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