Sponsor seeks statutory clarity on use of force for emergency evaluations; advocates warn defaulting to law‑enforcement response risks harm

A bill to clarify the use of force and to authorize limited extensions for emergency psychiatric evaluation petitions prompted sharply divided testimony during a House Health and Government Operations Committee hearing.

"What this bill does is it provides clarity in our statute about use of force when it comes to our mental health patients who are in crisis," Delegate Olston (sponsor) told the committee, arguing the change is intended to give law enforcement certainty when serving orders that are civil in form but can be dangerous in practice.

Representatives of the Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Office described the operational risks of serving emergency petitions and cited two deputy deaths during service in prior years. "Since we were enacted in 1696, we have lost 2 deputies in the line of duty. It was resulting in them serving an emergency petition order," the sheriff’s representative testified, adding that deputies assigned to behavioral‑health response receive crisis intervention and de‑escalation training.

The bill also includes a mechanism to extend an unserved emergency evaluation order for limited five‑day increments where good cause is shown, the sponsor explained, so families would not be forced to refile an entirely new petition when the subject temporarily eludes service.

Opponents — including peers and Disability Rights Maryland — urged an unfavorable report. They argued that mental‑health crises deserve health‑centered responses rather than law‑enforcement action and warned the statute’s language could normalize force in health crises. "We are opposing this bill because it does not align with the intended purpose of an emergency petition, which is to keep an individual in crisis safe and provide timely care in the present," Michelle Lipshin of a peer network testified. Courtney Bergen of Disability Rights Maryland said, "mental health crises deserve a mental health response, not a law enforcement response."

Committee members asked about training, crisis‑response models that pair clinicians and peers with law enforcement, and data tracking; the sponsor said she will propose a subcommittee amendment adding tracking requirements and emphasized coordination with judiciary and other stakeholders for technical drafting.

Ending: The hearing ended with no committee vote. The sponsor agreed to file a subcommittee amendment adding data collection and to continue negotiations with advocacy groups and judiciary staff.