United States v. Neal
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10029
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Neal, on pretrial release, the government moved for an inpatient competency evaluation and commitment to the BOP.
- Defense acknowledged reasonable cause for evaluation but urged outpatient evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b).
- The district court did not hold a hearing or make any factual findings before ordering inpatient commitment.
- Defense argued Neal’s circumstances favored an outpatient evaluation to avoid sequestering him from his home and wife.
- Neal appealed, and the Eighth Circuit vacated the order and remanded for a hearing and proper findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court violated due process by ordering inpatient commitment without a hearing or findings | Neal argues due process requires a hearing and factual findings before confinement | Government contends §4247(b) grants discretion to order inpatient commitment | Vacated; remanded for a hearing and findings |
| Whether §4247(b) permits inpatient commitment without considering least-restrictive alternatives | Neal contends outpatient evaluation could suffice | Government maintains inpatient option is permissible under §4247(b) | Vacated; due process requires consideration of outpatient alternatives |
| Whether the district court should have made findings of fact about the need for commitment | Neal asserts lack of findings renders the order invalid | Government argues discretion allowed without explicit findings | Remanded for proper factual findings after a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Revels v. Sanders, 519 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2008) (due process protections for deprivation of liberty on pretrial release)
- Heidemann v. Rother, 84 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 1996) (bodily liberty protected; heightened due process scrutiny)
- Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (constitutional balancing for government interests vs. liberty)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (compelling governmental interest; least restrictive means)
- In re Newchurch, 807 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1986) (district court must show need for commitment and consider outpatient option)
- United States v. Deters, 143 F.3d 577 (10th Cir. 1998) (requires findings of fact and deference to district court’s confinement decision)