Opinion ID: 148501
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ex Parte Temporary Detention Order

Text: Aruanno argues that his rights were violated when the court entered a temporary detention order pending his final commitment hearing without first appointing counsel for Aruanno, and without holding a hearing in which Aruanno might challenge the temporary detention. The SVPA provides that the subject of a temporary commitment order is entitled to a hearing within twenty days of entry of the order, and that the person subject to commitment must be represented by counsel at that hearing. N.J.S.A. § 30:4-27.29; see Greenfield v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 888 A.2d 507, 510 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006). Aruanno does not cite any authority for the proposition that he is entitled to an earlier hearing, notice of the temporary commitment order, or to counsel before the 20day preliminary hearing. As the New Jersey Superior Court has reasoned: “The twentyday period for pre-hearing detention is deemed constitutionally reasonable because of the urgency at its inception and in order to permit time for preparations essential to a fair and 12 meaningful hearing. Those essential preparations include testing and observation adequate to permit a diagnosis, notice to the patient, assignment of counsel, opportunity to prepare the case and court scheduling.” In re Commitment of M.M., 894 A.2d 1158, 1167 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006) (internal citation omitted). Furthermore, we have previously noted the Supreme Court’s implicit rejection of a constitutional challenge to a statute which permitted emergency confinement for fifteen days without prior notice or a hearing. See Reese v. Nelson, 598 F.2d 822, 826-27 (3d Cir. 1979) (citing Briggs v. Arafeh, 411 U.S. 911 (1973)). Accordingly, this claim fails.