BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1194 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1194 (Eggman) As Amended May 6, 2015 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+------+-----------------------+------------------| |Health |16-0 |Bonta, Maienschein, | | | | |Burke, Chávez, Chiu, | | | | |Gomez, Gonzalez, | | | | |Lackey, Nazarian, | | | | |Patterson, | | | | |Ridley-Thomas, | | | | |Rodriguez, Santiago, | | | | |Thurmond, Waldron, | | | | |Wood | | | | | | | |----------------+------+-----------------------+------------------| |Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, Bloom, | | | | |Bonta, Calderon, | | | | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | | | | |Gallagher, Eduardo | | | | |Garcia, Holden, Jones, | | | | |Quirk, Rendon, Wagner, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ AB 1194 Page 2 SUMMARY: This bill requires, when an individual is determining if a person is a danger as a result of a mental health disorder (for the purposes of deciding whether the person meets criteria for a "5150" involuntary hold), the individual to consider available relevant information about the historical course of the person's mental disorder, if the individual concludes that the information has a reasonable bearing on the determination. It also specifies danger is not limited to danger of imminent harm. EXISTING LAW: 1)Establishes the Lanterman-Petris Short Act (LPS Act), which authorizes a person to be involuntarily detained for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, when, as a result of a mental disorder, the person is a danger to him or herself or to others, or is "gravely disabled." Defines "gravely disabled" to mean a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter. 2)Requires, when determining if probable cause exists to take a person into custody, or cause a person to be taken into custody, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 5150, any person who is authorized to take that person into to consider available relevant information about the historical course of the person's mental disorder if the authorized person determines that the information has a reasonable bearing on the determination as to whether the person is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or is gravely disabled as a result of the mental disorder. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible state fiscal effect. AB 1194 Page 3 COMMENTS: According to the author, current law does not make clear what constitutes danger when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to themselves or others and requires law enforcement or other qualified individuals to respond due to WIC Section 5150. The author argues that this bill simply clarifies that when a person with a mental health disorder is a danger to themselves or others, the term danger is not limited to imminent or immediate risk of harm to themselves or others. Rather, danger constitutes a present risk or harm that requires consideration of the historical course of a person's mental health disorder. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that those who are a danger to themselves or others receive the appropriate care under WIC Section 5150. LPS Act Section 5150 allows peace officers, staff-members of county-designated evaluation facilities, or other county-designated professional persons, to take an individual into custody and place him in a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation if they believe that, due to a mental disorder, the individual is a danger to himself, herself, or others, or is gravely disabled - i.e., unable to provide for basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter due to a mental disability. The LPS Act, enacted in the 1960s, was intended to balance the goals of maintaining the constitutional right to personal liberty and choice in mental health treatment, with the goal of safety. At the time of its enactment, the LPS Act was considered progressive because it afforded the mentally disordered more legal rights than most other states. Since its passage in 1967, the law in the field of mental health has continued to evolve toward greater legal rights for mentally disordered persons. The sponsors of this bill, the California Psychiatric Association, state in support that this bill will provide more timely access to treatment for people in psychiatric crisis who, without that treatment, may harm themselves or others. In particular, this bill could prevent a current risk of harm from escalating into AB 1194 Page 4 overt acts of violence. Clarifying what danger does and does not constitute can assure uniform application of the law where now there is wide variability in interpretation of danger throughout California. The sponsors write that seen from the ill person's and family's point of view, people with schizophrenia can keeps signs of aberrant behavior in check for the 20 minutes it might take police to interview them, and present no good reason for an officer to take any action. Once the officer leaves, the person may openly evince psychosis with agitation, incoherent yelling, and threats that caused the call by family members to the police in the first place. Disability Rights California (DRC) states in opposition that a present risk of harm as defined in this bill is overly broad, arguing most anything could be considered dangerous and thus involuntary detention could occur for anyone with a history of a mental health disability. Determination of the risk of danger requires consideration of the type of risk and type of potential harm in order to justify confining a person in a mental health treatment facility against their will. DRC states that the determination of present danger should be based on all of the circumstances including historical course. The proposed definition suggests that consideration of historical course alone can lead to a finding of present danger. Singling out historical course puts too much emphasis on it. It opens the door to the possibility that someone will be involuntarily confined for mental health disability who poses no danger to themselves or others. Analysis Prepared by: Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0000508 AB 1194 Page 5