UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KAYLAN JAY BELL
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Traxler, March 12, 2018,
Sexually Dangerous Person – Civil Commitment – An individual does not need to successfully engage in a “hands-on child molestation offense” in order to be considered a sexually dangerous person

Facts:
In 1999, while he was 14, Bell sexually molested his 6-year-old brother. Bell was convicted. At 16, Bell once again sexually molested his brother as well as a 6-year-old cousin.
In 2003, Bell exposed his penis and masturbated in front of a group of 12-year-old boys in a locker room.
In 2004, Bell masturbated in front of an elementary school within 15 feet of a group of children.
Later in 2004, Bell approached two young boys, masturbated in front of them, and requested that they play with his penis. He was convicted of attempted sodomy. In prison, he admitted to therapists that his urges were very strong and that he has violent fantasies, including one in which he “concludes sex with a child by slitting the child’s throat as he orgasms.”
In 2009, Bell was released from prison and almost immediately followed a young boy home to try to have sex with him.
In 2010, Bell was imprisoned for failure to register as a sex offender.
In 2013, Bell was released and admitted to his probation officer that he was masturbating in public bathrooms to fantasies about young boys that he had seen in the community. Bell also failed to comply with many of the other conditions of probation and was incarcerated once again.
In 2015, Bell was released. He skipped his meeting with a probation officer and went to a nearby park. Bell exposed his penis to two children, ages 11 and 13, began masturbating, and, with his penis in one hand, Bell opened his wallet, showed the boys money, and asked them to come over to him. When the boys refused, Bell moved closer. The boys threw rocks at Bell. Bell continued towards them, picked up a stick, and threatened to sodomize the boys with it. Bell left when an adult intervened, but was apprehended nearby.
Bell was imprisoned once again.
After this incident, a psychologist who had treated Bell changed her mind that Bell was not sexually dangerous.
Prior to release, the government initiated civil commitment proceedings against Bell as a “sexually dangerous person.”
After a District Court hearing in which both sides presented experts, Bell was committed.
Bell appealed, arguing that because he hadn’t actually touched a child since he was 14, he was not sexually dangerous.

Held: The 4th Circuit disagreed, holding that a person can be sexually dangerous based on a threat and that actual contact was not required.

Under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, the government may certify a person as a sexually dangerous person if they:
(1) are in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons;
(2) have been committed to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to section 4241(d);
or (3) have had all criminal charges dismissed against them solely for reasons relating to their mental condition.

Sexually Dangerous Person – Civil Commitment– To commit someone as sexually dangerous, the government must show that the person:
(1) has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation,
(2) suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder, and
(3) as a result, would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.

Sexually Dangerous Person – The “serious difficulty” inquiry refers to the degree of the person’s impairment which impacts his ability to refrain from acting upon his “deviant sexual interests.”

Sexually Dangerous Person – Consideration of the inmate’s criminal record is a critical part of the analysis, but the core question is whether there is evidence of an “ongoing volitional impairment” that renders the person sexually dangerous to others.

Sexually Dangerous Person – In addition to criminal record, a number of other factors are also considered such as: the offender’s age, his actuarial test scores, his participation in treatment, his commitment to controlling his deviant behavior, and his ability to control
his impulses. The individual’s resistance to treatment, continuing “deviant sexual thoughts,” and “cognitive distortions and thinking errors about the appropriateness of children as sexual partners” are also relevant.

Sexually Dangerous Person – A person does not have to commit a “hands-on child molestation or sexually violent offense as an adult” for there to be proof that he would have serious difficulty refraining from doing so if released from custody

From the Case: There is “no question that the government has presented clear and convincing evidence of Bell’s ongoing volitional impairment. Bell has demonstrated an inability to refrain from acting upon his deviant sexual interests time and time again.”

From the Case: The district court properly evaluated the totality of Bell’s diagnoses, his prior sexual offenses, and the other notable and numerous indicators of his lack of volitional control, and reached the reasonable conclusion, based upon the clear and convincing evidence, that Bell was sexually dangerous to children and should not be released from custody.