## Facts

- Kansas sought to civilly commit Michael T. Crane after completion of his prison term under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA).
- The State relied on expert testimony and diagnoses including exhibitionism and antisocial personality disorder to show a likelihood of future sexually violent conduct.
- A Kansas trial court ordered Crane’s civil commitment under the SVPA.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, reading prior precedent to require a finding that the defendant could not control his dangerous behavior and concluding the trial court made no such finding.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review to clarify the constitutionally required degree of “lack of control” for SVP commitments.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires a specific finding of total or complete inability to control dangerous behavior before civil commitment as a sexually violent predator.
2. Whether due process nonetheless requires some determination that a mental abnormality or personality disorder causes impaired behavioral control beyond mere dangerousness.

## Decision

- The Court held that the Constitution does not require a finding of total or complete lack of control.
- The Court held that due process requires a “lack-of-control” determination for SVP commitment.
- The required showing is “proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior.”
- The Court vacated the Kansas Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this standard.

## Legal Principles

- Civil commitment of sexually violent predators must rest on more than past crimes and a prediction of dangerousness; it must include a constitutionally meaningful showing of impaired control tied to a mental abnormality or personality disorder.
- Due process does not demand an absolute or total loss of control; the constitutional threshold is satisfied by proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior.
- The “lack of control” requirement functions to distinguish persons eligible for civil commitment from ordinary criminals and to prevent civil commitment from operating as a punitive extension of incarceration.

## Conclusion

The Court clarified that SVP civil commitment is constitutional only if the State proves the offender has serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder, while rejecting any requirement of a total or complete inability to control conduct.


Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002)