Brief Summary of Selected Commitment Tele-Court Cases
| Court Case | State | Holding |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. Baker, 45 F.3d 837 (4th Cir. 1995)17 | North Carolina (federal case) | The commitment tele-hearing did not violate the rights of a federal prisoner facing involuntary commitment. |
| In re the Mental Health of LK (Mont. 2008)18 | Montana | The use of microphone muting in involuntary civil commitment was permitted due to disruptive behavior. |
| In re G.N., 230 Or. App. 249 (Or. Ct. App. 2009)16 | Oregon | Appellate court ruled that lower court abused discretion in denying respondent's request to be physically present without providing a justification. |
| Shellman v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. 2012)19 | Virginia | Teleconferencing did not undermine constitutional or statutory rights in the civil commitment of a sexually violent predator. |
| Doe v. State of Florida (Fla. 2017)15 | Florida | Civil commitment hearings can only be held virtually if the respondent approves. |
| People v. Thomas (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)20 | California | Failure to object preemptively to videoconferencing forfeits the claim that its use violated rights. |