A man's statement that he wanted to bring the police chief "to justice" is not enough to have him involuntarily committed and medicated the state Court of Appeals ruled this week.
"Bob' was arrested in February, 2023, after allegedly saying he wanted to bring the police chief "to justice," according to the decision by Appellate Judge Thomas Hruz.
Bob was charged with making a threat to a law enforcement officer, a felony.
While in jail, Bob was placed on suicide watch, and during a second crisis assessment, told a case manager that he still wanted to bring the police chief to justice.
Dr. Jeffrey Marcus, a psychiatrist, testified at a commitment hearing that Bob suffered from and unspecified psychotic disorder, Hruz wrote in overturning St. Croix County Judge R. Michael Waterman.
"Marcus stated that he did not hear Bob make a specific homicidal threat, that Bob did not make suicidal statements during the evaluation, and that Bob denied having homicidal intentions," Hruz said.
Waterman eventually ordered Bob to be involuntarily committed for six months and said he could be involuntarily medicated.
The circuit judge noted that testimony in the case was "somewhat vagiue" and said Marcus "based his opinion of dangerousness on information in the criminal complaint and other secondary sources, and, 'with that context, bringing the chief to justice takes on a whole different meaning, one that is much more dark and sinister, and one that I think would reasonably bring ordinary individuals to fear for their safety.' ”
Relying so heavily on Marcus was not enough to commit Bob, Hruz said.
The relevant standard of dangerousness to oneself or others, a requisite for involuntary commitment, is evidence of "a recent overt act, attempt or threat to do serious physical harm."
"At no point does Marcus specify what occurred during these incidents" referenced in the criminal complaint, Hruz said.
The complaint also was not entered into evidence during the final hearing or made part of the appellate record, Hruz said. There also is nothing in the record showing that that it was adjudicated as "true and accurate."
"There is no reference to a trial having occurred, to Bob having been convicted in connection with the complaint, or to any type of evidentiary hearing involving the allegations in the complaint. Accordingly, we question the propriety of relying on such allegations even had the complaint been properly included in the record,'" he wrote.
Despite those shortcomings, St. Croix County still argued that "Bob’s statement 'bringing the chief to justice' was a threat and, impliedly, was a threat to do serious physical harm," Hruz said.
He rejected that argument, adding in a footnote: "The county does not provide any basis for this argument other than the mere statement itself."
"Bob argues — and we agree — that without any context, 'bringing the chief to justice' can mean a litany of different, non-threatening things such as 'writing a scathing op-ed, orchestrating a negative social media campaign, speaking at a government meeting, or presenting evidence of wrongdoing to the proper officials," Hruz said.
Comments