In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Thomas Steven Allen Snook.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-1104

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Thomas Steven Allen Snook.

Filed February 7, 2022
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Wadena County District Court
File No. 80-PR-20-852

Malcolm Whynott, Whynott Law Office, PLLC, Wadena, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Angela Hels eth Kiese, Assistant A ttorney General, St.
Paul, Minnesota; and

Kyra Leigh Ladd, Wadena County Attorney, Wadena, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presid ing Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
On appeal from his commitment as a se xually dangerous person (SDP), appellant
argues that the record does no t support the district court’s determinations that (a) his
disorder causes him to lack adequate control over his sexual impulses; and (b) he is highly
likely to engage in harmful sexual conduct in the future. We affirm.
2
FACTS
Respondent Wadena County (the county) petitioned to civilly commit appellant
Thomas Steven Allen Snook as a sexually dangerous person (SDP). The petition outlined
incidents of sexual misconduct spanning over twenty years. The matter proceeded to a
civil commitment hearing in March 2021. The district court heard testimony from multiple
witnesses, including two court-appointed experts, and admitted 30 exhibits into evidence.
The fact summary below is taken from the te stimony and evidence presented at Snook’s
SDP commitment hearing.
The first known sexual assault by Snook occurred when he was 11 years old. Snook
disclosed the sexual assault a few years later and originally disclosed that he had sexual
intercourse with his eight-year -old male cousin. But, dur ing the commitment hearing,
Snook testified that he might have been referring to his female cousin in his initial
disclosure whom he had dig itally penetrated. The distri ct court found that Snook
contradicted his disclosures ab out this event in the past a nd made a finding that Snook
digitally penetrated his female cousin based on his testimony.
On September 4, 2000, 12-ye ar-old Snook sexually assau lted 5-year-old S.D. On
the day of the assault, Snook brought S.D. to a secluded area near her home where he
partially undressed her and told her to take her clothes off. When S.D. refused, Snook
threatened to choke her if she did not undress. S.D. then undressed but did not take off her
underpants. Snook became angry and left the area, leaving S.D. undressed and alone. The
state charged Snook with fifth-degree assault for the offense.
3
In 2001, 12-year-old Snook sexually abused 7-year-o ld C.W. Snook approached
C.W. at a swimming pool, took her aside, a nd vaginally penetrated her. Snook warned
C.W. that if she told anyone about the assault, he would chain her to the back of a vehicle
and kill her. C.W. stated that on at least one other occasion, Snook forced C.W. to engage
in oral sex with him. The state charged Snoo k as a juvenile with first-degree criminal
sexual conduct for these offenses. A rule 20 evaluation showed Snook to be incompetent
and the district court suspended prosecution.
Over the next seven years Snook continue d to sexually assaul t more children and
women. When Snook was still 12 years old, he forced 9-year-old S.W. to have sexual
intercourse. That time, Snook made S.W. get into the back of a vehicle and he pulled her
pants down while she screamed and kicked. A year later when he was 13, Snook had sexual
contact with 12-year-old T.F. Snook maintains that the sexual contact was consensual and
that they were playing a game . When he was 15, Snook for ced 26-year-old K.S. to have
sexual intercourse with him by threatening to k ill her. Snook later tried to force K.S. to
engage in oral sex with him. Both incidents of sexual misconduct with K.S. occurred while
Snook was attending a sex offender treatment program at the Upper Mississippi Mental
Health Center. Also while attending this treatment program, 16-year-old Snook persuaded
a 13-year-old boy to engage in oral sex by promising him Hot Wheels toys.
In March 2008, 19-year-old Snook had sexu al intercourse with 15-year-old J.B.
Snook and his friend brought J.B. to Snook’s grandparents’ house where Snook had sexual
intercourse with her. He then invited his frie nd into the room to have sex with J.B. while
Snook watched. J.B. testifie d that “she did not feel like she had a choice.” Snook was
4
charged with third-degree cr iminal sexual conduct and plead ed guilty to the offense,
receiving a stayed sentence of 36 months in prison.
Snook has been either in prison or a secured care facility almost continuously since
2003. From June to November 2003, Snook was placed in Harbor House and Lakes Area
Counseling. During that time, Snook was caught engaging in oral sex with a younger
resident and another resident reported that Snook touched him on his genitals. Snook was
moved to a group home where he was discharged because of “aggressive behaviors.” From
2004 to 2006 Snook participated in sex offender treatment and chemical health groups at
Mille Lacs Academy. During this treatment program, Snook made “significant disclosures
related to his sex offending” and general th erapy reports found Sn ook was beginning to
show signs of improvement.
In 2008, shortly after Snook entered Reside ntial Living Services, he was arrested
for a probation violation. From 2008 to 2009, Snook spent several months in jail, including
time in isolation or restraints because of his behavior. When Snook was not incarcerated,
he was returned to the care of Residential Living Services where staff caught him viewing
pornography and often having violent outbursts. While so me reports said that Snook
showed improvement, Residential Living Se rvices discharged Sn ook as unsuccessful
because “his behavior created a risk of emot ional and physical danger to the health and
safety of staff and his housemates.”
In 2009, Snook again attempted sex offender treatment. During this time, he talked
openly about his past sexual offenses but appeared to have trouble understanding why age
was important for consent and struggled with taking responsibility for his actions. From
5
2010 through 2018, Snook was in and out of prison because of probation violations. While
incarcerated, he engaged in sexual acts with another offender and was disciplined for
disorderly conduct, assaults, and threats.
In 2018, Snook entered Pearl Lake Cris is Home for sex offender treatment and
psychological testing. While in the progra m, staff found that he possessed pornography
and accessed sexually explicit materials on his cellphone. In 2020, the program terminated
Snook because of a cellphone violation. Snook returned to prison where he remained
incarcerated while the county petitioned to commit Snook as an SDP.
At the commitment hearing, the district court heard testimony from Snook, four
sexual assault victims, Snook’s aunt, and two court-appointed experts. Dr. James Alsdurf,
the first court-appointed examiner, diag nosed Snook with many psychiatric and
psychological disorders including Unspecified Paraphilic Di sorder. Dr. Alsdurf testified
that, in his professional opinion , Snook satisfies the criteria for commitment as an SDP.
He also testified that he believed Snook lacked adequate control over his sexually harmful
behavior and it would be highly likely that Snook would engage in harmful sexual conduct
in the future. Dr. Andrea Lovett, the sec ond court-appointed examiner, offered similar
diagnoses as Dr. Alsdurf. Dr. Lovett testif ied that, in her prof essional opinion, Snook
meets the requirements for comm itment as an SDP. She fu rthered testified that she
believed that, to a reasonable degree of psyc hological certainty, Snook is highly likely to
engage in harmful sexual conduct in the future.
Following the hearing, the district cour t issued an order civilly committing Snook
as an SDP, finding that the county proved by clear and convincing evidence that Snook
6
met the statutory requirements for commitment. The district court found the sexual assault
disclosures from the victims to be more credible than any contrary testimony from Snook.
The district court also found both examiners to be credible. Snook now appeals.
DECISION
Snook argues that the record does not support the district court’s determination that
he meets the statutory criteria for commitment as an SDP. A person is sexually dangerous
if he:
(1) has engaged in a course of harmful sexual
conduct as defined in subdivision 8;
(2) has manifested a sexual, personality, or other
mental disorder or dysfunction; and
(3) as a result, is likely to engage in acts of harmful
sexual conduct as defined in subdivision 8.

Minn. Stat. § 253D.02, subd. 16(a) (2020). On appeal, this court reviews a district court’s
factual findings on the elements of the civil commitment statutes for clear error. Minn. R.
Civ. P. 52.01; In re Civ. Commitment of Stone, 711 N.W.2d 831, 836 (Minn. App. 2006),
rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006). Following a re view of all the evidence, we will not
conclude a fact-finder clearly erred unless “we are left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214,
221 (Minn. 2021) (quotations omitted). But whether the evidence meets the statutory
requirements for commitment is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. In
re Civ. Commitment of Crosby , 824 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Minn. App. 2013), rev. denied
(Minn. Mar. 27, 2013).
7
Snook challenges the district court’s dete rmination that the county satisfied its
burden of proof related to the second and third statutory criteria: whether he lacks adequate
control over his sexual impulses because of his sexual, personality, or other mental disorder
or dysfunction and whether he is likely to engage in harmful sexual conduct in the future.
We address each argument in turn.
A. Sexual, Personality, or Other Mental Disorder or Dysfunction
The second requirement for commitment as an SDP is that the individual “has
manifested a sexual, personality , or other mental disorder or dysfunction.” Minn. Stat.
§ 253D.02, subd. 16(a)(2). The statute does not require that the individual “has an inability
to control the person’s sexual impulses.” Id., subd. 16(b) (2020). Rather, the mental
disorder or dysfunction must prevent the individual from exercising adequate control over
his sexual impulses. In re Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867, 876-78 (Minn. 1999) (Linehan IV).
Here, the district court found that Snook’s disorders cause him to lack control of his
sexually harmful behavior. The district court based its findings in large part on the opinions
of the court-appointed experts. Dr. Alsdu rf diagnosed Snook with “ADHD; Klinefelter’s
Syndrome; Persistent Depressive Disorder; Unspecified Anxiety Disorder; Polysubstance
Use Disorders (alcohol, inhalants, halluci nogens, benzodiazepines); Unspecified
Paraphilic Disorder; Intellectual Disabilities, moderate; and Personality Disorder, with
antisocial and borderline traits.” Similarl y, Dr. Lovett diagnosed Snook with Paraphilic
Disorder, Other Specific Trauma and Stresso r Related Disorder, Unspecified Depressive
Disorder, Unspecified Neurodevelopmental Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and
Alcohol Use Disorder. Dr. Lovett acknowledg ed that Snook’s di sorders significantly
8
impacted his sexual behavior. Dr. Alsdurf concluded that Snook’s history shows a lack of
control over sexual impulses, that he has consistently failed to gain control over his sexual
acting out, and that Snook is unable to offer a plan to prevent reoffending. Dr. Alsdurf
believed that Snook had not gained a real understanding over his sexual pathology and that
he expressed no concern about his accountability in the community. Dr. Alsdurf also noted
that, while Snook has started acknowledging his thoughts and ac tions and he makes
assurances that he will get treatment, there is “no data to support that.”
Snook argues that the district court erred in relying on the testimony and reports of
the court-appointed experts because their opinions are not supported by the record. He also
argues he has not had a sexual offense since 2 008. But Snook has spent most of the time
since then either incarcerated or in secure homes and care facilities. And the record shows
that he repeatedly violated his rules of probation from 2004 through 2020 while
consistently displaying a pattern of inappropriate sexual behaviors. The district court found
that “[i]t is highly pertinent that Snook’s most recent revocation stemmed from violations
related to dating websites and internet porn ography, including por nographic images of
bestiality and adolescent (or adolescent appearing) individuals.” The district court found
that Snook had over a thousand emails and te xts related to websites that were sexual in
nature and specifically search ed for teens. Bo th findings are amply supported by the
record.
As for expert testimony, the district cour t had the advantage of hearing the expert
witnesses and we defer to the district cour t’s opportunity to judge witness credibility. In
re Civ. Commitment of Navratil , 799 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. App. 2011) rev. denied
9
(Minn. Aug. 24, 2011); see also In re Civ. Commitment of Ince , 847 N.W.2d 13, 23-24
(Minn. 2014) (“As the trier of fact, the distri ct court will be in the best position . . . to
evaluate the credibility of witnesses-a critical function in [commitment] cases that rely so
heavily on the opin ions of experts.”). No evidence in the record contradicts the expert
testimony. Thus, we determine that the facts as applied to the statute satisfy the second
requirement for Snook’s commitment as an SDP.
B. Highly Likely to Engage in Future Harmful Sexual Conduct
To satisfy the third requirement for commi tment as an SDP, the person must be
“highly likely” to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct in the future. Ince, 847 N.W.2d
at 20-22. To determine whether a person is highly likely to reoffend, a district court must
engage in a “multi-factor analysis.” Id. at 23. The multi-factor analysis includes
consideration of six factors, commonly known as the Linehan factors:
(a) the person’s relevant demographic characteristics (e.g.,
age, education, etc.); (b) th e person’s history of violent
behavior (paying particular a ttention to recency, severity,
and frequency of violent acts); (c) the base rate statistics for
violent behavior among indi viduals of this person’s
background ( e.g., data showing the rate at which rapists
recidivate, the correlation between age and criminal sexual
activity, etc.); (d) th e sources of stress in the environment
(cognitive and affective factor s which indicate that the
person may be predisposed to cope with stress in a violent
or nonviolent manner); (e) the similarity of the present or
future context to those contex ts in which the person has
used violence in the past; a nd (f) the person’s record with
respect to sex therapy programs.

10
Id. at 22 (quoting In re Linehan, 518 N.W.2d 609, 614 (Minn. 1994) ( Linehan I)). The
multi-factor analysis may include other relevant evidence and information and includes the
actuarial-assessment evidence used by the experts. Id. at 24.
Snook argues that the district court erred in finding him highly likely to reoffend
because the third Linehan factor, the base-rate statistics for violent behavior among
individuals with the offender’s background, reve als that he is unlikely to reoffend. We
disagree. No single factor determines whether an individual is likely to reoffend. Navratil,
799 N.W.2d at 649. And the district court’s consideration of all six Linehan factors,
including base-rate statistics, is supported by the record.
The district court made findings on each of the Linehan factors. In part, the district
court found that while Snook ha s a more limited history of se xually violent behavior, he
has a history of abusing underage boys and girls and has rep eatedly threatened victims to
kill or seriously harm them if they did not comply with his sexual demands. The district
court found that Snook is at a high risk of sexual reoffense because he has not yet completed
sex offender treatment, and the various scores used by numerous psychologists and experts
show that he is “well-above-average” on the risk range to reoffend. The district court noted
that Snook is “predisposed to cope with stress in a se xually harmful manner” and that he
would experience similar stressors in the community as he had in the past.
The district court also considered Dr. Alsdurf’s opinions, wh ich were based on
professional psychological testing and a full analysis of Snook’s past. Dr. Alsdurf
concluded that, based on Snook’ s history and mental disorder s, it is highly likely that
Snook will engage in harmful sexual conduct in the future. Similarly, Dr. Lovett found
11
that Snook is highly likely to reoffend. The district court specifically credited Dr. Lovett’s
opinion that Snook is highly likely to reoffend based, in part, on the fact that he has been
terminated from sex offender treatment four tim es since 2009. The district court found
their assessments credible and persuasive in concluding that Snook is highly likely to
sexually reoffend.
The expert-witness testimony and analysis of the Linehan factors provide clear and
convincing evidence supporting the district court’s findings on those matters, and thus the
district court’s conclusion that Snook is highly likely to reoffend. The district court made
extensive written findings and thoroughly covered the vast record. The district court
addressed each Linehan factor, commented on its releva nce and persuasiveness, and
concluded that each factor weighed in favor of finding Snook is highly likely to engage in
future harmful sexual conduct. Thus, the district court did not err by making an ultimate
finding that Snook is highly likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct in the future
if he is not civilly committed.
In sum, the district court did not err by granting the county’ s petition and civilly
committing Snook as an SDP.
Affirmed.