Inability to care for self 2. Deprivation of liberty solely because of dangers to the ill persons themselves should not go beyond what is necessary for their protection. Applies to type of treatment, type of confinement, and type of institution 4. A state cannot constitutionally confine a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving outside the hospital setting on his own or with the help of others. It is unconstitutional for a state to return to a mental hospital an individual found not guilty by reason of insanity where he is found by a court to be dangerous but is also found to be no longer mentally ill.
Documentation is key iii.
State officials may be held liable for deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 where a lack of procedural safeguards allowed an incompetent individual to voluntarily commit himself to a state mental hospital, bringing about a deprivation of liberty interests without due process of law. Individuals who are involuntarily hospitalized and thus deprived of liberty interests must receive some minimal level of treatment 1. Nondangerous, involuntarily committed patient cannot be hospitalized, where viable alternatives exist in the community, without receiving treatment. Involuntarily committed, profoundly retarded patient has constitutionally protected fights to safe conditions, freedom from unreasonable physical restraints and minimally adequate training.