Interest of B.A.C.
2017 ND 247
N.D.2017Background
- In June 2017 B.A.C. drove his car into a pond, walked barefoot away, and unlawfully entered a private residence; while detained he made delusional statements.
- Police transported him to a local hospital, then to the North Dakota State Hospital, where he refused medication and wanted to leave.
- State Hospital clinicians (Drs. Coombs, Haider, and Pryatel) diagnosed a psychotic disorder and concluded untreated inpatient care was necessary because he posed a risk of harm to himself or others.
- The district court ordered 90 days of involuntary hospitalization and involuntary medication and found federal firearms restrictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4) and (g)(4) applied.
- The hospital released B.A.C. after 14 days and the district court entered an order discharging him from further involuntary commitment; B.A.C. appealed the original hospitalization/treatment order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness: Does release make the appeal moot? | State: case may be moot absent collateral consequences | B.A.C.: not moot because firearms restrictions under § 922 remain | Not moot — collateral firearms consequences presumed, so live controversy remains |
| Sufficiency of evidence: Was there clear and convincing proof B.A.C. was mentally ill? | State: clinical diagnoses and observed delusions support mental illness | B.A.C.: insufficient evidence of mental illness | Held: clear and convincing evidence supported mental-illness finding |
| Risk of harm: Did B.A.C. present a serious risk if untreated? | State: prior dangerous acts (car into pond, trespass), clinicians’ opinions show risk | B.A.C.: disputed necessity and risk severity | Held: clear and convincing evidence showed a serious risk to self/others, justifying inpatient treatment |
| Firearms finding collateral effect: Does brief commitment still trigger lasting federal consequences? | State: finding in 90-day order creates collateral firearms restriction | B.A.C.: release moots such collateral effects | Held: court presumes collateral firearms restriction applies absent evidence of prior commitment; therefore appellate review not moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of G.K.S., 2012 ND 17, 809 N.W.2d 335 (district court dismissal vacated prior involuntary order where state conceded insufficiency of evidence)
- In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Van Sickle, 2005 ND 69, 694 N.W.2d 212 (mootness principles; appeal dismissed when no actual controversy remains)
- Varnson v. Satran, 368 N.W.2d 533 (N.D. 1985) (appeal moot when decision cannot have practical legal effect)
- In the Interest of R.N., 1997 ND 246, 572 N.W.2d 820 (standard of review: clear-and-convincing at trial; appellate review for clear error)
- Interest of W.K., 2009 ND 218, 776 N.W.2d 572 (statutory elements defining when a person requires involuntary treatment)
- In re McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d 326 (Minn. 1999) (courts may presume collateral consequences from involuntary commitment)