Opinion ID: 2341603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: If Requests for Help Are Threats, Former RCW 71.09.020(10) Is Unconstitutionally Vague

Text: ¶ 70 `Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a statute is void for vagueness if either: (1) the statute does not define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is proscribed; or (2) the statute does not provide ascertainable standards of guilt to protect against arbitrary enforcement.' City of Bellevue v. Lorang, 140 Wash.2d 19, 30, 992 P.2d 496 (2000) (quoting State v. Halstien, 122 Wash.2d 109, 117, 857 P.2d 270 (1993) (quoting City of Spokane v. Douglass, 115 Wash.2d 171, 178, 795 P.2d 693 (1990))). Danforth argues that the definition of recent overt act in former RCW 71.09.020(10) is vague because it fails to give notice that requests for help could constitute grounds for an SVP commitment petition. Suppl. Br. of Pet'r at 17-18. He specifically asserts that the word `threat' is vague if it can be applied to his statements. Id. at 19. The State argues that the recent overt act requirement does not implicate due process because we previously held that RCW 71.09, satisfies [the required] level of substantive due process. State's Suppl. Br. at 18 (citing Young, 122 Wash.2d at 26, 857 P.2d 989). After we decided Young, the legislature amended the statute, expanding the definition of recent overt act to include not only acts, but also threats. LAWS OF 2001, ch. 286, § 4; former RCW 71.09.020(10). We have not reviewed former RCW 71.09.020(10) for vagueness. In re Det. of Lewis, 163 Wash.2d 188, 203, 177 P.3d 708 (2008) (Sanders, J., concurring). ¶ 71 Prior to involuntary commitment, due process requires that the State prove an individual is both mentally ill and dangerous. [T]here must be proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior. Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). Because speech alone is alleged as the recent overt act, due process requires that Danforth's statements evince a lack of control. But Danforth's threats indicate that he had a handle on controlling his behavior. He did not act upon his dreams and thoughts of reoffending, rather he sought assistance. Before losing control, Danforth requested help. If asking for help is synonymous with an expression of intent to inflict loss or harm on another, lead opinion at 792, threat is not sufficiently defined. Former RCW 71.09.020(10) does not provide adequate notice that an individual may be subject to indefinite confinement as a sexually violent predator if he seeks help to avoid reoffending. Therefore, it is unconstitutionally vague and violative of due process.