Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mental Health Emergency Detention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to create 72-hour crisis stabilization hold and permit remote hearings
Summary
Sen. John Esp told the House Health and Human Services Committee that Senate Bill 435 would allow a 72-hour crisis stabilization hold and permit certain hearings by audio-visual connection from the facility where a person is held.
Senator John Esp opened a hearing on Senate Bill 435, which would add a 72-hour crisis stabilization hold to Montana—s involuntary commitment statutes and permit audio‑visual participation in certain hearings from the facility where a person is held.
Karen Alley, associate general counsel for the Montana Association of Counties, told the committee the association vetted the bill through district meetings and its justice and public safety committee and believes the 72-hour model is used by a majority of states. Alley said the bill is modeled largely on California—s language and would allow placement in a mental health or crisis stabilization facility upon recommendation of a mental health professional; it also requires notice to the county attorney and public defender and allows counties to authorize transport to nearby facilities.
Other proponents included Nenette Gilbertson (Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and Montana County Attorneys Association), Chad Parker (deputy chief legal counsel, DPHHS), Matt Kuntz (executive director, NAMI Montana), county commissioners George Reelberg and Zac Brown. Supporters said a 72-hour hold would give clinicians, courts and law enforcement more time to stabilize individuals in crisis without immediately initiating the involuntary commitment process, and could reduce needless transports and strain on jail capacity.
Representative Kelly asked whether the statute authorizes a peace officer or paramedic to bring a person to a hospital for evaluation; Alley said officers or paramedics could present someone for evaluation but the bill is not intended to authorize a peace officer to impose a hold without an evaluation by a qualified professional. Committee members also pressed on whether, at the end of 72 hours, a court proceeding is required; Alley and the sponsor said options at the end of the hold include discharge, voluntary referral for further care, or that the county attorney may file a petition for involuntary commitment.
Representative Rebus, identifying herself as a public defender, noted similar language had been presented in a prior session and asked whether the authors had worked with public defenders to improve the language; Alley said she had floated the concept to the public defender—s office before introducing the bill but had not worked with the specific public defender who had previously opposed near-identical language.
On the question of audiovisual hearings, Alley said initial advisement of rights would be in person prior to transport; subsequent hearings could be conducted remotely if ordered by the court. The sponsor closed by reiterating the three options at the end of the 72-hour hold and offering help to a house sponsor if the committee chose to move the bill forward. The transcript records no committee vote on SB 435.
