Opinion ID: 2631141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: LPS Act

Text: As brief background, in 1974 when the Assembly's Select Committee on Mentally Disordered Criminal Offenders conducted a public hearing, Assemblyman Frank Lanterman as chair acknowledged that the LPS Act, which was enacted in 1969, was not designed to accommodate the mentally disordered criminal offender. (Assem. Select Com. on Mentally Disordered Criminal Offenders, pub. hearing on House Res. No. 88 (1973-1974 Reg. Sess.) testimony of Assemblyman Lanterman, p. 1.) Although the LPS Act's initial purpose was not to treat MDO's, the Legislature later added provisions and amendments [t]o provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders among other private and public purposes (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5001, subd. (b) [LPS Act's legislative intent]), and also included in the MDO Act a provision relying on the LPS Act to prevent an inmate or parolee from premature or unintended release. (Pen.Code, § 2974 [on probable cause, Director of Corrections may place inmate/parolee in state hospital under LPS Act].) Moreover, during that 1974 hearing before the MDO Act was enacted, one expert's suggestion was to add a provision to the Penal Code commitment procedures so the arresting officer, who has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed a minor crime because of a mental disorder, can take that person to a designated mental health facility instead of to jail. If the staff at the mental health facility agrees with the arresting officer that the person is apparently mentally ill, then he could be held on certification of the officer for three days and be provided the same services available to those who are mentally ill and dangerous. If he is found to be mentally ill during the observation period, charges could be dropped and the person treated in accordance with the provision of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. (Assem. Select Com. on Mentally Disordered Criminal Offenders, pub. hearing on House Res. No. 88 (1973-1974 Reg. Sess.) testimony of Dr. Lowry, pp. 47-48.) As the hearing and testimony demonstrate, the MDO Act and LPS Act share two significant common goalsthe treatment of mentally disordered persons and the protection of the public. (See Pen.Code, § 2960 [MDO Act's findings and declarations]; Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5001 [LPS Act's legislative intent].)
As relevant here, we recently discussed the series of temporary detentions and the appointment of conservatorships available under the LPS Act. ( Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 541-542, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 856, 150 P.3d 738 (Ben C.).) The LPS Act `limits involuntary commitment to successive periods of increasingly longer duration, beginning with a 72-hour detention for evaluation and treatment ( [Welf. & Int.Code,] § 5150), which may be extended by certification for 14 days of intensive treatment (§ 5250); that initial period may be extended for an additional 14 days if the person detained is suicidal. (§ 5260.) ... [T]he 14-day certification may be extended for an additional 30-day period for further intensive treatment. § 5270.15.) Persons found to be imminently dangerous may be involuntarily committed for up to 180 days beyond the 14-day period. (§ 5300.) After the initial 72-hour detention, the 14-day and 30-day commitments each require a certification hearing before an appointed hearing officer to determine probable cause for confinement unless the detainee has filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus. (§§ 5256, 5256.1, 5262, 5270.15, 5275, 5276.) A 180-day commitment requires a superior court order. (§ 5301.)' (Id. at p. 541, 53 Cal. Rptr.3d 856, 150 P.3d 738, quoting Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1005, 1009, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 40, 884 P.2d 988.) The LPS Act's carefully calibrated series of temporary detentions for evaluation and treatment ( Ben C, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 541, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 856, 150 P.3d 738), is obviously more complicated than the MDO Act's one-year commitments. (See §§ 2962-2972; see ante, 64 Cal. Rptr.3d at pp. 128-129, 164 P.3d at pp. 560-561.) While the LPS Act asks whether as a result of a mental disorder, a person is a danger to self or others (see, e.g., Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 5150, 5250, 5300)the latter of which is similar to the MDO Act (Pen.Code, § 2970)another salient question for detention under the LPS Act is whether the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5008, subd. (h)(1).) [7] As relevant here, gravely disabled means [a] condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5008(h)(1)(A); but see id., § 5350, subd. (e) [not gravely disabled if family/friends indicate in writing they are willing and able to help provide for conservatee's personal needs].) However, in addition to the somewhat piecemeal short-term detentions discussed above, a one-year conservatorship may be sought, similar to the one-year commitments under the MDO Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5350, 5361; Prob.Code, § 1400 et seq. [governing LPS Act conservatorships]; see also Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5352.1 [court-ordered temporary conservatorship of 30 days].) Conservatorship proceedings may only be initiated by the professional person in charge of the treatment facility, who recommends a conservatorship if the proposed conservatee is gravely disabled by a mental disorder. If the officer providing conservatorship investigation agrees with the recommendation, the officer may petition the superior court to establish a conservatorship. (Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 5352, 5352.5.) Once established, a conservatorship terminates automatically at the end of one year, unless the conservator petitions to reestablish conservatorship at or before the termination of the one-year period. (Id., §§ 5361, 5362.)