True, Application of

• Decision Date: 26 May 1982
• Docket Number: No. 13207,13207
• Citation: 103 Idaho 151,645 P.2d 891
• Parties: , 29 A.L.R.4th 366 In the Matter of the Application of Helen TRUE for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Helen TRUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 891

645 P.2d 891

103 Idaho 151, 29 A.L.R.4th 366

In the Matter of the Application of Helen TRUE for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Helen TRUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Respondents.

No. 13207.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

May 26, 1982.

Michael H. Hinman and Russell E. Webb, Idaho Falls, for appellant

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Boise, K. Randall Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Idaho Falls, for respondents.

McFADDEN, Justice.

ON REHEARING

The previous opinion in this case is hereby withdrawn; the following opinion is substituted in lieu thereof.

Helen True appeals from an order entered by the district court quashing a writ of habeas corpus. The return on the writ of habeas corpus discloses that the appellant is a patient at State Hospital South in the custody of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare pursuant to a judicial hospitalization order dated December 30, 1971. It is undisputed that at some point in time following the appellant's being placed in the custody of the department she was placed on conditional release (outpatient) status, but was then summarily returned to State Hospital South for rehospitalization on August 22, 1974.

The appellant subsequently instituted the instant habeas corpus proceedings on August 31, 1978, challenging the constitutionality of her rehospitalization. The issue before us is whether due process principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), ¹ dictate that a patient committed to the custody of the Department of Health and Welfare but who has been conditionally released from institutional hospitalization must be afforded written notice and a hearing prior to the revocation of his conditional release status.

At the time the appellant was rehospitalized, then in effect I.C. §§ 66-338 and 339 (1974), ² governed the conditional release of those persons committed to the custody of the Department of Health and Welfare. I.C. § 66-338(a) (1974) authorized the director of the department or his designated representative to "release an improved patient on the condition that he receive outpatient treatment or on such other reasonable conditions as may be specified." However, an improved patient's conditional release status could be revoked in two situations. First, a conditionally released patient could be immediately rehospitalized in the event the patient had failed to fulfill the conditions of his release and the director of the department or his designated representative "ha(d) reason to believe that conditions justifying hospitalization continue(d) to exist." I.C. § 66-338(b) (1974). Second, the director of the department or his designated representative could order the immediate rehospitalization of a conditionally released patient in the event it was reported "by any two (2) persons who are either licensed physicians health officers, designated examiners or peace officers, the prosecuting attorney or a judge of a court ... (that the patient) ha(d) relapsed and (was) again in need of hospitalization. I.C. § 66-339 (1974). Inherent to both situations was a determination that the conditions warranting hospitalization of the patient in the first instance were again present, i.e., the patient was mentally ill or mentally retarded and because of his ailment was likely to injure himself or others. See I.C. § 66-329(i)(1), (2) (1974). In both situations the order of rehospitalization was ex parte, and when indorsed by a judge authorized the immediate detention of the patient. I.C. §§ 66-338(b) and 339 (1974).

The Department of Health and Welfare argues that the summary procedure for revocation of an improved patient's conditional release status contained in I.C. §§ 66-338(b) and 339 (1974) withstands due process scrutiny on the dual grounds that: (1) the state's interest in protecting society from the patient and the patient from himself by way of proper, uninterrupted treatment outweighs any deprivation to the patient when he is rehospitalized; and (2) the provision for post-rehospitalization judicial review contained in I.C. § 66-340 (1974), in addition to matters which might be brought to the court's attention by way of habeas corpus (I.C. § 66-347) provides adequate safeguards against arbitrary state action. Underlying the argument is the view that the decision to rehospitalize a patient who has been conditionally released from the custody of the Department of Health and Welfare is predominantly a medical determination; a determination which should not be unduly interfered with by the judiciary.

A careful and thorough review of the applicable propositions of law and relevant case law, however, inescapably lead us to the conclusion that a patient who has been conditionally released from institutional hospitalization possesses a liberty interest which is entitled to due process safeguards. While the entire panoply of procedures outlined in Morrissey are not appropriate in this context, we are of the opinion that at a minimum the following procedures are constitutionally mandated: (1) prompt written notice; and (2) a revocation hearing before a neutral hearing body to be held as soon as is reasonably possible following the patient's rehospitalization. Insofar as the language of I.C. §§ 66-338(b) and 339 (1974) exclude the necessity of notice and a hearing, they fail to pass constitutional scrutiny.

I

The United States Supreme Court has settled on a two-step analysis in determining the dictates of due process: (1) is the specific interest threatened by government action within the contemplation of the liberty or property language of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) assuming the existence of such an interest, what process is due. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). The initial determination of whether an individual is entitled to any procedural protection involves an examination of the extent to which the person "will be 'condemned to suffer grievous loss.' (citations omitted)," (Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. at 481, 92 S.Ct. at 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d at 494), by the allegedly arbitrary action of the state. This determination necessarily entails inquiring whether the asserted interest being threatened by state action is within the scope of the liberty or property language of the Fourteenth Amendment. Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 370-71, 92 S.Ct. at 2705-06, 33 L.Ed.2d at 557. As to the nature of this inquiry, one commentator has observed:

"Determining the existence of these new entitlements depended on construction of the relevant statutes, and of the pertinent understandings between government and individuals, rather than on any balancing of interests; the existence of an entitlement turned not on 'the weight but (on) the nature of the interest at stake.' The Court appears, therefore, to have placed great emphasis both on making it possible for those who deal with the government in any way to rely on any clearly announced rules, and also on reducing the helplessness of persons who are in a dependent relationship to government with respect to basic needs. As to the latter in particular, the Court has evidently sought to assure that government decisions about needs are reasonably accurate and that individuals have a personal chance to be heard when vital necessities are at stake. Moreover, the Court appears to have proceeded on the premise that, when a reduction in helplessness requires participation in hearings, the cost in dollars cannot be accepted as a sufficient reason to proceed by discretionary choice, since due process will always involve administrative burdens of that sort." Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 10-9, at 515-16 (1978).

"(O)nce it is determined that due process applies, the question remains what process is due." Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. at 481, 92 S.Ct. at 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d at 494. As to this question, the court has stressed that "(t)he very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures applicable to every imaginable situation." Id., quoting Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Local 473 v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961). Additionally, the court has insisted that the procedures needed will vary according to specific factual contexts, since "not all situations calling for procedural safeguards, call for the same kind of procedure." Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. at 481, 92 S.Ct. at 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d at 494. In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902-03, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 32-33 (1976), the court announced a general formula for the determination of what process is due:

"(O)ur prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."

In summary, the approach is utilitarian, requiring a preliminary showing that the asserted interest is a cognizable interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, and then requiring a balancing of the relative interests of the individual and the state. The foregoing approach has been adhered to by this court in numerous cases. See, e.g., Bowler v. Board of Trustees of School Dist. No. 392, 101 Idaho 537, 617 P.2d 841 (1980); Jones v. State Board...