In Re The Detention Of: A.c.p., Resp. v. State Of Washington, App. ( 2015 )

2015 SEP Iit Ad £2'
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Detention of No. 72108-9-1
A.C.P. DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: September 14, 2015
Leach, J. — The State appeals the trial court's dismissal of a 14-day
involuntary treatment petition for A.C.P. because a mental health professional did
not examine A.C.P. within three hours, as required by RCW 71.05.153. After the
parties submitted briefing to this court, the legislature amended this statute to
provide that dismissal of a commitment petition is not an appropriate remedy for
violations of the statute's time requirements, except where the treating facility
staff or mental health professional totally disregard the requirements. As a result,
this moot case no longer presents any issue of substantial importance. We
dismiss it.
FACTS
Police detained A.C.P. on May 3, 2014, and brought him to Harborview
Medical Center's emergency room. No mental health professional evaluated him
within three hours, as required by statute. A.C.P. moved to dismiss the State's
petition for A.C.P.'s involuntary commitment because of Harborview's failure to
NO. 72108-9-1/2
comply with the time requirements of RCW 71.05.153. The trial court decided
that Harborview's violation of these time requirements required dismissal of the
State's petition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court does not review moot issues on appeal if the court cannot
provide effective relief unless the appeal involves matters of continuing and
substantial public interest.1
ANALYSIS
The State agrees that this case is moot. The 14-day detention period it
requested expired long ago. The legislature's recent amendment of RCW
71.05.1532 resolves the legal issue it presented, the appropriate remedy for
violation of a statutory deadline for evaluation or a commitment decision. The
State now asks that we decide if Harborview totally disregarded the time
requirements of RCW 71.05.153. It asserts that this will provide guidance in
future cases applying the new statutory test for dismissal.
The trial court made no findings on the factual issue the State claims we
should review. This court does not weigh evidence presented below and make
1 State v. Hunlev, 175 Wash. 2d 901, 907-08, 287 P.3d 584 (2012).
2 Engrossed Second Substitute S.B. 5649, 64th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash.
2015).
-2-
NO. 72108-9-1/3
findings.3 We decline to issue an advisory opinion on the particular facts of this
case on an issue not ripe for review.4
CONCLUSION
Because this case does not meet the criteria for review in a moot case, we
dismiss it.
WE CONCUR:
JA £ e<4 /v*> 6—j ^ tO K
3 Bale v. Allison, 173 Wash. App. 435, 458, 294 P.3d 789 (2013) (quoting
Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc., 153 Wash. App. 710, 717, 225 P.3d 266
(2009)).
4 To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144 Wash. 2d 403, 416, 27 P.3d 1149
(2001).