Defense urges medical-privacy protection for Aaron Nixon; state says department must have records to oversee release

The Washington Supreme Court heard argument on a motion for discretionary review in State v. Aaron Nixon, Case No. 61462-6, focused on whether a person committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) must surrender all medical records while residing in a less-restrictive alternative (LRA).

Monique Mistry, counsel for Mr. Nixon, told the court that a statutory provision cited in the transcript (referred to by counsel as ‘‘subsection 1’’) prevents a committed person from forfeiting legal rights except where the legislature has specifically provided otherwise. "Given this clear and forceful language, Mr. Nixon retains his right to medical privacy unless the state can show that the legislature specifically provided otherwise, and the state cannot make this showing," Mistry said, arguing the state and amicus failed to address that subsection and instead relied on a different provision.

Elise Constantine, arguing for the respondent (the State of Washington), said the statutory scheme governing commitment and conditional release gives the department broad authority to oversee treatment and to receive records necessary for that oversight. "The department must have access to all of Nixon's medical records for the duration of his commitment," Constantine said, arguing that access is necessary for the department to develop discharge plans, monitor compliance, and protect the community.

The parties disputed whether recordkeeping language in the statutes and related agency rules (cited in argument) authorizes a blanket compelled disclosure of all medical records while a committed person lives in the community. Mistry urged narrower, case‑specific remedies—requests by the transition team, targeted releases for particular conditions relevant to compliance, subpoenas, or court orders when justified—rather than an order requiring production of every medical record. She described multiple supervisory tools already in place at the Secure Community Transition Facility (SCTF): the resident is accompanied to appointments by SCTF staff who can report back; outings are preapproved and monitored; GPS monitoring is used; drug testing and annual reviews are available.

Constantine countered that the department and the trial court require timely, comprehensive medical information to assess ongoing risk, ensure continuity of care, and respond if a person must be returned to confinement. She argued that limiting disclosure to records that the department already knows exist would force the state to disprove a negative and would undermine oversight. The state cited precedents (referred to in argument as "Lee" and "Olsen") to support the trial court's authority to impose search- and monitoring-related conditions as part of supervision.

During the argument the court asked several clarifying questions about whether a committed person's legal status changes between confinement at the Special Commitment Center (McNeil Island) and residence in an LRA; both sides agreed the status of being committed remains, but disputed the scope of privacy rights and the practical effect of agency rules in community settings.

The court took the motion for discretionary review under advisement and said it would issue a written ruling. No vote or final decision was announced at argument.

Next step: the court will circulate a written ruling on the motion for discretionary review.