In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Andre Brigham Young, Petitioner. in the Matter of the Detention of Andre…

Summary

The court upheld the sexually violent predator statute against challenges that it was criminal in nature, violated ex post facto and double-jeopardy protections, or denied substantive and procedural due process. It held that the statute requires proof of a mental disorder and dangerousness, but construed it to require a recent overt act when the person was living in the community before filing; because Cunningham lacked such proof, his commitment was reversed, while Young's determination was affirmed and remanded for consideration of less restrictive alternatives. Justice Johnson, dissenting, would have held the statute unconstitutional because it authorizes indefinite preventive detention of persons who are not mentally ill and imposes punitive consequences.