IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 22–1521

Submitted October 11, 2023—Filed January 19, 2024

IN RE DETENTION OF STEWART FRANKLIN SCHUMAN,

STATE OF IOWA,

Appellant,

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C. Ellefson, 

Judge.

The State challenges a district court order granting a sexually violent 

predator’s request for transitional release. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

GRANTED; WRIT SUSTAINED.

Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices 

joined except Mansfield, J., who filed an opinion concurring in part and 

dissenting in part.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines (argued) and Keisha F. 

Crestinger, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.

Michael H. Adams (argued), Local Public Defender, Special Defense Unit, 

Des Moines, for appellee.
2

WATERMAN, Justice.

This case presents questions of whether the district court erred by ordering 

the placement of a sexually violent predator in a transitional release program

over the State’s objection and the proper form of appellate review. The State 

argues the offender was ineligible for that program without a relapse prevention 

plan (RPP) accepted by his treatment provider at the Civil Commitment Unit for 

Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) as required by Iowa Code section 229A.8A(2)(d)

(2022). The district court determined that the offender’s plan, approved by the 

offender’s expert, satisfied that statutory requirement. The State appealed, and 

the offender moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction on the 

grounds that there was no final judgment. The State resisted, and in the 

alternative, argued that the order could be reviewed through a petition for writ 

of certiorari under Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.107 and 6.108. We 

submitted the motion to dismiss with the appeal.

On our review, we determine that a writ of certiorari is the proper form of 

appellate review, and we grant the petition. On the merits, for the reasons 

explained below, we hold that the district court erred by substituting its 

judgment for that of CCUSO’s staff. We agree with the State that this offender 

was ineligible for placement in the transitional release program because his 

treatment provider at CCUSO had not accepted his proposed RPP. Acceptance 

was withheld for a valid reason—the offender’s demotion to a more restrictive 

treatment phase after failing polygraph and penile plethysmograph tests. This 

offender was not seeking discharge, and courts must give deference to CCUSO’s 

internal placement decisions. The district court erred by second-guessing the 

CCUSO staff’s placement decision. The offender’s substantive due process claims

fail. We therefore sustain the writ and vacate the district court’s ruling.
3

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Stewart Schuman, now age 69, was civilly committed as a sexually violent 

predator under Iowa Code chapter 229A in December 2012. A unanimous jury 

determined that Schuman had been convicted of a sexually violent offense and 

“suffers from a mental abnormality which makes [him] likely to engage in 

predatory acts constituting sexually violent offenses, if not confined in a secure 

facility.”

1 Iowa Code § 229A.2(11) (2012). Schuman has been confined at CCUSO 

within the Cherokee Mental Health Institute since 2012.

A. Schuman’s History of Offending. Schuman had a troubled upbringing

in Louisiana. At age five, Schuman entered foster care. At age 10, Schuman was

placed at a Louisiana state training school where he spent the rest of his teenage 

years and where he was sexually abused by staff and older students. He “began 

sexually acting out” and sexually abusing his classmates—both boys and girls. 

Schuman completed the eleventh grade at the training school. He moved to Iowa 

and obtained his GED in 2005 while incarcerated at the Mount Pleasant 

Correctional Facility. He has been married twice and has a daughter, a 

stepdaughter, and a son.

Schuman’s criminal record includes two sexual convictions. In 1995, at 

age 28, he was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse of his seven-year-old son. 

In 2005, at age 38, he was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse of his six-yearold nephew. Schuman has admitted to other sex offenses that he was not 

arrested for but has been inconsistent as to how many. In a 2013 polygraph

interview, Schuman admitted to over one hundred victims. But in 2016, he 

admitted to only thirty victims. And in his most recent RPP, Schuman admitted 

to only seven victims—his seven-year-old son, his six-year-old nephew, an 

1Schuman was diagnosed with pedophilic disorder, antisocial personality disorder, 

alcohol dependence, polysubstance abuse, and borderline intellectual functioning.
4

eight-year-old girl in 1977, his nine-year-old stepsister in 1981, an 

eleven-year-old girl in the early 1980s, and a thirteen-year-old boy and a 

four-year-old girl at times Schuman could not recall. 

B. The CCUSO Program. Schuman has participated in the sex offender 

treatment program (SOTP) at CCUSO for a decade. The Iowa Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) operates CCUSO. Iowa Dep’t of Health &

Hum. Servs., Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders, 

https://hhs.iowa.gov/programs/mental-health/find-service/inpatientfacilities/ccuso [https://perma.cc/SG8M-SJ9E] [hereinafter HHS, CCUSO]. The 

legislature established CCUSO through the 1998 Sexually Violent Predators Act 

of Iowa, 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 1171 (codified at Iowa Code chapter 229A (1999)), 

which mirrors other states’ sexually violent predator programs. See In re Det. of 

Garren, 620 N.W.2d 275, 284 (Iowa 2000) (en banc) (describing the Act as 

“plainly of a kind” with other states’ civil commitment statutes); see also HHS, 

CCUSO (“There are twenty (20) states with inpatient treatment programs like 

CCUSO.”).

Chapter 229A was enacted to provide “long-term care and treatment” of a 

“small but extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators.” Iowa Code 

§ 229A.1(1), (4) (2022). The legislative findings include the necessity for 

commitment procedures “to protect the public, to respect the needs of the victims 

of sexually violent offenses, and to encourage full, meaningful participation of 

sexually violent predators in treatment programs.” Id. § 229A.1(4). CCUSO 

provides a mandatory program for sexual offenders considered likely to reoffend, 

with treatment as the program’s main objective. Swanson v. Civ. Commitment 

Unit for Sex Offenders, 737 N.W.2d 300, 302 (Iowa 2007). CCUSO staff includes

psychiatric security specialists and therapists who treat the offenders housed 

there. See HHS, CCUSO.
5

“CCUSO developed a ‘Patient Handbook and Orientation Manual’ [that] 

provides the rules and policies of CCUSO.” Swanson, 737 N.W.2d at 302. The

handbook explains CCUSO’s “phase system,” which was developed to motivate

offenders to cooperate in their treatment. Id. The treatment program is divided 

into five phases: (1) treatment engagement and interfering factors,

(2) identification of dynamic risk factors and long term vulnerabilities, (3) specific 

interventions for dynamic risk factors and long term vulnerabilities,

(4) maintenance of change, and (5) transitional release. The phases represent the 

offender’s progression through treatment. “Treatment is based on the current 

best practice of Risk-Need-Responsivity Model (RNR) . . . .” HHS, CCUSO. A 

treatment team determines whether the offender has met the requirements for 

the next phase and then refers the offender to the clinical team for a decision.

Each offender starts at phase one, which is designed to identify 

treatment-interfering factors. Phase one is called the “assessment and 

observation phase,” when “patients and program staff have an opportunity to 

become acquainted and to develop a clear understanding about program 

expectations and rules.” Swanson, 737 N.W.2d at 302.

Phase two is the “core phase.” Id. at 303. The offender “participates in a 

minimum one-year curriculum of psycho-educational groups” that “teach 

concepts and skills that are fundamental to learning to control sexual impulses.” 

Id. Phase two involves the offender recognizing and developing insight into their 

offense cycle.

Phase three is the “advanced phase.” Id. This phase requires the offender

to “work on applying the principles and concepts learned in phase two.” Id. The 

offender is required to develop “an individualized treatment plan” and complete 

“victim sheets and victim letters.” Id. The offender also develops specific 

interventions to control the offender’s dynamic risk factors (DRFs)—which are 
6

factors that contribute to the offender’s risk of reoffending. There are several 

other requirements for the offender to advance out of phase three: “no ratings 

lower than five on the last ninety-day review,” no “major behavioral reports for 

the last four months,” and “completion of specific offense polygraphs.” Id.

Phase four is the “honor phase.” Id. The offender practices interventions

in daily activities. The offender creates an RPP during this phase that outlines 

the individual’s DRFs, interventions for the DRFs, and other ways to lower their 

risk of reoffending. The offender should learn how to self-identify sexual 

tendencies and what factors might lead the offender to reoffend. The offender 

must also successfully complete “a polygraph exam regarding recent sexual 

fantasies and behaviors.” Id. At the end of phase four, the offender should be

ready for a less restrictive environment with a reduced risk of reoffending. Id. 

Progress from phase four to phase five depends upon the individual satisfying

the ten requirements set forth in Iowa Code section 229A.8A(2) and (4). See id. 

We quote those requirements in full in our statutory analysis below.

Phase five is the “transition phase,” also known as the transitional release 

program. Id. HHS is authorized to “provide control, care, and treatment, and 

supervision of committed persons placed in [the transitional release] program.” 

Iowa Code § 229A.8A(1). HHS is also “responsible for establishing and 

implementing the rules and directives regarding the . . . restrictions on 

confinement and the movement of committed persons, and for assessing the 

progress of committed persons in the program.” Id. § 229A.8A(6). 

In phase five, the offender “is gradually given increasing opportunities to 

live in less restrictive settings.” Swanson, 737 N.W.2d at 303. Offenders take on 

more responsibility for their own care, and CCUSO staff closely monitors them

to determine whether they should be recommended for final release. Phase five

provides the offender with a controlled and monitored introduction into the 
7

community outside of confinement at CCUSO. Each public outing must be 

approved by CCUSO staff. Outings are closely monitored at first but become less 

so as the offender shows reliability.

The CCUSO program also has treatment levels within each phase. See id. 

at 304. Each level provides rewards and privileges for offenders who avoid 

behavioral problems and suspensions. See id. Offenders progress through 

different levels of each phase to receive more privileges before moving on to the 

next phase. Id. Rule violations may result in demotions to a lower level or phase 

and loss of privileges. Id.

C. Schuman’s Progress at CCUSO. After 2012, Schuman gradually 

progressed through the treatment program, reaching phase four, level five in 

2018. But he plateaued there for about four years. During this time, Schuman 

developed several RPPs; none were approved. CCUSO staff subjected Schuman 

to at least fifteen polygraphs between 2012 and 2020; he passed fourteen and 

failed one. In 2021, Schuman was subjected to two maintenance polygraphs and 

two penile plethysmographs (PPGs).

2

The first PPG was administered to Schuman in July 2021. The results were 

uninterpretable because Schuman did not meet the minimum threshold of 

arousal for any segments. He did show signs of possible response interference 

on one segment: “female prepubescent coercive.”

2A PPG is a procedure that “involves placing a pressure-sensitive device around a man’s 

penis, presenting him with an array of sexually stimulating images, and determining his level of 

sexual attraction by measuring minute changes in his erectile responses.” United States v. 

Rhodes, 552 F.3d 624, 626 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Jason R. Odeshoo, Of Penology and 

Perversity: The Use of Penile Plethysmography on Convicted Child Sex Offenders, 14 Temp. Pol. & 

C.R. L. Rev. 1, 2 (2004)). PPGs are “rather routine in adult sexual offender treatment programs.” 

Id. (quoting United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 562 (9th Cir. 2006)). Experts disagree about 

their use and effectiveness. Id. at 626–27.
8

The second PPG was administered in August 2021. This time Schuman 

reached clinical significance on the same segment. There were also signs of 

possible response interference on another segment: “male prepubescent 

coercive.” The report prepared by the test’s administer stated that “Schuman was 

angry during the majority of the test and talked during some of the segments, 

which required prompting him to stop.” The report disclosed that Schuman’s age 

preference score indicated he was more aroused by images of children than 

adults and concluded that he “falls within the high range of risk, indicating he 

has a high degree of sexual motivation in committing offense behaviors.”

A polygraph was administered to Schuman in March 2021. The 

polygrapher conducted a pretest interview that asked him three questions: 

1) Since your last test, did you penetrate your anus with your fingers 

for sexual pleasure, 2) Since your last test, did you stick any kind of 

food into your anus, and 3) Since your last test, did you enter your 

anus with any inanimate object?

Schuman answered no to each question. The test results indicated Schuman

had a significant response to question one, so the polygrapher labeled his 

response “untruthful.” Schuman failed the polygraph.

Another polygraph was administered to Schuman in September. The 

polygrapher again conducted a pretest interview, this time asking about 

masturbation. Schuman answered that he had masturbated using a homemade 

dildo, but “didn’t get nothing.” During the polygraph, the polygrapher asked 

Schuman another three questions: 1) “Since your last test, other than that one 

time that you said, did you masturbate your bare penis?” 2) “Since your last test, 

did you masturbate your bare penis while watching any images directly aimed 

at minors?” 3) “Since your last test, besides that one time you disclosed, did you 

penetrate your anus for any sexual pleasure?” Schuman answered no to each

question. Schuman had a significant response to the first question, and the 
9

polygrapher labeled his response “untruthful.” Thus, Schuman also failed this

polygraph. Because of these failed polygraph examinations, CCUSO staff 

demoted Schuman from phase four, level five to phase three, level four.

D. Schuman’s Annual Review Hearing in 2022. On February 21, 2022, 

Schuman requested an annual review hearing under Iowa Code section 229A.8.3

Schuman bore the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence that 

there is relevant and reliable evidence to rebut the presumption of continued 

commitment, which would lead a reasonable person to believe a final hearing 

should be held to determine either of the following:” discharge or placement in 

transitional release. Id. § 229A.8(5)(e)(1). Schuman submitted a report by 

Dr. Luis Rosell to the district court stating that Schuman was suitable for full 

discharge and placement in the transitional release program. The annual review 

hearing was held telephonically on March 21. Schuman argued that given the 

“extremely low burden placed on” him and the report of Dr. Rosell, a final hearing 

should be set. The State conceded that Dr. Rosell’s report “does meet 

[Schuman’s] burden” to receive a final hearing. That same day, the district court 

ordered a final hearing because it found, based on the report from Dr. Rosell and 

the State’s concession, Schuman met his burden to set a final hearing. The final 

hearing was set for June 30 but was continued to July 6 for good cause. 

E. Schuman’s Final Review Hearing. The final hearing was conducted 

by videoconference on July 6. Instead of requesting discharge, Schuman lowered 

his sights to seek placement in a transitional release program. The State had the 

burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that Schuman was not suitable 

3Each offender is “entitled to an annual review to determine whether the person’s 

circumstances have sufficiently changed to warrant a final hearing for the court to determine if 

the committed person should be discharged or is suitable for placement in a transitional release 

program.” Taft v. Iowa Dist. Ct. (Taft II), 879 NW.2d 634, 635 (Iowa 2016).
10

for that placement. Three witnesses testified: Schuman; the State’s expert, 

Dr. Anna Salter; and Schuman’s expert, Dr. Rosell. 

Schuman testified that he had been demoted for about six months due to

his failed polygraphs. Schuman testified that the first polygraph report was 

incorrect and that he did not penetrate his anus with his fingers. As to his second 

failed polygraph, Schuman claimed that he “made up a story” to tell the 

polygrapher in the pretest interview and chose to lie because “if I failed the 

polygraph, I was going to lose my Phase [Four] and Level [Five].” Schuman 

acknowledged that he is still attracted to boys and girls ages six to fourteen.

Schuman testified that he had created “four or five relapse prevention 

plans,” but did not know if his CCUSO therapist read them and did not hear 

anything back about them. Schuman explained that he created a new RPP while 

in phase three and submitted it to his therapist, who took no action on the plan.

Schuman explained that he sought transitional release “to get a job” and “build 

some money up” before being discharged.

Dr. Salter, a psychologist, testified regarding her experience evaluating sex 

offenders since the early 1980s. She has served as the civil commitment 

evaluator for the State since 2004 and has conducted approximately 400 

progress evaluations for sex offenders. She has undergone specialized training 

in “all the current risk assessment tools,” and has served as a “trainer in scoring 

a Static-99.”

4

4Static-99 is an “actuarial risk assessment instrument[]” used to “observe the number of 

pre-defined risk factors that an offender demonstrates, and estimate the likelihood that an 

offender with a certain number of the pre-defined risk factors will recidivate.” Marcus T. 

Boccaccini & Daniel C. Murrie, Field Validity of the Static-99 and MnSOST-R Among Sex Offenders 

Evaluated for Civil Commitment as Sexually Violent Predators, 15 Psych. Pub. Pol’y & L. 278, 278–

79 (2009).
11

Dr. Salter testified that Schuman did not and should not qualify for

transitional release based on his failed polygraphs. She opined that his failures

raise issues about his transparency and honesty—“if you’re willing to lie about 

what you’re seeing and thinking and experiencing and feeling and the urges you 

have, there isn’t any way to successfully monitor the person.” Dr. Salter 

explained why Schuman had been in phase four for four years:

Well, the closest documentation that I have is the DRF summary by 

the therapist who’s had him for the last two years. Now, since he 

wasn’t promoted for four years, there was a previous therapist for 

two years who also thought that he was not ready for transition. 

And what they have said is that he has not -- even though he 

will admit that he’s a pedophile, he is unable in group to explain 

how he can reduce his pedophilic thoughts. He repeatedly comes 

back to the fact that he can’t get an erection so therefore he’s not 

going to molest children, even though there’s significant numbers of 

child molesters and rapists who cannot get an erection and, 

nonetheless, molest kids. 

They talk about his lack of transparency. They talk about his 

insufficient . . . RPP. This is not just one person. This is two 

therapists in a row and an entire treatment team who feel that he 

did not ever meet the requirements to get his RPP approved . . . . I 

don’t think that the treatment team sort of unfairly refuses to 

approve RPPs when they are solid and comprehensive. 

Next, Dr. Salter addressed why Schuman did not have an approved RPP:

Now, when I read the records[,] it doesn’t appear to me that 

. . . they think he has sufficient interventions to begin with[,] . . . he 

needs more; but in any case, even if he had sufficient interventions, 

he needs to practice them for a year. Not lying to progress in 

treatment would be a red flag because if . . . you openly state, “I’m 

willing to lie to progress in treatment,” it means that the 

transparency that people need in order to assess your progress just 

isn’t there. They’re going to say what I think you want to hear, and 

that’s a very -- that is not a Phase 4 kind of behavior.

Dr. Salter then described why it is a good policy for offenders to complete 

phase four before getting an RPP approved:
12

I think you need to develop an adequate number of interventions 

and I think you need to demonstrate that if you have a lapse or you 

have a problem, you’re going to be transparent about it and get help. 

I think you need to demonstrate that you can live the interventions.

. . . People who refuse to journal, the therapists are completely 

blind about how many urges they’re having, how often they’re having 

them and how they’re handling them, how they’re thinking about 

them, what they’re doing about them. 

And if you combine that kind of blindness with someone who, 

for at least the last two years, never mentions or at least does not 

discuss in any depth their arousal to inflicting pain or their arousal 

to children, then you have someone who is -- in their opinion is not 

appropriate for Phase 4.

Schuman’s expert, Dr. Rosell, described his experience as a psychologist 

in correctional facilities before becoming the director of the SOTP in the Mount 

Pleasant Correctional Facility from 1998 to 2002. Since then, he has been 

conducting sex offender evaluations “on a regular basis.”

Dr. Rosell disagreed with Dr. Salter on the significance of Schuman’s failed 

polygraphs. Dr. Rosell thought it was more telling that Schuman admitted to 

lying, which shows he is “open and honest.” Dr. Rosell also disagreed with 

Dr. Salter’s assessment of Schuman’s latest RPP: “I believe it has been 

developed. It just hasn’t been accepted. I believe it’s worthy of acceptance. I’m 

not privy to the reasons why it hasn’t been accepted but, you know, that seems 

to be the sticking point in his progression.” Dr. Rosell added that Schuman’s 

RPP has “a nice outline” that lists the factors and the interventions and “goes 

through everything as you’re supposed to. And I’ve reviewed many [RPPS], and 

this covers all the areas that he needs for the future.” Finally, Dr. Rosell testified 

that Schuman should be placed in transitional release.

The district court entered its ruling on August 17. The district court 

ordered Schuman’s placement in the transitional release program. The district 

court analyzed all ten requirements for transitional release in section 229A.8A, 
13

and it found that the State failed to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that 

Schuman was “not suitable for placement in a transitional release program.” The 

district court gave “no weight to the polygraph results” because the record 

showed “nothing about the polygrapher except that the polygrapher is relatively 

new” and “reveals nothing about . . . either the polygrapher’s methods or 

qualifications.” The district court discredited the PPG results because “the State 

has not sought to establish the qualifications of the [PPG] operator or the 

reliability of the operator’s methods. . . . [T]his court, acting as the finder of fact, 

considers that on this specific record the PPG is of little to no value.” 

The State appealed, arguing that the district court erred by placing 

Schuman in the transitional release program. Specifically, the State challenges 

the district court’s finding that the RPP requirement has been satisfied. 

Schuman responds that the district court correctly determined that his RPP was 

adequate, and that he satisfied the statutory requirements to be placed in the 

transitional release program. Alternatively, Schuman argues that his substantive 

due process rights would be violated by allowing the State to “veto” his RRP and 

limit eligibility for transitional release to those in phase four.

II. Proper Form of Review.

Before reaching the merits of the appeal, “we must first determine whether 

we have the authority to decide the appeal.” Christiansen v. Iowa Bd. of Educ. 

Exam’rs, 831 N.W.2d 179, 186 (Iowa 2013). After the State filed a notice of 

appeal, Schuman moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction 

on the grounds that there was no final judgment. The State resisted, arguing 

that the “[c]ourt has considered direct appeals in other cases in which 

transitional release or discharge have been denied or granted following a final 

hearing.” Alternatively, the State argues that we could review the district court 
14

ruling by a writ of certiorari under Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.107 and 

6.108. We ordered Schuman’s motion to dismiss to be submitted with the appeal.

In its appellate brief, the State argues that the district court’s order placing 

Schuman in transitional release following a final hearing was a final 

determination by the district court that is directly appealable. But at oral 

argument, the State conceded that the district court’s order is not a final decision 

because the district court has continuing jurisdiction over the individual until 

final discharge.

Iowa Code section 229A.8 governs the annual review process and requires 

an offender to have an examination conducted every year. An annual report must 

be submitted to the district court “that committed the person under this 

chapter.” Id. § 229A.8(3). The district court determines whether the individual’s 

commitment should be continued. Id. § 229A.8(5)(e)(1). Applying a similar 

statute, the Washington Supreme Court held that offenders are under the trial 

court’s “continuing jurisdiction” until their “unconditioned release,” and there is 

no final judgment until nothing is left “for the court to do but execute the 

judgment.” In re Det. of Petersen, 980 P.2d 1204, 1213–14 (Wash. 1999) (en banc)

(quoting Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 901 P.2d 

1060, 1062 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995)); see also Gaal v. Iowa Dist. Ct., No. 01–0321, 

2002 WL 31113863, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2002) (en banc) (finding In re 

Detention of Peterson persuasive and holding that a ruling denying a final hearing 

under Iowa Code section 229A.8 is not a final order subject to direct appeal but 

rather is reviewable by a petition for writ of certiorari). We reach the same 

conclusion and hold that the district court’s ruling placing Schuman in 

transitional release is not a final decision appealable as of right.

Next, we must decide the proper procedure for review of the district court 

ruling. Under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.108, if another form of review 
15

is the proper form, then “the case shall not be dismissed, but shall proceed as 

though the proper form of review had been requested.” At oral argument, the 

State argued—and Schuman’s counsel agreed—that we should treat the appeal 

as a petition for writ of certiorari. A petition for writ of certiorari is appropriate 

when a party claims the district court “exceeded [its] jurisdiction or otherwise 

acted illegally.” Id. r. 6.107(1). We hold certiorari is the proper method to review 

the order for transitional release. We consider the State’s notice of appeal as a 

petition for a writ of certiorari and grant the petition.

III. Standard of Review.

“We review certiorari actions for correction of errors at law.” Taft v. Iowa 

Dist. Ct. (Taft II), 879 N.W.2d 634, 638 (Iowa 2016) (quoting Taft v. Iowa Dist. Ct.

(Taft I), 828 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Iowa 2013)). “We examine the court’s jurisdiction 

and the legality of its actions, including the proper application of law and 

evidentiary support for factual findings.” Id. We review the district court’s 

interpretation of chapter 229A for correction of errors at law. In re Det. of 

Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 283 (Iowa 2006).

“We review constitutional challenges de novo.” Taft II, 879 N.W.2d at 638

(quoting In re Det. of Matlock, 860 N.W.2d 898, 901 (Iowa 2015)).

[W]e must remember that statutes are cloaked with a presumption 

of constitutionality. The challenger bears a heavy burden, because 

[he] must prove the unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Moreover, “the challenger must refute every reasonable basis upon 

which the statute could be found to be constitutional.” Furthermore, 

if the statute is capable of being construed in more than one 

manner, one of which is constitutional, we must adopt that 

construction.

State v. Hess, 983 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Iowa 2022) (alterations in original) (quoting 

State v. Aschbrenner, 926 N.W.2d 240, 246 (Iowa 2019)).
16

IV. Analysis.

We first address whether the district court erred by construing Iowa Code 

section 229A.8A(2)(d) to allow judicial approval of Schuman’s RPP based on its 

own judgment and Schuman’s expert but without the approval of Schuman’s 

treatment provider. We hold that the district court overstepped its bounds

because Schuman was statutorily ineligible for placement in the transitional 

release program without an RPP accepted by his CCUSO treatment provider.

Next, we address Schuman’s substantive due process claims, and we reject 

them. There is no showing in the record that the State acted arbitrarily or in bad 

faith by withholding approval of Schuman’s RPP or in demoting him to phase 

three. Courts owe deference to the treatment decisions of CCUSO staff. Schuman 

was not seeking a discharge, and his limited liberty interest in potential 

transitional release on this record does not override the State’s interest in 

protecting the public from sexually violent predators.

A. The District Court Erred by Substituting Its Judgment for the 

Treatment Provider Who Never Accepted Schuman’s RPP. The district court 

concluded that the State failed to prove Schuman was ineligible for transitional

release. The fighting issue is the statutory requirement that a “detailed relapse 

prevention plan has been developed and accepted by the treatment provider.”

Iowa Code § 229A.8A(2)(d) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that Schuman’s 

treatment provider—the CCUSO staff—never accepted his RPP. The district court 

nevertheless deemed this requirement satisfied based on its own determination 

and the testimony of Schuman’s expert that Schuman’s RPP “cover[ed] the 

necessary areas” and his treatment work was “comprehensive and detailed.” The 

State argues that the district court erred in disregarding the statute’s plain 

language requiring the treatment provider’s acceptance of the RPP. Schuman 
17

counters that we should construe the statute to allow the district court to decide 

“whether the plan met the legislative requirements.” We agree with the State.

1. Overview of transitional release. Section 229A.8 governs transitional 

release. This statute establishes “a rebuttable presumption . . . that the 

commitment should continue” for the offender. Iowa Code § 229A.8(1). The 

offender is entitled to “have a current examination of [the offender’s] mental 

abnormality made once every year.” Id. § 229A.8(2). This examination is made in 

a report to the district court. Id. § 229A.8(3). The offender then has a right to an 

“annual review” for the district court to determine if the offender’s commitment 

should continue. Id. At the annual review, the offender may petition for 

“discharge or placement in a transitional release program.” Id. § 229A.8(4). The 

department must provide the offender with a written notice each year of the 

“right to petition the court for discharge or placement in a transitional release 

program without authorization from the director.” Id. The offender may request 

a hearing for annual review within thirty days of the annual review notice. Id. 

§ 229A.8(5)(d).

At the annual review hearing, the offender carries the burden of proof.

[The offender must] prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

there is relevant and reliable evidence to rebut the presumption of 

continued commitment, which would lead a reasonable person to 

believe a final hearing should be held to determine either of the 

following: 

(a) The mental abnormality of the committed person has so 

changed that the person is not likely to engage in predatory acts 

constituting sexually violent offenses if discharged.

(b) The committed person is suitable for placement in a 

transitional release program pursuant to section 229A.8A.

Id. § 229A.8(5)(e)(1). The court must set a final hearing if the court determines 

the offender met his or her burden under paragraph (a) or (b), or both. Id. 
18

§ 229A.8(5)(e)(2)(a). At the final hearing, the state bears the burden to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that either the individual’s “mental abnormality 

remains such that the person is likely to engage in predatory acts that constitute 

sexually violent offenses if discharged” or the individual “is not suitable for 

placement in a transitional release program pursuant to section 229A.8A.” Id. 

§ 229A.8(6)(d). 

Section 229A.8A governs the requirements for transitional release. The 

statute provides ten requirements that all must be met to qualify for transitional 

release:

2. A committed person is suitable for placement in the 

transitional release program if the court finds that all of the following 

apply: 

a. The committed person’s mental abnormality is no longer 

such that the person is a high risk to reoffend.

b. The committed person has achieved and demonstrated 

significant insights into the person’s sex offending cycle. 

c. The committed person has accepted responsibility for past 

behavior and understands the impact sexually violent crimes have 

upon a victim.

d. A detailed relapse prevention plan has been developed and 

accepted by the treatment provider which is appropriate for the 

committed person’s mental abnormality and sex offending history.

e. No major discipline reports have been issued for the 

committed person for a period of six months.

f. The committed person is not likely to escape or attempt to 

escape custody pursuant to section 229A.5B.

g. The committed person is not likely to engage in predatory 

acts constituting sexually violent offenses while in the program.

h. The placement is in the best interest of the committed 

person.

i. The committed person has demonstrated a willingness to 

agree to and abide by all rules of the program.
19

. . . .

4. A committed person who refuses to register as a sex 

offender is not eligible for placement in a transitional release 

program.

Id. § 229A.8A(2), (4) (emphasis added). Only paragraph (d) is contested here.

Several of the eligibility requirements in section 229A.8A(2) involve 

relatively open-ended fact-finding by the district court. For example, 

section 229A.8A(2)(a) requires the district court to determine whether “[t]he 

committed person’s mental abnormality is no longer such that the person is a 

high risk to reoffend.” Id. § 229A.8A(2)(a). Other requirements in 

section 229A.8A(2), however, only require the court to answer questions of

historical fact. For example, subsection (2)(e) requires the court to determine 

whether “[n]o major discipline reports have been issued for the committed person 

for a period of six months.” Id. § 229A.8A(2)(e); see also Taft I, 828 N.W.2d at 

321–22 (affirming denial of transitional release due to major disciplinary 

violations).

2. Analysis of Iowa Code section 229A.8A(2)(d). Under its plain language, 

an offender is ineligible for transitional release without an RPP accepted by the 

treatment provider. Id. § 229A.8A(2)(d). Whether the offender’s treatment 

provider accepted the RPP is a historical fact. It either happened or it did not. 

The record in this case is clear: No treatment provider accepted Schuman’s RPP.

Schuman nevertheless argues the district court could approve the RPP through 

its own judicial determination. The State argues the statute requires acceptance

of the RPP by the treatment provider, without which Schuman is not “suitable for 

placement in the transitional release program.” The State further argues that the 

district court lacks statutory authority to approve an RPP that the treatment 

provider never accepted. We agree with the State.
20

The legislature specifically granted the “treatment provider” the sole 

authority to accept the RPP. Iowa Code § 229A.8A(2)(d). The legislature did not 

define “treatment provider” in chapter 229A, but both parties acknowledge that 

the treatment provider is Schuman’s current therapist at CCUSO. Schuman’s 

RPP includes a space for his therapist to sign and approve it. Our own contextual 

analysis confirms that the “treatment provider” is within CCUSO. 

Section 229A.7(7) provides the “control, care, and treatment” of an offender must 

be “provided at a facility operated by the department of [health and] human 

services.” Id. § 229A.7(7). It also requires an offender under the “control, care, 

and treatment by the department” to be “kept in a secure facility . . . under the 

supervision of the department.” Id. That facility, where Schuman has been 

confined, is CCUSO. The staff there sign off on whether individual offenders

receive “increasing opportunities to live in less restrictive settings.” Swanson, 

737 N.W.2d at 303. And specifically, it is the treatment provider who decides 

whether the RPP is “appropriate for the committed person’s mental abnormality 

and sex offending history.” See Iowa Code § 229A.8A(2)(d). As the State observes, 

this makes good policy sense because the CCUSO therapist providing ongoing 

treatment knows the offender best.

Schuman argues that “[t]he legislature surely did not intend to prohibit 

judicial examination of the issue or give the treatment program veto power over 

the district court.” He argues that we “can uphold the intent of the legislature by 

reading the statute to require the district court to hear evidence about the relapse 

prevention plan and make decisions concerning the completeness and 

appropriateness as well as the circumstances of the plan as did the district court 

in this case.” We disagree. The plain meaning of section 229A.8A(2)(d) authorizes 

“the treatment provider” alone to accept the RPP, not the court or an outside 

expert retained by the offender’s counsel. Iowa Code § 229A.8A(2)(d). “When a 
21

proposed interpretation of a statute would require the court to ‘read something 

into the law that is not apparent from the words chosen by the legislature,’ the 

court will reject it.” State v. Childs, 898 N.W.2d 177, 184 (Iowa 2017) (quoting

State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 730 N.W.2d 677, 679 (Iowa 2007)).

Relying on inapposite cases involving statutes unrelated to chapter 229A, 

our colleague’s partial dissent would read into section 229A.8A(2)(d) an implied

requirement that the treatment provider “consider” the RPP and presumably 

either accept or reject it “by the time of the final hearing.” We decline to read that 

timing requirement into the statute. CCUSO chose not to consider Schuman’s 

RPP because it determined he was ineligible for transitional release after his 

demotion to phase three, a decision which we will address in turn.

Taft I is instructive on the interplay between CCUSO and the courts. In 

Taft I, we determined the “plain language of section 229A.8A(2)(e) disqualifies 

from transitional release any committed person who has received any major

disciplinary report during the previous six months.” Taft I, 828 N.W.2d at 322. 

We rejected the argument that the district court could override that requirement 

based on the testimony of the offender’s expert who discounted the significance 

of those disciplinary violations. Id. We reach the same conclusion here. The plain 

language of section 229A.8A(2)(d) disqualifies Schuman from transitional release 

when he lacks an RPP approved by his CCUSO treatment provider, regardless of 

the approval of his retained outside expert.

We hold that Schuman was ineligible for transitional release because his 

RPP was never accepted by his treatment provider at CCUSO. The district court 

erred by ruling Schuman satisfied the RPP requirement.

B. The District Court Erred by Overriding CCUSO’s Decision to 

Demote Schuman to Phase Three. The district court found that Schuman was 

demoted from phase four to phase three “as a result of failing two maintenance 
22

polygraphs, one in March of 2021 and the other in September of 2021.” The 

district court determined that “the fact that Schuman was reduced to Phase 

[Three] and RPPS are not accepted until Phase [Four]” was not a “sufficient 

reason” to reject Schuman’s RPP, and “there was no reliable reason for the 

reduction to Phase [Three].” Contrary to the partial dissent, the district court 

does not get to override CCUSO’s demotion decision and then unilaterally deem 

the RPP requirement satisfied because it found Schuman’s expert more credible 

than the State’s.5 We hold that the district court erred by substituting its 

judgment for CCUSO’s internal placement decision.

The legislature granted CCUSO broad authority to operate its treatment 

and transitional release programs. Section 229A.7(7) requires CCUSO to provide 

the “control, care, and treatment” of the offenders; and the treatment and care 

must be “provided at a facility operated by the department.” Iowa Code 

§ 229A.7(7). The legislature requires CCUSO to “establish a transitional release 

program and provide control, care, and treatment, and supervision of committed 

persons placed in such a program.” Id. § 229A.8A(1). And the legislature 

empowered CCUSO to “establish[] and implement[] the rules and directives 

regarding the location of the transitional release program, staffing needs, 

restrictions on confinement and the movement of committed persons, and for 

assessing the progress of committed persons in the program.” Id. § 229A.8A(6). 

The legislature codified the purpose of CCUSO’s treatment program: “The 

procedures regarding sexually violent predators should reflect legitimate public 

5The partial dissent relies on substantial evidence review of the district court’s findings 

under the eligibility requirements for transitional release under Iowa Code section 229A.8A(2)(a)–

(c), (g)–(h). But the fighting issue is paragraph (d), the requirement for approval of the RPP by the 

treatment provider. No substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that 

paragraph (d) was satisfied. Indeed, it is undisputed that the treatment provider did not approve 

Schuman’s RPP.
23

safety concerns, while providing treatment services designed to benefit sexually 

violent predators who are civilly committed” and “encourage full, meaningful 

participation” of offenders in the treatment program. Id. § 229A.1(4). The 

legislature granted CCUSO substantial discretion to determine the treatment 

provided to the offenders and to assess the treatment progress of offenders.

Judicial review is limited. See Swanson, 737 N.W.2d at 307 (holding a sexually 

violent predator could not challenge CCUSO’s placement decision as an 

“aggrieved person” under Iowa Code chapter 17A and concluding his failure to 

progress “is not an adverse action, but an integral part of the treatment under a 

cognitive-behavioral model”); see also In re Saiz, 492 P.3d 484, 491–92 (Kan. Ct. 

App. 2021) (requiring the district court to “give due regard to the judgment of 

mental health professionals about the appropriate treatment methods,” and 

reversing the order that released the sexually violent predator).

We have already recognized that correctional officials may rely on a failed 

polygraph examination as a factor influencing the decision to remove an inmate 

from a sex offender treatment program. Reilly v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 783 N.W.2d 490,

498–99 (Iowa 2010) (“[P]olygraph examinations serve a rehabilitative purpose 

within treatment.”). We approvingly noted “the use of polygraphs in sex offender 

treatment programs,” including CCUSO. Id. (collecting cases); see also Swanson, 

737 N.W.2d at 303 (discussing the use of polygraphs in the SOTP at CCUSO).

And Schuman admittedly lied during his polygraph interview to improve his 

chances of progressing. As the State’s expert, Dr. Salter, testified, lying during a 

polygraph examination is a red flag that supports Schuman’s demotion to the 

more restrictive phase three. That demotion was “based on . . . the professional 

judgment of those treating him within the CCUSO program.” Taft II, 879 N.W.2d 

at 639.
24

Courts should give CCUSO’s internal placement decisions a “wide berth.” 

Off. of Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman v. Edwards, 825 N.W.2d 8, 14 (Iowa 2012) 

(quoting Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman v. Grossheim, 498 N.W.2d 405, 407 (Iowa 

1993)). “There is a ‘presumption of regularity that attaches to the decisions of 

administrative agencies’ that protects them against inquiry into how they reach 

their decisions based upon mere suspicion.” Id. at 21 (quoting Martin Marietta 

Materials, Inc. v. Dallas County, 675 N.W.2d 544, 554 (Iowa 2004)). This 

presumption can be overcome by a “strong showing of bad faith or improper 

behavior.” Id. (quoting Martin Marietta Materials, 675 N.W.2d at 554). Schuman 

made no such showing. The district court erred by overruling CCUSO’s decision 

to demote Schuman to phase three.

C. Schuman’s Substantive Due Process Claims Fail. Schuman argues

that requiring “treatment provider approval of a relapse prevention plan amounts 

to a ‘veto’ of the district court’s exercise of discretion, authority, and options,” 

and thereby violates his substantive due process rights under both the United 

States and Iowa Constitutions. Shuman further argues that CCUSO’s policy 

“that provides that the relapse prevention plan won’t be considered until Phase 

[Four], likewise violates [his] right to due process.” The State responds that 

Schuman has no substantive due process right to “placement in a different phase 

of treatment,” as opposed to discharge. We agree with the State that CCUSO’s 

denial of transitional release did not violate Schuman’s substantive due process 

rights.

1. Substantive due process requirements. “We have ‘traditionally 

considered the federal and state due process provisions to be equal in scope, 

import, and purpose.’ ” Matlock, 860 N.W.2d at 903 (quoting Garren, 620 N.W.2d 
25

at 284).6 Schuman “does not offer or suggest a framework under the Iowa 

Constitution different from that under the United States Constitution.” Id.

Accordingly, we apply the same analysis to his state and federal claims. Id.

“[D]ue process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear 

some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.” 

Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d at 289 (alteration in original) (quoting Jackson v. Indiana, 

406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972)). Substantive due process prohibits the State from 

“engaging in arbitrary or wrongful act[s] ‘regardless of the fairness of the 

procedures used to implement them.’ ” Garren, 620 N.W.2d at 284 (quoting 

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990)). “A person’s interest in freedom 

from bodily restraint is ‘at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process 

Clause from arbitrary governmental actions.’ ” Id. (quoting Foucha v. Louisiana, 

504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992)).

When confronted with an offender’s challenges to treatment decisions, 

courts “must show deference to the judgment exercised by a qualified 

professional.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982). Judges and juries 

are not “better qualified than appropriate professionals in making such 

decisions.” Id. at 322–23. A treatment decision, “if made by a professional, is 

presumptively valid.” Id. at 323 (footnote omitted). We will question its 

constitutionality only when the professional’s decision is such “a substantial 

departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to 

demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on 

such a judgment.” Id. “We are not required, nor is it appropriate for us to specify 

6The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from 

“depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. 

amend. XIV, § 1. The Iowa Constitution provides that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, 

or property, without due process of law.” Iowa Const. art. I, § 9. 
26

which of several professionally acceptable choices should have been made.” 

Swanson, 737 N.W.2d at 309. We are only required “to make certain that 

professional judgment was in fact exercised.” Id.

In In re Detention of Garren, we rejected the offender’s claim that he had a 

“substantive due process right to the least restrictive setting.” 620 N.W.2d at 

285. Rather, “substantive due process demands, at the most, that there be a 

reasonable fit between the governmental purpose and the means chosen to 

advance that purpose.” Id. (quoting In re B.B., 516 N.W.2d 874, 879 (Iowa 1994)). 

We concluded that “there is a reasonable fit here between the State’s purpose of 

protecting society from persons who have been determined to be likely to reoffend 

if not placed in a secure facility and their placement in such a facility.” Id.

2. Substantive due process as applied to Schuman. Schuman seeks only 

transitional release—a less restrictive level of treatment—not discharge or

supervised release where he would reside outside CCUSO in the community. 

Discharge is an “unconditional discharge from the sexually violent predator 

program.” Iowa Code § 229A.2(4). Discharge is allowed when the offender “no 

longer suffers from a mental abnormality which makes the person likely to 

engage in predatory acts constituting sexually violent offenses if discharged.” Id. 

§ 229A.8(1). Supervised release is allowed when the offender still “suffers from a 

mental abnormality and it is in the best interest of the community to order 

release with supervision before the committed person is discharged.” Id.

§ 229A.9A(1)(b). By contrast, the transitional release program allows outings into 

the community while the offender still remains housed at CCUSO’s facility. See 

In re Det. of Anderson, 895 N.W.2d 131, 143 (Iowa 2017).

We reiterate that offenders have no fundamental right to the “least 

restrictive placement.” Garren, 620 N.W.2d at 285; see also Washington v. 

Bergen (In re Det. of Bergen), 195 P.3d 529, 533–34 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) 
27

(rejecting a sexually violent predator’s substantive due process claim for 

conditional release into the community as the least restrictive alternative). As 

Dr. Salter testified, CCUSO staff made a reasoned professional judgment to 

demote Schuman to phase three and to deny him transitional release without a 

RPP approved by his therapist who knows him best. Deference is owed to those 

professional judgments. See Romeo, 457 U.S. at 322. The statute that authorized 

CCUSO’s placement decision is “presumed constitutional, and ‘[t]he challenger 

bears a heavy burden [to] prove the unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable 

doubt.’ ” Taft II, 879 N.W.2d at 638 (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. 

Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 233 (Iowa 2002)). Schuman has made no 

such showing. His substantive due process claims fail.

V. Disposition.

For these reasons, we sustain the writ and vacate the district court’s 

ruling. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED; WRIT SUSTAINED.

All justices concur except Mansfield, J., who files an opinion concurring 

in part and dissenting in part.
28

#22–1521, In re Detention of Schuman

MANSFIELD, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in part and dissent in part. I join the majority’s conclusion that 

certiorari is the proper method of reviewing this case. I also agree with the 

majority that the district court erred in substituting its own evaluation of Stewart 

Schuman’s relapse prevention plan (RPP) for an evaluation by the treatment 

provider. However, I find the State’s conduct problematic in this case, and I 

would remand for further proceedings on Schuman’s request for transitional 

release.

Schuman’s litany of sex offenses with young children might suggest that 

he is a poor candidate for any type of release. Nonetheless, Schuman completed 

his prison sentences over a decade ago. He has been civilly confined at the Civil 

Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) since then without the 

predicate of a criminal conviction. Because of the significant liberty interest at 

stake, the law requires that Schuman be afforded an annual examination and 

review. See Iowa Code § 229A.8(2) (2022). Concerning that annual review, the 

law further provides,

The court shall consider all evidence presented by both parties at 

the annual review. The burden is on the committed person to prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that there is relevant and reliable 

evidence to rebut the presumption of continued commitment, which 

would lead a reasonable person to believe a final hearing should be 

held to determine either of the following:

(a) The mental abnormality of the committed person has so 

changed that the person is not likely to engage in predatory acts 

constituting sexually violent offenses if discharged.

(b) The committed person is suitable for placement in a 

transitional release program pursuant to section 229A.8A.

Id. § 229A.8(5)(e)(1).
29

On March 21, 2022, the district court held a brief annual review hearing. 

There, it determined that Schuman should proceed to a final hearing on whether 

he should be granted discharge or transitional release. As the court explained,

The Respondent has submitted the report of Dr. Luis Rosell, 

Psy.D. in which Dr. Rosell opines that the Respondent is suitable for 

placement in the Transitional Release Program or to be Discharged. 

The State agrees that this showing satisfies the burden imposed 

upon the Respondent pursuant to Iowa Code section 229A.8(5)(e)(1), 

and the Court agrees.

Approximately three and a half months later, on July 6, the final hearing 

took place. At the hearing, three witnesses testified: Schuman, psychologist 

Dr. Anna Salter for the State, and psychologist Dr. Luis Rosell for Schuman. 

Schuman made clear at the final hearing that he was not interested in 

discharge and only interested in transitional release. Under transitional release, 

Schuman would continue to be housed at CCUSO but would have opportunities 

to leave the facility temporarily. Schuman explained why he desired this 

alternative: 

I want to build some money up. I want to get a job so I can build 

some money up so I can get me a place to stay. All I got in the bank 

is a thousand dollars, and I’d like to have more than a thousand 

dollars to get out in the street.

As the district court put it, “Schuman has specifically disclaimed any request for 

discharge.”

The statute governing transitional release, Iowa Code § 229A.8A, provides,

2. A committed person is suitable for placement in the 

transitional release program if the court finds that all of the following 

apply:

a. The committed person’s mental abnormality is no longer 

such that the person is a high risk to reoffend.

b. The committed person has achieved and demonstrated 

significant insights into the person’s sex offending cycle.
30

c. The committed person has accepted responsibility for past 

behavior and understands the impact sexually violent crimes have 

upon a victim.

d. A detailed relapse prevention plan has been developed and 

accepted by the treatment provider which is appropriate for the 

committed person’s mental abnormality and sex offending history.

e. No major discipline reports have been issued for the 

committed person for a period of six months.

f. The committed person is not likely to escape or attempt to 

escape custody pursuant to section 229A.5B.

g. The committed person is not likely to engage in predatory 

acts constituting sexually violent offenses while in the program.

h. The placement is in the best interest of the committed 

person.

i. The committed person has demonstrated a willingness to 

agree to and abide by all rules of the program.

Id. § 229A.8A(2).

There was consensus at the final hearing that Schuman met three of these 

requirements: (e), (f), and (i). The disagreement between Dr. Salter and Dr. Rosell 

centered on the other criteria. This disagreement played out in the weight that 

the psychologists placed on Schuman’s polygraphs and penile plethysmographs 

(PPGs) and on the Static-99R risk assessment tool. Dr. Salter took the position 

that the Static-99R underestimated Schuman’s true risk of reoffending and did 

not use it. Dr. Rosell relied on it.

There was also testimony concerning paragraph (d), which requires that 

“[a] detailed relapse prevention plan has been developed and accepted by the 

treatment provider which is appropriate for the committed person’s mental 

abnormality and sex offending history.” Id. § 229A.8A(2)(d). CCUSO is divided 

into five “phases,” with phase five being transitional release and phase four the 

phase just short of transitional release. Schuman had spent several years in 

phase four until being demoted in 2021 to phase three because of two failed 
31

polygraphs. While in phase four, Schuman submitted several RPPs, but none 

were approved. When he was demoted to phase three, Schuman again submitted 

an RPP. The evidence was undisputed that this RPP was not even considered 

because CCUSO’s policy is not to consider RPPs unless the individual is in phase 

four. Yet Dr. Rosell testified favorably on this RPP and deemed it “worthy of 

acceptance”:

Q. Number four, a detailed relapse prevention plan has been 

developed and accepted by the treatment provider as appropriate for 

the committed person’s abnormality and sex offending history. What 

is your opinion on that, Doctor? 

A. I believe it has been developed. It just hasn’t been accepted. 

I believe it’s worthy of acceptance. I’m not privy to the reasons why 

it hasn’t been accepted but, you know, that seems to be the sticking 

point in his progression.

For reasons that it explained in detail, the district court generally found 

Dr. Rosell’s testimony more persuasive. It discounted the polygraph and the PPG 

results. Therefore, the district court concluded that criteria (a), (b), (c), (g), and 

(h) had been met. Those are the criteria that the majority characterizes as 

“open-ended.”

The district court’s findings on criteria (a), (b), (c), (g), and (h) are supported 

by substantial evidence. This means they are binding on us. See Spitz v. Iowa 

Dist. Ct., 881 N.W.2d 456, 464 (Iowa 2016). Notably, on certiorari review, we 

must accept the district court’s factual findings when they are supported by 

substantial evidence. See id. (“We find error when the district court’s finding of 

facts are not supported by substantial evidence . . . .”). Although the majority 

quotes Dr. Salter at great length, and quotes Dr. Rosell only briefly, it was Dr. 

Rosell whom the district court found more credible. Notably, the State does not 

appeal these findings.
32

This leaves us only with criterion (d), the requirement that the offender 

have an accepted RPP. Here the district court found:

A detailed relapse prevention plan has been developed and accepted 

by the treatment provider which is appropriate for the committed 

person’s mental abnormality and sex offending history. Dr. Salter 

relies simply on the fact that Schuman was reduced to Phase [Three] 

and RPPs are not accepted until Phase [Four]. If that was a sufficient 

reason, the concept of judicial review would be defeated and this 

trial would have been a waste of time. The court is convinced that 

there was no reliable reason for the reduction to Phase [Three].

The majority agrees with none of this reasoning; I agree with some of it. If 

the State and the majority are correct, the trial was indeed “a waste of time.” The 

State consented to a final hearing, which meant that Schuman had rebutted the 

presumption of continued confinement and presented enough for a reasonable 

person to conclude a final hearing should be held on whether the offender is 

suitable for transitional release. But transitional release requires an accepted 

RPP, and three and half months later the treatment provider hadn’t even looked

at Schuman’s RPP. That can’t be the end of the story.

For one thing, we interpret statutes like section 229A.8A(2)(d) so they 

make sense, not nonsense. See Iowa Code § 4.4(3) (“In enacting a statute, it is 

presumed that . . . [a] just and reasonable result is intended.”). In my view, an 

implied term of section 229A.8A(2)(d)’s requirement that the RPP be accepted by 

the time of the final hearing is a requirement that it be considered. See Lewis v. 

Jaeger, 818 N.W.2d 165, 185 (Iowa 2012) (“[A]lthough a statute employing broad 

terms is obviously more susceptible to being applied in an arbitrary or 

discriminatory fashion than one containing detailed language, an ordinance may 

be narrowed through an implied term of objective reasonableness.”); State v. 

Abrahamson, 696 N.W.2d 589, 592 (Iowa 2005) (holding that a statute providing 

that the court “shall approve” a claim for room and board reimbursement 
33

submitted by a sheriff or county allowed the district court to exercise judgment 

over that claim and not simply “rubber-stamp” it); Iowa C.R. Comm’n v. Deere & 

Co., 482 N.W.2d 386, 389 (Iowa 1992) (holding that an agency could not 

“circumvent [a] statute” establishing a thirty-day time limit for seeking judicial 

review of no-probable-cause determinations by adopting a rule allowing the 

agency to reopen a case at any time). The majority justifies the 

section 229A.8A(2)(d) requirement by observing that the CCUSO treatment 

provider, who must accept the plan, “knows the offender best.” But this only 

works when the treatment provider actually looks at the plan.

Second, I believe the majority’s analogy to Taft v. Iowa District Court is off 

the mark. See 828 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 2013). In Taft, the offender had incurred 

six major disciplinary reports within the relevant time period. Id. at 322. In 

support of the offender’s quest for a final hearing, the offender’s expert 

discounted those reports as “not based on allegations of sexual misconduct.” Id.

This opinion, we held, could not override the “plain language of section 

229A.8A(2)(e) [that] disqualifies from transitional release any committed person 

who has received any major disciplinary report during the previous six months.”

Id. Therefore, the offender was not entitled to a final hearing. Id. at 323.

This case is different. Section 228A.8A(2)(d) is unlike section 228A.8A(2)(e) 

in the extent to which the condition is under the control of CCUSO, rather than 

the offender. There was no suggestion in Taft that the offender had received the 

disciplinary reports because of something he couldn’t do anything about—like 

CCUSO’s refusal even to consider Schuman’s RPP. See id. at 311 (providing that 

Taft was cited for “lying to staff,” “inciting disruptiveness,” “disrespecting the 

CCUSO staff,” and a “boundary violation”). Furthermore, the offender in Taft was 

appealing the court’s denial of a final hearing, whereas here Schuman was 

granted a final hearing. Id. at 312. Under Taft, the grant of a final hearing meant 
34

that the offender “more likely than not generated a fact question” on the 

transitional release issues. Id. at 318. Yet now, the majority concludes Schuman 

was never actually a candidate for transitional release. If so, why did the State 

agree to the final hearing?

Third, the majority engages in a bit of sleight of hand. It uses Dr. Salter’s 

opinions and the failed polygraphs to justify Schuman’s demotion to phase three, 

which in turn provides the majority’s justification for CCUSO’s not even having 

considered Schuman’s RPP. But this approach doesn’t give adequate weight to 

the district court’s factual findings. The district court didn’t accept Dr. Salter’s 

opinions; it found those of Dr. Rosell more credible. In short, the majority 

reanalyzes the district court’s findings on criteria (a), (b), (c), (g), and (h) to 

demonstrate that the State didn’t act arbitrarily with respect to criterion (d). The 

substantial-evidence rule prohibits the majority from taking this path.

Having said this, I do not agree that the district court itself should have 

decided the suitability of the RPP on this record. I would remand to give the State 

an opportunity to supplement the record with testimony from the CCUSO 

treatment provider on the appropriateness of Schuman’s plan. If the CCUSO 

treatment provider has a nonarbitrary reason for not accepting the plan, then I 

would hold that Schuman is not entitled to transitional release. If the State 

declines this opportunity to supplement the record, or the treatment provider 

cannot articulate a reasonable basis for refusing to accept the plan, then 

Schuman would enter transitional release. Usually, we don’t allow do-overs, but 

in this case Schuman has less of a liberty interest than usual because he is not 

seeking outright release, which he recognizes he is not ready for. Schuman does 

have a legitimate interest in not being subjected to arbitrary government 

conduct.