USA v. Vocu

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	ORDER
vs. 	)
)
Rode Wayne Vocu, 	) 	Case No. 1:19-cr-086
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendant is charged in a petition with violating his conditions of supervised release. (Doc.
No. 89). On April 4, 2024, he made his initial appearance on the petition and was ordered detained
pending a preliminary hearing and detention hearing on April 9, 2024. (Doc. No. 96). The court
subsequently cancelled the hearing and on April 8, 2024, issued an order releasing Defendant to
Trinity Hospital (“Trinity”) in Minot, North Dakota, for an evaluation and treatment for apparent
mental health issues. (Doc. No. 101). Trinity was apparently unable to treat to Defendant due to
security concerns at its facility and discharged him on April 10, 2024. Consequently, the court
issued an order remanding Defendant back into Marshals Service Custody. 	(Doc. No. 102).
Defendant is currently being housed by at the Ward County Jail.
On April 12, 2024, the United States Marshal’ office contacted the court to request
authorization to forcibly medicate Defendant. According to the United States Marshal, Defendant
has refused to voluntarily take prescribed antipsychotics and has told that medical personnel that he
is “going to wrestle” anyone who tries to administer them.
It is well-established that “the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's
body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty,” thus, triggering the protections
1
Case 1:19-cr-00086-DLH Document 103 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 2

of the Due Process Clause. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990). The person’s liberty
interest “must be balanced against competing state interests to determine whether it is outweighed
by ‘the demands of an organized society.’” Bee v. Greaves, 744 F.2d 1387, 1394 (10th Cir.1984)
(quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 320 (1982)). One competing state interest that may
be sufficient to overcome a detainee’s interest in avoiding unwanted medication without a hearing
is an emergency that threatens the safety and security of detention center occupants. Id. at 1395-96.
The court finds that such an emergency exists here to warrant the medication of Defendant.
Defendant’s behavior previously precipitated the issuance an order for his transport to Trinity by
ambulance for an evaluation and treatment. 	Defendant’s continued behavior that prompted the
instant request from the United States Marshal is disconcerting. 	Defendant is by all accounts
extremely agitated and combative. The United States Marshal’s request is imminently reasonable
under the circumstances. 	Medication of Defendant will permit medical personnel assist in
stabilizing him and otherwise serve to protect medical personnel and detention center staff.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the United States Marshal’s request to medicate Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of April, 2024.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:19-cr-00086-DLH Document 103 Filed 04/12/24 Page 2 of 2