The Court clarified that its earlier holding in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) did not set forth a requirement of total or complete lack of control, but it noted that the US Constitution does not permit commitment of a sex offender without some lack-of-control determination.

Half an hour later, Crane exposed himself to the clerk in a video store, demanded her to perform oral sex on him, threatened to rape her, and left.

For such a person, it held, the state must show not merely a likelihood that the defendant would engage in repeat acts of sexual violence but also an inability to control violent behavior, based on Kansas v. Hendricks (1997).

[1] The court decided in a split 7–2 opinion that the Constitution does not permit commitment of the type of dangerous sexual offender that was considered in Hendricks without any lack-of-control evaluation.

However, the Court concluded that an absolute finding of lack of control was not necessary since otherwise, there would be a risk of barring the civil commitment of some highly-dangerous persons suffering severe mental abnormalities.