holding that the Minnesota act comports with Hendriclcs because it "requires a finding of future dangerousness, and then links that finding to the existence of a 'mental abnormality’ or personality disorder’ that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the person to control his dangerous behavior"
How later courts described this case
- holding that the Minnesota act comports with Hendriclcs because it "requires a finding of future dangerousness, and then links that finding to the existence of a 'mental abnormality’ or personality disorder’ that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the person to control his dangerous behavior"
- holding that record supported finding that offender lacked adequate control over his sexually harmful behavior when he showed continuing sexual attraction to young females, refused to participate in offered substance abuse treatment, and acted aggressively toward staff while confined
- explaining that “freedom from physical restraint has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause” and the State has “a compelling interest in ... *26 protecting the public from sexual violence” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- concluding that because Minnesota SVPA requires findings of future dangerousness and present disorder or dysfunction that makes it highly likely that individual will recidivate, statute meets Hendricks’ requirements of some volitional impairment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by In Re Detention of Thorell, 72 P.3d 708 (2003)
In addition, the no-separate-element reasoning endorsed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in In re Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867 (Minn.1999) (Linehan IV) opinion, and by the majority here, has been called into question by subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
The opinion
PAUL H. ANDERSON, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I join in the concurrence and dissent of Justice Lancaster.