FURTHER APPEARS TO THE UNDERSIGNED THAT WHERE THE "LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL" WHO EXAMINES THIS PERSON AND DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON DOES NOT REQUIRE EMERGENCY DETENTION, THE SAME PEACE OFFICER (OR HIS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY) IS THE APPROPRIATE PARTY TO RETURN THAT PERSON "IMMEDIATELY TO THE POINT WHERE HE WAS TAKEN INTO PROTECTIVE CUSTODY" UNDER 43A O.S. 5-208(1). THIS IS THE MOST REASONABLE READING OF THE STATUTE ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT 43A O.S. 5-208 REFERS BACK TO THE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY SITUATION IN 5-207.
TITLE 43A IS SILENT ON MANY OTHER POTENTIAL SCENARIOS CONCERNING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSPORTATION, AND SINCE THE DEFINITION OF PEACE OFFICER MAY MEAN EITHER THE CITY POLICE OR THE COUNTY SHERIFF EMPLOYEES, IT MAY BE LOGICALLY CONSTRUED THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED THAT EITHER OF THESE OFFICES MIGHT HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE MENTALLY ILL AFTER A PERSON IS TAKEN INTO PROTECTIVE CUSTODY AND EMERGENCY EVALUATION. AND, SINCE THE STATUTE IS SILENT, IT MIGHT ALSO BE LOGICALLY CONSTRUED THAT THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM FACILITY IN WHICH THE PERSON BEING EXAMINED IS LOCATED COULD ALSO EITHER SHARE OR HAVE TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS FOR EMERGENCY DETENTION TO APPROPRIATE FACILITIES.
TO SPECULATE REGARDING THE LEGISLATURE'S INTENT IN THIS AREA OF WOULD BE AN UNAUTHORIZED ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE STATUTORY SCHEME. THE STATUTES, WHILE INDICATING GENERALLY THAT THE SHERIFF HAS RESPONSIBILITIES IN CERTAIN NARROW INSTANCES, ARE SILENT REGARDING WHICH "PEACE OFFICER" HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSPORTATION UNDER MANY OF THE POTENTIAL CIRCUMSTANCES POSED BY YOUR QUESTION. THE POTENTIAL FOR MYRIAD FACTUAL SITUATIONS POSED BY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ALSO CREATES A PROBLEM IN OFFERING A CLEAR ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. THIS AREA IS IN NEED OF LEGISLATIVE GUIDANCE.
(THOMAS L. SPENCER/JANIE SIMMS HIPP)