Administration of Justice update 3/7/2014
The California Department of State Hospitals Sponsors Legislative Package
In recent months, the problem of how to deal with mentally-ill defendants, and specifically those that are deemed incompetent to stand trial (IST), has been an area of increasing concern for the Governor’s Administration and the Department of State Hospitals (DSH). A sharp increase in IST referrals, a lengthening waitlist, and limited access to mental health treatment in the community, has been just a few of the issues prompting the Governor to convene a high-level advisory group to explore the problems presented by IST individuals.
Over the course of several meetings, the Administration compiled stakeholder feedback and developed statutory language changes which they believe will provide an appropriate remedy for several of the concerns identified by the workgroup. Specifically, DSH is sponsoring three Assembly bills this legislative session – AB 2625 (Achadjian), AB 2186 (Lowenthal), and AB 1960 (Perea).
Although CSAC provided technical assistance during the IST meetings, we have yet to take a position on any of the measures discussed below. We welcome your input and comments as these bills move forward.
AB 2625 (Achadjian) Defendants: Competence
This bill, authored by Assemblyman Achadjian, contains three provisions designed to streamline the process for returning IST defendants to their county of commitment after exhausting treatment at a State Hospital.
Under the bill:
- Counties must receive IST defendants whom they’ve committed to a state hospital no later than 10 days after the superior court has received notification from the hospital that there is no substantial likelihood that the defendant will regain competency.
- The Department of State Hospitals must notify the patient’s defense counsel and the district attorney of the Department’s determination that the defendant is unlikely to regain competency. Additionally, the Department must notify the Sheriff of the committing county so that transportation can be arranged.
- IST defendants who do not restore to competency at a State Hospital within a three-year period must be returned to their county of commitment 90 days prior to the statutory three-year length of stay cap.
DSH believes these changes, if implemented, will increase the number of beds available for waitlisted IST patients and reserve space for those who are most likely to benefit from treatment at a State Hospital. However, by imposing additional responsibilities on medical directors at local facilities, the bill would undoubtedly impose a state-mandated local program.
AB 2186 (Lowenthal) Defendants: Involuntary Medication
This bill, authored by Assemblywoman Lowenthal, aims to make a number of changes relating to the administration of involuntary medication (IM) orders for defendants who have been deemed incompetent to stand trial (IST) and have been committed to a State Hospital. Specifically, this bill has four main provisions:
- First, the bill would allow an IM order issued by a superior court to follow a patient between jurisdictions. Under current law, an IM order is only valid for a State Hospital facility. As such, the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) believes that IST patients that have restored to competency may unnecessarily decompensate in county jail while awaiting a new IM order authorizing continued medication at the local level.
- Second, the bill would allow a superior court to extend an IM order by 14 days when approved by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upon a finding of good cause. Under current law, an ALJ may issue an IM order after a hearing at a State Hospital, but the order will expire after 21 days at which point a new order must be secured from the superior court. DSH believes that superior courts do not have the resources necessary to keep up with the demand for new IM hearings and extensions, approved for good cause, would serve as an alternative tool to ensure that patients continue to receive medication essential for the success of their ongoing treatment plan.
- Third, the bill would allow a superior court to issue a one year extension on a previously issued IM order upon a finding of good cause. Under current law, after one year, a new petition and superior court hearing must take place to continue involuntary medication of the patient. DSH believes that a showing of good cause is sufficient to merit an extension of an IM order given that staff has limited resources and treatment plans often exceed one year.
- Fourth, the bill would make minor adjustments to the the timing of competency progress reports and IM reports. Specifically, the bill would synchronize due dates to reduce staff workload and ensure a more coordinated delivery to the courts.
While DSH believes that these changes will prevent unnecessary interruption in essential treatment for IST individuals, it is important to note that by imposing additional duties on local prosecuting agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
AB 1960 (Perea) State Hospitals: Patient Criminal History
This bill, authored by Assemblyman Perea, aims to provide state hospital clinicians with additional information on the criminal history of their patients so that they are better equipped to develop clinically appropriate treatment plans that take into account undisclosed criminal behavior that may put other patients and staff at risk.
Under the bill, the Attorney General would be authorized to provide state summary criminal history information to the director of a state hospital for patients committed to that facility for treatment. As would a law enforcement officer at a state hospital who has access to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System. The state hospital would be prohibited from using the information for any other purpose than determining appropriate treatment and security options. The hospital would be further required to destroy the criminal history information from the patient’s file within 30 days of discharge.
Bill to Extend Sunset on County Inmate Transfer Authority
AB 1512 (Stone): County Inmate Transfers
As you may be aware, under current law, the Board of Supervisors of a county may enter into a transfer agreement with another county to house local jail inmates when it is deemed in the opinion of the Sheriff of the transferring county that the current facilities for housing inmates are inadequate to serve the population. The Sheriff of the receiving county must also concur that the facility where the inmates are to be transferred has the capacity to handle the new population. Once these two conditions have been satisfied, the transferring county must then report annually to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the number of offenders who otherwise would be under that county’s jurisdiction but who are now being housed in another county’s facility and the reason for needing to house the offenders outside the county.
These provisions in current law are set to expire July of 2015. However, Assemblyman Stone has introduced Assembly Bill 1512 which is sponsored by the California State Sheriffs ‘Association and will extend these transfer authority provisions until July of 2020.
This bill appears to maintain county flexibility and preserve a clear population management tool for local sheriffs. CSAC is generally supportive of this measure, but would like any feedback you may have before taking a formal position.
If you have questions or comments about any of the bills in today’s legislative update, please do not hesitate to contact Elizabeth Howard Espinosa or London Biggs.