In re Detention of Jeffrey Anderson

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of Jeffrey Anderson’s release-with-supervision status and his placement in the transitional release program at the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders. The court held that the placement did not violate substantive due process, addressing the applicable Iowa Sexually Violent Predators Act provisions and Anderson’s liberty interest. The court also concluded that Anderson preserved his constitutional challenge for appellate review.

Holdings

1. Anderson preserved his due process claims because the constitutional issue was raised during the district court proceedings and the district court's ruling implicitly rejected the argument.
2. Under Iowa Code section 229A.9B, when a committed person released with supervision violates the release plan, the district court may return the person to release with or without supervision, place the person in transitional release, or confine the person in a secure facility; the statute does not require a renewed finding that the person is more likely than not to sexually reoffend before placement in transitional release.
3. Placement in CCUSO's transitional release program after Anderson violated release with supervision did not violate substantive due process.
4. The revocation procedures under Iowa Code section 229A.9B provided Anderson procedural due process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Anderson preserved his substantive and procedural due process challenges to revocation of release with supervision and placement in the transitional release program.
2. Whether Iowa Code section 229A.9B permits a court, after finding a violation of release with supervision, to place the committed person in a transitional release program without again finding that the person is more likely than not to sexually reoffend.
3. Whether the district court's transfer of Anderson to the transitional release program violated substantive due process.
4. Whether the procedures used to revoke release with supervision and select a new placement violated procedural due process.

Disposition

affirmed