PA: Fourth Amendment applies to mental commitment proceedings

The Fourth Amendment applies in mental commitment proceedings, and there must be probable cause for the seizure of the person the state seeks to commit. The fact that the criminal rules don’t apply to these proceedings does not mean that the constitution doesn’t. Commonwealth v. Fleet, 2015 PA Super 81, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 183 (April 16, 2015) (dissent):

At the outset, we find no support for the trial court’s notion that persons subjected to involuntary civil commitments are not entitled to the constitutional protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8. The trial court is correct that civil commitment proceedings are not “to be based on criminal standards and procedures.” In re J.M., 726 A.2d 1041, 1046 (Pa. 1999); see Trial Court Opinion, 5/12/14, at 7. This relates solely to the burden of proof required at an involuntary civil commitment proceeding, and does not mean that simply because the person

is subject to a 302 warrant he or she therefore is not afforded constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by police. These protections apply to all citizens, regardless of their status, when police or other government entities are involved. See U.S. CONST. amend. IV (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”); PA. CONST. art. I, 8 (“The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.”) (emphasis added); see also Soldal v. Cook Cnty., Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 67 (1992) (“the [Fourth] Amendment’s protectionapplies in the civil context as well [as the criminal context]”).

It is an intrusion by the government, not the status of the citizen, that triggers protection and inquiry into the reasonableness of the intrusion. “The Fourth Amendment and Article I, 8 have long been interpreted to protect the people from unreasonable government intrusions into their privacy. The reasonableness of a governmental intrusion varies with the degree of privacy legitimately expected and the nature of the governmental intrusion.” Commonwealth. v. McCree, 924 A.2d 621, 626 (Pa. 2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.