Expungement Due Process Claims Must Be Timely Raised

J.M.Y. aspired to be a law enforcement officer. However, he was barred by Pennsylvania law and federal law from having a gun due to his involuntary commitment. J.M.Y. tried to have this commitment expunged, but a legal battle ensued.

In fall of 2012, University of Pittsburgh student, J.M.Y., was on campus after attending a fraternity party. He encountered University of Pittsburgh Police after they were dispatched on a call about an “intoxicated individual attempting to harm himself.” The officers pursued J.M.Y. after he refused to stop. One of the officers recalled J.M.Y. “appeared to be intoxicated, had sustained superficial cuts to his arm and wrist area, and that other officers found a small knife attached to a money clip on the ground.” J.M.Y. was admitted to  Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (“WPIC”) on an involuntary hold after the treating physician deemed him “severely mentally disabled and in need of emergency treatment.” An application was then filed for extended involuntary emergency treatment.

Under Pennsylvania Law, an Involuntary Emergency Examination by a physician hold is only supposed to last a maximum of 120 hours unless: the patient is admitted to voluntary treatment or a certification for extended involuntary emergency treatment is filed. If the patient needs treatment past 120 hours, the physician may file an application with the court of common pleas for extended involuntary emergency treatment under Section 303(a) of the MHPA. This statute requires a hearing be held on the application before a mental health review officer or a judge at the facility in which the involuntarily committed person is being housed within 24 hours of the application having been filed. Additionally, counsel is supposed to be appointed to represent the person.

At his expungement hearing, the record was inconclusive on whether the hearing procedures were followed, including providing counsel and whether J.M.Y. was even present at the hearing.

In November of 2014, J.M.Y. filed a “Petition to Vacate and Expunge Involuntary Civil Commitment.” He claimed the involuntary commitment was unlawful. Specifically, J.M.Y. alleged the commitment was “not supported by adequate medical findings, and that he was denied his procedural due process rights because he was not afforded a hearing before being involuntarily committed.” After his Expungement Petition was initially denied at the trial court level, the Superior Court affirmed denial of the petition. Then, sitting en banc, the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s denial, granting the petition. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania then took the case to decide “whether the Superior Court erred by exercising jurisdiction over Appellee’s petition to vacate and review an involuntary commitment under Section 303 when no timely appeal was previously filed.”

The Supreme Court concluded J.M.Y. “had 30 days from the date of the mental health review officer’s Certification to petition the court of common pleas for review of any due process or other challenges to the Certification.” As J.M.Y. filed his petition two years later, the lower courts did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claims. The court reversed the Superior Court’s decision and dismissed the petition.

In essence, the court rejected the assertion that due process or fundamental fairness claims could be raised at any time under a Section 303 commitment. These claims were still subject to an appellate time bar.

We wonder if J.M.Y. might have been able to avoid the waiver argument if he had shown that his mental health was such that he could not make a knowing intelligent and voluntary waiver at the time? The argument still holds that even if he was mentally incapacitated at the time, but proper procedures were not followed, expungement would be a just result.

If you have questions about expungements, contact us today to see what options you have.