In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brent Charles Nielsen., A16-356

Background

Nielsen, serving a life sentence with parole eligibility for a 1989 murder and sexual-crime conviction, faced a county petition for civil commitment as a Sexually Dangerous Person (SDP) and Sexual Psychopathic Personality (SPP).
Two court-appointed examiners (Drs. Meyers and Kenning) concluded Nielsen met commitment criteria and that the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) was the appropriate placement; both found intensive supervised release (ISR) or in-prison treatment insufficient to protect public safety.
Nielsen presented DOC witnesses who described in-prison sex-offender treatment and ISR but did not identify a specific community facility willing to accept him or demonstrate ISR would meet his treatment/public-safety needs.
The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Nielsen qualified as an SDP and SPP, that no less-restrictive program meeting his needs and public-safety requirements was proven available, and ordered indeterminate commitment to MSOP.
On appeal Nielsen argued (1) the court clearly erred in finding no less-restrictive program (pointing to prison treatment and ISR), (2) the civil-commitment scheme is unconstitutional as retributive/indefinite, and (3) commitment deprives him of a right to treatment given identified MSOP defects.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding the finding on availability of a less-restrictive program was supported by evidence, granted the county’s motion to strike extra-record DOC policy materials, rejected the constitutional challenge under controlling precedent, and deemed right-to-treatment claims premature.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of less-restrictive treatment program	Prison treatment and ISR are less-restrictive programs adequate for treatment and public safety	Examiners and county: prison/ISR would not meet Nielsen’s specialized treatment needs nor protect public safety; no specific community provider willing to accept him was shown	Court: Finding that Nielsen failed to prove an available less-restrictive program consistent with treatment needs and public safety was not clearly erroneous; affirmed
Use of extra-record DOC policies on appeal	DOC policies (publicly available) show ISR/prison procedures and support Nielsen’s less-restrictive-program claim	Policies were not admitted below; appellate court should not consider extra-record materials	Court granted motion to strike the DOC policies as not part of the record and refused to base decision on them
Constitutional challenge (retributive/double jeopardy/ex post facto)	Civil commitment here would be retributive because release depends on lack of need for treatment, amounting to punishment	State: Commitment is civil, therapeutic, and has been held constitutional under controlling precedent	Court rejected Nielsen’s as-applied challenge, citing binding Minnesota precedent that the civil-commitment statutes are not retributive and are constitutional; affirmed
Right-to-treatment claim based on MSOP deficiencies (post-commitment conditions)	Karsjens decision shows MSOP unconstitutional, so commitment would deprive Nielsen of treatment rights now	State: Right-to-treatment challenges are premature at initial-commitment stage; Karsjens is not binding or final on this court	Court held the challenge premature on initial-commitment appeal, Karsjens not controlling here, and denied relief on that ground

Key Cases Cited

In re Linehan, 518 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1994) (framework for commitment factors)
In re Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 1999) (upholding civil-commitment statutes; addressing double jeopardy/due process)
Nielsen v. State, 863 N.W.2d 399 (Minn. App. 2015) (prior appeal concerning dual commitment and jurisdiction)
In re Thulin, 660 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. App. 2003) (review standard for less-restrictive-program findings)
Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1982) (issues inadequately briefed may be waived)
Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (D. Minn. 2015) (district-court ruling on MSOP constitutional defects; not binding on this court)