Court Opinion

ID: 9796405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:56:50.817432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:12.139406
License: Public Domain

ROSEN, J.,
concurring. I concur with the majority’s conclusion that pre-existing Leavenworth County zoning regulations apply and affirm the district court’s decision enforcing those regulations. My decision is based solely on the appellant’s failure to obtain a special use permit as required by those zoning regulations and not on a finding of irreparable harm as required for injunctive relief. I write separately, not out of any compassion for the plight of sexually violent predators, but because of the absence of any evidence in the record that establishes a probability of irreparable injury to the movant if the injunction is denied.
The majority finds the “uncontroverted evidence that he is likely to reoffend if at large” sufficient to satisfy a probability of irreparable future injury to the movant; the first requirement that must be met when issuing an injunction. This finding is based primarily on an October 19, 2004, report from Lamed State Hospital noting that after 10 years of treatment:
*690“Mr. Hendricks’ mental abnormality cannot be said to have so changed as to fully eliminate his risk of re-offense, it does seem appropriate, given his reduced risk to re-offend based on his age and health concerns, that Mr. Hendricks should probably soon be considered for placement in an assisted living, nursing or other medical care setting which will meet his medical needs and allow him to demonstrate whether or not he can apply the concepts he has learned and the coping plans he has made to the complexities of real-life situations.”
The conclusion that a reduced risk to reoffend is equivalent to “likely to re-offend if at large” is a strained interpretation that results in meeting the high standard required to grant injunctive relief. Further, the Phase 6 transition does not contemplate or suggest that Hendricks will be “at large” at any time. In fact, the placement provides for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week of supervision in which an observer is designated to be physically present or monitor Hendricks at all times. The facility sits on a remote 2 acre lot in rural Leavenworth County. There are alarms on all interior and exterior doors of the facility. Daily activities, such as food preparation, laundry, housekeeping, and hygiene are all supervised and monitored. Hendricks cannot go out onto the porch or patio of the premises without an escort. All television, reading materials, and mail are monitored and screened. There is no computer access.
In addition to these safeguards, Hendricks’ physical condition, as mentioned in the majority opinion, leaves him almost nonambulatory. The record indicates he is now 71 years old and suffers multiple physical impairments. He has diabetes, poor circulation, poor eyesight, and poor hearing. He recently had a stroke and as a result has trouble walking and uses a walker or a cane. Hendricks cannot negotiate the 40-yard gravel driveway leading to and from the facility without falling. The risk of this patient becoming “at large” is almost nonexistent and certainly cannot satisfy a reasonable probability of future injury as required by law.
Given Hendricks’ physical impairment, age, length of treatment and progression in a secure facility and the safeguards in place at tire Phase 6 placement, a finding of irreparable injury under these facts essentially creates a legal impossibility of anyone ever being eligible for Phase 6 transitional care. As the majority points out, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of *691civil commitments under K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq., provided such commitments facilitate mental health treatment for those subject to them. See Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 138 L. Ed. 2d 501, 117 S. Ct. 2072 (1997). Foreclosing the possibility of transitioning out of a secure facility creates permanent confinement for those who fall under the Act. This clearly conflicts with the United States Supreme Court mandate that such placement must facilitate treatment and not merely be a means by which permanent detention is effectuated.
Allegrucci, J., joins the foregoing concurring opinion.