## Facts

- North Carolina law allowed emergency involuntary confinement upon a sworn petition alleging a person was probably mentally ill or an inebriate and imminently dangerous to self or others.
- Roy Kirk French, III was confined after his mother filed such a petition and an assistant clerk of superior court found reasonable grounds to believe the allegations.
- Following the custody order, French received prompt medical evaluation; the statutory scheme required medical examinations by two physicians within 96 hours and permitted release if criteria were not met.
- The statute required a probable cause hearing within 10 days and required at least two days’ notice of the hearing with pertinent information; the respondent’s presence could be waived by counsel.
- French was confined for nine days and released when medical personnel determined he no longer met the “imminent danger” criterion.
- French had been subjected to the same statutory process on two occasions.
- French sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the clerk in his official capacity, asserting the commitment statute was unconstitutional on its face; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment before a three-judge district court.

## Issues

1. Whether permitting up to 10 days before a probable cause hearing after emergency civil confinement violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process requirements.
2. Whether the statute’s notice provisions for the probable cause hearing are constitutionally inadequate.
3. Whether allowing counsel to waive the respondent’s presence at the hearing violates due process.
4. Whether the absence of explicit warnings or procedures concerning the privilege against self-incrimination renders the commitment process unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged involuntary commitment procedures.
- The court granted summary judgment for the defendant and denied French’s motion.
- The court held that, evaluated as a whole, the statutory safeguards satisfied due process.
- The court concluded that a 10-day maximum for a probable cause hearing was permissible given prior judicial screening, medical examinations, and authority for early discharge.
- The court found the notice requirements adequate in light of the minimum two-day notice, required content, and access to counsel.
- The court held that counsel’s ability to waive the respondent’s presence did not violate due process because the right to be present was not absolute in this civil setting and counsel could protect the respondent’s interests.
- The court rejected the argument that civil commitment proceedings required criminal-style self-incrimination warnings, emphasizing the proceedings’ civil character and existing protections such as counsel and structured hearings.

## Legal Principles

- Due process challenges to civil commitment procedures are assessed by considering the combined procedural protections, not a single feature in isolation.
- A state may permit a period of confinement before a probable cause hearing when the scheme includes prompt judicial screening, timely medical evaluation, and a mechanism for immediate release if statutory criteria are unmet.
- Notice for civil commitment hearings satisfies due process when it is timely, conveys the nature and logistics of the hearing, and is coupled with representation by counsel.
- In civil commitment proceedings, the respondent’s presence may be waivable by counsel without violating due process if the respondent’s interests remain protected through representation.
- Criminal-procedure warnings are not automatically required in civil commitment proceedings; due process may be satisfied through counsel, medical evidence requirements, and hearing procedures.

## Conclusion

The three-judge district court held that North Carolina’s emergency involuntary commitment framework, including a probable cause hearing within 10 days and related notice, counsel, medical-examination, and early-release safeguards, satisfied Fourteenth Amendment due process and was not unconstitutional on its face.


French v. Blackburn, 428 F. Supp. 1351 (M.D.N.C. 1977)