BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1114
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1114 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: April 6, 2011
As Proposed to Be Amended
SUBJECT : INMATES: INVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATION OF PSYCHOTROPIC
MEDICATIONS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE STATE ESTABLISH, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE
PROCESS SPECIFIED BY KEYHEA V. RUSHEN , NEW PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATION OF PSYCHOTROPIC
MEDICATIONS TO STATE PRISON INMATES THAT ELIMINATE THE
CERTIFICATION REVIEW HEARING UNDER KEYHEA, BUT THAT DO NOT
COMPROMISE DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS FOR INMATES WISHING TO
CONTEST INVOLUNTARY MEDICATION?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill seeks to establish, as an alternative to the process
specified by the permanent injunction in Keyhea v. Rushen , new
procedural requirements for the involuntary administration of
psychotropic medications to state prisoners with mental
disorders. Generally speaking, this bill would codify many of
the components of the current Keyhea process, but with some
notable exceptions. The most significant difference is that the
bill would shorten the overall timeline of the process to ensure
that an inmate more quickly can have a hearing before an
administrative law judge (ALJ) to discontinue involuntary
medication. However, to expedite the formal ALJ hearing that
all stakeholders acknowledge presents the inmate with the
greatest due process protections, the bill would eliminate an
intermediate opportunity for the inmate to be heard, namely, the
certification review hearing that must occur within 10 days of
the initial administration of medication that triggers the
Keyhea process. As proposed to be amended, this bill reflects a
carefully crafted agreement between the stakeholders that is
intended to provide adequate due process protections to inmates,
while at the same time streamlining and expediting the Keyhea
process. The bill was approved by the Assembly Public Safety
Committee by a 6-0 vote. The bill is supported by associations
AB 1114
Page 2
of peace officers, parole officers, psychiatrists, and prisoner
advocates. After two previous opponents formally removed their
opposition, there is now no known opposition to the bill.
SUMMARY : Establishes procedural requirements that the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must follow
if it seeks to initiate the involuntary administration of
psychotropic medication to an inmate. Specifically, this bill :
1)Deletes the provision of state law that expressly prohibits
the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to
state prison inmates unless the process specified in the
permanent injunction in the matter of Keyhea v. Rushen, 178
Cal. App. 3d 526, is followed.
2)Provides that no state prison inmate shall be administered any
psychotropic medication without his or her informed consent,
unless specified procedures and requirements are complied
with.
3)Provides that if a psychiatrist determines than an inmate
should be treated with a psychotropic medication, but the
inmate does not consent, CDCR may seek to initiate involuntary
medication of the inmate on a nonemergency basis only if a
series of specified conditions have been met, among which are
that:
a) A psychiatrist has determined that the inmate has a
serious mental disorder, and that as a result of that
mental disorder, the inmate is gravely disabled and does
not have the capacity to refuse treatment with psychotropic
medications, or is a danger to self or others;
b) The inmate has been advised of the risks and benefits
of, and treatment alternatives to, the psychotropic
medications and refuses or is unable to consent to the
administration of the medication;
c) The inmate is provided a hearing before an
administrative law judge (ALJ).
d) The inmate is provided counsel at least 21 days before
the hearing, or if medication is administered on an
emergency basis, within 24 hours of the initial
administration;
e) The inmate and counsel are provided with written notice
of the hearing at least 21 days prior to the hearing. The
AB 1114
Page 3
written notice must include specified information about the
diagnosis, and benefits and risks of the medication, as
well as the inmate's due process rights with respect to
hearing, including the right to counsel and right to file a
petition for writ of habeas corpus to contest the
determination.
f) An administrative law judge determines by clear and
convincing evidence that: (1) the inmate has a mental
disorder; (2) that as a result of that illness the inmate
is gravely disabled and lacks the capacity to consent or
refuse treatment with psychotropic medications or is danger
to self or others if not medicated, (3) that there is no
less intrusive alternative to involuntary medication, and
(4) that the medication is in the inmate's best medical
interest;
g) The historical course of the inmate's mental disorder,
as determined by available relevant information about the
course of the inmates' mental disorder, shall be considered
in the above determination.
4)Provides that nothing in this act is intended to prohibit a
physician from taking appropriate action in an emergency, as
defined, and specifies the conditions under which psychotropic
medication may be administered to an inmate in an emergency,
as specified below:
a) The medication shall only be that which is required to
treat the emergency and for only so long as the emergency
exists, but in no event for longer than 72 hours, unless
CDCR first obtains an order from an ALJ authorizing the
continuance of medication beyond 72 hours.
b) An order may be issued ex parte upon a showing that in
the absence of the medication the emergency is likely to
recur, and provides that if an order is issued, the
psychiatrist may continue the administration of the
medication until the formal hearing before an ALJ is held,
as specified.
c) CDCR must serve the inmate and counsel written notice
within 72 hours of commencing medication, except as
provided.
d) A hearing before an ALJ must commence within 21 days of
the filing of the service of the notice, with the same due
process protections required under for inmates contesting
involuntary administration on a nonemergency basis. (See
3(f) and 3(g) above.)
AB 1114
Page 4
5)Provides that a determination made by the ALJ to involuntarily
medicate the inmate is valid for one year from the date of
determination, regardless of whether the inmate subsequently
gave his or her informed consent.
6)Provides that the involuntary medication of an inmate, either
on an emergency or nonemergency basis, must discontinue one
year from the date of determination, unless the inmate gives
her or her informed consent or CDCR follow specified
procedures for a renewal hearing.
7)Provides that to obtain a renewal order, CDCR shall provide
the same due process protections required under for inmates
contesting involuntary administration on a nonemergency basis.
(See 3(f) and 3(g) above.)
a) Allows an order for renewal to be granted based on clear
and convincing evidence that, but for the medication, the
inmate would revert to the behavior that was the basis for
the prior order authorizing involuntary medication, coupled
with evidence that the inmate lacks insight regarding his
or her need for the medication, such that it is unlikely
that the inmate would be able to manage his or her own
medication and treatment regimen.
b) Provides that no new acts need be alleged or proven.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a person sentenced to imprisonment in a state
prison or a county jail pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170(h)
may, during that period of confinement, be deprived of such
rights, and only such rights, as is reasonably related to
legitimate penological interests. Further provides that this
shall not be construed to permit the involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication unless the process
specified in the permanent injunction, dated October 31, 1986,
in the matter of Keyhea v. Rushen, 178 Cal. App. 3d 526, has
been followed. (Penal Code Section 2600.)
2)Pursuant to the permanent injunction in Keyhea v. Rushen, 178
Cal. App. 3d 526 (October 31, 1986):
a) Permits psychotropic medication to be administered to an
inmate without his or her informed consent on an emergency
AB 1114
Page 5
basis for no more than 3 days.
b) Prohibits the administration of involuntary medication
to inmates in excess of 3 days unless such individuals are
provided with certain due process protections, including
notice of certification, as specified. Among other things:
i) Written notice of certification must be served on
the inmate and his or her counsel within five days of
commencement of involuntary medication
ii) Certification consists of a showing that prison
staff have analyzed the inmate's condition and found that
the inmate is as a result of mental disorder, gravely
disabled and incompetent to refuse medication, or a
danger to self or others; and the inmate has been advised
of the need for, but has not been willing to accept
medication on a voluntary basis.
c) Prohibits the administration of involuntary medication
to inmates in excess of 10 days after the initial
involuntary administration, unless such individuals are
additionally provided with a certification review hearing,
as specified. Among other things:
i) The inmate certified has the right to be present at
the certification review hearing, the right to assistance
by an attorney, and the right to present evidence.
ii) The hearing officer will determine if there is
probable cause that the inmate certified, as a result of
mental disorder, is either gravely disabled and
incompetent to refuse medication or is a danger to others
or a danger to self, and if such determination is made,
the inmate may be involuntarily medicated for 21
additional days beyond the end of the initial 3-day
involuntary medication period.
d) Prohibits the administration of involuntary medication
to inmates in excess of 24 days after the initial
involuntary administration, unless such individuals are
additionally provided with a formal judicial hearing before
an administrative law judge (ALJ), as specified. Among
other things:
i) The inmate shall be appointed a public defender or
other attorney to ensure representation and must
AB 1114
Page 6
personally appear at the judicial hearing except as
specified.
ii) The ALJ may issue a court order authorizing
involuntary medication if the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the inmate is as a result of
mental disorder, either gravely disabled and incompetent
to refuse medication, or a danger to others or danger to
self, or both.
e) The court order authorizing involuntary medication
expires in 180 days if the inmate is found to be a danger
to self or others, or one year if the inmate is found to be
gravely disabled and incompetent to refuse medication.
f) Provides that nothing in these procedures is intended to
prohibit a physician from taking appropriate action in an
emergency, including the administration of involuntary
medication but subject to these time limitations.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to establish, as an alternative to
the process specified by Keyhea v. Rushen, new procedural
requirements for the involuntary administration of psychotropic
medications to state prisoners with mental disorders. Generally
speaking, this bill would codify many of the components of the
current Keyhea process (currently specified only in the
permanent injunction in that case), but with some notable
exceptions. The most significant difference is that the bill
would shorten the overall timeline of the process to ensure that
an inmate more quickly can have a hearing before an
administrative law judge to discontinue involuntary medication.
However, to expedite the formal ALJ hearing that all
stakeholders acknowledge presents the inmate with the greatest
due process protections, the bill would eliminate an
intermediate opportunity for the inmate to be heard, namely, the
certification review hearing that is required within 10 days of
the initial administration of medication that triggers the
Keyhea process. Underlying the debate about due process in this
context is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Washington v.
Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990), which specifies the minimum
standards of due process required for any state department of
corrections to involuntarily medicate its inmates. As proposed
to be amended, this bill reflects a carefully crafted agreement
between the stakeholders that is intended to provide adequate
due process protections to inmates, while at the same time
streamlining and expediting the Keyhea process.
AB 1114
Page 7
Author's Statement: According to the author, this bill will
streamline a modified version of the Keyhea process, while
preserving due process protections for vulnerable inmates and
increasing procedural efficiencies. The bill is also needed to
ensure that CDCR takes into account an inmate's mental health
history as one of the factors in evaluating an order authorizing
involuntary medication. The author states:
AB 1114 changes the procedure for the involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication pursuant to
the Keyhea v. Rushen court decision of 1986 by removing
the certification review hearing that precedes the
formal adversarial hearing and simplifying that
process, thereby shortening the time frame for a
prisoner to receive long-term medication to improve
their mental health."
In addition, AB 1114 codifies the existing process
under the Keyhea injunction and ensures that the
prisoner is provided with appropriate mental health
treatment consistent with his or her due process
rights, including the right to counsel and the
evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence,
and that officials take into account the prisoner's
mental health history when determining whether or not
the prisoner is gravely disabled or a danger to
themselves or others prior to authorizing involuntary
medication.
Background on Current Keyhea Process: In Keyhea v. Rushen,178
Cal. App. 3d 526 (1986), the First District Court of Appeal held
that equal protection requires prisoners subject to involuntary
psychotropic medication be afforded the same rights as
non-prisoners. At the time of its decision, however, there were
no statutes defining the rights of non-prisoners subject to
involuntary medication. Therefore, the court adopted the
procedures and standards used in a civil commitment proceeding,
which requires a determination that the person for whom civil
commitment is sought is either gravely disabled, or a danger to
self or others. Under this procedural framework, the person is
entitled to certain due process protections, including review
and opportunities to be heard, that increase as the length of
the commitment sought increases. In short, the Keyhea
injunction essentially requires that an inmate having a mental
AB 1114
Page 8
disorder meets the standard for a long term civil commitment
before CDCR may involuntarily administer him with psychotropic
medication. This requires, for example, that a prisoner must be
gravely disabled, as defined, for CDCR to obtain an order
authorizing treatment with involuntary medication for one year.
On October 31, 1986, the Keyhea court issued a permanent
injunction setting forth the requirements and procedures that
CDCR must comply with when seeking to involuntarily administer
psychotropic medication to any inmate having a mental disorder.
In 1994, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1260,
Ch. 555, Stats. 1994, which amended Penal Code Section 2600 to,
among other things, establish that the involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication to inmates is
prohibited unless the process specified in the Keyhea permanent
injunction is followed.
Pursuant to De Lancie v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 3d 865 (1982)
(holding that county jails are also subject to Penal Code
Section 2600), the Keyhea process also applies to county jails.
Background of Constitutional Requirements under Washington . In
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990), the U.S. Supreme
Court addressed the question of whether involuntary medication
of a state inmate with psychotropic medications violates both
substantive and procedural due process. Addressing the
substantive due process claim first, the Court held that the
right of the inmate to refuse medication must be balanced with
the legitimate penological interests of the state. (494 U.S. at
224-5.) The Court found the state had a legitimate interest in
protecting the inmate and other inmates from harm, and
involuntarily medicating the plaintiff was reasonably related to
that interest. (Id. at 225.)
Under Washington, minimum due process is assured when the
procedure for involuntary medication to an inmate includes the
following components. First, if the psychiatrist determines
that the inmate should be treated with psychotropic medication,
but does not consent, the inmate may be subjected to involuntary
medication only upon a finding that he has a mental disorder,
and is gravely disabled or poses a danger to himself or others.
(Id. at 215.) Second, the inmate is entitled to a hearing
before a committee of health professionals not involved in his
or her treatment, in which the committee determines by a
majority vote that the inmate suffers from a mental disorder and
AB 1114
Page 9
is gravely disabled or dangerous. (Id.) Third, the inmate is
given certain procedural rights, including at least 24-hour
notice of the hearing, notice of the tentative diagnosis, notice
of the factual basis for the diagnosis, and explanation by the
staff as to why they believe the medication is necessary. (Id.
at 216.) At the hearing, the inmate is entitled to attend,
present evidence and witnesses, cross-examine staff witnesses,
and to the assistance of a lay advisor who has not been involved
in the inmate's case, but understands the psychiatric issues.
(Id.) Fourth, there must be periodic review of the involuntary
medication order. (Id.)
Brief Comparison Of Keyhea Process With AB 1114 Process (As
Proposed to Be Amended).
Initial Involuntary Medication in an Emergency . Under both
procedural schemes, physicians may act appropriately to treat an
inmate in an emergency, including the involuntary administration
of medication for up to 72 hours (3 days).
Certification and Certification Review Hearing. Under Keyhea,
involuntary administration is prohibited in excess of 3 days
unless the inmate has been certified by prison staff to receive
additional days of involuntary medication. Certification may be
issued if the examining psychiatrist finds that the inmate is
either (a) gravely disabled and incompetent to receive
medication; or (b) a danger to self or others. If certification
is made, the Keyhea process requires a certification review
hearing to be held within 10 days of the initial involuntary
medication. At the hearing, the certified inmate has certain
rights, including the right to assistance by an attorney or
advocate and to present evidence on his or her own behalf. The
hearing officer must find the certification is supported by
probable cause to uphold it, otherwise the inmate may no longer
be involuntarily medicated.
This bill from the outset has had the objective of eliminating
the certification and certification review hearing altogether.
Instead, it would require the formal adversarial hearing before
an ALJ (see below) to be held no later than 21 days after
initial administration if emergency medications are being
involuntarily administered, or no later than 30 days if not. As
proposed to be amended, the bill would require CDCR to obtain an
order from an ALJ (including an ex parte order) to authorize the
continuance of emergency medication past 72 hours. If the order
AB 1114
Page 10
is issued, the CDCR psychiatrist may continue the administration
of the medication until the formal ALJ hearing is held.
Formal Administrative Hearing. Under both Keyhea and this bill,
the inmate is entitled to a formal hearing before an ALJ, who
must consider a petition by CDCR seeking an order to continue
involuntary medication. In both cases, the ALJ makes a
determination based on a "clear and convincing" standard of
evidence, not probable cause, that specified criteria are met
that would authorize further involuntary medication. The key
difference is in the timing of the formal hearing. Under
Keyhea, after counsel is appointed and CDCR has completed and
filed the petition, the hearing typically is not held until
around the 47th day after involuntary medication was first
initiated.
Under this bill, the formal hearing would be held as early as 21
days after involuntary medication was first initiated, but no
later than 30 days later depending on whether emergency
medications are still being administered. The due process
protections that apply in the hearing, unlike the timeline,
would not differ under this bill whether the medication is
administered on an emergency or nonemergency basis. In
addition, this bill requires that the ALJ shall consider the
historical course of the inmate's mental disorder when it has a
direct bearing on the determination of whether the inmate is
gravely disabled or a danger to self or others.
Length of Authorization for an Order. Under Keyhea, an order
issued by the ALJ authorizing involuntary medication lasts 180
days for an inmate who is a danger to self or others, or 365
days for an inmate who is gravely disabled.
Under this bill, that difference in duration is eliminated, and
all orders authorizing involuntary medication are valid for 365
days (one year) from the date of the ALJ's determination.
Renewal of Existing Orders Allowing Involuntary Medication. The
Keyhea injunction was largely silent with respect to procedures
for renewing an existing order some time later after
authorization by the ALJ. Under Keyhea, CDCR must reinitiate
the entire process every 180 days or 365 days to continue its
authority to involuntarily medicate an inmate who was subject to
a previous order.
AB 1114
Page 11
This bill specifies the characteristics of a process to allow
CDCR to seek renewal of existing orders. The bill would still
require CDCR to provide the same due process protections
required to obtain the initial order for involuntary medication
on a nonemergency basis, including a formal administrative
hearing conducted in the same manner as initially carried out.
The bill would ensure a smooth transition in the timeline by
requiring any renewal request to be filed and served at least 21
days before expiration of the current order, and requiring the
ALJ hearing to be conducted prior to expiration of the current
order. Because the basis for an order to involuntarily medicate
an inmate differs when that inmate has not been medicated for
the past 180 or 365 days, as compared to when the inmate has
(and thus is presumably less disabled or less of a danger to
self or others), the bill requires the ALJ to decide by clear
and convincing evidence whether, but for the medication, the
inmate would revert to the behavior that was the basis for the
prior order, as further specified. Finally, renewal orders
would be authoritative for one year without distinction to if
the inmate is gravely disabled or a danger to self or others.
As Proposed To Be Amended, This Bill Balances Due Process
Protections With Expedited Procedures That Potentially Benefit
Inmates As Well. As proposed to be amended, this bill reflects
a carefully crafted agreement between the Committee and numerous
stakeholders that is intended to provide inmates with more than
minimal due process protections while at the same time
streamlining and expediting the Keyhea process. Elimination of
the certification review hearing, a central feature of this
bill, is potentially concerning from a due process standpoint
because it does away with a guaranteed opportunity to be heard.
Extending the time, from 180 days to 365 days, that an order may
authorize the involuntary medication of inmates who are a danger
to themselves or others raises a similar concern. The author
and sponsor have worked diligently with the Committee and other
stakeholders to develop amendments that address these concerns
(some of which are reflected in the April 6 amendments) and that
increase due process protections within a revised procedural
framework that does not, among other things, include provisions
for a certification review hearing.
The author proposes to adopt additional amendments in Committee
that do the following:
1. Require the inmate to be provided counsel within 24 hours of
AB 1114
Page 12
the initial administration of medication, if done on an
emergency basis, and require written notice of the right to
contest the ALJ's decision by filing a petition for writ of
habeas corpus. The author and sponsor of the bill contend that
"because California provides the prisoner with an ALJ hearing
that far exceeds basic due process requirements (under
Washington v. Harper), the certification review hearing is
entirely unnecessary and therefore wastes valuable clinical and
clerical resources." They also contend that, in practice, in
over 99% of cases the certification review hearing results in a
finding of probable cause that the inmate is gravely disabled or
is a danger to self or others, and the Keyhea process
appropriately moves forward as specified. Because the current
process does not allow for the ALJ hearing until roughly day 47,
the inmate often continues to receive involuntary medication for
over 30 days after the certification review up until the ALJ
hearing on the matter. Although this bill would eliminate the
certification hearing, it would also move up the ALJ hearing by
roughly 17 to 26 days-potentially saving the inmate from being
involuntarily medicated for that amount of time and making a
long-term treatment plan possible sooner.
With respect to the contention that the ALJ hearing under
Keyhea, and preserved under this bill, exceeds basic due process
requirements, there is evidence that the procedures set forth in
this bill meet, and in some case exceed, the requirements of
Washington. Indeed, the initial order for involuntary
medication is made by a psychiatrist upon a determination that
the inmate is gravely disabled or is a danger to self or others
because of mental illness. The inmate is entitled to a hearing,
but with greater due process protections, including an ALJ
presiding over the hearing. The inmate also appears to be
entitled to the necessary procedural rights, in additional to
assistance counsel, which the Court specifically stated was not
required. (494 U.S. at 228.) Finally, the involuntary
medication order is subject to judicial review every year, as
required by Washington.
2. Require CDCR to obtain an order from an ALJ (including an ex
parte order) to authorize the continuance of emergency
medication past 72 hours . This bill as currently in print
provides that psychotropic medication administered during an
emergency shall be administered for only so long as the
emergency continues to exist. Psychiatrists who contacted the
committee contend that, for clinical reasons, these types of
AB 1114
Page 13
medications should not be used in such a manner as to start and
stop within a few days. They contend generally that it is more
appropriate that these types of medications, once started, be
administered with minimal interruption as appropriate to avoid
the phenomenon of "decompensating," which may be very
detrimental for the patient's health as well. Patient
advocates, including Disability Rights California (DRC) and
others, contend that any rule that authorizes the psychiatrist
to prolong emergency administration of the medication past the
current limit of 72 hours essentially allows involuntary
medication of the inmate for the balance of 21 days (until the
mandatory ALJ hearing required by the bill), even if the
emergency has ceased, and without any opportunity to be heard or
judicial review of the psychiatrist's determination. This, they
argue, would unacceptably compromise the due process rights of
the inmate.
Therefore, the author proposes to amend the bill to require CDCR
to obtain an order from an ALJ (which may be obtained ex parte)
to authorize the continuance of emergency medication past 72
hours. As proposed to be amended, the inmate may present facts
supported by affidavit in opposition to the request for the
order, and only if an order is obtained may the psychiatrist
continue administration of the medication until the formal ALJ
hearing is held at day 21. This proposed amendment addresses
both clinical and due process concerns, allowing judicial review
but also the possibility of continuance of the medication upon
the psychiatrist's determination.
The Union of American Physicians and Dentists has sent a letter
to the Committee removing its initial opposition to the bill
based on clinical concerns. The San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Office has also officially withdrawn its opposition. Disability
Rights California and other advocates remain neutral on the bill
as proposed to be amended.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AFSCME
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Probation Parole and Correctional Association
AB 1114
Page 14
California Psychiatric Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Neutral (Opposition Withdrawn)
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office
Union of American Physicians and Dentists
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334