Title: E.S. v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

E.S v. State (2004-096); 178 Vt. 519; 872 A.2d 356

2005 VT  33

[Filed 15-Mar-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT  33

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-096

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2004

       	                               }	APPEALED FROM:
  E.S.	                               }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Washington Family Court
                                       }	
  State of Vermont	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 7-04-Wy-MH-AIT

                                                Trial Judge: Geoffrey Crawford

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  E.S. appeals a Washington Family Court order finding probable
  cause to hold E.S. for involuntary mental health treatment pending a
  preliminary hearing.  E.S. claims that the court erred by admitting
  evidence obtained following an unlawful detention and that the State failed
  to meet its burden to show probable cause.  We dismiss the appeal as moot.  

       ¶  2.  On January 8, 2004, E.S., a resident of Mississippi, was at
  the Veteran's Administration (VA) hospital in White River Junction, Vermont
  to obtain copies of personal records.  Some of the VA staff became
  concerned about him after his stepfather told them that E.S. was suicidal. 
  At 2:15 p.m., a VA police officer told E.S. that he could not leave the
  hospital until he was seen by a psychiatrist.  E.S. then met with a staff
  psychiatrist, who completed a physician's certificate for an emergency
  examination of E.S.  The certificate stated that E.S. was "acutely manic"
  and was "very irritable and angry and threatening staff and patients" and
  was "very delusional and agitated."  It added that E.S. had threatened to
  "clock" various staff and had pushed a VA employee, and that his family
  reported that he had made "multiple suicidal and violent statements over
  the past several days."  

       ¶  3.  Because E.S. had no local relatives, the VA police officer
  and other staff held E.S. in a hospital room until a mental health
  professional could arrive to complete the commitment papers.  See 18 V.S.A.
  § 7504(a)(commitment application must be signed by interested party and
  physician); id. § 7101(9) (mental health professional is an interested
  party).  In response to the restraint, E.S. became increasingly
  belligerent.  As the court found: "He threatened to hurt anyone who came
  near him.  He was shouting and swearing.  He kicked at hospital staff, the
  police officer, and a physician.  He received emergency psychiatric
  medication and was placed in restraints."  The mental health professional
  arrived at the hospital at 6:00 p.m. and completed the commitment papers,
  relying in large part on E.S.'s conduct in response to the restraint.  E.S.
  was transported to the Vermont State Hospital (VSH), where a staff
  psychiatrist conducted the emergency examination and completed the
  admission certificate.  The State filed an application for involuntary
  treatment on January 9, 2004.  E.S. requested a probable cause hearing on
  January 13, 2004, 18 V.S.A. § 7510(a), and the hearing was held on January
  21, 2004.  
   
       ¶  4.  At the hearing, the State offered the testimony of the VA
  police officer and E.S.'s treating physician at VSH in support of its case
  to demonstrate that there was probable cause to hold E.S.  E.S. objected to
  the admission of their testimony, claiming that he was illegally detained
  by the VA police officer at the VA hospital and that any information
  gleaned as a consequence of this illegal detention could not be admitted
  under the exclusionary rule.  The family court denied E.S.'s motion to
  exclude the evidence and found probable cause.  It ordered E.S. to remain
  at the VSH pending a hearing on the application for involuntary treatment. 
  The State dismissed the application on February 13, 2004, and E.S. left VSH
  and returned to his home state of Mississippi.  E.S. filed this appeal on
  February 24, 2004.

       ¶  5.  We first address the State's arguments that the appeal should
  be dismissed because the case is moot and E.S. did not appeal from a final
  order.  With respect to the mootness claim, a case becomes moot when "the
  issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally
  cognizable interest in the outcome."  In re P.S., 167 Vt. 63, 67,