93 A.D.3d 158
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- Attorney General seeks civil management of a sex offender under article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law; Supreme Court ordered unconditional release based on facial unconstitutionality finding of §10.06(k); Court of appeals reverses and remands for disposition under SOMTA.
- Respondent Enrique T is a 36-year-old offender with prior rape and child-sex offenses, absconded on parole, and had parole revoked; his 2011–2012 release prospects triggered SOMTA pretrial proceedings.
- SOMTA provides two paths: civil commitment to a secure facility or strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) in the community; proceedings include preliminary review, case review, petitions, and probable cause hearings.
- Pretrial detention under §10.06(k) was challenged; Respondent argued less restrictive alternatives could protect the public, but the Court holds detention may be upheld where mental abnormality and dangerousness are established; SIST is a post-trial option, not an available pretrial alternative.
- Court notes multiple procedural safeguards: notice to AG and OMH, two levels of review, counsel appointment, and opportunity for psychiatric evaluation; the mootness issue is discussed but does not affect the holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does probable cause finding under article 10 imply dangerousness? | AG contends probable cause includes dangerousness. | Respondent argues dangerousness not required at probable cause stage. | Yes, probable cause incorporates dangerousness. |
| Is §10.06(k) facially unconstitutional because of less restrictive alternatives? | AG asserts constitutionality without mandatory lesser-conditions analysis. | Respondent argues pretrial detention cannot stand if SIST could suffice posttrial. | Not facially unconstitutional; lesser alternatives analysis may be deferred. |
| Can SIST be deemed a pretrial option to replace confinement? | State may consider SIST as a pretrial alternative for safety. | SIST is discretionary posttrial, not available pretrial. | SIST is posttrial, not an available pretrial alternative. |
| Is the statute constitutional as applied to this respondent? | Statute properly targets dangerous sex offenders with civil management. | Respondent challenges as applied due to potential SIST release. | Statutory framework consistent with due process when danger is shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (upholds pretrial detention in certain dangerousness contexts; factors for due process scrutiny)
- Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984) (pretrial detention may be permissible even if disposition may be less onerous later)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 357 (1997) (dangerousness based on mental abnormality; civil confinement permissible)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (dangerousness requires serious lack of control; mental abnormality defined)
- Matter of David B., 97 N.Y.2d 267 (2002) (state may define mental abnormality to include dangerousness)