Opinion ID: 2537785
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Appeal Is Moot but We Decide It Under the Public Interest Exception.

Text: We generally refrain from deciding issues where the facts have rendered the legal issues moot. [13] This case is technically moot because Bigley can no longer be medicated under the challenged order and therefore cannot obtain any relief if he prevails. [14] The order permitting API to medicate Bigley was stayed pending an appeal to this court. Bigley's period of commitment subsequently expired and he was released without receiving the medication. A claim is moot if it is no longer a present, live controversy, and the party bringing the action would not be entitled to relief, even if it prevails. [15] However, a public interest exception may apply when a potentially moot case raises a matter that is (1) of grave public concern, (2) likely to recur, and (3) capable of evading review. [16] In Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute, we noted that the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication by the state is a highly intrusive procedure implicating fundamental constitutional guarantees of liberty and privacy. [17] In that case, we found the public interest exception to apply in order to clarify the requirements for protecting constitutional rights in such proceedings. [18] For similar reasons, the public interest exception applies here. Bigley raises issues of public importance regarding the application of the Myers standards, as well as questions of due process and interpretation of the underlying statutory scheme in such proceedings. As in Myers, these issues are likely to recur. [19] This is true not only because other patients are likely to raise similar claims in the future, but because Bigley himself, having already been involuntarily committed and medicated dozens of times in the past, [20] is almost certain to face similar proceedings in the future. Finally, as we noted in Myers, it is doubtful that an appeal from a medication order could ever be completed within the order's period of effectiveness. [21] Thus, the petition in this case, like the one in Myers, is of a kind that is likely to evade review. [22] We conclude that while technically moot, this case raises issues that are justiciable under the public interest exception.