Barrows v. State
684 P.2d 303
Idaho
1984
Check Treatment

*1 majority the commis- Yet the now reverses very is thus

sion on this issue. Pine Crest opportunity to brief

denied notice of and an on It is ironic that

and be heard that issue. reaching majority conclusion the cites its following quote from

and relies on Rudd, 666 P.2d 639

Rudd v. Idaho

(1983): procedural process due

“The

guaranteed under Idaho and both the requires that States Constitutions

United judicial process person involved given meaningful notice and a mean-

be

ingful opportunity to heard.” Id. at

115, 666 P.2d at 642. does, holding majority

In Pine as the truly party procedural

Crest is denied process. Accordingly, join I cannot

due majority’s opinion. The commission statute, acting pursuant

merits of this case should be addressed.

684 P.2d 303 BARROWS, George Bailey,

Robert Carol Bender, Wheeler, Dewayne Mike Brow Bettencourt, er, Sellers, Teresa Glen Cutler, Andy Rosa, Dela Linda

Plaintiffs-Appellants, of Idaho and the Idaho State STATE Welfare; Department of Health and Purce, individually Les and in his offi capacity as of the Idaho

cial Director Department of Health and Wel fare; George Morgan, W. Bachik John Elmore, individually

and Dr. Carroll M. capacities em and in their official as ployees agents the Idaho State Welfare;

Department of Health and Offices, Titles and

Their Successors

Interests, Defendants-Respondents. 14915.

No.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

July

and liberty interests secured under feder- al and state law to double occupancy sleeping day rooms and rooms with no eight (8) more than mentally disabled individuals; and whether there is some upper limit on the number of mentally Johnson, III, L. Charles Pocatello, for disabled may placed that plaintiffs-appellants. day each sleeping and room room at a Jones, Gen., Atty. Jim Lynn Thomas, E. psychiatric facility such Hospital as State Gen., Wickham, Sol. James F. Deputy Atty. South.” Gen., Boise, for defendants-respondents. We affirm the decision of the trial court SHEPARD, Justice. as to the issues appeal certified for to this This is an action instituted on behalf of Court. mentally patients, most of whom are State South was built in the confined at the State South in many 1930’s and houses mentally ill pa- Blackfoot, Idaho. The crux of the com- dormitory tients in a setting, which was plaint patients was: should be state-of-the-art at the time of construction. placed in less restrictive facility fully by The licensed the State facilities; treatment that if such facilities recently and was satisfactorily inspected available, are not the State should be com- questions space for of per pa- allotments pelled facilities; to build such and that the tient, environment, cleanliness, and diet.

patients are entitled semi-private rooms public The institution is and is funded and sleeping for day and to containing rooms operated by the State of Idaho. State eight persons. not more than Partial sum- budget required constraints the recent clo- mary judgment granted was to the State building sure of one consequent with the appeal, issues certified on I.R.C.P. relocation of to other buildings. 54(b), were: permitted That relocation reduction “(a) plaintiffs Barrows, Whether Bailey, staff, supervision but increased Wheeler, Bettencourt, Rosa, Déla and All facts before this Court show that the Cutler, who are ill but not de- facilities are not overcrowded as such and disabled, velopmentally right, have the hospital that the was at the time of trial in based on federal and state constitutional process building new units which statutory and/or community law to provide space will per patient. additional based treatment facilities that are less trial, At the time of males and females personal liberty restrictive of psy- than a rooms, segregated by sleeping were hospital chiatric like persons per 13 to 17 room. Much of the South, exist; (b) if such facilities do not daytime spent hours are in day rooms con- plaintiffs Barrows, Bailey,

Whether Wheeler, Bettencourt, taining up persons. to 40 Rosa, only The evi- Déla Cutler, regarding pa- who are dence treatment is that all but not de- disabled, velopmentally property receiving type therapy.1 tients are some plaintiffs defect). 1. It is uncontradicted that six who a crime due to mental disease or Two appeal develop- applications discharge have issues certified for mentally for his or conditional re- may (3) Dewayne disabled and be described as fol- lease have been denied. Wheeler (1) involuntarily lows: Robert Barrows was referred to a committed § under I.C. 66- community-based However, facility discharged residential in 1981. In December he was community- his clinical condition deteriorated and from State South to a South; facility, following he then returned to State subse- based but was readmitted in- quently, community creating residential facilities have cidents of substance abuse a sense of behavior, injury. apply to admit him because of his risk of has declined especially self He refused to for (2) George Bailey security theft. was commit- social benefits which would facilitate 1982; pursuant (repealed placement community-based facility. ted to I.C. 18-214 his in a § law, 18-207) (4) present (acquitted voluntary patient § for see I.C. Teresa Bettencourt was a questions presented appeal on this record the mental (1) may following: be reduced to the being rights. denied of these basic property, liberty privacy whether or Appellants our next draw attention to interests secured under fed- cases, imprisonment contending that the eral and state law have been violated conditions of their confinement constitute present sleeping day arrange- room Rhodes punishment. cruel and In unusual *3 ments at State South for these 2392, Chapman, v. 337, 452 U.S. 101 S.Ct. (2) patients; patients and whether the have (1981), rejected 69 L.Ed.2d 59 the Court the rights based on federal and state constitu- containing prison that cells each contention statutory community- tional and/or law to comprising square 63 feet two inmates and based treatment facilities less restrictive of space of were so crowded as to constitute personal liberty than the conditions in State punishment. The facts cruel and unusual South, though facilities even such patient in this record indicate that each at may presently not exist. square has at least 80 State South the record con We note first that sleeping living space in his or her feet of the conditions tains no facts that Hence, allegation quarters. reject the we confinement at State South are punishment. of cruel and unusual way any any in of the Also, the record no facts indicat contains appellants’ consti- It is next asserted that ing patients the of the is confinement semi-pri- privacy require rights of tutional any way federally in in state or violation of day rooms contain- sleeping rooms and vate contrary, promulgated standards. To the eight patients. than Unit- ing no more inspection the record does a recent show expanded the Supreme Court has ed States approval by agency charged the state protected by right are the interests which Hence, licensing hospital. with the the Redhail, 434 privacy, e.g., Zablocki v. to only question space requirements is 673, 374, 618 98 S.Ct. 54 L.Ed.2d U.S. presented in the as to whether the abstract decisions, here, (1978) (important life patients per sleep in a have a se Roe, v. Whalen marry); 429 decision to occupant room with no more than one other (1977) 869, 589, 64 97 S.Ct. 51 L.Ed.2d U.S. containing spend day and to time in a room decision, i.e., abortion); Terry v. (important We, eight occupants. not more than there 1868, Ohio, 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct. fore, are asked to transform constitutional States, v. (1968); 389 U.S. Katz United 889 guidelines rigid specifying into a schedule (1967) 347, 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 88 S.Ct. largest number of mental who govern- (right free from unwarranted to be day may sleep spend in a room time in a or telephone intrusion as to conversa- mental hospital facility. room in a state mental booth); Stanley v. telephone in tion matter, general As a the United States 1243, 557, 22 Georgia, 394 U.S. 89 S.Ct. Romeo, Youngberg in Supreme Court (1969) (free thinking priva- L.Ed.2d 542 307, 2452, 102 73 L.Ed.2d 28 457 U.S. S.Ct. Ohio, material); Mapp v. cy as to obscene (1982), “a is under no has held that 643, 1684, 1081 81 6 L.Ed.2d 367 U.S. S.Ct. duty provide substantive constitutional courts); (1961) (exclusionary in rule state its border.” How- services for those within 165, 72 California, 342 U.S. Rochin v. ever, involuntarily to men- those committed (1952) integ- 205, (bodily L.Ed. 183 S.Ct. 96 humane care institutions are entitled to tal States, Boyd v. United rity); 116 U.S. adequate safety, and to and treatment (1886) (private 29 L.Ed. 746 6 S.Ct. shelter, care. food, clothing, and medical documents). in no facts this presented We community (5) participate hospital. treat- discharged his failure to who has been Andy from (6) programs. Cutler was involun- discharged Hos- ment tarily Linda from State Déla Rosa 66-329, has community-based facility, under I.C. but pital § but committed to a community- subsequently transferred to a Hospital South follow- been to State was readmitted facility. ing caused based incidents of assaultive behavior However, nothing any we find great for a supervision, deal of while those appellants decisions and the suggest- released to community-based facili- nothing ed priva- which indicates how those require ties supervision. less The record cy interpreted decisions can be as structur- respondent indicates that the State has met ing guidelines application for in the instant the rational basis justifying test a differ- case. ence in treatment for community-based housed in facilities as Although Hensley, Eckerhart v. contrasted with those housed in state insti- (W.D.Mo.1979), F.Supp. 908 is asserted' as tutions such as State South. The being persuasive, helpful. we do not find it record here does not indicate that “privacy rights” That case dealt with appellants improperly have been refus- a state hos- placement ed facilities. pital dormitory, it analysis but contained no contrary, On the the record indicates clear- privacy rights, opinion of such ly appellants that some of the have been regarding upon unclear pri- what basis *4 placed facilities, community-based and vacy holding violation was found. If the some of those have been unable to sustain require semi-pri- Eckerhart is deemed to the transition. rooms, argued vate as is in the instant case, clearly precedent, it is without and we Other contentions are raised on behalf reject holding being such a unpersua- as appellants, but those issues not been sive. appeal certified for and will not be con- sidered. It is also contended on behalf of The order of the district court is af- appellants equal protec that their to attorney’s firmed. No costs and no fees on violated, tion of the laws has been since appeal. appellants these in dormitory- type setting, mentally pa while other DONALDSON, C.J.,

tients are housed in facil and and BAKES HUNTLEY, JJ., ities which sleep only two or four to a concur. guarantee

room. The equal protection BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting. persons is that all under like circumstances alike, and conditions shall be treated Hart well, Although opinion the Court’s reads Harrison, 459, Co. v. 301 U.S. 57 S.Ct. join majority’s I cannot the conclusion that ford 838, (1937), 81 L.Ed. 1223 and that the conditions at State South are not differences in treatment for patients, believing harmful to the record upon must be based rational contrary. majority reads to the The states: Indiana, 715, grounds, Jackson v. 406 U.S. “We note first that the record contains no 1845, (1972). 92 S.Ct. 32 L.Ed.2d 435 facts that the conditions of con- any finement at State South are in The record before us indicates that way any patients.” harmful to of the P. community-based facilities are built with following 305. The is a list of the condi- private funds. Such facilities were built majority tions which the finds are “not many years after State South. sleep are forced to harmful”: Cuomo, 1158, F.Supp. See Woev. 559 1166 dormitory style containing up rooms to 17 (E.D.N.Y.1983), holding the State is patients; sleeping space other allotted is 80 required expend not the same dollar feet; square many patients spend private as the sector the amount does on days up the in rooms to 40 other care for the mental and treatment facilities patients; hospital disabled ly ill. admittedly percent understaffed ten Here, causing building the closure of which the record indicates that the dormi- one tory setting remaining allows forced of State South move to

905 con- buildings worsening the overcrowded P.2d reduced; ditions; security has been patient Wing, hus and Naomi Elwood WING does individuals treatment for some and Plaintiffs, wife, Counter- band and 6, 22; 1, (R., 2, pp. pp. Vol. exist. Vol. not defendants, Respondents, Brief, 51, 60; pp. 19, 24, 28, Appellant’s v. 8-11.) COMPANY, a SUGAR AMALGAMATED way How these conditions Defendant, Corporation, Utah at State Cross-defendant, Respondent, It would imagination. escapes the to admit for the Court more realistic harmful, tolerable, but conditions are these Hulet, Jay husband and Gertrude Hulet “not harmful” condone them as rather than Defendants, Intervenors, wife, to the Cross-claimants, Counter-claimants, today is reminiscent The before us case Appellants. Lewis, Mallery decision of this Court’s No. 14142. (1983),in 678 P.2d 19 which 106 Idaho jail County Canyon the conditions of Appeals of Idaho. Court inade to be reviewed and determined were majority found the overcrowd quate. May facility pre for adult conditions at ed constitutional failed to meet

trial detainees *5 678 P.2d at requirements.

minimum Id. the dis majority refused to order

Yet the enforce it wished to be

trict court to what

done, district refused to order the jurisdiction jail

court to retain to insure any pre-trial inmates which

did not receive

it could within constitu not accommodate

tional bounds. P.2d at 30. Id. 678 in a

result of this failure to act Court’s regard jail

meaningful way to the with to the shift the issue

conditions was to abdicating the judiciary, thereby

federal regard responsibility judiciary’s

Idaho P.2d state. Id. 678 jail conditions J., (Bistline, dissenting).

30at today in is reached analogous

An result the conditions majority’s decision that

at State majority of The failure of the meaningful review provide

this Court requirements for liv-

of the constitutional only fur- in state facilities

ing conditions responsibili- judicial the abdication of

thers begun Mattery. Persons

ty continue to will have to

state institutions hoping the conditions

survive subhuman necessary provide the judiciary will

federal

constitutional review.