ɪn tˈuː θˈaʊzənd wˈʌn, ðə wˈɑːʃɪŋtən stˈeɪt suːpɹˈiːm kˈoːɹt ɹˈuːld ðætðə ɹˈaɪts ʌv tˈuː ɹˈɛzᵻdənts wɜː vˈaɪəleɪɾᵻd bɪkˈʌz dˈʊɹɹɪŋ ðɛɹ kəmˈɪtmənt pɹəsˈiːdɪŋz ðeɪ wɜː nˌɑːt ɐlˈaʊd tə pɹɪzˈɛnt ˈɛvɪdəns ðˌæɾə lˈɛs ɹᵻstɹˈɪktɪv tɹˈiːtmənt ɔːltˈɜːnətˌɪv wʊdhɐv bˌɪn mˈoːɹ ɪfˈɛktɪv ðɐn tˈoʊɾəl kənfˈaɪnmənt.
In 2001, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the rights of two residents were violated because during their commitment proceedings they were not allowed to present evidence that a less restrictive treatment alternative would have been more effective than total confinement.