wn.2d 357 (Wash. 2007) (upholding commitments based on paraphilia NOS and personality disorder diagnoses)