BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1194
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1194 (Eggman)
As Amended September 2, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | 79-0 | (June 1, |SENATE: | 40-0 | (September 8, |
| | |2015) | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HEALTH
SUMMARY: 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.
The Senate amendments make technical non-substantive changes.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the Lanterman-Petris Short Act (LPS Act), which
authorizes a person to be involuntarily detained for a period
AB 1194
Page 2
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 Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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 (WIC) 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
AB 1194
Page 3
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 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
AB 1194
Page 4
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:
0002098