Opinion ID: 2635508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The unauthorized mental evaluation violated Strand's due process rights including his right to counsel

Text: ¶ 39 Strand asserts the mental examination violated his due process rights including his right to counsel, his right to remain silent, and his right to privacy under article I, section 7 of the state constitution. We have repeatedly held that state statutes may create liberty interests that are entitled to the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 488, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980). [I]f the State grants a prisoner a right or expectation that adverse action will not be taken against him except upon the occurrence of specified behavior, `the determination of whether such behavior has occurred becomes critical, and the minimum requirements of procedural due process appropriate for the circumstances must be observed.' Id. at 490-91, 100 S.Ct. 1254 (quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)); see also State ex rel. T.B. v. CPC Fairfax Hospital, 129 Wash.2d 439, 452-53, 918 P.2d 497 (1996) (noting `due process protections are necessary to insure [a] state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated' in civil commitment context (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Vitek, 445 U.S. at 489, 100 S.Ct. 1254)). ¶ 40 The State's failure to follow the procedures mandated by the SVP statute deprived Strand of his liberty without due process of law. Individuals who are committed as SVPs are entitled to procedural due process protections. In re Pers. Restraint of Young, 122 Wash.2d 1, 45, 857 P.2d 989 (1993) (citing Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 724, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972)). The process due an SVP petitioner is that process circumscribed by the statute which authorizes civil incarceration. Martin, 163 Wash.2d at 511, 182 P.3d 951. ¶ 41 Under Martin any deviation from the procedures outlined in the SVP statute is a violation of procedural due process. Here the State clearly deviated from the statutory procedures when it employed a psychologist to evaluate Strand before the probable cause hearing and then used that evaluation to prove probable cause. Thus, the mental health evaluation violated Strand's procedural due process rights. ¶ 42 The State also failed to follow the proper procedure when it deprived Strand of his statutory right to counsel at the precommitment mental examination. We agree and conclude the plain language of the statute and the structure of the sexually violent predator act [gives the defendant] a statutory right to counsel at his precommitment psychological examination. Kistenmacher, 163 Wash.2d at 173, 178 P.3d 949. This was clearly a precommitment psychological exam, so Strand had a statutory right to counsel. Since the SVP statute affords prisoners a right to counsel, it was also a due process violation to deviate from procedure and deny Strand this right. ¶ 43 Even if the majority were correct that [t]he SVP statute . . . authorizes a prefiling psychological examination, majority at 1163, former RCW 71.09.050(1) guarantees: At all stages of the proceedings under this chapter, any person subject to this chapter shall be entitled to the assistance of counsel, and if the person is indigent, the court shall appoint counsel to assist him or her. Although I disagree that this examination was conducted pursuant to the statute, if it were, the prisoner would have a statutory right to counsel at his precommitment psychological examination. Kistenmacher, 163 Wash.2d at 173, 178 P.3d 949. The majority can't have it both ways. If the prefiling examination was authorized by former RCW 71.09.025(1)(b)(v), it must therefore be subject to the statutory requirement of former RCW 71.09.050(1), which provides: At all stages of the proceedings under this chapter, any person subject to this chapter shall be entitled to the assistance of counsel. . . . (Emphasis added.) ¶ 44 The State violated Strand's due process rights twice when it contravened the SVP statute by conducting a mental evaluation without probable cause and then denied him his right to counsel during this evaluation.