exceptions to the stockton and the first and the easiest exception the court only need find one exception but this case does meet the collateral consequences section and meets the collateral consequences exception because these cases aren't the first ever entry into the mental health court system for mysteries to see so this is a person who has pursuant to the joseph p case and the judge and meetings those cases provide that if the commitment is reversed the medication the immediately following medication order can also be reversed because the medication is sought in conjunction with the responder perceiving him patient care pursuant to a commitment order so those are the those are the straightforward ways to deal with th case i would like to turn over to the substantive the particular substantive issues raised in the briefs because of time constraints which you deal with the issue of the listing of a police officer hospitalized and this can be done by the officer executing the petition or the officer being named competition as a witness this is very important because without reasonable grounds the officer can only turn support a person to a psychiatric facility on a valid order of detention examination or i authorized by the county sheriff upon the receipt of a petition and certificates so here we know there was no order for detention and evaluation in this case we know the the petition  were only done after the person got to the hospital so there was no basis for the officer there with there was no mental health could basis either by a court order to bring the person to the hospital where there's already been some probable cause presented to a judge we don't want that we don't have a petition and try to picket that have been filed already and i don't think it matters who brought it to the hospital i mean agree that yes she was in police custody and this one right to the hospital yes and whether the police brought her whether the paramedics bring her  the police just direction she was in police custody police were required to either execute the petition or it's not a hardship to leave your names with the hospital but it wasn't done so but she was prejudiced because if you really if you read the transcript and you read the facts there are one thing references to for which they never brought the wife or mother to the hospital for which they never called the police for which they never executed a certificate and most will prevent it they responded from i think it's important to keep in mind that the state always has the burden in these cases it's the state's burden to make sure all the petition is prepared properly that all of the documents are in order and that's the state bird to prove  case by clear convincing evidence it's not the respondents burden to seek out to seek out witnesses cured it appears that the court defined by clear and convincing evidence about which was presented is it your position that you it to respond in here would have called the police officer to say there really wasn't an altercation the really wasn't anything going on here i was completely in control and i think that's a possibility we don't know because we don't know who this officer was we don't know what this officer observed but we also knew from the from the  proceedings that nobody talked about that there was talk about things that happened in the past there was nothing talking about that particular day when police were called who called the police we don't know and don't know what happened and they are she was brought to the police or she was but she the police came police arranged for her to be taken to a psychiatric facility without without order  that if we knew the police officer was known we would perhaps file a motion for more definite and certain pleading oh but often the state is are on top of that and the state has question then it's going to fold here had this been brought up during any of the proceedings it could have been cured in a millisecond here's the police officers name is mentioned i don't know that in the statute doesn't suggest that that's the remedy well if you read it if you read some of the cases where era where where strict statutory compliance with the co that because of the due process liberty interest at the ship these are cases that are tremendously imposed by persons liberty impose a person's autonomy needs to continue to remain in the hospital the entropy change which was first decided by this court and then addressed again at the supreme court level it's ok to to detain the person and file a new and appropriate petition but that would be the remedy there are some protections there though because if the person is in the hospital i think that the court would need to take article seven is a machine by court order so if a case were in the trial court and there were a motion to dismiss because of this violation of three sets of six and no police officer could be found oh the case could be dismissed and then the state  but judge we would at this time ask for permission for an order of detention to detain this person and to in order to file a new detention and so you know the person would not be just outright released honor we would ask for a continuance we would ask for a continuance to seek out the name of that police officer so the case might not be automatically dismissed but the state could then take the time to discover that information him as you know in article eight of the code there is no holidays for fifteen days of continuance so if the first hearing much that the police officer was not identified but that the petition that was filed was not proper in that it did not miss the officer or as the reporter or as a witness and therefore the mandatory report is now not correct it's not true that the petition does not you look at the petition on pretty much for the record the box is checked the police officer or peace officer did not trades who were this respondent in the transcript a pages sixty sixty one the doctor testifies apparently the police were present at the incident at some point but it was the paramedics that transported the responding to the hospital now th paramedics can transport for him over of reasons they responded can voluntarily agreed her family could have persuaded her that she needed to go to the hospital did an evaluation rather than be arrested by the police for disorderly conduct or something bringing our responding in any contact we we we don't we don't testify no two people that testify at the hearing were the doctor who did the evaluation he responded as husband the respond transported or should have been named she testified that the police brought that with her position it's the hospital or the petition that indicated it was a paramedic and she didn't want to hand it that she said that she was transported by the police officers it's been quite a while but my recollection is that the doctors testimony is that the police in fact were present at the incident so at some time but there's no evidence that she was ever in she stands right and unless it's challenged that's it you have to assume that is correct unless it's challenged and there's some contrary evidence presented who determined by the petition that there was an immediate need for allegation that she wasn't technically deal with this is part of the divorce proceeding and it's all a plot by her husband there's nothing like that on the woman who was you know she was taken for an evaluation which is the proper procedure i think one of the underlying ten ends of the case law is that a person needs to be treated rather than criminalized so it's always better to have your medics transported a person to the hospital through the evaluation rather than have more intimidating custodial police officers transporting  if you want to look at it says a peace officer may change a person into custody and transport him to a mental health facility when the police officer has reasonable grounds to republicans so this section opponent lives if the peace officer kissling waiting for freedom are you saying she has the right to wait for freedom the woman who is who is there because we have a basic presumption that she is unable to care for her so well at the point where the hospitalization is the most restrictive so that is the remedy of last resort and in this day actually there is a requirement that the least restrictive alternative be sought and chosen cases there is no less restrictive alternative the doctor testifies to that on in this case we not only have the doctor stating that that fish not psychiatrically stable enough for an alternative or lesser form of treatment but we have testimony from her family who would be the alternative care providers and it's obvious that since she's just been removed from the the state for people to demonstrate that house causation is the least restrictive alternative and this may be proved by experts supported by evidence there's doesn't seem to think that they're responding as you do anything other than you have to be there frankly because we  hours because if it was just to have an examination it would be less it would be less with your time right i don't know if i'm correct and it's been quite a while since i looked at this and i was also way to get m moments but please don't so in ways when it's required by the state in the burden of showing her involuntary admission is that she be valuated by a competent professional that there will be a petition that the case that this court of law allowed to cite is a jewish additional authority which came out recently says that this is not a harmless error this is not something that can be waived this is the thing for the think of the infringement on that person's liberty if the person truly hands on the to illness and is in need of some type of treatment think of the counter therapeutic nature of that type of action  when they're picked up by a police officer if i can be fined decide you know someone in my household is out of control you're saying that i can not get them so the police were involved here and according to three six zero five of them up to health code paramedics are allowed to transport a person to the hospital if they are contract with the county sheriff and presented with a petition to tickets and the recent sheriff case out of the first district tell us about the vast difference between an article six and an article seven that mission hospital they are going to seek an order for their valuation if there is an emergency then the court can enter an order right away for the person to be brought to the hospital ex parte there doesn't have to be any notice to response that can happen right away if there is a need for that and in the article seven also says that if there is this need the court has to make a finding that it's necessary for an ex parte picking up of the person and bring to the hospital if it's not the person is entitled to i think it's three days notice and they're entitled to stay at home pending their valuation they would have to report for their evaluation the court can enter in order to accomplish that evaluation the court if the court makes a finding that there is an emergency the court can order the person detained without notice to the person if the court determines that there is not emergency the person is then given notice and the time is set for the evaluation and if the court thinks it's necessary the court can arrange for transportation so that the person will get to a valuation would with with that three days  and as far as i can tell from the records the understanding was that the police orchestrated this person come to the hospital i don't know if the police brought the person or if the parents brought the person the doctor f to the police bring the person to the hospital and in that situation this person was entitled to some due process and the very least of this is that the the police officer had t correctly and i would i would say that it is a shame here that the public defender did not object but looking at the mental health code the state has the burden of making sure that everything responded arrived at the front door of the hospital where the facility i don't know what happened with getting that person to the hospital the doctor to write off it i mean with all due respect i think that's a stretch f instance testimony but someone observed you responded walking in checks the box that says they did not arrive via the police cannot the state law on ha i mean are you saying that the state has to check every single thing that's filled out on a petition that's filled out by someone else over which they have no control i mean can't they rely on the people in their ordinary course of business are checking the right boxes and making the right up survey sions and maybe nobody maybe maybe based on the way this petition was prepared it was a mistake on the part of the hospital i don't we don't know you know that was eat but even fair she was brought by someone other than a police officer maybe this decision needs to be directed at the police officers i think there is i think there is a concern among officers that they do not want to get involved in these type of cases and they will not have their presence you know and yet it's ambulance brought them can't they rely on never giving have to make phone calls and say you shouldn't wasn't a police officer excuse me involved i mean that's what i hear you basically saying if that and i think what would help it is during police officer rather than contradicts the petition let's get to the bottom of this this is just this is veering important person is picked up with no notice and brought to the hospital i'm asking the court to take into account the serious infringement on a person's liberty that that represents and how on we can't ignore it we need to make sure that if officers are doing th they are executing the magician they are putting their names on the petition as a witness that putting your name on the petition as a witness leaving your name with the hospital to make sure they hand them that senator byrd it's not a burden in office or it's not a burden honor's this case cannot be permitted to stand first of all because it was it was the this was a commitment based on the now unconstitutional it's repealed standard of dangerous conduct so i w court to reverse on that i would ask the court to reverse the medication and i would ask the court if there's any consideration of the disposition of a part that the court consider there was not sufficient there is no sufficient report in writing