Sponsors and advocates spar over use‑of‑force language in emergency‑petition reform bill
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 860 would clarify force standards when law enforcement serves emergency petitions and allow limited extensions and data disclosures; supporters say the change protects officers and patients, while disability and civil‑rights advocates worry the language re‑emphasizes police use of force and could worsen outcomes for people in crisis.
Delegate Austin presented House Bill 860 to the Senate Finance Committee as a clarification of the standards for law enforcement when serving emergency petitions (EPs) and to create a mechanism to extend petitions when good cause exists. The sponsor said amendments requested by the public defender’s office and disability advocates narrowed concerns and produced a version that several stakeholder groups now view as neutral.
The bill seeks to clarify whether officers serving civil emergency petitions may use necessary and proportional force consistent with the public‑safety statute and to require disclosure of documents tied to extended petitions to the public defender. Supporters said the bill fills a gap for officers who must serve a civil order that in some cases may require physical intervention to transport a person to care and that it includes best‑practice encouragement to involve crisis intervention teams when available.
On Our Own Maryland (Michelle Lipshin) and other mental‑health advocates opposed the measure, saying it risks reinforcing an association between mental illness and dangerousness and could legitimize use‑of‑force in health‑care contexts. Lipshin noted national data showing police‑involved killings frequently involve people in crisis and urged a data‑driven approach instead. The public defender’s office described negotiated record‑sharing language and signaled neutrality on the amended bill.
Senators asked whether removing the statutory reference to the Maryland use‑of‑force statute would make officers unable to protect themselves; the sponsor and law‑enforcement proponents said removing the language would “gut” the bill because EPs are civil orders and officers need explicit clarity they may use necessary and proportional force if a situation becomes dangerous. Opponents replied that existing public safety statutes already govern officers’ authority and that inserting the language into a health bill risks emphasizing force.
The hearing produced no committee vote. The exchange illustrated a persistent tension between ensuring safe deployment of emergency psychiatric evaluations and avoiding statutory language that advocates say could normalize force in mental‑health encounters. Sponsors said they would provide amendment text requested by the public defender and continue stakeholder discussions.
