Opinion ID: 1506596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Due Process Consideration of Compelled Psychiatric Examination

Text: Mr. Johnson contends on appeal, as he did in the trial court, that he is entitled to a evidentiary hearing on his motion to quash the subpoena ordering him to submit to a psychiatric examination before the Commission of Mental Health. As noted earlier, Judge Moore held two hearings, on November 18 and 25, 1992, on Mr. Johnson's motion to quash the subpoena. The discussions at both hearings focussed on whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to quash to determine whether there was probable cause to support the petition for judicial hospitalization, but no evidentiary hearing was actually held. [16] Mr. Johnson contends that such hearing is necessary so that he can cross-examine the petitioner about the allegations in her petition. [17] The ACLU agrees with Mr. Johnson that due process and the Ervin Act require a de novo evidentiary hearing prior to compelling Mr. Johnson to submit to a psychiatric examination, and argues that, at a minimum, the issuance of a subpoena under the Ervin Act should be treated like any subpoena issued under Superior Court Civil Rule 45 and D.C.Code § 11-942 (1995). The ACLU argues, in addition, that the Commission has an obligation to screen petitions for probable cause before requesting that the court issue subpoenas for psychiatric examination. [18] Counsel for Mrs. Johnson argued in the trial court that the petition itself supplied sufficient probable cause to justify the subpoena, [19] that a hearing was neither statutorily nor constitutionally required and that a speedy examination was in the public interest and in Mr. Johnson's best interest. On appeal, the Corporation Counsel further argues that the Commission has an obligation to promptly examine the subject of the petition under § 21-542, so that it may report its findings to the court, as required by § 21-544. In ruling on the motion to quash, Judge Moore found that ordering [Mr. Johnson] to appear for an examination before the Commission of Mental Health without first holding an adversarial probable cause hearing is a minimal intrusion on [his] right to privacy and therefore is neither statutorily nor constitutionally impermissible. (Emphasis added.) Mr. Johnson contests this finding, arguing that he has a constitutionally-protected right to privacy that can be overcome only by a compelling state interest. The ACLU adds that there are also constitutional liberty and due process interests at stake. The District of Columbia, on the other hand, supports the trial court's conclusion that any intrusion into constitutionally-protected interests is minimal and outweighed by the compelling public interest in a prompt resolution of a § 21-541 petition. [20] The Corporation Counsel would apply to a compelled psychiatric examination pursuant to a § 21-541 petition for judicial hospitalization the same analysis which the Court has undertaken in holding that the Fourth Amendment does not require the full panoply of adversarial safeguards before an arrested individual can be detained pending trial. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 120, 95 S.Ct. 854, 866, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). Just as the Fourth Amendment permits that a person be seized and deprived of liberty based only upon an ex parte probable cause determination in a criminal case, the Corporation Counsel argues, it also is reasonable to compel a person to submit to a psychiatric examination based on an ex parte probable cause determination. [21] Constitutionally-protected rights to privacy and liberty under the Fourth [22] and Fifth [23] Amendment to the Constitution may be implicated when an individual is compelled to submit to a psychiatric examination. In re Kossow, 393 A.2d 97, 103-4 (D.C.1978). In construing a statutory scheme such as the Ervin Act, we do so in a manner that furthers the legislature's objectives. See Capitol Hill Hosp. v. District of Columbia State Health Planning and Dev. Agency, 600 A.2d 793, 802 (D.C.1991). Where a constitutional challenge to a statute is made, and the statutory language permits, we construe a statute so as to avoid a constitutional confrontation. See Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Henkel, 689 A.2d 1224, 1234 (D.C.1997). The Ervin Act evolved out of a `profound congressional concern for the liberties of the mentally ill' and was designed with the view to securing at last the civil and constitutional rights of that long-neglected group. In re Lomax, 386 A.2d 1185, 1188 (D.C.1978) (en banc) (citations omitted). In light of the express legislative concern for the constitutional rights of the mentally ill and the potential abridgment of those rights implicated by a compelled psychiatric examination, the question becomes one of how much process is due before an individual can be so compelled pursuant to a private, non-emergency petition for judicial hospitalization under D.C.Code § 21-541(a)(2). This issue is one of first impression. We begin, as always, with the statutory language. Section 21-541, under which Mrs. Johnson's petition was filed, initiates the process for judicial hospitalization. [24] The Commission generally is charged with examin[ing] alleged mentally ill persons, inquir[ing] into their affairs and the affairs of persons who may be legally liable for their support, and mak[ing] reports and recommendations to the court. D.C.Code § 21-503(a). More specific to this case, the statute provides that once a petition for judicial hospitalization has been filed, [t]he Commission shall promptly examine a person alleged to be mentally ill ... and shall thereafter promptly hold a hearing on the issue of his mental illness. D.C.Code § 21-542(a) (emphasis added). Section 21-503(b) provides generally that the court may issue subpoenas at the request of the Commission. [25] It is clear from the language of the statute that the Commission's ability to examine a person alleged to be mentally ill is essential in the court's consideration of a request for judicial hospitalization. It is also clear that a person alleged to be mentally ill may be compelled to appear for examination, pursuant to a court-issued subpoena. What the statutory language does not address, however, is what process is to be followed in the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas for psychiatric examination. Turning to the procedures used in this case, we note that although the Ervin Act provides that subpoenas are to issue at the request of the Commission, D.C.Code § 21-503(b), it appears that the preprinted request for a subpoena contained in Mrs. Johnson's petition was automatically forwarded to the trial court, without prior review or action by the Commission. In this case, the subpoena issued upon the filing of Mrs. Johnson's petition and Judge Block's ex parte finding that there was reason to believe that Mr. Johnson was mentally ill and likely to injure himself or others. The Commission's screening and compromising role in the judicial hospitalization process has been likened to that of the prosecutor in criminal matters. When a private party files a petition for involuntary hospitalization of another, that petition is first considered by the Commission, `which was established in recognition of the fact that the assistance of unbiased experts was essential to assist the courts in dealing with insanity cases.' Kossow, supra, 393 A.2d at 106 (quoting Lake v. Cameron, 124 U.S.App. D.C. 264, 269, 364 F.2d 657, 662 (1966) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Commission has the expertise to test the sufficiency of the petition filed, and the opportunity to inquire further from the petitioner and obtain additional information, if necessary, at the time of filing. We confirm that the Ervin Act requires that the Commission must first perform that screening function before a subpoena may issue at the request of the Commission, D.C.Code § 21-503(b), so that it can then examine the person alleged to be mentally ill and hold a hearing as required by the statute. Id. As this case makes evident, the Commission's screening function is a necessary aid in the court's consideration of motions to quash subpoenas for mental examinations. From a due process standpoint, it would add significantly to the procedural safeguards afforded to a person who is the subject of a petition for judicial hospitalization. Comparing the procedures in this case with those involved in the usual civil subpoena, we note, first, that the events triggering issuance of the subpoena in this case were somewhat more substantive than those that initiate the routine civil subpoena, but only minimally so. Civil subpoenas are usually issued as a matter of course upon request. [26] See Davis v. Winfield, 664 A.2d 836, 838-39 (D.C.1995). The preprinted forms used to request the subpoena in this case, with their untested allegations of mental illness made by a lay person, without any professional assessment, provided a scant record upon which the trial judge could conclude ex parte there was reason to believe Mr. Johnson was mentally ill and likely to injure himself or others. Unlike in the routine civil subpoena where a trial court intervenes to determine the validity of a subpoena when the party subpoenaed files a motion to quash, [27] the ex parte finding in this case was not reviewed by any judicial officer, even after Mr. Johnson challenged it, before he was ordered to submit to a psychiatric examination. Mr. Johnson did not have the opportunity to challenge the psychiatric examination as calling for protected matter or imposing an undue burden that he would have had if he had been served with a routine civil subpoena requesting his testimony or documents. In considering whether the procedure followed in this case comports with applicable due process requirements, we must ask what is fundamentally fair under the circumstances, taking into account `the interests at stake and the corresponding rights ... of the respective parties.' Kossow, supra, 393 A.2d at 104 (quoting In re Ballay, 157 U.S.App. D.C. 59, 64, 482 F.2d 648, 653 (1973)). This court in Kossow adopted a balancing of interests analysis in its discussion of Fifth Amendment due process requirements. 393 A.2d at 97. We adopt a similar approach in this case. [28] There is no doubt that the government has an interest, indeed a statutory obligation, to promptly examine a person who is alleged to be mentally ill and likely to injure him or herself or others. Section 21-542 of the Ervin Act is an expression of that governmental interest. The government's interest in the prompt examination of an allegedly mentally ill person pursuant to a private, non-emergency petition for judicial hospitalization under of § 21-541(a)(2), however, is by definition of a lesser order than its interest in hospitalizing a person for observation and diagnosis in the exigent circumstances contemplated under the emergency hospitalization provision of § 21-521. [29] See Kossow, supra, 393 A.2d at 105 (identifying protection of society as the primary objective of the Ervin Act). The governmental interest must be balanced with the privacy and liberty interests of the person who may be compelled to submit to a psychiatric examination. Although a compelled psychiatric examination of relatively short duration [30] is less intrusive than a compelled emergency hospitalization, we recognize that an intrusion of this type, particularly into the rights of a person who is at liberty, is nonetheless significant. [31] It would be unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that in a situation where the government has a lesser interest, it may intrude upon constitutionally-protected rights with virtually no procedural safeguards, when significant safeguards are required where the government has a greater interest, such as in an emergency hospitalization. Some procedural safeguards are required before a psychiatric examination may be compelled, consistent with the government's legitimate interest in an expeditious examination of the person alleged to be mentally ill. [32] In light of the constitutional interests at stake and the assertion of those interests in a challenge to a subpoena ordering a psychiatric examination, we conclude that in the context of a private, non-emergency petition for judicial hospitalization, there must be an opportunity to challenge subpoenas issued pursuant to D.C.Code § 21-503. The trial court has discretion to determine the scope of the hearing, including whether further evidence is required, consistent with constitutional considerations of privacy and liberty and the statutory mandate that the Commission undertake a prompt examination. Given the nature of Mr. Johnson's challenge to the subpoena in this case and the fact that there was no prior Commission screening of Mrs. Johnson's petition, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding the sufficiency of the petition and affidavit submitted in support of his hospitalization. Based on the hearing, the trial court should determine whether the petition is supported by probable cause; [33] if so, the subpoena should stand. Otherwise, it must be quashed. Because Mr. Johnson was held in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena that did not satisfy necessary procedural safeguards, the judgment of contempt is vacated and the case is remanded for a hearing on Mr. Johnson's motion to quash the subpoena. [34] So ordered. KING, Associate Judge, dissenting: It is important to understand that this case arose as a result of long-standing disagreements between a mother and her adult son who was then living with her. On October 9, 1992, as a means of dealing with the problems associated with this relationship, the mother filed a petition for judicial hospitalization of the son pursuant to D.C.Code § 21-541 (1997 Repl.). In seeking this relief the mother was attempting, in essence, to find a way to have her son stop bothering her. Her frustrations are painfully expressed in her statement accompanying the petition, which is quoted in full by Judge Ruiz on page four of the majority opinion. The filing of the petition has been followed by nearly five years of legal wrangling resulting in the majority opinion holding that the son is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question whether the petition is supported by probable cause. Any resolution in favor of the mother in this proceeding, if she is entitled to receive it, is necessarily going to come some time in the future. However, the mother is no longer interested in pursuing the petition because while this matter was pending she found another way to achieve what she has always sought, i.e., the means to keep her son away from her. On May 10, 1994, as she later explained in her remand motion, the mother obtained a civil protection order (CPO) pursuant to D.C.Code § 16-1001 (1997 Repl.) to protect herself and her residence from [her son]. On May 31, 1995, expressing her satisfaction with the relief accorded by the CPO, the mother moved to remand this case to the trial court to permit her to withdraw the petition for judicial hospitalization. She repeated that request in a statement in lieu of a brief filed on the same date. Although a motions panel of this court denied the remand motion, we are free to decide that issue anew. Kleinbart v. United States, 604 A.2d 861 (D.C.1992). In my view we should now grant the mother's request and remand the case to the trial court to allow her to withdraw the petition. Because, as the mother has undoubtedly discovered, the CPO process is less cumbersome than the judicial hospitalization procedure, and because the mother is satisfied with the protection accorded by the CPO, withdrawal of the petition is virtually certain to end the matter. We must keep in mind that we are dealing with people with everyday problems and it is their interests that are at stake here. We should give consideration to those interests instead of reaching out to decide a major constitutional issue because the son's attorney and amicus want us to decide that issue. See ante at 366 n. 13.