How to remove the 5150 from public record

[TLTRAN]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My son, who is 17 y/o, was overdosing on a sleeping pill. He was seen at the emergency room. The ER physician felt that it was a suicidal attempt and recommended him to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

He stayed at the facility for 3 days. Upon discharged, we found out that they had placed him there on an "involuntary psychiatric hold" (Section 5150 California Welfare and Institutions Code). The "hold" would go into his public record and prevent him from working for any law-enforcement agency or joining the arm forces.

Since his admission to the psychiatric facility was voluntary (I agreed with the ER physician's recommendation and did not make any objection), can we request that this "involuntary psychiatric hold" to be remove from his public record ?

Thank you

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My son, who is 17 y/o, was overdosing on a sleeping pill. He was seen at the emergency room. The ER physician felt that it was a suicidal attempt and recommended him to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

He stayed at the facility for 3 days. Upon discharged, we found out that they had placed him there on an "involuntary psychiatric hold" (Section 5150 California Welfare and Institutions Code). The "hold" would go into his public record and prevent him from working for any law-enforcement agency or joining the arm forces.

Since his admission to the psychiatric facility was voluntary (I agreed with the ER physician's recommendation and did not make any objection), can we request that this "involuntary psychiatric hold" to be remove from his public record ?

Thank you

I don't think it works that way.

A suicide attempt is a suicide attempt, and should be considered for future employment opportunities in some cases. Why do you think your son's information should not?

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My son, who is 17 y/o, was overdosing on a sleeping pill. He was seen at the emergency room. The ER physician felt that it was a suicidal attempt and recommended him to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

He stayed at the facility for 3 days. Upon discharged, we found out that they had placed him there on an "involuntary psychiatric hold" (Section 5150 California Welfare and Institutions Code). The "hold" would go into his public record and prevent him from working for any law-enforcement agency or joining the arm forces.

Since his admission to the psychiatric facility was voluntary (I agreed with the ER physician's recommendation and did not make any objection), can we request that this "involuntary psychiatric hold" to be remove from his public record ?

Thank you

A mental health commit is not a record easily accessible by anyone. What it will do is prevent him from owning or possessing a firearm (and thus preventing a career in law enforcement or the military) after a search of the appropriate (and highly restricted) database.

And, as a note, a 5150 hold is an "involuntary commitment." All because he did not object does not change the fact that the hold was placed.

Here is the appeal process per W&I 8103:

(f) (1) No person who has been (A) taken into custody as provided
in Section 5150 because that person is a danger to himself, herself,
or to others, (B) assessed within the meaning of Section 5151, and
(C) admitted to a designated facility within the meaning of Sections
5151 and 5152 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or
others, shall own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or
attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm
for a period of five years after the person is released from the
facility. A person described in the preceding sentence, however, may
own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own,
possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm if the superior
court has, pursuant to paragraph (5), found that the people of the
State of California have not met their burden pursuant to paragraph
(6).
(2) (A) For each person subject to this subdivision, the facility
shall immediately, on the date of admission, submit a report to the
Department of Justice, on a form prescribed by the Department of
Justice, containing information that includes, but is not limited to,
the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the
person was admitted to the facility.
Any report submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall be
confidential, except for purposes of the court proceedings described
in this subdivision and for determining the eligibility of the person
to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase a firearm.
(B) Commencing July 1, 2012, facilities shall submit reports
pursuant to this paragraph exclusively by electronic means, in a
manner prescribed by the Department of Justice.
(3) Prior to, or concurrent with, the discharge, the facility
shall inform a person subject to this subdivision that he or she is
prohibited from owning, possessing, controlling, receiving, or
purchasing any firearm for a period of five years. Simultaneously,
the facility shall inform the person that he or she may request a
hearing from a court, as provided in this subdivision, for an order
permitting the person to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase
a firearm. The facility shall provide the person with a form for a
request for a hearing. The Department of Justice shall prescribe the
form. Where the person requests a hearing at the time of discharge,
the facility shall forward the form to the superior court unless the
person states that he or she will submit the form to the superior
court.
(4) The Department of Justice shall provide the form upon request
to any person described in paragraph (1). The Department of Justice
shall also provide the form to the superior court in each county. A
person described in paragraph (1) may make a single request for a
hearing at any time during the five-year period. The request for
hearing shall be made on the form prescribed by the department or in
a document that includes equivalent language.
(5) Any person who is subject to paragraph (1) who has requested a
hearing from the superior court of his or her county of residence
for an order that he or she may own, possess, control, receive, or
purchase firearms shall be given a hearing. The clerk of the court
shall set a hearing date and notify the person, the Department of
Justice, and the district attorney. The people of the State of
California shall be the plaintiff in the proceeding and shall be
represented by the district attorney. Upon motion of the district
attorney, or on its own motion, the superior court may transfer the
hearing to the county in which the person resided at the time of his
or her detention, the county in which the person was detained, or the
county in which the person was evaluated or treated. Within seven
days after the request for a hearing, the Department of Justice shall
file copies of the reports described in this section with the
superior court. The reports shall be disclosed upon request to the
person and to the district attorney. The court shall set the hearing
within 30 days of receipt of the request for a hearing. Upon showing
good cause, the district attorney shall be entitled to a continuance
not to exceed 14 days after the district attorney was notified of the
hearing date by the clerk of the court. If additional continuances
are granted, the total length of time for continuances shall not
exceed 60 days. The district attorney may notify the county mental
health director of the hearing who shall provide information about
the detention of the person that may be relevant to the court and
shall file that information with the superior court. That information
shall be disclosed to the person and to the district attorney. The
court, upon motion of the person subject to paragraph (1)
establishing that confidential information is likely to be discussed
during the hearing that would cause harm to the person, shall conduct
the hearing in camera with only the relevant parties present, unless
the court finds that the public interest would be better served by
conducting the hearing in public. Notwithstanding any other law,
declarations, police reports, including criminal history information,
and any other material and relevant evidence that is not excluded
under Section 352 of the Evidence Code shall be admissible at the
hearing under this section.
(6) The people shall bear the burden of showing by a preponderance
of the evidence that the person would not be likely to use firearms
in a safe and lawful manner.
(7) If the court finds at the hearing set forth in paragraph (5)
that the people have not met their burden as set forth in paragraph
(6), the court shall order that the person shall not be subject to
the five-year prohibition in this section on the ownership, control,
receipt, possession, or purchase of firearms. A copy of the order
shall be submitted to the Department of Justice. Upon receipt of the
order, the Department of Justice shall delete any reference to the
prohibition against firearms from the person's state mental health
firearms prohibition system information.
(8) Where the district attorney declines or fails to go forward in
the hearing, the court shall order that the person shall not be
subject to the five-year prohibition required by this subdivision on
the ownership, control, receipt, possession, or purchase of firearms.
A copy of the order shall be submitted to the Department of Justice.
Upon receipt of the order, the Department of Justice shall, within
15 days, delete any reference to the prohibition against firearms
from the person's state mental health firearms prohibition system
information.
(9) Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit the use of reports
filed pursuant to this section to determine the eligibility of
persons to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase a firearm if
the person is the subject of a criminal investigation, a part of
which involves the ownership, possession, control, receipt, or
purchase of a firearm.​

 

[tranquility]

"Highly restricted database", what's that?

Apparently, nothing is really restricted. Not the phone. Not the texts. Not what you search for on the internet. Or where your move. Or what you buy. Or.....just about anything.

Actual, official records? Yea, I'd say they don't disappear. Even if you try to make them so. The Man always knows. Period. Exclamation point.

Taxes. Phone. Location from phone. Electrical use from "smart" boxes. Credit card. Anything signed. Anything paid for other than cash. EVERYTHING. Get over it, citizen, it is for your own good. Heck, we've stopped a BOMBER. Wait until they think of mere crime. (Like the morally evil crime of copyright abuse.) Someday, the Congress will pass a law to allow search for common crime. You will all be implicated. It will just cost you money, but, who cares? We, and those with money, will be safe in their vaunted estates.

I suspect even writing the above puts me on a list somewhere. But, that's my way. Citizen's militia, and all that. Praise be to the second amendment. Yes, I'll go first; because of my writing (Where they know who and where I am.). Let others have a moment to plan when they see.

Sure TLTRAN, you want your child to not suffer. But, he will. Even if you have a legal reason to expunge the facts; they are always there. Always. Legal protections mean nothing. The government is better than us and they do what they want.

Have you not read the news?

 

[CdwJava]

"Highly restricted database", what's that?

One that the average Joe - and even law enforcement - cannot access without leaping through major hoops. I could have been more technical, but, why?

Suffice it to say that with the access to all the records I have, I could not find out if he had ever been committed without jumping through a lot of hoops after citing sufficient cause. If he tried to obtain a firearm or owned one, then it'd be easier because I'd get notified through APPS (a state database for prohibited persons and firearms).

Apparently, nothing is really restricted. Not the phone. Not the texts. Not what you search for on the internet. Or where your move. Or what you buy. Or.....just about anything.

Well, local and state agencies don't work for the feds, and the feds don't tend to share squat. So what they might know or have buried in a deep intel file somewhere is not shared.

Now, diverting from the current news rant and returning to the OP's specific concern ...

TLTran,

There is a process that you and your son can take to try and remove this prohibition. He will need the help of an attorney, and even then there is no guarantee that he will succeed. An attorney with experience in this area would be best equipped to advise him as to the likelihood of success in this matter. Unfortunately, it may take a few years before he will likely be able to apply ... at 17, and with his commitment being only recent, he may not have any real grounds to contest this for some time. But, speak to an attorney.

 

[tranquility]

News "rant" notwithstanding, nothing is secret any longer. Get an attorney if you'd like. But, anyone in the government will know. Even low level people willing to take some heat. I am completely certain the states don't do the same as the feds. (Insert ironic emoticon here.)

NOTHING IS SECRET. From now on, it all just a game.

 

[CdwJava]

Tranq, as the guy on the inside, I can tell you that we do not know what the feds know - and they don't necessarily know what WE know (my network is a closed system). If we had access to all those federal files and records, so much of our job might be easier - though prosecutions based on such data would be nearly impossible ... we don't, and it isn't. We also don't have ready access to those mental health files. ... Of course, if I was part of the vast government conspiracy, I wouldn't admit it.

Now, you can continue your rant if you'd like, or, you can return to the practical and the here and now - something you are good at and (until this thread) have often offered good, sound, practical legal advice. There is a difference between the NSA and local government, and you know it. This teenager's mental health commitment is not going to trigger red lights at the Pentagon, Langley, or D.C. So, let's return to reality.

 

[tranquility]

Tranq, as the guy on the inside, I can tell you that we do not know what the feds know - and they don't necessarily know what WE know (my network is a closed system). If we had access to all those federal files and records, so much of our job might be easier - though prosecutions based on such data would be nearly impossible ... we don't, and it isn't. We also don't have ready access to those mental health files. ... Of course, if I was part of the vast government conspiracy, I wouldn't admit it.

Now, you can continue your rant if you'd like, or, you can return to the practical and the here and now - something you are good at and (until this thread) have often offered good, sound, practical legal advice. There is a difference between the NSA and local government, and you know it. This teenager's mental health commitment is not going to trigger red lights at the Pentagon, Langley, or D.C. So, let's return to reality.

The feds know what you know Carl.

There is a vast government conspiracy. It's been in all the papers. No one is denying it, the powers that be are just saying they are upset it was leaked and they have been doing it for our benefit. The attorney general and the chief of the NSA both imply there is much more than has been released so far as well. And are willing to discuss it with Congress in the "appropriate" setting. (Meaning with the intelligence committee in secret meetings.)

Next year, all medical records have a requirement under the law to be electronically accessible under Obamacare. The IRS in an audit of a computer center seized the medical records of 10 million Americans including 1 million Californians. The center, while undisclosed in the lawsuit, is called a "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act secure facility". There are also a number of private firms who collect such data when available or put on the public log that is accessible for a bit of money.

The time to pretend the government does not permanently have access to all electronic information is past. You may roll your eyes all you want, but that is a bit beneath you. The world has changed. Data is forever. The old ways of doing things just look foolish today. Not as a rant, but as a fact.

 

[Silverplum]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment

 

[CdwJava]

The feds know what you know Carl.

That'd be tough, Tranq, since our network is closed and not online ... and not like they'd care about local drunks, addicts, thieves, etc. But, if the feds wanted that info, they'd have to ask for it.

There is a vast government conspiracy. It's been in all the papers. No one is denying it, the powers that be are just saying they are upset it was leaked and they have been doing it for our benefit. The attorney general and the chief of the NSA both imply there is much more than has been released so far as well. And are willing to discuss it with Congress in the "appropriate" setting. (Meaning with the intelligence committee in secret meetings.)

And NONE of that has anything to do with the OP's situation regarding a 5150 for his 17 year old son.

I was not aware that this was the "current events in the news" thread ...

 

[tranquility]

That'd be tough, Tranq, since our network is closed and not online ... and not like they'd care about local drunks, addicts, thieves, etc. But, if the feds wanted that info, they'd have to ask for it.


And NONE of that has anything to do with the OP's situation regarding a 5150 for his 17 year old son.

I was not aware that this was the "current events in the news" thread ...

The process the information is shared, at least in the "urban" areas are though "fusion centers" run by DHS. This is where such computer information is shared. California has the "California State Threat Assessment Center", "Central California Intelligence Center; Sacramento, CA", "Los Angeles Joint Regional Intelligence Center; Los Angeles, CA", "Northern California Regional Intelligence Center; San Francisco, CA", "Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center; Orange County, CA" and the "San Diego Law Enforcement Coordination Center; San Diego, CA". These centers either, "are designed to promote information sharing at the federal level between agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. military, and state- and local-level government." (Wikipedia), "were designed to organize localized domestic intelligence gathering into an integrated system that can distribute data both horizontally across a network of fusion centers and vertically, down to local law enforcement and up to the federal intelligence community." (ACLU), or, "Located in states and major urban areas throughout the country, fusion centers are uniquely situated to empower front-line law enforcement, public safety, fire service, emergency response, public health, critical infrastructure protection, and private sector security personnel to understand local implications of national intelligence, thus enabling local officials to better protect their communities. Fusion centers provide interdisciplinary expertise and situational awareness to inform decision-making at all levels of government. They conduct analysis and facilitate information sharing while assisting law enforcement and homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to crime and terrorism." (Department of Homeland Security).

For example, the Long Beach and Los Angeles police departments have deployed many license plate readers (funded by grants from the federal government) that are both in vehicles and at fixed locations. These enable the officer to better track down wanted or stolen vehicle. However, each plate read is logged along with time and location and place in a database to be shared with the appropriate fusion centers (The main California one and the Los Angeles one in this case) and then "fused" with broader data bases to give a time/date record of where vehicles were throughout the city. In addition, with another federal grant, the City of Long Beach has started the COP (Common Operating Picture) program which is a centralized data center where all city video and many private video with those who "partner" with the police are routed to be viewed in real time with the stated capability to access "archived" video all through the internet. Talks have been ongoing on how to better integrate the system with the fusion centers as well.

Maybe Carl's department isn't important enough to share with the state and federal authorities regarding computerized information. I suspect the level of closed he is talking about is far less than he believes. But, that still leaves the public logs, medical records, state reports made and any other actions to share the information.

Current events are relevant to information issues. They are relevant to the 17 year old son because mom and son better move along knowing the information is known. It is known, at the least, to prevent firearm possession for at least a time and for security issues for as long as the government feels is necessary. So far, with telephone metadata, that is at least 7 years. Maybe an involuntary hold is less important.

 

[CdwJava]

Maybe Carl's department isn't important enough to share with the state and federal authorities regarding computerized information. I suspect the level of closed he is talking about is far less than he believes. But, that still leaves the public logs, medical records, state reports made and any other actions to share the information.

I am quite familiar with these fusion centers, Tranq, I am the guy that coordinates these matters for my agency. What information is provided to that is not mined from our local database it is provided BY us. But, you're right, we have little to provide them. What is provided is usually provided to other state and federal databases that are accessed through these fusion centers and involve drug and serious gang activity, not juvenile mental health commitments or even local petty thefts and "typical" types of crime.

And when I say "closed" I mean that it cannot be readily accessed from the outside; there is no direct link to the server that contains that database to the outside. I intentionally had the network configured that way on purpose so as to avoid the threat of hacking and intrusion. Prior to 2007 we were vulnerable. In fact, we DID get hacked, because we allowed outside access and the use of chat programs and Internet Explorer allowed for the introduction of a number of Trojans that caused problems for us. So, we re-configured the network and access to that this cannot happen. It can only be accessed locally and through numerous safeguards. And I seriously doubt the feds would give a rat's behind what the people in my town were up to with what we have in our system.

COULD it be accessed if they wanted to? Sure. And I can grant access from the server to the RMS database as well ... provided I am phsycially at the station and allow access through the server. There's a way to gain access to it if you really want to do it by bouncing through a couple routers and firewalls, into one server and through to another, but, why? If they did, it'd be a lot of work for nothing of import unless they are really interested in drunks, addicts, and the occasional juvenile delinquent ... not to mention it would set off all manner of bells and whistles if/when discovered and prompt both state and federal criminal investigations.

Oh, yeah, that's right, we're all in this together, so it'd all be swept under the rug.

The issues in the headlines involving the feds have nothing to do with a 17 year old trying to kill himself and the placement of a 5150 hold. The data from that event will be reported as has been the process for more than two decades ... nothing in that realm has changed.

Current events are relevant to information issues. They are relevant to the 17 year old son because mom and son better move along knowing the information is known. It is known, at the least, to prevent firearm possession for at least a time and for security issues for as long as the government feels is necessary. So far, with telephone metadata, that is at least 7 years. Maybe an involuntary hold is less important.

Yes, the information IS known .. it is in a very specific database that cannot be accessed willy-nilly not even by law enforcement. If he applies for a position that requires a firearms clearances, he will be rejected because of the entry into that database. However, THAT restriction has been in place for decades and is not a recent construct of any left or right-wing surveillance state. What HAS changed is that there is greater scrutiny of the data that goes into the mental heath database because many 5150 holds were not getting recorded in a timely manner and patients had been getting released, getting a firearm, and killing themselves or others.

There is a process that the OP can utilize to try and contest the hold and have it removed ... federal wire and email traps to the contrary.

 

[tranquility]

The issues in the headlines involving the feds have nothing to do with a 17 year old trying to kill himself and the placement of a 5150 hold. The data from that event will be reported as has been the process for more than two decades ... nothing in that realm has changed.

Sure it does. There is an electronic medical record stored in a localized database and swept to a repository center over the internet. There are the reportings the hospital has to give to the county and the county to the state. Over the internet.

This is not some local issue handled by Officer Friend. This is data that is sent over the internet to at least 4 different repositories at local, county, state and federal level. Even if the "process" hasn't changed for two decades, the implication of the process has. To say differently is either ignorant or disingenuous.

 

[CdwJava]

Sure it does. There is an electronic medical record stored in a localized database and swept to a repository center over the internet. There are the reportings the hospital has to give to the county and the county to the state. Over the internet.

This is not some local issue handled by Officer Friend. This is data that is sent over the internet to at least 4 different repositories at local, county, state and federal level. Even if the "process" hasn't changed for two decades, the implication of the process has. To say differently is either ignorant or disingenuous.

And, just what will this do to affect the OP's 17 year old son? Is the NSA going to come down and pick him up for being suicidal? Is the FBI going to give him an anal probe for suspecting he might be a potential terrorist? Will the fact that some nebulous government database somewhere has his name associated with a 5150 hold be of any real import to him unless he seeks to obtain a firearm?

What is your solution for the OP, Tranq? That she should surrender, give up, and do nothing? Really?! Or, should she follow the process that is set out in an attempt to mitigate the harm done by the mental health hold. I, for one, do not opt for surrender and recommend that she seek legal counsel and try to mitigate the harm done by the hold if and when she can. As I mentioned, it may take some time because it is likely too close to the incident to be possible to remove it.

But, I suppose she can choose to surrender to fear and helplessness as you seem to have.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My son, who is 17 y/o, was overdosing on a sleeping pill. He was seen at the emergency room. The ER physician felt that it was a suicidal attempt and recommended him to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

He stayed at the facility for 3 days. Upon discharged, we found out that they had placed him there on an "involuntary psychiatric hold" (Section 5150 California Welfare and Institutions Code). The "hold" would go into his public record and prevent him from working for any law-enforcement agency or joining the arm forces.

Since his admission to the psychiatric facility was voluntary (I agreed with the ER physician's recommendation and did not make any objection), can we request that this "involuntary psychiatric hold" to be remove from his public record ?

Thank you

I do not have time right now to wade through this whole thread, TLTRAN, so I will just reiterate what I imagine CdwJava has already said: There is a right to confidentiality with a 5150 (Cal Welfare & Inst Code Section 5328). Your son will lose the right to purchase or possess a firearm for 5 years (although this can be appealed), but the 5150 is considered a medical record and, as such, is not a public record and is not accessible without a court order.

And this is for tranquility (to feed his fears ):

You may be interested in an essay written by Harvard Law Professor Gabriella Blum L.L.M. '01 S.J.D. '03. The essay is titled "Invisible Threats" and focuses on how technology (with cyber attacks and biological weapon attacks) can affect society in the future. The link: http://bit.ly/Invisiblethreats.

Blum was one of several experts participating in a roundtable discussion at Harvard Law School in February. The discussion, "Technology and the Future of Violence," involved representatives from science, security, technology, finance and the law. Although there were concerns expressed about privacy rights and civil liberties when information sharing was discussed, Blum said that technology "will come with a certain level of threat. We'll have to meet some of it, and get used to what we can't handle and just accept that as a fact of life."