Sexually violent offenders

Rational basis exists for different standards of review under California law for civilly committed sexually violent offenders and other civilly committed persons, so that such difference does not violate equal protection clause of 14th amendment

Seeboth v. Allenby, 2015 WL 3772754 (9th Cir. 2015)

Cliff Allenby, a sex offender civilly committed under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”), filed a habeas petition claiming that the absence of a recommitment trial timing provision in the SVPA was a violation of equal protection. Under California law, other civilly committed persons—specifically mentally disordered offenders and those found not guilty by reason of insanity—have a statutory right to a recommitment trial within a defined period of time. The state and district courts denied the petition, holding that sexually violent predators are not “similarly situated” to other groups of civilly committed offenders for the purpose of an equal protection challenge to the lack of a timing provision in the SVPA.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that it was neither objectively unreasonable nor contrary to clearly established federal law for the state courts to hold that the lack of a recommitment trial timing provision in the SVPA was not an equal protection violation. The Court held that the use of the rational basis test was reasonable, and that the state legislature had a rational reason to “distinguish between individuals who have been found to be mentally ill and dangerous and individuals who have been found to be mentally ill and sexually dangerous” (emphasis in original).

Found in DMHL Volume 34 Issue 2