Inmates: mental health.

Existing law requires, if the defendant is not eligible for diversion, the court to hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant will be referred to outpatient treatment, conservatorship, or the CARE program, or if the defendant's treatment plan will be modified. Existing law requires the court to dismiss the case if a defendant does not qualify for the above-described services.

Existing law prohibits, except as specified, a person confined in a county jail from being administered any psychiatric medication without prior informed consent. Existing law authorizes a county department of mental health, or other designated county department, to involuntarily administer psychiatric medication to an inmate on a nonemergency basis only after the inmate is provided, among other things, a hearing before a superior court judge, a court-appointed commissioner or referee, or a court-appointed hearing officer. Existing law also provides for the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication to an inmate in an emergency situation. Existing law limits the duration during which an inmate can be involuntarily administered psychiatric medication on an emergency basis and requires that, except as specified, the inmate be provided the same due process protections they would be entitled to when psychiatric medication is involuntarily administered on a nonemergency basis. Existing law specifies that an emergency exists for these purposes when there is a sudden and marked change in an inmate's mental condition so that action is immediately necessary for the preservation of life or the prevention of serious bodily harm to the inmate or others and it is impractical, due to the seriousness of the emergency, to first obtain informed consent.

This bill would, if an individual has been found incompetent to stand trial after having been charged with a misdemeanor, additionally authorize the administration of antipsychotic medication to the individual without their prior informed consent on an emergency basis when treatment is necessary to address the emergency condition and the medication is administered in the least restrictive manner, as specified. The bill would specify that a determination made pursuant to these provisions is valid for up to 72 hours if the medication is necessary to address the emergency condition, except as provided. The bill would require the court, prior to issuing an involuntary medication order after hearing, to find by clear and convincing evidence that, among other things, a psychiatrist or psychologist has determined that the individual has a serious mental health disorder that can be treated with antipsychotic medication, and there is no less intrusive alternative to the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, and involuntary administration of the medication is in the individual's best interest. The bill would require the court to review that order at least every 60 days and would require the psychiatrist to file an affidavit at that review, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would also enumerate certain rights for individuals, prior to the administration of involuntary medication pursuant to these provisions. The bill would make these provisions inoperative and would repeal them on January 1, 2030, subject to a later enacted statute.

Existing law provides that if a person in charge of a county jail, city jail, or juvenile detention facility, or a judge, as specified, believes that a person in custody may have a mental health disorder, that person or judge may cause the prisoner to be taken to a facility for 72 hours of treatment and evaluation.

The bill would prohibit certain factors, including the person's temporary access to food, clothing, and shelter, while transferred to a 72-hour facility for treatment and evaluation, from being a basis to conclude that the person is able to provide for their basic personal needs.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.