Court Opinion

ID: 9530448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:54.84556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:07.035877
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I respectfully specially concur in part and dissent in part. I strongly suspect documents and/or docket entries are missing from the record in this case but, at worst, technical procedural mistakes occurred due to a holiday weekend and perhaps agreements of defense counsel. Regardless, I concur in part with the majority, but I disagree with the majority’s finding a violation of the 36-hour notice provision. Perhaps the chief judge who signed the order was unfamiliar with the form and arguably checked the wrong provision. However, the order did provide for detention and examination. The order’s very title is “Order for Detention, Examination, Diagnostic Evaluation.” The court also ordered respondent be taken to Memorial by a police officer as set forth in the statute. Respondent must be admitted to the facility to be examined: “(a) *** If, however, the court finds that it is necessary in order to complete the examination[,] the court may order that the person be admitted to a mental health facility pending examination and may order a peace officer or other person to transport the person there. The examination shall be conducted at a local mental health facility or hospital or, if possible, in the respondent’s own place of residence. No person may be detained for examination under this [slection for more than 24 hours.” 405 ILCS 5/3 — -704(a) (West 2004). Under any circumstances, respondent must be released unless the necessary findings are made. “(a) *** The person shall be released upon completion of the examination unless the physician, qualified examiner[,] or clinical psychologist executes a certificate stating that the person is subject to involuntary admission and in need of immediate hospitalization to protect such person or others from physical harm. Upon admission under this [s]ection[,] treatment may be given pursuant to [slection 3 — 608.” 405 ILCS 5/3 — 704(a) (West 2004). To find a violation of this 36-hour notice is applying hypertechnical rules to the mental-health arena. Logically, how can a police officer transport and a physician examine without detaining the person pursuant to section 3 — 704? The 36-hour notice provision is intended to apply to situations where respondent remains in his home prior to examination and appears voluntarily, by necessity a provision seldom utilized in commitment proceedings. Whether a respondent is admitted under section VI of the Code, emergency admission by certification, or under section VII, admission by court order, the respondent may be detained only 24 hours without examination. This is an emergency situation, which permits service of the notice of examination, the petition, and the statement of rights at the same time as the service of admission: “If the respondent is admitted to a mental health facility for examination under [slection 3 — 704, such notices may be delivered at the time of service of the order for admission.” 405 ILCS 5/3— 705 (West 2004). In fact, these notices of examination and admission are included on the same form in Sangamon County. For these reasons, I would find no violation of the 36-hour provision, and I concur in part and dissent in part.