Sex Offender Re-Arrest Due Process Deprivation!? Neville v. Toulon

In this video, we discuss the case of Neville v. Toulon, which addresses whether the Sex Offender Monitoring and Treatment Act (SOMTA) constitutionally violates sex offender's due process rights by failing to provide prompt ability to oppose claims they have violated release conditions. A must watch for all prosecutors, parole officers, sex offenders, treatment professionals, family of victims, family of sex offenders, court watchers, court reform advocates, and all who are interested in real civil/criminal cases.

Case Name: Neville v. Toulon
Citation: 2024 NY Slip Op 05178 (https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2024/79.html)
Publication Date: 10/22/24
Oral Argument: https://youtu.be/9OdS2deqD-c?si=66cVUIeRiEeyIMbn
Issue: Does the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA) violate offenders rights to due process by allowing pre-hearing confinement for up to 30 days before allowing the sex offender an adversarial hearing?

Key Parts of the Decision:

Overall Issue: "This appeal requires us to examine whether certain provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 (d) (4) satisfy procedural due process. Those provisions govern the procedure for the temporary confinement of sex offenders adjudicated to have "mental abnormalities"-but released from confinement to strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST)-pending a final SIST revocation hearing. In particular, section 10.11 (d) (4) permits pre-hearing confinement upon a prompt judicial finding of probable cause to believe that the respondent is a "dangerous sex offender requiring confinement."

Overall Holding: "We conclude that the current statutory scheme appropriately balances the relevant individual and state interests and provides sufficient process to mitigate the risk of erroneous confinement without a respondent's participation at the probable cause stage. Thus, we hold that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 (d) (4) is unconstitutional on its face, or as applied to him."

"This appeal concerns the initial step in the process for revoking SIST. "If a parole officer has reasonable cause to believe that" a respondent has violated a SIST condition, or if an "evaluation or report by a treating professional indicat[es] that the person may be a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement," a parole officer may take the violator into custody and transport them to a facility for a psychiatric evaluation, which must take place within five days (id. § 10.11 [d] [1]). Once the violator is taken into custody, DOCCS must "promptly" notify the Attorney General and the Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS), which provides legal representation to article 10 respondents (id.). The Attorney General may then petition for [*2]confinement or a petition to modify the conditions within five days (id. § 10.11 [d] [2]).[FN3] The petition must "be served promptly on the respondent and [MHLS]," and the court must appoint legal counsel to represent the respondent and provide counsel with a copy of the psychiatric evaluation (id. § 10.11 [d] [3]). If the Attorney General files a petition seeking confinement,

"then the court shall promptly review the petition and, based on the allegations in the petition and any accompanying papers, determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. Upon the finding of probable cause, the respondent may be retained in a local correctional facility or a secure treatment facility pending the conclusion of the proceeding."

"The relevant consideration is the nature of that interest, and the degree to which confinement upon a showing of probable cause infringes on it. At the outset, by statute, a respondent's release to SIST is expressly subject to revocation upon a determination that the respondent is a "dangerous sex offender requiring confinement." Moreover, the statute does not contemplate indefinite detention based on the initial probable cause finding. The Mental Hygiene Law provides that a SIST-revocation hearing must take place within 30 days of a confinement petition (id. § 10.11 [d] [4]).[FN7] Thus, we conclude that SIST revocation respondents possess a diminished and temporary physical liberty interest implicated by the court's probable cause determination."

#nycourtofappeals #lawtalk #attorney #lawyer #SOMTA #sex offender #appellate #appeal

Тэги:

#Appeal #Appellate #Attorney #Case_summary #Constitutionality #Due_process #Lawyer #Legal_analysis #Legal_brief #Mental_abnormality #Mental_hygiene_law_article_10 #Mhl_10.11 #New_york_court_of_appeals #Parole #Parole_conditions #Pre-hearing_confinement #SIST #SOMTA #Sex_Offender_Management_and_Treatment_Act #appellate_review #constitutional_challenges #intensive_supervision #legal_representation #mhl_compliance #ny_court_of_appeals #strict_and_intensive_supervision_and_treatment

Скачать видео