State v. P. F.

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a person alleged to have mental illness has a federal due process right to be free from physical restraints during a civil commitment hearing unless the state shows an immediate and serious risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering full restraints based primarily on historical information and a sheriff’s report, and that the error was not harmless. The court reversed the civil commitment judgment and the order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms.

Holdings

1. A person alleged to be mentally ill has a federal due process right to be free from physical restraints during a civil commitment hearing unless the state shows that the person presents an immediate and serious risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering P. F. to remain in full restraints during the civil commitment hearing because the record did not establish an immediate and serious risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior during the hearing.
3. The error was not harmless because requiring full restraints without the required showing violated P. F.'s federal due process right and substantially affected his rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a person alleged to be mentally ill has a federal due process right to appear free from physical restraints during a civil commitment hearing absent a showing of an immediate and serious risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by requiring P. F. to remain in full restraints during the civil commitment hearing.
3. Whether the restraint error was harmless.

Disposition

reversed