HARRY HUGHES, Governor

2691

In subsection (a)(1) of this section, the former
determination by the State's Attorney that "further action
by the court is not necessary" is deleted in light of the
initial determination as to whether there is a factual basis
to the complaint of a violation.

Throughout this section, the Task Force has recommended
major change by providing that, unless the committed
individual proves that he or she is no longer dangerous,
revocation of a conditional release is dependent only on
establishing that the conditional release has been violated.
Formerly, the revocation required the State to establish the
former criteria for initial commitment again -- that the
individual had a mental disorder or mental retardation and,
as a result of the mental disorder or retardation, was
dangerous to self or the person or property of others.

In subsection (c)(5) of this section, the phrase
"Department's designation of the facility to receive the
returned committed individual" is substituted for the former
phrase "the facility...that examined and evaluated the
individual" on the advice of the Department that the court
needs this information and that the former phrase only
duplicated information already in the evaluation report
required under (c)(4).

In subsection (d)(2) of this section, the State's Attorney
is included as one of those to receive notice of a no
probable cause determination.

In subsection (e)(2)(v) of this section, the hearing officer
of the Department is added for clarity and the provision
that notice to the counsel of record is "for information
purposes only" is deleted.

In subsection (f) of this section, a change is made in the
time the hearing on revocation of conditional release is
held to be 10 days after the committed individual is
returned. The former time frame required a hearing within 5
days which has in practice proved impractical.

Also in subsection (f) of this section, another major change
is that the hearing will be an administrative hearing before
a hearing officer of the Department, with review by the
court, rather than a hearing in court as formerly provided.
This change is for the sake of practicality and speeding the
implementation of this procedure.

In subsection (g)(3) of this section, the burden of proof on
the State to prove a violation of conditional release is
changed to a preponderance of the evidence rather than the
former degree of clear and convincing evidence. The burden
of proof on the committed individual to prove eligibility
for conditional release remains a preponderance of the
evidence.