Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Protecting The Inmate's Right To Refuse Antipsychotic Drugs—Harper V. State, 110 Wash. 2d 873, 759 P.2d 358 (1988), Cert. Granted, 109 S. Ct. 1337 (1989), Amanda E. Lee
Washington Law Review
Antipsychotic drugs are used to treat mentally ill inmates in Washington prisons. Previously, inmates who refused drugs were entitled to an administrative hearing before involuntary treatment began. Harper v. State recognized a constitutional liberty interest in refusing antipsychotics, and established new measures, including a judicial hearing, notice, and appointed counsel, to protect the prisoner's interest. A due process analysis of the right to refuse demonstrates that the court's procedures may not go far enough to protect the inmate from unwanted treatment that cannot cure the mental illness and that may cause disabling side effects. Clearer definitions of state interests in …
The Stop And Frisk Doctrine In Washington And The Rise And Fall Of Independent State Constitutional Analysis, Kurt Walters
The Stop And Frisk Doctrine In Washington And The Rise And Fall Of Independent State Constitutional Analysis, Kurt Walters
Washington Law Review
As the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope and intensity limits of the stop and frisk doctrine, the Washington Supreme Court, in 1984, applied independent state constitutional analysis and held that article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution provides greater privacy protection in stop and frisk cases than the United States Constitution. Since then, however, the Washington court has abandoned its reliance on article I, section 7 in the stop and frisk context. This Comment examines this transition and concludes that the federal stop and frisk doctrine may not adequately protect fundamental privacy rights, and that the …