medication doesn't evaporate just because he's on supervised release or because he's been convicted on one of the record in this case mr kelly or he stopped taking his prescribe medication some time in june two thousand  he was committed for twenty eight days in october of two thousand and sixteen and was not forcibly medicated during that time most tellingly a letter was when he was committed to st he was released because even though he didn't cooperate mental health treatment he wasn't forcibly medicated the treating doctor concluded he wasn't the danger to himself or others and looking at medical records from when he was daily observed during that commitment he was described as cong i counted up that appeared eighty seven times in the records during his commitment appropriate fifty two times respectful twenty eight times he never displayed violence never threatened anyone never engaged in any of the kind of behavior we found in the home and yes the whole exist here following the commitment mr county where he was arrested he was on supervised release and he remained in jail until the supervised release was revoked in march twenty seventh team during the time he wasn't forced premeditated no evidence he threatened anybody failed to cooperate with anyone at the jail did any of the kind of conduct that led to the force medication in the home and cares in this case even during that entire period where he was unmedicated the court ordered him to take described anti psychotic it was clear during the hearing that the opinion of the medical professionals supports the belief that mr tell you where he might be better off if he took the risk reitman's i'm not really qualified to speak that he had a serious psychiatric danger override outweigh recognize liberty interest in avoiding compelled anti psychotic medication the district court considered numerous witness testimony documents the record from a horse medication proceeding on the on a cell hearing from the under from the sentencing district or in this information  did outweigh is liberty interest in this case united states would ask this court not to stir up fine in order to find or in order to compel force or compel someone to take anti psychotic medication a court must consider for things and way for things is the individual a danger to themselves and others the nature of the liberty interest at stake which has been recognize the supreme court is the treatment medically per priya and is there less intrusive alternative here the district court did find that mr cowan or it was a serious risk to himself and the public towards them fortunately the law enforcement officers were able to subdue him without firing a shot when they entered the apartment they found that mr tell you where he had been living on a cot underneath the camp health leading up to that event and after that event was clearly not that of a normal person he was ultimately diagnosed by multiple doctors with that particularly lends itself to putting the person that suffers in danger and endangering others so is it your view that anytime someone is diagnosis o voluntary commitment order to have him committed and you know it was ended up being committed for twenty eight days and the doctor that took care of him while he was in voluntarily committed the doctored that was the sunderland who treated him when he was committed did eventually discharge and he explained why discharge he explained  court found that mr tell you worry was currently experiencing delusions that were similar to the delusions he experienced when he committed the underlying offense and appeared to be considering actions similar to the underlying criminal conduct this specifically was in obsession with the f b i where he is now in in the directly before he was committed while on supervised release the probation officer was able to terminate through a search of his cell phone that he had spent an inordinate amount of time on the internet he had gone to web particularly concerning it in light of his hast conduct it is very alarming because those are the exact sort of obsessions and things that he was incredibly focused on in around the prior conduct that also includes there was testimony of he stayed up all night listening to the radio all night it was found out on the underlying case that was as he was getting messages from the radio he's doing both those things again he's in both instances then and now he socially isolated he's covering his face and refusing to talk to medical doctors which of course is his right but as the doctors pointed out it's also a sign that he is experience you paranoid delusions and he made a threat on super that he because he was looking at those things because of his illness he did constitute a danger to himself it's noted that the leading cause of unnatural death and schizophrenia by one of the doctors in the cell hearing  in the washington case is is suicide so the court thought he might harm himself but the court also realized that his final conduct towards others as it almost did when he committed the offense in washington the court didn't consider the nature of the defendant's liberty interest or recognize that that is a significant liberty in also noted that it's slightly different things a plane then in in the harbor case yes it's forced or compelled medication release on that's that's certainly true and it's oh why the beginning of my address to the board i used to work compelling not forced forced is used throughout his fault you think and it is in those cases you're strapped  n i can buy a watch so there is a level of of free will there it's compelled not not force also different because it's a second generation anti psychotics which there was much testimony about in documents submitted on that the side effects serious side effects that the spring or news clearly weren't just probably worried about in harper are not as prevalent in the second generation also the poor points out that mr patel you worry has taken this medicine and done well and not experience any of those significant side the core also found help that the medicine was medically appropriate as a majority of the doctors have said in this case and that there was no less intrusive option and there wasn't because he previously had a supervised release condition that ordered him to take the mend however it is allowed him to hearing incarcerated well held against his will for twenty eight days then got out for a day or two and was in custody until a surprise release hearing yet there was no evidence of any delusion at any point i would submit that approach if a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia is going to become delusional in the absence of medication that would be provoked i'm sorry characterize his of supervised release so there is at least what there is a i would home and teaches that there is a forced medication is and is an unusual condition of supervised release and sunderland who initiated what was it was dr clear who initiated the commitment it was the the doctor who was supervising the commitment dr sunderland he was the one who determined at the end of the twenty eight days mr kerry was not a danger to himself or others and he could justify continuing to hold him under the involuntary so if dr sunderland felt there was a danger he certainly could have gone back and  i think the timing may be different i think to the information on the computer was before the involuntary commitment he was only out he was only out for a very i think only a matter of days before the  i think it's hard to tell from looking at somebody's internet history how much time spent on the f b i dot gov website is there for anyone to look at if he was obsessed with the f b i obsessed  government why wasn't any of that observed during the time that he was spending twenty eight days of being observed during the involuntary movement or while he was incarcerated awake and why aren't there and raves from the jail phone calls letters none of that exists in this case and and that goes to the state of mind at the time i would contend that that's more