to post bail, but this issue is neither timely raised nor relevant. The question presented is not whether it was lawful to detain Weiss before he was found incompetent, but rather whether some period of detention was lawful after that finding was made. The answer to this question requires a balancing of the individual’s interests in liberty against the government’s interests. Although individuals have rights to liberty, the government has legitimate interests in bringing accused persons to trial and protecting the public from arrested persons who present a demonstrable threat to the community. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 749-50, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1987). See also Born v. Thompson, 117 Wn. App. 57, 69 P.3d 343 (2003), review granted, 150 Wn.2d 1025 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Where a time period for treatment is not
holding that the legislatures intentions in adopting 14day restoration provisions include 1 restora tion for purposes of prosecution 2 protecting the public through its police powers and 3 providing the accused with access to treatment as an alternative to incarceration holding in an inverse condemnation case that the abutting landowners right of direct access was subservient to the city of portlands proper exercise of its governmental powers for purposes of public safety and convenience and that the elimination of access from the landowners property to the affected street did not constitute a taking holding that in reviewing the petition the court is to weigh the policy of public access to records against the longstanding public policy of providing a second chance to criminal defendants who have not been adjudicated guilty holding that  841bls mandatory minimum provisions were rationally related to the objectives of protecting public health and welfare holding that states grant of general corporate powers to hospital authorities does not include permission to use those powers anticompetitively