US v. Curbow: In 2018, Curbow was charged in the Northern District of Mississippi with attempting to damage aircraft after firing a shotgun at military helicopters. During the course of that prosecution, the district court concluded that Curbow was incompetent and ordered him committed to the custody of the Attorney General to determine if his competency could be restored. As a result, he was sent to FMC Butner in North Carolina. Curbow’s competency was never restored and he was eventually civilly committed as a dangerous person.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Curbow’s commitment. Curbow did not challenge the North Carolina court’s determination of dangerousness, but argued that the court lacked the authority to order such commitment because he was no longer in the custody of the Attorney General, as required by the civil commitment statute. That was due to the time periods that ran between the various orders of the court in Mississippi and proceedings in North Carolina. The Fourth Circuit rejected those challenges, ultimately concluding that the proper calculation of the time periods showed that Curbow was in custody at the critical time.
This is a lengthy opinion that spawned two concurrences and is a must read for anyone who deals with civil commitment or has a client who may get caught up in that procedure.
No comments:
Post a Comment