*1 A.2d Sylvia In the Matter of SEEGRIST.
Appeal Sylvia SEEGRIST. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court Argued March Decided March *2 Corbett, Jr., Cecchetti, John H. Frank L. Office of the Defender, Public for Pittsburgh, appellant. Counsel, P. Carey, Ulan,
Edward Howard Dept, Asst. of Welfare, Pittsburgh, Public for amicus curiae. Zimmerman, LeRoy Gen., S. Atty. Harrisburg, James A. Esler, County Law Allegheny Dept., Pittsburgh, for appel- lees. Henderson,
Scott E. Thorp, Reed Armstrong, & Pitts- burgh, Pittsburgh Press. NIX, C.J., LARSEN, FLAHERTY,
Before zappala McDermott, hutchinson, PAPADAKOS, JJ.
OPINION OF THE! COURT PAPADAKOS, Justice.
Appellant, Seegrist, Sylvia appeals Court, directly to this as of right under 42 P.S. 722(7)1 from an opinion and of order the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Novak, A. Raymond J. The order refused exclude a of press member an from informal conference provides, P.S. inter alia: appeals § 722. Direct pleas courts common Supreme jurisdiction Court shall appeals have exclusive from final orders of the pleas following courts of common classes of cases: ... (7) pleas Matters where the court of common has held invalid as Constitution, repugnant States, or treaties laws of the United Commonwealth, or any treaty to the Constitution of this or law of of, any provision any United States or of the or Constitution of, Commonwealth, any provision statute charter____ home rule 2 Mental Health conducted to Section 303 Novak, Act,3 and held Judge over presided Procedures involuntary “for purpose committing Appellant for the twenty days.” to exceed emergency treatment —not 304(e)(4)4 to applied Section judge inexplicably conference, require and then instant informal held its the constitutional ments were conflict with free under public and the to have access to courts First, and Fourteenth Amendments the Consti Sixth I, States, and Article 7 and 11 tution of the United Sections face, its Pennsylvania Constitution. On Act applicable Health Procedures of Mental hearings response held to a petition to formal only ninety treatment —not exceed “court-ordered It that: “The shall be provides days.” *3 or his requested private by person unless it is to be the permitting order the counsel.” We affirm the court’s in to at the informal conference held this present be case, reject finding that Section expressly but we finding said was unnec is unconstitutional because herein. the resolution of issues essary shooting several in a Appellant people was accused 30, on mall October 1985. Philadelphia shopping suburban killed seven wounded. This incident people Three were media. reported by print was both and broadcast widely in the incident both concerning appeared Articles in daily newspapers Pitts- general published circulation burgh. November, Appellant
In was transferred early had on she been detained County jail, Delaware where Hospital charges, Mayview State several homicide it confinement since emergency for was Allegheny County for only facility forensic the Commonwealth available in The Pittsburgh This transfer reported women. was 4, 1985, on 1985. November Press November On 2. 50 P.S. 7303. § seq. P.S.
3. 50 7101 et 7304(e)(4). P.S. petition certification emergency 303 of the Mental Health Procedures Act was filed Alleghe- behalf Commonwealth and ny County the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny Division, (R. 6). A County, Criminal copy certifica- tion was for Appellant, served on counsel the Office of the Defender, Unit, Public Mental Health Advocacy on Novem- date, By ber letter dated the same Judge Catania Court Common Pleas of Delaware County “autho- rized” the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court act on 1). behalf in (R. their this matter under Section 303. By court, order the Section or “conference” proceeding (R. 6, 8). was scheduled and held on November 8, 1985, The November conference was conducted before Judge Novak to determine whether Appellant should under- go involuntary emergency period treatment for a of twenty days pursuant to Section 303. An from the attorney Public Defender’s appeared Office represent the conference to Appellant and he waived her appearance. At the com- mencement the proceeding, counsel for Appellant re- quested that the conference be private pursuant to Section 304(e)(4)of the Mental Act, above, Health Procedures cited inspite of the fact clearly Section 303 proceeding. he Specifically, asked the “courtroom cleared.”
Immediately, person audience, later identified as newspaper reporter Appellee, Press, The Pittsburgh objected to a proceeding closed requested opportu- *4 nity to legal have counsel present argue to the constitution- requirements al for a public hearing. A brief recess was granted and appeared counsel the newspaper, behalf of and on behalf of the Attorney General for the Common- wealth, along with the Allegheny Solicitor for County. arguments
After hearing from respective counsel for the parties, the court found that the public para- interest was mount any and, claim a interest accordingly, 304(e)(4) determined that Section of the Mental Health Judge 21, 1986, opinion July p. 5. See Novak’s unconstitutional, the fact that despite Act was Procedures proceeding. was a resumed counsel the conference with After this ruling, allegations dangerous Appellant stipulating stated in the petition. need conduct and to the officers doc- Hence, was taken testimony no Bowman, Robert Dr. G. request, At the court’s tors. expressly Appellant’s brief reported, what psychiatrist, fashion,” Appellant that was a “conclusory states was in need further ill, that she was mentally seriously hospital- the inpatient and that hospitalization, in-patient appropriate the least restrictive contemplated was ization security as to the at raised concern treatment.6 court Dr. Bowman advised the Hospital State Mayview in the state facility forensic Mayview only was court directed the Common- women.7 The available security Appellant measures to ensure wealth take to the court. conference measures report and to these nor testimony being presented further concluded no with received. evidence for Re- filed a Petition Appellant December
On 8, 1985, trial order November consideration of the court’s Re- unconstitutional. declared Section which had Novak on Judge in an filed opinion denied lief was later July court, in response argued
It was before Reconsideration, had already the case Petition for hearing had point, at that Arguably become moot. to be held, permitted had been been already twenty and Appellant’s present, story published, had been Nevertheless, expired. since long commitment had day denial, his argument and based rejected this Judge Novak brief, testify by called to Appellant’s p. 5. Dr. Bowman 6. See Appellant. regarding security community concern considerable 7. There was by newspaper stories well Mayview, concern is illustrated and this through no Appellee’s brief. This concern D of exhibits A set forth as reporter present at perceived explains Appellee’s need to have doubt proceedings. these
573 part, longstanding exception the mootness doctrine to the effect that questions capable replication of yet evading judicial review are not moot. Newspaper Globe Superior Court, Co. v. 457 U.S. 102 S.Ct. 73 (1982); L.Ed.2d 248 Osser, Devlin 434 Pa. 254 A.2d (1969). We also reject temptation to apply doctrine, mootness both because the at issue is capable replication, and sweeping because the findings unconstitutionality by Judge made Novak may wreak havoc parts with certain of our Mental Health laws if are they allowed stand. Act,
Section 3038 of Mental Health the section direct- here, at issue ly provides for so-called “extended” involun- tary emergency treatment —not to exceed twenty days. Application such involuntary treatment must be made to the court of common pleas by filing of a specific pleading which “shall grounds state the on which treat- ... ment believed to be necessary. application shall state the name of any examining physician and the sub- opinion his stance regarding mental condition of the person.” Counsel must be if appointed the person to be given treatment does not have privately retained counsel and an informal hearing must be conducted within twenty- four hours filing the application by a judge mental health review officer. The informal “if hearing, shall practicable, be held at facility.” rules evidence not apply, do but witnesses may heard questioned. Nowhere in Section any right 303 is or to private proceeding, private ask for a proceeding, expressly stated.
Section 30411of the Act provides court-ordered invol- untary treatment —not ninety days. to exceed The proce- dures that must be followed to effect such treatment are formal, numerous and appropriately they spelled 8. 50 P.S. § 7303(a) added). (emphasis 50 P.S. § P.S, 7303(b).
10. 50
11. 50 P.S. *6 304.12 The of additional possibility in detail in Section
out involuntary spelled treatment is similarly periods lengthy in Section 305.13 out here adopted by legislature clear the scheme
It is
that
or
procedural
process”
more extensive
“due
envisions that
time
person may
as the amount of
apply
will
protections
minimum.
increases above
bare
deprived
liberty
be
hours, minimal
seventy-two
not exceeding
For treatment
For
not to
treatment
safeguards
available.14
procedural
hearing
a full
informal
must be
days,
though
exceed twenty
treatment,
full-fledged adjudi-
periods
held. For longer
that
perfect-
think
this is a
hearing
necessary.
is
We
catory
fully
with
statutory system
comports
that
ly appropriate
565,
See,
419
95 S.Ct.
Lopez,
Goss v.
U.S.
process.
e.g.,
due
Brewer,
(1975);
v.
408 U.S.
729,
Morrissey
42
725
L.Ed.2d
(1972);
Goldberg
The lower court in it unconstitutional, that is that mandatory that section treatment right person an whom creates absolute hearing private. to insist be being sought is Hence, such often arise a clear conflict between might there and the requested right when right public hearing. to an open of whether Section express question no view the
We is not 304(e)(4) not, or since that mandatory is 304(e)(4) appli- has no simply before us.15 Section properly 7304(e)(4). 12. 50 P.S. §
13. P.S. § 7305. 50 P.S. face, 304(e)(4) appear mandatory at first While on Section does its necessary. private hearing "requested,” reading, If a due caution is mean, logic, necessarily that the does as a matter verbal not Lehigh request A recent trial decision must be honored. discretionary County apparently held See, (BNA) Fitzinger, Med.L.Rprt. mandatory. In Re not cability to an held informal to Section 303 First, right procedure under this statute. or is express- not set forth under Section 303. This is ly consistent with gradually increasing procedural rights scale of estab- Second, lished under this statute and described above. as demonstrate, the facts of this case amply there is good reason not to include a to a private hearing as a fixed an attribute of in the context of mental health treatment. The short term (not to exceed twenty days), which must be an proceeded by informal hearing, will based usually on detailed depth Indeed, psychological psychiatric studies. confine- *7 ment and for twenty days or less would often be the needed for purpose more acquiring psy- extensive chological psychiatric or in studies the first place. We can discern no reason why legislature would establish a mandatory mechanism to deal with the revelation an informal hearing (that sensitive personal information was originally conveyed to a or doctor psychiatrist) when such seldom, problems ever, will if occur. point, More to the has legislature not done so.
The lower court recognizes properly proceedings that under Section 303 by are definition informal conferences and that procedural safeguards some do not, by statute, notes, however, attach. The lower court that by custom Allegheny County, parties against whom treat- is sought ment procedural afforded these rights even an hearing, informal and proceedings under Section 303 tend be more formal then strictly hence, necessary, and that many procedural rights are is provided. It perfectly understandable that this increasing trend toward formality Nevertheless, would occur. is no excuse to create potentially procedural troublesome device where none exists nor does it justify over-reaching to resolve a non-existent conflict of rights. constitutional (Lehigh 1986). Cty., August express We no definitive view on this
issue, however. develop hearing conflict in an informal Should a real and the right privacy under 303 between have the courts and general right press proceedings,"16we think this must open public conduct officer a case the trial by judge be resolved case basis. by factually conflict
It evident that no constitutional not, and realistical Appellant in this case. was present was not, of a exposed deprivation have been to a ly could by the fact that right constitutional protected public. None open was presented medical records was as evidence Appellant’s her No information was disclosed which mental condition. and no upon Appellant’s privacy, testimony intruded given psychotherapist-patient privilege. violation far containing Appellant’s psychiatric history, Accounts of adduced at the more detail than evidence commitment local hearing, already published newspa been had have been Thus, protect the court would not pers. because hearing, Appellant by closing ing was correct. Be open hearing to make it an decision deter must closing judicial proceeding, fore effectively protect compelling mine that closure will that the information endangered openness interest *8 will not be sought public exposure to withheld from 608-610, Globe, at public anyway. supra, made 457 U.S. 2620-22; Brooklier, 685 F.2d 102 States v. S.Ct. United 1162, (9th Cir.1982); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. 1169 484, (1978). 425 Jerome, Pa. 387 A.2d court’s conclusion Hence, reject lower expressly we is 304(e)(4) Mental Procedures Act of the Health § also reject as herein. must applied unconstitutional We 419, Hayes, concurring opinion Pa. In in Commonwealth a (1980), provision Mr. Justice Kauffmann stated A.2d 318 11, I, Pennsylvania Constitution to the effect in Article of the open” strong presumption of shall be creates in favor that “all courts right adjudicative judicial proceedings. Con- public to access to Flaherty curring opinions indicate that Messrs. Justice Larsen they requirement even further. would extend Act, related conclusion that as it relates to § opening proceedings to the public-at-large, is applicable to a 303 proceeding. §
We, however, affirm the lower court’s order opening the our upon independent based of review the record and an of appropriate balancing respective inter- herein; parties finding ests infringement no of Appel- rights lant’s privacy in this particular instance.17 HUTCHINSON, J., Former did participate not decision this case.
STOUT, J., did participate in the consideration or decision this case.
LARSEN, J., concurs in the result.
McDERMOTT, J., files dissenting opinion. McDERMOTT, Justice, dissenting.
The purpose of the statute requiring a judicial commit- ment psychiatric prevent evaluation is persons being seized and imprisoned in hospital solely at the whim others; others purposes whose may not be for the of the alleged benefit patient.
The statute has three levels of concern. The
is
first
a 72
hour judicial commitment for the purpose
diagnosis
of a
prescription if any is required.
50 P.S.
73021. The
§
second
a judicial
commitment for
period
a 20 day
pursu
ant
an “informal hearing” with the patient having ap
73Q3.2
pointed or retained
present.
counsel
50 P.S.
third is for 90 days
formal
wherein
problem
We
respect
can discern no
with
to standing
here
behalf
Press,
Appellee,
Pittsburgh
nor
abuse of discretion on the
part of the
permitting
Appellee
to intervene in matter,
proceedings
held
in order to determine whether there
was a
2327(4);
access. See
Capital
Pa.R.C.P.
Cities
Media,
Toole,
12,
(1984).
Inc. v.
506 Pa.
the us is of these proceed before whether broad the statute is ings open public. point are the On is a matter left they public hearings clear that whether patient step Each under the counsel. entirely the by discretion of governed statute is the the request alleged the opening hearings the but 7304(e)(4)provides: In this patient. regard requested it is hearing public shall be unless [T]he private by the or his counsel. person be added).4 7304(e)(4)(emphasis 50 P.S. § deeply the court are personal, issues before the properly for which the left disclosure to legislature reason, the beyond person’s There is no person involved. why public should be invited sit beside request, own their and overhear their physicians. bed
I dissent. A.2d Pennsylvania, Appellee,
COMMONWEALTH WEBSTER, Appellant. Douglas K. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Sept. Submitted 30, 1988. Decided March 3. Id. (e)(4) apply day is intended to to 90
4. I realize that subsection However, legislature’s can hearings. import clear scheme patient’s gleaned to dictate from the inclusion of Surely, procedures. this most formal of three extent of public patient can latter if exclude hearings. greater rights at the more intimate would have no