McHUGH, Chief Justice:

The appellant, Michael S. White, appeals the October 16, 1995 order of the Circuit Court of Lewis County which denied him habeas corpus relief. The appellant, who, it is asserted, left a Lincoln, Nebraska psychiatric facility without permission while under involuntary commitment, maintains that he has been illegally detained at the William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital, a state mental health facility in Lewis County. More specifically, the appellant challenges the procedure used to return an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient set forth in the Interstate Compact on Mental Health found in W. Va.Code, 27-14-1, et seq. The appellees are Michael Todt, the Administrator of the William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital and Ted Johnson, the Interstate Compact Administrator of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (hereinafter the "WVDHHR"). For reasons explained below, we affirm the circuit court's order.

I.

According to the appellees, the appellant was sentenced to six to eight years in the Nebraska State Penitentiary by a Nebraska state court for first degree sexual assault of a child. Evidently, a Nebraska state court found the appellant to be a mentally disordered sex offender and, thus, sent him to the Lincoln Regional Center, a mental health facility, for one year and, thereafter, to the penitentiary for three and one-half years.

Upon being released from prison in June of 1994, the appellant was committed under a Nebraska civil commitment order to the Lincoln Regional Center. On September 19, 1995, the appellees allege that the appellant left the Lincoln Regional Center without permission or authority while under involuntary civil commitment. Soon thereafter, the Nebraska officials contacted the Interstate Compact Administrator (hereinafter "Administrator") in West Virginia, the person appointed to act as the general coordinator of activities under the Interstate Compact on Mental Health in West Virginia. The Administrator was informed that Nebraska officials had obtained an arrest warrant for the appellant's return to the Lincoln Regional Center. The Administrator was further informed that the appellant may have sought refuge with his parents who lived in Roane County, West Virginia.

In response to the information provided by the Nebraska officials, the Administrator issued an order on September 29, 1995, authorizing the police to apprehend the appellant and take him to the William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital in West Virginia until arrangements could be made to return him to Nebraska. The appellant was apprehended and taken to the William Sharpe, Jr. Hospital on or about September 29, 1995.

Thereafter, without holding a hearing, the Administrator made arrangements with Nebraska officials to return the appellant to Nebraska. In response, the appellant filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Lewis County. The circuit court appointed counsel to represent the appellant on October 5, 1995, and on October 9, 1995, issued a rule to show cause in order to determine whether the appellant should be detained and returned to Nebraska.

After a hearing was held, the circuit court denied the appellant's request for habeas corpus relief in an order dated October 16, 1995. The circuit court concluded in that order that the appellant was the "same Michael S. White, who was committed to the Lincoln Regional Center and escaped from that facility." Additionally, the circuit court found, inter alia, that the states of Nebraska and West Virginia followed the proper procedures for returning the appellant to the custody of the Nebraska officials. Thus, the circuit court ordered that the appellant continue to be detained at the William Sharpe, Jr. Hospital until the "demanding agent from the State of Nebraska appears to take custody of" the appellant.

II. Introduction

The appellant raises numerous assignments of error, all of which relate to the procedure which should be utilized when returning a dangerous or potentially dangerous patient who has escaped from another state's mental health facility. At issue is the Interstate Compact on Mental Health found in W. Va.Code, 27-14-1, et seq. The Interstate Compact on Mental Health has been adopted by approximately 45 states for the purpose of providing the best treatment for the mentally ill while protecting society through cooperative action between those states that have adopted the compact. See N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 67.07 at historical and statutory notes, complementary legislation (McKinney 1996) (lists the states that have adopted the compact). The purpose of Interstate Compact on Mental Health is more explicitly enunciated in article I of W. Va.Code, 27-14-1:

The party states find that the proper and expeditious treatment of the mentally ill and mentally deficient can be facilitated by cooperative action, to the benefit of the patients, their families, and society as a whole. Further, the party states find that the necessity of and desirability for furnishing such care and treatment bears no primary relation to the residence or citizenship of the patient but that, on the contrary, the controlling factors of community safety and humanitarianism require that facilities and services be made available for all who are in need of them. Consequently, it is the purpose of this compact and of the party states to provide the necessary legal basis for the institutionalization or other appropriate care and treatment of the mentally ill and the mentally deficient under a system that recognizes the paramount importance of patient welfare and to establish the responsibilities of the party states in terms of such welfare.

In furtherance of the above purpose, the legislature enacted article V of W. Va.Code, 27-14-1 to specifically address how party states should deal with escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patients:

Whenever a dangerous or potentially dangerous patient escapes from an institution in any party state, that state shall promptly notify all appropriate authorities within and without the jurisdiction of the escape in a manner reasonably calculated to facilitate the speedy apprehension of the escapee. Immediately upon the apprehension and identification of any such dangerous or potentially dangerous patient, he shall be detained in the state where found pending disposition in accordance with the law.

(emphasis added). Our focus in this opinion will be on article V of the compact.

The appellant is most concerned with the phrase "he shall be detained in the state where found pending disposition in accordance with the law." The appellant's concern primarily arises from the fact that, aside from stating that a person "shall be detained in the state where found pending disposition in accordance with the law[,]" there is no explicit mechanism in article V of the Interstate Compact on Mental Health by which a dangerous or potentially dangerous patient, who has allegedly escaped from another state's mental health facility, is returned to the state from where he or she escaped. Thus, the appellant concludes that article V violates due process, is unconstitutionally vague, and unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to an administrative agency.

We could not find, nor did the parties submit to us, any cases from other jurisdictions which have directly addressed the issue of what constitutional protection under the due process clause should be afforded an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient by the detaining state pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Mental Health prior to returning the patient to the state from where he or she escaped. Therefore, initially we must address the appellant's arguments by generally outlining what due process requires when detaining a mentally ill person.

A. Due Process

Due process is succinctly stated in article III, § 10 of the West Virginia Constitution: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and judgment of his peers." We note that

[w]hen due process applies, it must be determined what process is due and consideration of what procedures due process may require under a given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as the private interest that has been impaired by government action.

Syl. pt. 2, Bone v. W. Va. Dept. of Corrections, 163 W. Va. 253, 255 S.E.2d 919 (1979). Clearly, committing a person to a mental health facility involves a loss of liberty which implicates the due process clause. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States has noted: "This Court repeatedly has recognized that civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection." Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1809, 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 330-31 (1979). See, e.g., Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972); Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 92 S.Ct. 1048, 31 L.Ed.2d 394 (1972); and Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326 (1967). See also State ex rel. Hawks v. Lazaro, 157 W. Va. 417, 435, 202 S.E.2d 109, 122 (1974) (An adjudication of insanity is a partial deprivation of liberty).

An individual faced with involuntary civil commitment in this state is afforded a wide range of due process protections in W. Va.Code, 27-5-1, et seq. For instance, within twenty-four hours of being initially detained, a person who is alleged to need involuntary civil commitment must be taken before a mental hygiene commissioner, magistrate, or circuit court judge for a probable cause hearing. See W. Va.Code, 27-5-2(b)(4) and (5) [1992].

Because of the adverse impact an involuntary commitment may have on a person, the due process procedures found in W. Va.Code, 27-5-1, et seq. are very important. Equally important, however,

[t]he State has a legitimate interest under its parens patriae powers in providing care to its citizens who are unable because of emotional disorders to care for themselves; the state also has authority under its police power to protect the community from the dangerous tendencies of some who are mentally ill.

Addington, 441 U.S. at 426, 99 S.Ct. at 1809, 60 L.Ed.2d at 331.

Thus, although like a criminal defendant, a person facing involuntary civil commitment is faced with losing significant liberty interests, the reason behind taking away the mentally ill person's liberty is very different. Therefore, the two situations warrant different due process protections: "In a civil commitment state power is not exercised in a punitive sense. . . . [Indeed,] a civil commitment proceeding can in no sense be equated to a criminal prosecution." Id. at 428, 99 S.Ct. at 1810, 60 L.Ed.2d at 332 (footnote omitted). See also Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 106 S.Ct. 2988, 92 L.Ed.2d 296 (1986) (Due process does not require that a person be afforded protection against self-incrimination under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act because the purpose of the act is for treatment rather than punishment). As the Supreme Court of the United States has more fully explained:

[T]he initial inquiry in a civil commitment proceeding is very different from the central issue in either a delinquency proceeding or a criminal prosecution. In the latter cases the basic issue is a straightforward factual question — did the accused commit the act alleged? There may be factual issues to resolve in a commitment proceeding, but the factual aspects represent only the beginning of the inquiry. Whether the individual is mentally ill and dangerous to either himself or others and is in need of confined therapy turns on the meaning of the facts which must be interpreted by expert psychiatrists and psychologists.

Addington, 441 U.S. at 429, 99 S.Ct. at 1811, 60 L.Ed.2d at 333 (emphasis provided).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States has noted that the state's focus when dealing with a mentally ill person is much different than its focus when dealing with a criminal defendant:

It may be true that an erroneous commitment is sometimes as undesirable as an erroneous conviction, 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1400 (Chadbourn rev. 1974). However, even though an erroneous confinement should be avoided in the first instance, the layers of professional review and observation of the patient's condition, and the concern of family and friends generally will provide continuous opportunities for an erroneous commitment to be corrected. Moreover, it is not true that the release of a genuinely mentally ill person is no worse for the individual than the failure to convict the guilty. One who is suffering from a debilitating mental illness and in need of treatment is neither wholly at liberty nor free of stigma. . . . It cannot be said, therefore, that it is much better for a mentally ill person to `go free' than for a mentally normal person to be committed.

Id. at 428-29, 99 S.Ct. at 1810-11, 60 L.Ed.2d at 332-33. Therefore, the due process protection afforded to a mentally ill person must be tailored to meet the unique circumstances of protecting him or her while at the same time protecting society. Cf. Bone v. W. Va. Dept. of Corrections, 163 W. Va. 253, 259-60, 255 S.E.2d 919, 922 (1979) ("`[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.' Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).").

This Court has provided guidelines for determining what due process requires outside of the criminal arena in syllabus point 2 of North v. W. Va. Bd. of Regents, 160 W. Va. 248, 233 S.E.2d 411 (1977):

Applicable standards for procedural due process, outside the criminal area, may depend upon the particular circumstances of a given case. However, there are certain fundamental principles in regard to procedural due process embodied in Article III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution, which are[:] First, the more valuable the right sought to be deprived, the more safeguards will be interposed. Second, due process must generally be given before the deprivation occurs unless a compelling public policy dictates otherwise. Third, a temporary deprivation of rights may not require as large a measure of procedural due process protection as a permanent deprivation.

See also syl. pt. 2, Higginbotham v. Clark, 189 W. Va. 504, 432 S.E.2d 774 (1993). Moreover, we further stated that "some type of an orderly hearing is the cornerstone of procedural due process." North, 160 W. Va. at 253, 233 S.E.2d at 415 ( citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)).

In applying the first principle enunciated in North to the instant case, we note that although detaining the appellant and returning him as an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient to Nebraska involves the loss of liberty, the more significant loss of liberty occurred when the appellant was originally involuntarily committed in Nebraska. Therefore, the process due the appellant when he was involuntarily committed in Nebraska should have been greater than the process due in this State before his return to Nebraska.

The Interstate Compact on Mental Health specifically states: "Immediately upon the apprehension and identification of any such dangerous or potentially dangerous patient, he shall be detained in the state where found pending disposition in accordance with the law." Article V, in relevant part, W. Va.Code, 27-14-1 (emphasis added). The above language clearly mandates that the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient be identified. As we previously noted, "some type of an orderly hearing is the cornerstone of procedural due process." North, 160 W. Va. at 253, 233 S.E.2d at 415. Thus, we conclude that the due process clause requires that an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient be afforded the opportunity to have a hearing in order to establish his or her identity before being returned to the requesting state.

However, this hearing need not address whether the mentally ill patient was properly committed in the first instance, nor should it address whether the mentally ill patient is a "dangerous or potentially dangerous patient" who has escaped. The state from where the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient has escaped is in the best position to evaluate these issues.

However, the hearing should address whether the individual being detained by this State pursuant to article V of the Interstate Compact on Mental Health is indeed the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient who escaped from the state requesting his or her return. If it is determined that the individual being detained is the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient who escaped, then this State should promptly return that individual to the state requesting his or her return. Thus, we agree with the appellant's assertion that due process requires that an alleged escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient be afforded the opportunity to request a hearing to challenge his or her identification before being returned to the state requesting his or her return.

Implicit in this requirement, that an opportunity to request a hearing be afforded, is that the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient be informed as to why he or she is being detained. Additionally, we find the potential loss of liberty to be significant enough to permit the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient to retain counsel or, if he or she cannot afford to do so, to have counsel appointed to represent him or her at the hearing if he or she chooses to challenge the identification determination. These three requirements are the minimal procedural due process which should be afforded to a person being detained pursuant to article V of the Interstate Compact on Mental Health.

The second principle in syllabus point 2 of North, supra, states that "due process must generally be given before the deprivation occurs unless a compelling public policy dictates otherwise." As we more fully explained in North, although "the initial deprivation must be surrounded by some due process procedures, these may be rather minimal if there are prompt post-deprivation hearing procedures giving a fuller measure of due process to the aggrieved party." Id. at 254, 233 S.E.2d at 416.

Clearly, there is a compelling public policy to quickly detain a dangerous or potentially dangerous patient in order to protect himself or herself and/or society. Thus, only a minimal amount of due process need be given before a dangerous or potentially dangerous patient is initially detained pursuant to article V of the Interstate Compact on Mental Health. However, the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient who is detained pursuant to article V of the Compact must be promptly afforded the opportunity to request a hearing to challenge his or her identification.

The appellant argues that the minimal amount of due process accorded to a person before he or she may be initially detained pursuant to article V requires that a mental hygiene commissioner, magistrate, or judge issue the order to detain that person, rather than the Administrator. Our examination of the Interstate Compact on Mental Health leads us to a different conclusion.

Article X of W. Va.Code, 27-14-1 explicitly states that the Administrator

shall act as general coordinator of activities under the compact in his state and . . . shall receive copies of all reports, correspondence, and other documents relating to any patient processed under the compact by his state either in the capacity of sending or receiving state. The compact administrator or his duly designated representative shall be the official with whom other party states shall deal in any matter relating to the compact or any patient processed thereunder.

(emphasis added). In that the legislature has specifically stated that the Administrator is the official who deals with other party states on matters relating to any patient processed under the compact, the legislature has impliedly authorized the Administrator, rather than a mental hygiene commissioner, magistrate, or judge, to issue an order requesting that a dangerous or potentially dangerous patient who has escaped be detained. Accordingly, we find there is no due process violation by having the Administrator issue an order to detain an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient.

The third principle set forth in syllabus point 2 of North, supra, is that "a temporary deprivation of rights may not require as large a measure of procedural due process protection as a permanent deprivation." Id. When this state is asked to detain a dangerous or potentially dangerous patient who has escaped from a mental health facility in another state, this state is only temporarily detaining the patient until arrangements can be made to return the patient to the mental health facility from which he or she escaped. Thus, the detention of an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient does not require the same level of procedural due process protection as is required before a person is involuntarily committed to a mental health facility in the first instance.

Accordingly, we hold that when a dangerous or potentially dangerous patient who has escaped from a mental health facility in another state is being detained in this State pursuant to article V of the Interstate Compact on Mental Health found in W. Va.Code, 27-14-1, the due process clause found in article III, § 10 of the Constitution of West Virginia requires, at a minimum, that before this State returns the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient to the state from where he or she has escaped, the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient be informed of the reason he or she is being detained, the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient be afforded a hearing to determine identification and the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient be afforded the opportunity to have the representation of counsel in the event he or she decides to challenge the identification.

The appellant had a hearing on his habeas corpus petition in the Circuit Court of Lewis County. Furthermore, the appellant was appointed counsel to represent him in that proceeding. That hearing and the appointment of counsel satisfied the constitutional requirement that a hearing be held in this State for identification purposes.

B. Unconstitutional Vagueness

Next, we address the appellant's assertion that article V of the Interstate Compact on Mental Health is unconstitutionally vague and, thus, violates the due process clause of our Constitution. We have made clear that "[t]he vagueness standard may vary depending on the type of statute involved." Hartsock-Flesher Candy Co. v. Wheeling Wholesale Grocery, Co., 174 W. Va. 538, 546, 328 S.E.2d 144, 152 (1984), holding modified on another point by, Gibson v. W. Va. Dept. of Highways, 185 W. Va. 214, 406 S.E.2d 440 (1991). However, the general premise is that "[a]s a matter of basic procedural due process, a law is void on its face if it is so vague that persons `of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.'" Garcelon v. Rutledge, 173 W. Va. 572, 574, 318 S.E.2d 622, 625 (1984) ( quoting Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322, 328 (1926)). This Court, relying on a United States Supreme Court decision, has acknowledged two reasons for this rule:

Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 227-28 (1972) (footnotes omitted and emphasis added). See also Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362, 371 (1982) (The Supreme Court of the United States stated that the above quote from Grayned, supra, established the standards for evaluating vagueness); Hartsock-Flesher Candy Co., 174 W. Va. at 546, 328 S.E.2d at 152; Garcelon, 173 W. Va. at 574-75, 318 S.E.2d at 625. The appellant's argument focuses on the second rationale for the vagueness rule: Whether the lack of "explicit standards" in the Interstate Compact on Mental Health will lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of article V.

Although this Court has adopted standards for determining whether a statute is vague in the criminal arena and in areas involving economic matters, we have not had an opportunity to address when laws are vague because they fail to set forth explicit standards for those who apply them. We find that the Supreme Court of the United States has best expressed the standard which should be applied through its explanation of the second reason to apply the vagueness doctrine stated in Grayned, supra. Accordingly, we hold that the due process clause found in article III, § 10 of the Constitution of West Virginia requires that laws provide explicit standards for those who apply them so as to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the laws.

In applying the above standard we reemphasize that article V of the Interstate Compact explicitly states: "Immediately upon the apprehension and identification of any such dangerous or potentially dangerous patient, he shall be detained in the state where found pending disposition in accordance with law." W. Va.Code, 27-14-1. Additionally, article X(b) states: "The compact administrators of the respective party states shall have power to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations to carry out more effectively the terms and provisions of this compact." W. Va.Code, 27-14-1. While the Compact does not set forth exact procedures which a state must follow when detaining an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient, it allows each state to determine how it will accomplish the mandates of article V when returning an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient. As noted above, the Compact specifically states that the dangerous or potentially dangerous patient must be identified upon being detained and specifically authorizes the Administrator to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the Compact. Thus, the Compact provides explicit standards for its enforcement. Accordingly, based upon the reasoning above, we find that the Interstate Compact on Mental Health is not unconstitutionally vague.

We find it significant to note, however, that in the case before us, the Administrator has not promulgated rules and regulations governing how an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient is detained. Because there are no rules or regulations in place, there is no assurance that article V will not be implemented in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Thus, in order to ensure that article V is not implemented in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner so as to violate a person's right to procedural due process, the Interstate Compact Administrator must promulgate rules and regulations explicitly outlining the procedure to be utilized in order to ensure that the minimum procedural due process we previously outlined is afforded to a person who is detained pursuant to article V of the Interstate Compact on Mental Health.

C. Delegation of Powers to Administrative Agency

The appellant essentially argues that the Interstate Compact on Mental Health is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers in violation of W. Va. Const. art. VI, § 1 which states, in relevant part: "The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and house of delegates." The appellant relies upon syllabus point 3 of State ex rel. Mountaineer Park v. Polan, 190 W. Va. 276, 438 S.E.2d 308 (1993):

`As a general rule the Legislature, in delegating discretionary power to an administrative agency, such as a board or a commission, must prescribe adequate standards expressed in the statute or inherent in its subject matter and such standards must be sufficient to guide such agency in the exercise of the power conferred upon it.' Syl. pt. 3, Quesenberry v. Estep, 142 W. Va. 426, 95 S.E.2d 832 (1956).

However, this Court has also held that "`[t]he delegation by the legislature of broad discretionary powers to an administrative body, accompanied by fitting standards for their exercise, is not of itself unconstitutional.' Point 8 Syllabus, Chapman v. Huntington, West Virginia, Housing Authority, 121 W. Va. 319 [, 3 S.E.2d 502 (1939)]." Syl. pt. 5, State ex rel. W. Va. Hous. Dev. Fund v. Copenhaver, 153 W. Va. 636, 171 S.E.2d 545 (1969). In fact, in Copenhaver the legislature authorized the Board of Directors of the West Virginia Housing Development Fund (hereinafter the "Fund") to execute certain contracts involving federally insured construction loans for housing for the low or moderate income person. The legislature gave the Fund a certain amount of discretion in determining who are persons and families of low and moderate incomes. Id. at 650, 171 S.E.2d at 553. However, this Court concluded that such power was given out of necessity and given with sufficient guidelines to guide the Fund in its exercise of discretion. Id.

Similarly, in State ex rel. Marockie v. Wagoner, 191 W. Va. 458, 446 S.E.2d 680 (1994), this Court found that the legislature's delegation to the School Building Authority (hereinafter the "SBA") of determining whether bonds should be issued and, if so, in what amounts and for which projects, was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers. More specifically, this Court stated: "The legislature did not give the SBA purely legislative functions; however, the legislature out of necessity gave the SBA certain discretionary powers and provided sufficient guidelines to guide the SBA in its exercise of discretion." Id. at 469, 446 S.E.2d at 691.

Likewise, in the case before us, the mere fact that the Interstate Compact Administrator may have broad powers under the Interstate Compact on Mental Health does not mean there has been unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. To the contrary, as we have previously noted, the Interstate Compact on Mental Health specifically states that a dangerous or potentially dangerous patient detained pursuant to article V must be identified before being returned to the state that is requesting his or her return. Thus, the Compact mandates that there must be some process whereby the detained dangerous or potentially dangerous patient is identified prior to the patient's return to the state that is requesting his or her return. The legislature, out of necessity, left to the Administrator's determination the precise procedures that should be followed when detaining and returning an escaped dangerous or potentially dangerous patient pursuant to article V of the Interstate Compact on Mental Health. Accordingly, we hold that the Interstate Compact on Mental Health does not violate W. Va. Const. art. VI, § 1.

III.

As noted above, we do not accept the appellant's contention that because due process was not initially accorded to him he should be released from the William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital in Lewis County and not returned to the Nebraska officials. The facts clearly indicate that appellant was appointed counsel to represent him at a habeas corpus proceeding in which it was determined that he was indeed the person who escaped from the mental health facility in Nebraska. Therefore, we find that the appellant has been accorded due process in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the October 16, 1995 order of the Circuit Court of Lewis County that denied appellant's request for habeas corpus relief.

Affirmed.