Title: In re S.N.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re S.N. (2006-306)

2007 VT 47

[Filed 25-May-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 47

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-306

                              MARCH TERM, 2007


  In re S.N.                           }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }         Washington Family Court
                                       }  
                                       }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. 81-5-06 Wnmh

                                                 Trial Judge: Helen M. Toor

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  The State appeals a Washington Family Court order determining
  that the State lacked probable cause that S.N. was a person in need of
  mental-health treatment.  The State argues the court erred by: (1) applying
  the rules of evidence at the probable-cause hearing and (2) failing to
  consider post-admission evidence in its probable-cause determination.  We
  dismiss the appeal as moot.
   
       ¶  2.  In May 2006, two police officers found S.N., a New York
  resident, at a highway rest stop in Vermont.  S.N. appeared disoriented and
  was unable to carry on a normal conversation.  He also displayed erratic
  behavior, such as washing his face in a parking-lot puddle and stuffing a
  large number of travel brochures into his shirt and pants.  S.N. told the
  officers he had driven from New York City to Vermont and identified his
  vehicle in the parking lot.  The officers contacted a friend of S.N. for
  help, and the ensuing conversation gave the officers cause to doubt S.N.'s
  driving abilities.  Considering this discussion in conjunction with their
  observations of S.N.'s abnormal behavior, the officers suspected S.N.
  suffered from mental illness and decided he was unfit to drive. The
  officers asked S.N. to consent to a mental-health evaluation, and S.N.
  agreed.
   
       ¶  3.  S.N. received a mental-health screening from a qualified
  professional.  During the screening, the mental-health professional
  observed S.N.'s disorganized speech and unpredictable behavior.  He also
  learned from S.N. that he had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital in
  the past and was in Vermont to stop taking his medication for "a year of
  cleansing" because he believed the medicine was poison.  In addition, the
  mental-health professional spoke with two of S.N.'s friends over the
  telephone and discovered that S.N. suffered from bipolar disorder and had
  stopped taking his medication before, which had resulted in car accidents. 
  Based on S.N.'s behavior and his friends' statements, the mental-health
  professional determined that S.N. was a "person in need of treatment" and
  completed an emergency examination application with a psychiatrist.  See 18
  V.S.A. § 7101(17) (defining a person in need of treatment as one who
  suffers from mental illness such that he presents a danger to himself or
  others); id. § 7504(a) (outlining the application process for a person in
  need of treatment to receive an emergency examination).  S.N. was then
  transported to the Vermont State Hospital (VSH) where he was admitted for
  an emergency psychiatric examination. 

       ¶  4.  After admission, S.N. filed for a preliminary probable-cause
  hearing, which was held within the statutorily required period.  See id. §
  7510 (mandating that a petition for a preliminary hearing be filed within
  five days of admission for an emergency examination and that the hearing be
  held within three days of the date the petition was filed).  At the
  hearing, the State presented evidence of the mental-health professional's
  discussions with S.N.'s friends and the VSH director's observations of S.N.
  while hospitalized.  The family court concluded that the evidence was not
  enough to show probable cause to admit S.N. because the mental-health
  professional's testimony was hearsay and the director's interactions with
  S.N. occurred after he was in custody.  The court also stated that evidence
  of S.N's mental illness and his act of driving a car while unmedicated was
  insufficient to support a finding of probable cause that S.N. was a danger
  to himself or others.  The court ordered S.N. discharged and returned to
  his vehicle or home.  S.N. returned to his home in New York, and the State
  filed this appeal.  

       ¶  5.  We first address S.N.'s argument that the State's appeal is
  moot.  Before we can reach  the State's substantive issues, there must be
  either a "live" controversy, or the parties must have a "legally cognizable
  interest in the outcome" of the case throughout the entire proceeding.  In
  re P.S., 167 Vt. 63, 67,