*1 an interest in use as of the proceeding. shows the He is substantive evidence crime victim, boyfriend a former and the guilt defendant’s amounted to an allegedly objec- defendant’s letters voiced abuse of discretion. dating to his stepdaughter’s boy. tion Because statement defendant’s to the
Thus, written, at the time the letters were deputy testimony concerning and the the boyfriend personal the had a interest the trial, used improperly letters were we subject testimony. matter of the reverse the of child convictions molestation Third, affecting there are factors other and sexual conduct with minor. Accord- reliability boyfriend’s testimony. the ingly, opinion Court Appeals the Although age he was of sufficient vacated, and the matter is remanded to capacity, reliability his is somewhat proceedings the trial court for consistent only diminished because admitted to he opinion. with this Further, “glimpsing” through the letters. statements to the which he testified at trial HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, Y.C.J., and only the were statements from the letters FELDMAN, JJ., CAMERON and concur. sketchy which he could recall. recall Such reliability doubt as raises
testimony.
Fourth, the true of the offer is the substantive use of statement the rather impeachment
than
of the witness. The ex-
undisputed,
istence of this factor is
as the
itself
admits the letters were used for
evidence witnesses merely judgment jury, making Thus, when credibility. victim’s admit- ted, concerning testimony the letters link between
provided concrete defendant and the crime. circumstances, we find that
Under danger prejudice was ex- unfair Therefore, tremely high. the admission of testimony concerning the letters and its *2 petition. sought
dismissed the Petitioner action, special relief joining the trial judge, respon- the state and the DOC as dents.1 Because has no ade- quate remedy by appeal question and the presented significance, is of constitutional *3 accepted jurisdiction. we have We have Const, jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. art. 5(1) and Rule Ariz.R.P.Sp.Act., 17A § granting A.R.S. In our review of the order dismiss, the motion to we must assume the petitioner’s allegations. truth of Donnelly Oberg/Hunt/Gillela- Construction Co. v. nd, 184, 186, upheld only The dismissal can be Arnold, Phoenix, petitioner. Charles for petitioner’s claim could not entitle him to Corbin, Gen., K. Atty. Robert Richard any susceptible relief under proof. facts Albrecht, Gen., Phoenix, Atty. Asst. Id. respondents.
FACTS
FELDMAN, Justice. pled Petitioner no contest and was con- aggravated Septem- victed of assault on 30
Larry Wayne Large (petitioner) is a years ber 1982 and sentenced to five prisoner custody committed to the prison. appeal state He did not and was Department (DOC) Arizona of Corrections placed in custody the of DOC. and confined at the Alhambra Treatment (ATU), Unit a mental health treatment fa April Maricopa County On cility. April On filed a Superior Court ordered transfer- “Petition Prohibiting for an Order Forcible red from the Arizona State Prison at Flor- Administration Psychotropic Drugs,” ence to the Alhambra Treatment Unit Maricopa County Superior (ATU), Court Cause No. inpatient a mental health treatment MH 27765. The State of Arizona facility operated by filed a DOC. The order was 31-226,2 motion to Large’s petition. dismiss pursuant made to A.R.S. § granted trial court the state’s having motion and court determined that exist, practice, formerly granted by 1. In Arizona relief described in this section the director of Prohibition, department Writs of Mandamus or Certiorari is a the state petition of corrections shall file granted by “Special superior county now Action.” See Rule with the court in the Actions, Special Arizona prisoner Rules of Procedure for in which the is incarcerated for 17AA.R.S. prisoner transfer for treatment of the to the prisoner hospital state if the is a female or to 31-226, only dealing 2. A.R.S. statute inpatient facility a mental health treatment prisoners, provides the treatment of ill operated by department prisoner if the part: in relevant a male. B. prisoner any facility oper- days A. If a ten confined in At least before the court con- transfer, department hearing petition ated displays symptoms of corrections ducts a on the Department pro- of mental disorder to such shall the State vide a of the Corrections degree hospital copy petition a mental health erated that transfer to the state or a and written notice inpatient facility op- hearing prisoner and written department prisoner’s rights hearing. state corrections notice of the treatment, necessary adequate days hearing, to insure C. At least five prisoner before the if the counsel, psychiatrist facility, psychiatrist employed the court or if no has not available, physician facility, independent appoint ad- is examine the at the shall shall counsel or an hearing. prisoner represent prisoner and make a written re- visor to at the port application by of his to the director On the court shall recommendations necessity expert On of the state of corrections. also determine receipt report psychia- testimony and authorize of a that states that the medical witnesses compensation physician symptoms any necessary appointment finds that the trist or ____ others) from a mental disorder to such Any behavior or threats “suffered] degree transfer to the treatment interpreted dangerous should be as facility necessary adequate to ensure agrees he must be controlled until he fact, petitioner treatment.” already had procedure do so himself. Reverse back physically been transferred to ATU about out increments. seven months earlier.- petitioner appar- For the next five months From the date of his admission at ATU in ently evidenced no behavior or threat September types four of records were interpreted dangerous, could be because (A) kept petitioner: “Comprehensive Comprehensive Treatment Plan entries spaces Treatment Plan” form with fill- review,” signed “treatment team treatment; ing diagnoses (B) Physi- each of the team members. The “Physician’s indicating Orders” form for cian’s Orders form no shows medications “medicines, diet, etc.”; (C) a “Physician’s *4 prescribed period. during this The form; (D) Progress Record” a “Prob- Progress gives description Record no Despite lem List” form. seemingly petitioner’s behavior other than his “refus- system elaborate to observe and in- record al for Rx” and a statement he had formation, petitioner the record on in the point “not reached the where he is in need September, five months from 1984 until Physicians’ of treatment his will.” February sketchy. Compre- His Progress Record for October 1984. Fi- entry day hensive Treatment Plan for the nally, his Problem List revealed that: of admission indicates had been diagnosed “schizoaffeetive/paranoid,” as a September, pe- 1. On admission for which the treatment was to sign voluntary titioner refused to admit
seclude, restrain, 4-point3 progressive- form and to receive medication and his ly increasing (dangerous “disruptive/assaultive.” increments behavior was expense. prisoner. superintendent witnesses at the state’s No- hospital tice shall be hospital to the state if state and the director of the state female, prisoner hospital and the state shall department provide of corrections shall also provided opportunity participate
be with an county superior court in the which has hearing party, in the as an interested if it so jurisdiction proceeding over the transfer desires. quarterly report a of the condition of the hearing, prisoner repre- D. At the or his prisoner. testify and sentative call witnesses to may confront and witnesses cross-examine policy pertaining 3. DOC #401.17 to Four-Point by department except finding called on a submitted with the Restraints of Juveniles was good permitting presen- cause for not such Special Petition for Action. None was sub- tation, confrontation or cross-examination. adults, mitted on thus we do not know if such a prisoner E. If the is determined to be suffer- policy presumably it would be the same exists: ing degree from a mental disorder to such a juveniles, which defines Four-Point as that hospital or a that transfer to Restraints as follows: inpatient facility operated by health treatment juve- “Method I Four-Point Restraints”: department the state of corrections is neces- down, placed spread-ea- face and either nile is treatment, sary adequate the court to ensure by gled on bed and secured each wrist prisoner and direct that the shall order individually being the corre- ankle secured to hospital for treatment to the state transferred bed, sponding corner of the has his/her legal custody department the state along restraints arms their sides with leather prisoner a a corrections if the female or to placed each wrist and secured to the bed. on inpatient facility op- mental health treatment placed together, with leather Feet are then department erated the state of corrections if ankle and secured to restraints affixed to each prisoner is male. The transfer of the Additionally, straps the foot of the bed. hospital to the state shall be made placed around the shoulders or chest department the state of corrections. The court arching. of back ensure control writing order must be in and state the evi- juve- II Restraint”: The "Method Four-Point dence relied on and the reasons for transfer- sitting position placed on the will be in a nile floor, ring prisoner. will raised. The left wrist with knees superintendent hospital of the state F. The ankle, and the be secured to the provide of correc- shall wrist secured to the left ankle. report quarterly of the condition tions with a Artane, day. mg. twice a November, “manipulate[d] 2. 2. 1984he met”; (a religious get needs ideas to Cogentin, mg. by intramuscular 3. April problem that was “resolved” symptoms injection every five hours 1985); need for he denied mental illness or not relieved Artane. are legal and threatened action. medication mg. day. Symmetrel, 100 twice 4. lacera- In December he had a small Navane, drug, antipsychotic Other than the pain in his tion on his thumb and treating ad- drugs prescribed were for wrist; (both January left “resolved” antipsychotics. verse side effects of 1985). Drug Administration Side Effects drug appears treatment to have Forced (called extrapy- effects Not all of side triggered an “altercation” between been reactions) antipsychotic drugs ramidal Febru- patient and another on 25 extrapy- yet known. Two of the known the time ary, 1985. contended at are called akathisia and ramidal reactions patient’s altercation was the other that the akinesia. physician Because the concluded fault. by “involun- Akathisia is characterized “clearly” came about that the occurrence restlessness, pacing, tary motor constant patient’s aggres- continued as a “result of still, accompanied behavior,” inability to sit often he decided that sively psychotic required “emergency chewing, lip movements by fidgeting, [was] [and against patient’s began] he Navaneization *5 Be- leg movements.” ... finger and and preclude patient by further harm to will to anxiety induced this rest- cause the dangerous “Navaneiza- his own action.” underly- easily lessness is mistaken appears newspeak tion” to be for adminis- frequently ing psychotic anxiety, it is Navane, drug, psychotropic tration dosage by increasing the mistreated neuroleptic antipsy- to as a also referred antipsychotic medication. Akathisia drug. Physician’s entry chotic Orders drugs anti-parkinsonian with be treated February specific 25 indicates no medi- poorly. many respond cases but dosages; it states “observe cations Comment, Fit- Antipsychotic Drugs and behavior/response with meds.” and chart Trial, 52 U.CHI.L.REV. ness to Stand petition- days Three later the entries show 1985) (citations (Summer to medical 785-86 continuously on Navane and er had been Akinesia, omitted). the other on references was life- hand, spontaneity, results lack emergency Rx 72 hours after evaluated lessness, inability participate usual anx- against appeared his will. Patient disinclination to activities and a social very cooperative, appropriate, ious but receiving person speak. at 784-85. A Id. Navane much less delusional. Effects of evi- medication therefore antipsychotic pronounced modifying have been apathy of akine- dence both the emotional responses. He still psychotic behavioral physical restlessness and sign in will not well as the says he will not sia as Assured we agree taking symptomatic medication. of akathisia. See distraction hearing court continue Rx until will noted other Our courts have id. at 786. regarding continued Rx.4 decision makes dystonia such as extrapyramidal effects in- frequently (spasmodic muscle reaction prescribed: day the doctor On that neck) pseu- and a volving twisting Navane, mg. by mouth twice 1. face, (mask-like syndrome do-parkinsonian refused, mg. intramuscu- day, or if State, hands). rigid Anderson injection. lar drug was hearing required 7 weeks after about was to the 4. The reference following made The court order official- commenced. to transfer under A.R.S. 31-226 Rx” ATU, hearing “continued did not mention already court ly he was. The where against patient’s will. April hearing eventually held (App.1983). petitioner against istered to his will: he The most serious antipsy- side effect of consistently sign refused to informed con- drugs chotic dyskine- irreversible tardive voluntary repeated- sent for treatment and sia, may develop after extended use ly requested to be off taken the medi- Gelman, Hospital Mental appears cations. Drugs, and the Constitu- manage administered to rather than to Professionalism tion, 72 GEO.L.J. 1742-43 petitioner. proce- management treat This dyskinesia tardive dure had been established months before side, tongue sweeps from side to [t]he the altercation: closes, opens jaw mouth and the secluded, restrained, 4- ... he can be arms, Fingers, moves in all directions. pointed [drugs and even a PRN as legs may display comparable move- necessary] irritating, agitating behav- ments; swallowing, speech, breathing antitherapeu- ior or behavior that is can be affected as well. The movements tic—for ward treatment milieu. These although are uncontrollable their intensi- management actions are and have ty varies from case to case. In severe nothing to do with Rx his will. cases, involuntary movements im- Record, Physicians Progress October pede walking digestion. and even Health added.) (Emphasis endangered, can often the vic- appearance grotesque. tim’s becomes systematic Once dyskinesia Tardive is common: estimates began February tried (the prevalence disorder’s rates it, evidently terminate because proportion patients dys- tardive drugs’ physical severe and emotional side time) any particular range kinesia at as he com- effects. On different occasions high sixty-five percent; fifteen to plained prescribing physician twenty percent widely accepted ais esti- system psychotics”, not tolerate “his does mate. gives him the torments and that “Navane (citing primarily Id. to AMERICAN PSY- tight legs,” “Symmetrel was arms and ” ASSOCIATION, TARDIVE CHIATRIC inside,’ causing problems ‘upsetting him *6 OF THE DYSKINESIA: REPORT TASK causing him and that the medications LATE EF- FORCE ON NEUROLOGICAL problems Despite peti- with restlessness. DRUGS FECTS OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC involuntary ad- supplications, tioners’ the (1979) (other omitted). citations continued, the ministration of medication whether Petitioner’s records do physician explaining that it would continue effects, it he exhibited side but we assume hearing un- until future court transfer the manifestation of side effects that der A.R.S. 31-226. § the medications to treat them. prompted The Petition indicate Later records likewise do not legally April 1985 order After the drugs in con- whether these were effective transferring petitioner, ATU continued trolling February 28 or- side effects. psychotropic him On force to take and or- periodically reassessed ders were 23, 1985, Large filed his “Petition April upward adjust- with an dered continued Prohibiting Administration Order Forcible mg. daily on Symmetrel ment of to 300 Drugs” Superior in the Psychotropic of of and with the addition two March 7th that petition Large In claimed Court. his in mid- others—Benadryl and Thorazine non-emergency, forcible according to the Benadryl, of April improper in the drugs was psychotropic of (38th REFERENCE PHYSICIANS’ DESK plan (1) treatment of: a written absence 1984), of indicated for mild cases ed. responsible for the ATU staff prepared by including drug-induced parkinsonism, care; (2) procedures written tranquilizer used to cases. Thorazine is governing the ATU promulgated psychotic of disor- manage manifestations drugs in a non-emer- psychotropic admin- use of All the mentioned were ders. RE- PRISONERS MAY CONVICTED gency the will of situation DRUGS? ANTIPSYCHOTIC FUSE (3) regulations promul- patient; inmate the use of articulate gated by governing petitioner the DOC did not Because proceeding under the fed- he was The whether psychotropic drugs in such situations. clause, and be- process due eral or state petition to dismiss the state filed a motion our state constitu- provisions cause Ariz.R.Civ.P., A.R.S.) (Rule 12(b)(6) matter, only the we address tion settle petitioner had failed to grounds that City state constitutional issue. See upon claim which relief could state a A.2d Jacobsky, 496 Portland v. evidentiary hearing was held. granted. No Arizona Con- (Me.1985). construing July argument, after oral On constitutional refer to federal stitution we granted the state’s motion and trial court minimum law as the benchmark Large’s petition. dismissed Michigan v. protection. constitutional See special petition this court for In his 1032, 103 S.Ct. Long, 463 U.S. challenge does not his (1983); Chaisson, action 77 L.Ed.2d State transfer to the mental health 486 A.2d 125 N.H. rather,
facility. argues, He for the first time the We consider on invol- procedural restrictions absence ill under treatment of the untary pharmacological restraints such Arizona Con the due clause of the respect to imposed those on the state with Rights pro stitution. The Declaration patients Title civilly committed vides: 36-513), (A.R.S. ac- 36-511 to DOC’s §§ life, liber- person deprived No shall process. due The DOC admits tions violate process of property without due ty, or administering forcibly it is law. will,
petitioner against Const, but denies art. 4. Vruno Ariz. thereby being law is violated or rule of (8th Schwarzwalder, F.2d 124 Cir. being to con- subjected 1979) procedural pro- suggests that a tinuing irreparable harm. DOC con- analysis tiered: cess is two nothing admin- prohibits tends that it from stage analysis requires a The first istering psychotropic drugs person to the unwill- of whether determination of a deprived has been seeking relief ing. interest____ If [protected] liberty ... petition special action and the In the that the due court concludes thereto, response parties sub- state’s both particular interest applies clause evidentiary material and each mitted stake, stage, proceeds to the second it does or does not argued that the material proce- which is the identification *7 finders certain facts. We are not establish safeguard that inter- necessary to dures consider, instead, only legal of fact and est. present in its framed the case issues omitted). (citations We think 129 Id. at above on posture. The facts discussed analysis must process due complete that a administra- drugs, effects and their their competing include consideration controverted. recognized or not tion are the indi- that encroaches on state interest described, issue is Narrowly the ultimate See, right. e.g., liberty property vidual may prisoners to force whether 11, Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 25 v. Jacobson endanger their ingest drugs Thus, (1905). 358, L.Ed. 643 49 S.Ct. not health, such are when de- person has been deciding a whether medical purposes of emergency or for an liberty property protected a prived of not, If treatment, only for restraint. but of law we use process due interest without opportunity (1) entitled to the state’s analysis: is does the three-tier a interest; so, liberty implicate protected the trial court It then action prove his case. justify the (2) so, interest if does the state’s dismissing petition. did not err 236 infringement of
degree
liberty
on the
tropic drugs.
inter-
This
of
refusal
not
so,
est;
(3)
and
if
appropriate process
may infringe
absolute. The state
on this
provided
liberty
to assure that
is not arbi-
and
rights
prisoners
other
of
when it has
trarily deprived? The
answer
the first
legal reason to
so
proce-
do
and when the
questions
two
are
matters
substantive
proper.
are
dures
See A.R.S.
13-904.
§
process;
third,
due
procedural
due
questions
The next
we address are whether
process.
private
We evaluate the
interest
the state’s
outweighs
interest
this individu-
stake,
interest,
at
the state’s
the nature of
and,
liberty
so,
al
process
interest
what
procedures,
challenged
and the risk
is due.
procedures
those
will lead to errone-
ous results.
re
2.
Maricopa
Competing
County
State Interest:
Juve-
Institu-
JD-561,
25, 27,
nile Action No.
131 Ariz.
tional Order
Security.
and
692,
(1981).
638 P.2d
694
is our
It
task to Maintaining
security
institutional
and
weigh and balance the competing interests.
preserving
discipline
internal order and
are
Id.
goals
essential
operating
DOC in
penal
pick
institutions. DOC cannot
and
Liberty
1.
in avoiding
interest
involun-
receive,
choose inmates.
is its
duty
tary
psychotropic
accept
hold
responsibility
for all con-
put
felons
victed
into its custodial care.
from bodily
Freedom
im
restraint
39,
Dupnik MacDougall,
41,
v.
posed by arbitrary government action has
189,
(1983).
recognize
664 P.2d
We
long been recognized as the core of the
that the
faces tremendous ob-
liberty protected by
process. Young
due
discharge
stacles
effective
of these
316,
Romeo,
307,
berg
457 U.S.
102 S.Ct.
duties
problems
the individual
are
2452, 2458,
(1982).
237
865,
199,
substantially
it
174
both
related to the
104 S.Ct.
78 L.Ed.2d
U.S.
(1983).
long
response
to serve and not
in
to
Nevertheless it has
been rec-
excessive
ognized
powers
that even
the
problem
the
addressed.
Feder
essential
of
American
preserve
peace
to
the
are not unfet-
v.
Door
ation
Labor American Sash &
of
28,
Culinary
Co.,
20,
912,
tered. See
and Bar-
Ariz.
917
Workers
67
189 P.2d
258,
Busy
Local Union
631 v.
Bee
(1948),
tenders
No.
335 U.S.
69
93
S.Ct.
aff'd
Inc.,
514, 518,
Ariz.
P.2d
(1949).
Cafe,
57
115
As
in
L.Ed.
we stated the test
Thus,
despite
Department’s
Bank
v.
Valley National
Phoenix Glo
of
of
discretion as to the treatment
ver,
(1945):
broad
Ariz.
P.2d 292
prisoners,
the discretion can be abused.
applied
process,
Due
when
to substantive
Hogan,
Ariz.App.
Cardwell
interpreted
rights, is
mean the state is
to
(1975) (must
be reason-
life,
deprive person
without
to
of
able).
liberty
property
act that has no
an
govern-
relation to any proper
reasonable
have
To determine if DOC’s actions
purpose,
be-
which is so far
violated due
we must balance
yond
necessity of
the case as
liberty
individual’s
interest
of
arbitrary
governmental pow-
exercise
suspension.
reasons and
state’s
need for its
ers.
Romeo,
Youngberg v.
457 U.S. at
See
at 2460.
reason to
553,159
298-99;
102 S.Ct.
DOC’s first
Id.
P.2d at
Bell
at
see also
justify the forcible
of
supra.
v. Wolfish,
security.
argues
that the bur
We now turn
facts to determine
petitioner
that “the ad
den is on
to show
procedures
whether DOC’s
have sufficient
of psychotropic
ministration
[was]
prevent
safeguards to
erroneous and arbi-
reasonably
security
necessary
not
for the
trary
petitioner’s
denial of
substantive
of the institution which
is con
rights.
3, 7).
(Response at
claims
fined.”
DOC
Legitimate
goals
essential
has not and cannot meet this
suspension
DOC
necessitate the
demon
because “the record below
burden
liberty
prisoners
limitation of the
with
high
strates that
behavior
violating
process.
out
This constitu
violent,
disruptive and
includes
ly
[and]
tional notion has been codified in A.R.S.
assaults
inmates and
threats and
of other
provides
pertinent part:
13-904 which
(Id.
7.)
infor
The source of this
staff.”
felony
AA.
conviction for a
sus-
contemporaneous
not
mation is
ATU’s
pends
following
rights
civil
prescribing physician’s
affi
records but
person sentenced:
of forc
davit
months after initiation
right to
1. The
vote.
drugs.
Petitioner
ible administration
hand,
claims,
ab
public
office of
on the other
2.
hold
threatening the se
profit.
emergency
of an
trust or
sence
institution,
curity
drugs may be ad
juror.
as a
3.
serve
treatment,
not
ministered
During any period
imprisonment
ATU’s
management. Petitioner submitted
rights
suspension
other civil
emergency
to show
records
that neither
reasonably necessary
which is
nor treatment motivated the administration
in which the
security
the institution
evidentiary questions
These
or for the
person sentenced
confined
dis
us to decide. The trial court
not for
public.
protection reasonable
claim, not for
for failure to state a
missed
added.) Thus,
example,
(Emphasis
prove
the case.
failure
intercept and
validly
DOC officials
emergency,
a true
we do
inmates in or
Absent
communications of
examine
dan
forcible
contraband.
believe that
medication
prevent
der
transfer of
reasonably
gerous psychotropic drugs
“is
Jeffers,
State
*9
(1983),
denied,
of the institu-
necessary
security
464
1115
cert.
P.2d
tion”
required
by
Okin,
A.R.S.
(1st Cir.1984);
13-904. v.
jurisprudence long
held that
where
judgment
ed
his
evaluation of
state interest conflicts with fundamental
circumstances,
including
relevant
the se
liberties,
personal
the means
which
verity of the
prob
individual’s behavioral
promoted
that interest is
must be care-
likely
lems and the
fully
particu
so
effects
selected
as to result
the mini-
lar
on
possible
drugs
mum
infringement
protected
individual. See Bee
Greaves,
rights.
present
dangers
significant
serious
side
period
his will over
months.
justified by security
effects is not
consider- They
do not state
medical
what
Ordinarily “security”
ations alone.
long
necessitated or indicated the
course of
may
discipline
be insured more conven-
why
highly potent
additional
tional methods such as incarceration or iso- drugs
necessary
April.
were
in March and
Thus,
lation.
forcible medication with dan-
prescribed
drug regi-
who
doctor
gerous drugs
specific
should be limited to
good
men
have had very
psychiatric
emergencies
procedural
under
safeguards.
do
reasons to
so. The
have
forcibly
justification
DOC’s second
medically
petitioner’s
been
indicated
drugging petitioner is that it was done as
they may
treatment. But
have been mere-
argues
treatment.
in-
management
ly convenient for the
voluntary
improper
medication is not
be-
facility.
pro-
pursuant
cause it was administered
determine,
We also cannot
from
judgment.
fessional
relies
petitioner,
ATU’s records on
to what extent
proposi-
on numerous federal cases
psychiatric problems
helped
antipsy-
tion
that forcible administration
We
harmed
are asked
chotic
whenever the
constitutional
rely
unexplained
and unarticulated
professional judgment
from
order results
judgment
prescribing
doctor that
seeking
patient
from
prevent
endan-
appropriate and
forced medications were
gering
Youngberg
himself
others.
Romeo,
permit
Our
does not
U.S. at
102 S.Ct. at
effective.
constitution
(1982);
Greaves,
such blind reliance.
demands
supra;
Bee v.
Johnson v.
Due
(4th Cir.1984);
Silvers,
guarantees
rights
Rogers
The state dangerous psycho- If the state has forced reasonably necessary to the safe confine tropic for the shackle, prisoner. may ment of the iso in non-emergency managing his behavior physically otherwise him late or restrain situations, liberty interest it has violated necessary prevent escape injury. But due clause. protected by Arizona’s power physical such regard its with re medications, If it has such administered princi straints is not unlimited. The same will, but against ple applies type of chemical re plan without without formulated under here. The straints consideration (such safeguards imposed statutory law forcibly prisoner may inject this state -513), regu- 36-511 to administrative as §§ drugs carrying potential causing order, it lation or then has violated court any emergency serious side effects event, procedural process. either procedure necessary, just such a where find has stated a claim we in an justified shoot him if emer as it case, can. prove and is entitled to if he emergency But no can be gency. such leave the We are well aware we here, prisoner been claimed drugs in power to administer the state against his will for months. The medicated prisoner’s non- question will similarly psychotropic administer situations, pur- emergency if done for the unknown drugs with their known and dan proce- proper and with pose of treatment pur gerous properties to this dis- safeguards against abuse. The dural if it is authorized poses of treatment prison- persuasively argues that even sent regulations, and if the proper procedural from to be free ers have absolute approved quali drug administration is dangerous medication with prescribed non-consensual judgment medical fied drugs. We believe that prisoner’s sta- submit to the serious potentially *11 permit tus does not so right absolute a harmful medical treatment repre- that is privacy. any event, In by has not sented the administration antipsy- sought ruling. so broad a II, drugs.” chotic supra Rogers at 653. The right source according of this to granted. Relief is dismissing The order II, Rogers supra, lies in the “Due Pro- Large’s petition for failure to state a claim cess Clause of the Fourteenth Amend- vacated. matter is remanded to the ..., likely ment part most pen- trial proceedings court for not inconsistent right umbral privacy, bodily to integrity, opinion. with this personal or security.” Id. Other courts have discussed in individual’s First HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, V.C.J., and right Amendment integ- to maintain the HAYS, J., concur. rity processes. of his mental See Scott CAMERON, Justice, dissenting. Plante, 939, (3d Cir.1976); v. 532 F.2d 946 I write separately express my to opinion Procunier, 877, Mackey v. 477 F.2d 878 majority go that the enough does not far (9th Cir.1973); I, supra at Rogers 1366- protecting petitioner’s right this privacy. ground right firmly We this right constitutional to privacy, which we majority proscribe would the force- previously have expres- described as “an ful dangerous drugs only sion of the sanctity of non-emergency individual free situations. Such choice and self-determination as funda- forcefully could be administered if done Superin- constituents of life.” pursuant professional judgment to evi- tendent Belchertown by denced a written State School plan in com- Saikewicz, 373 pliance Mass. 370 legislative regu- or (1977). N.E.2d 417 lations governing such a forced use of drugs for medical treatment. Roe, 415, Guardianship 383 Mass. 40, (1981). n. 421 N.E.2d 51 n. 9 fully agree I with the statement First Appeals Arizona, Circuit Court of privacy it right to is ex- intuitively pressly “seems to us to be an obvious in the constitution. Ariz. Const, proposition: person constitutionally has my art. 8. It opinion, that the protected being interest in right left free to privacy contained in the Arizona decide himself whether sub- Constitution must include the to bodi- mit to the serious potentially ly integrity and harmful personal security, thus al- represented by lowing medical treatment person ingestion to refuse the antipsychotic drugs.” the administration of injection dangerous drugs. See Ander- Okin, (1st State, Rogers 634 F.2d son v.
Cir.1980) (footnote omitted),
(state
(App.1982)
requires
vacated
law
remanded
Rogers,
Mills v.
457 U.S.
more than minimal federal constitutional
requirements).
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 16
Although
some courts have considered
These
conceded
problem
interest)
process (liberty
very powerful
a due
dangerous.
The side
Klein,
known,
question,
“[A]
being
dyskinesia
tected interest in
left free
sia and tardive
characterized
involuntary
by rhythmical,
repetitive
state to decide for himself whether to
dangerous
face,
involving these
od of treatment
tongue,
mouth
movements
accompanied
other bi-
his refusal
to take such
jaw sometimes
While
activity.
they may
Also
zarre muscular
treatment and be a
drugs may impede his
a condition wherein
responsible
determinations as
negative factor
such
agran-
disappear called
white blood cells
reduction,
and sentence
nevertheless
parole
fatal in
ulocytosis which is
30%
refuse should be absolute.
cases.
Mr.
I
in conclusion that
note
(Okla.
747, 748 n. 3.
In Re K.K.B. 609 P.2d
incompetent,
legally declared
never been
*12
1980)
include:
possible side effects
Other
treat
merely in need of more extensive
but
desire,
drowsiness, fainting, loss of sexual
prison.
possible
ment than is
rashes,
discoloration, cardiovascu
skin
skin
frightening
It is
to even
A.R.S. 31-226.
occasionally sudden death.
changes
lar
forcibly
may be able to
think that the state
Roe, 383 Mass. at
Guardianship of
mind-altering drugs
dangerous,
administer
privacy is the freedom to decide whether prefer helped,
we
to be
or to be left
alone.
K.K.B.,
(original