COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Former ISP Trooper Daniel Howard has refused to eat since being in late March. His purported hunger strike poses a number of legal questions, including whether he could be forcibly fed.
A Kootenai County Judge refrained from ordering physical intervention to feed Howard earlier this week as Howard awaits his sentencing in jail. He has lost about 50 pounds since his conviction according to a medical expert’s testimony
University of Idaho Distinguished Professor of Law Richard Seamon explained that force-feeding raises questions relevant to constitutional case law.
“Force-feeding is a very physical, unpleasant experience as far as I can tell…It’s a significant restraint above and beyond the sort of ordinary restrictions of being a prisoner. So it does implicate constitutional rights, really just the right to bodily integrity,” Seamon said.
Because force-feeding is an extraordinary measure beyond what typically occurs in correctional facilities, Seamon says that such an action requires a court order.
“[The prison] is going to have to justify it by showing that the prisoner is in real danger of death,” Seamon said.
Gonzaga University Professor of Law Drew Simshaw explained that while force-feedings have occurred throughout American penal history, such as the forcible feeding of imprisoned suffragettes and civil rights activists, they have drawn significant medical and ethical scrutiny.
“Force-feeding is painful and even dangerous, which has led to condemnation of the practice by several human rights and medical associations, including the World Medical Association. On the other hand, many courts in the US have held that the state has the right to intervene in a hunger strike to prevent death through force-feeding,” Simshaw said.
While the US Court system has handled forcible-feeding cases before, Howard’s case may be the first time that the Idaho legal system has touched on the subject.
“I have not found any cases on the subject in Idaho. So I think it would be a new issue for our courts,” Seamon said.
Both Seamon and Simshaw said that one of the reasons the Kootenai County judge may have refrained from assenting to forcibly-feeding Howard is that the judge is simply waiting to see what happens.
“A lot of times when courts rule on force-feeding, they’ll wait until it’s life threatening. So one reason a judge might not might not order a force-feeding even if they view themselves as having the authority to do so might be that it just hasn’t reached that point yet,” Simshaw said.
Both legal experts stressed that it is difficult to speculate on the reasoning of a judge without being directly privy to the proceedings.
“This is speculation of course but if I were a judge, I would want fairly compelling evidence that there’s a real risk of serious injury or death being imminent before it was done. Because again, force-feedings are an extreme measure, so it’s not undertaken lightly,” Seamon said.
Howard’s sentencing hearing is set for May 23. His attorney claims that he is competent and able to engage with proceedings. It is not clear why the former ISP Trooper is refraining to eat, but the court system has yet to take actions which would compel him to do so.
