• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Tarasoff and mandated homicide reporting

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

CdwJava

Senior Member
tranquility said:
Hmm....maybe things would be better if the police *did* have a legal duty. But then maybe that would increase the victims and families preference for handling things on their own. Boy balancing the costs and benefits of things isn't so easy, even for a Christian like myself.

WWJD?
Oh brother ...

First, the cost factor associated with protecting each and every witness or victim who felt threatened would be a bank buster. My county would go broke in the first gang-related shooting. Witnesses are almost always scared and reluctant to testify. HOW are we going to directly protect them? I don't have any officers to assign to them ... and neither does the Sheriff. The most we can do is provide them with assistance via Victim/Witness programs which includes relocation programs and temporary assistance.

- Carl
 


Beth Vieira

Junior Member
Back to your previous post

Back to your previous post. As I followed up, I mentioned the issue of the social worker, that the caller in question was "in the system" for some reason which I did not have a chance to find out. But the police could have. And I would think that even if they did not find the man at the pay phone location, which would have been very difficult as a task, I realize, they could have looked up his name and alerted the case worker or been alerted to the fact that for whatever reason the likelihood of his homicidality was possibly more serious owing to this factor.

The police did not, repeat not, follow through on this dispatch. I called the records dept. and got an incident and badge number, but the officer there said no case was filed and no one was contacted. When I voiced concerns (about the "duty to report" question), he was polite and tried to be helpful by forwarding my call to the sargeant's office. I left a message there but did not get a call back.

I understand that they are busy and may not even be inclined to bother. On the other hand, we work closely with the police. We have to. We are frequent 911 dispatchers. In addition, though you may not think so, we do get trained more than anyone else on the subject of crisis intervention and suicide prevention, more than the police and more than therapists. In fact, our director and trainer is precisely the person in 3 counties who trains the police and EMT on these issues. So you see there is good reason for the police to be a bit more responsive.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Beth Vieira said:
Back to your previous post. As I followed up, I mentioned the issue of the social worker, that the caller in question was "in the system" for some reason which I did not have a chance to find out. But the police could have.
We don't have access to social services records, and if it was mental health they would not likely give us that information. It is VERY difficult to get information from mental health agencies for a host of reasons - not the least of which relates to medical privacy regs.

And I would think that even if they did not find the man at the pay phone location, which would have been very difficult as a task, I realize, they could have looked up his name and alerted the case worker or been alerted to the fact that for whatever reason the likelihood of his homicidality was possibly more serious owing to this factor.
Once again, we don't have access to that information. Unlike television, there is no master database with everyone's history in it.

The police did not, repeat not, follow through on this dispatch. I called the records dept. and got an incident and badge number, but the officer there said no case was filed and no one was contacted.
The officer you contacted was not the one involved. The CAD call (which the records officer would have pulled) may not have all that the officer did. I know if my Chief pulled my CAD call it might contain all that I did on a call either. It's likely the officer responded to the area of the payphone if it was known and didn't find anyone. Without contact or anything further, no "case" would be generated.

When I voiced concerns (about the "duty to report" question), he was polite and tried to be helpful by forwarding my call to the sargeant's office. I left a message there but did not get a call back.
For right or wrong, there is no duty for law enforcement to protect or to even notify a subject of a threat. It could well be that the officer should have done more or pased the info on to his supervisor. It could be he dropped the ball. Or, it could be that there was nothing more that could reasonably be done.

In fact, our director and trainer is precisely the person in 3 counties who trains the police and EMT on these issues. So you see there is good reason for the police to be a bit more responsive.
Okay ... it doesn't change the fact that we have laws that we must adhere to as well. We don't have the same information you might have, and we do not have access to mental health or counseling records. You may think that the police should do more, and the police may think you are asking too much of them. It is a very common problem throughout the state that law enforcement and mental health do not see "eye to eye". In the three counties I have worked as a law enforcement officer, the same problems have existed. Our current issue is that mental health won't respond until a subject taken for 5150 is completely free of the influence of drugs or alcohol ... the law does not require us to wait for this to happen and very often a subject taken for 5150 is released at the hospital because we cannot stay with him or her, and mental health will not respond!

This is an issue that has been going round and round for at least the 15 years I have been in the career and it is not likely to change soon. Social Services and mental health professionals would like to see us do one thing, and we would like to see them do another. Unfortunately, both have differing sets of responsibilities and liabilities and there would seem to be a host of issues dividing the two.

- Carl
 

Beth Vieira

Junior Member
Mental Health and the Police

I certainly agree with you that there is a conflict between police and mental health in many cases. I have seen so many instances of this that it is almost too much. Though I have been posting in a particular way about police and other issues, I actually personally do not agree with either side of the conflict. I think both are wrong in their handling of the mentally ill. And that mental illness is not understood by either groups, yes, even mental health workers themselves.

Too often the mentally ill are treated as criminals when they are sufferers. Even the caller that was homicidal was suffering clearly, distraught, unable to speak, perhaps intoxicated. Hospitals work more like holding tanks than like health care units. there is often little care given. And the ill person is then released feeling dehumanized or even traumatized by the whole experience. Actually more likely to despair and become even more suicidal or what have you.

Unfortunately, I have seen cruelty too in these situations, both by police and by hospital workers. This is a very vulnerable population and yet their civil rights are violated without much hesitation.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Beth Vieira said:
Unfortunately, I have seen cruelty too in these situations, both by police and by hospital workers. This is a very vulnerable population and yet their civil rights are violated without much hesitation.
Legally, their "civil rights" are generally not being violated. Since particularly the police can only deal with the situation that presents itself, they have to act with what they have. We rarely have the luxury of analysis and lengthy introspection even if we did have the same level of training as professionals in the psychiatric field.

Keep in mind that EVERYONE wants the police to be knowledgeable in their special field. Mental health wants us to be proficient in mental health issues ... elder abuse in elder issues ... alzheimer's carepersons in alzheimer's issues ... children's advocates in children's issues ... financial institutions want us to be experts in fraud and identity theft ... ad nauseum.

Frankly there just is NO WAY that the police can possibly be all things to all people. We are a bandaid solution to a problem, or, the emergency responder - not the solution. Maybe somewhere there is enough time and a high enough paid police force that it can be staffed with all these experts - but it doesn't exist anywhere I am aware of. Most of us know a little about a lot, and a lot about a little, and we make do with everything else.

Mental health is a tough issue ... but so is facing one down when he has a gun. His mental health issue suddenly goes right out of the window when he points a gun at you or a hostage.

Anyway, I agree that its a problem. Unfortunately, there is no realistic solution. The best attempts are the PERT (psychological emergency response team) programs that had gained some popularity in southern California agencies until funding ran out, and, programs like that of a Bay Area department that hired two officers and paid for their college through the completion of a Masters program to become psychologists with the department (and a commitment of 10 years with the agency). But, it always comes back down to pracical issues of training and funds.

- Carl
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
I am suprised that this has continued so long. There are issues which stem form the use of language and what it means in the legal sense. Basic concepts like the "Reasonable"person theory or the use of conjunctions such as "or" vs "and or" have quite different meanings, that is why the implementation of Tarasoff is more dynamic than concrete when it come to what is mandated reporting and who is legaly bound to report.

I suggest a review of the Tarasoff case, that will help explain exactly what the case encompasses.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/privacy/tarasoff.htm
On October 27, 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff.*fn1 Plaintiffs, Tatiana's parents, allege that two months earlier Poddar confided his intention to kill Tatiana to Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist employed by the Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California at Berkeley. They allege that on Moore's request, the campus police briefly detained Poddar, but released him when he appeared rational. They further claim that Dr. Harvey Powelson, Moore's superior, then directed that no further action be taken to detain Poddar. No one warned plaintiffs of Tatiana's peril.
Understand, Berkeley attracts certain types of people and condones the exercise of many freedons, there are/were several Mental health units/free clinics located within the city limits. A person with a mental health issue is not uncommon on the streets of Berkeley and there is no way all could be held by police simply because of an alledged threat if there is nothing further confirming such a threat and the person is acting rational.

We shall explain that defendant therapists cannot escape liability merely because Tatiana herself was not their patient. When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. The discharge of this duty may require the therapist to take one or more of various steps, depending upon the nature of the case. Thus it may call for him to warn the intended victim or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the police, or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
Please notice the words "may require" "reasonable care" "may call for him to warn the intended victim" and "other steps reasonably necessary under the circumstances"

Tarasoff is far too complex an issue and beyond the scope of these forums. As you read the case you will see the issues are far more complex than mandated reporting or notificaiton of the victim. Unless you are a mandated reporter, your obligation is a moral one and does not extend beyond making the report and what is reasonable. I know of mandated reporters who lost their liscense because they failed to make the report (child abuse) because they felt that they needed to be sure or felt that they might lose their patient/client if they made the report and the police acted on it.

It is frustrating. I have evaluated prisoners, who had attempted to kill another person, continued to perseverate on issues relating to why that person hindered their rights, an indirect threat, knowing that since they did not qualify for parole, that once they served their sentence they would eventually seek to finish what they started. There was no way to stop them.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I utterly agree with rmet4nzkx.

For an unrelated to Tarasoff, but related to what the system can do about alleged threats, go to:

http://calapp.blogspot.com/

and read the April 5 summary of People v. Markley (Cal. Ct. App.--April 3, 2006). This tells of a tale where everyone seems to do what is right (Except for the number of "mulligans" the court allows for violation of its order.) and things are still wierd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top