Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Involuntary Commitment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Durham staff propose alternative transport option for involuntary commitments; officials to track use
Summary
City staff described a proposed agreement allowing certified crisis responders and a community response team to perform first exams in the field and, in some cases, use unmarked HEART vehicles for transport instead of law‑enforcement vehicles. Officials said they will capture data on how often the option is used.
City officials on the Durham City Council work session described a proposed agreement that would let certified first‑examiners and community response teams perform initial involuntary commitment (IVC) assessments in the field and, when clinically appropriate and safety criteria are met, use non‑police vehicles for transport to hospital evaluations.
Ryan Smith, director of community safety, said the change is intended to reduce traumatic, time‑intensive trips to emergency departments when a magistrate issues a police custody order. "We have certified first examiners by the state who can make that assessment and if someone doesn't meet the criteria, they can cancel the custody order with the magistrate," Smith said. He added the agreement will provide an "option on the table" to use HEART vehicles rather than law‑enforcement transport when teams jointly determine that is safe.
An assistant director leading the HEART/IRT teams gave the council a recent count of magistrate‑ordered transports: "In 2025, there were 742 IVC transports. In '24, there were 836," the assistant director said. Officials said they plan to adjust team hours to better match when IVCs are most frequent and will monitor outcomes after the agreement takes effect.
Council members raised legal and operational questions. One member pointed to a statutory preference for unmarked vehicles and asked why the draft agreement sometimes refers to an unmarked vehicle and elsewhere allows a HEART‑branded vehicle. The city attorney said the statute is permissive and staff intentionally left some operational details to a supporting standard operating procedure so the teams have needed flexibility. "If an unmarked vehicle isn't available, but a HEART vehicle is available, I think the preference would be to go ahead and transport them in that vehicle instead of a police vehicle," the attorney said.
Officials also addressed concerns that unhoused people might face disproportionate use of involuntary commitment. Smith said staff would only initiate the IVC process when clinically necessary and that the HEART program is not using involuntary commitment as a strategy to move people off the street.
Next steps: staff said they will continue to refine language with the city attorney and capture operational data once the agreement is implemented, and they offered to return with follow‑up statistics comparing year‑to‑year practice.
