Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Detention of Strand

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 2009No. 80570-9Published

1DissentSanders, J.

¶24 (dissenting) — The majority claims the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, chapter 71.09 RCW, “authorizes a prefiling psychological examination,” majority at 187; however John Strand is not entitled to representation at his examination notwithstanding former RCW 71.09.050 (1995), which guarantees the right to an attorney “[a]t all stages of the proceedings under this chapter . . . .”

¶25 The majority opines, in circular fashion, there is no right to a voluntariness hearing in a “voluntary prefiling psychological interview.” Majority at 192. And because this is a “civil” incarceration,…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Vitek v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Jackson v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API