BILL REQ. #:  H-1682.1 

READ FIRST TIME 02/10/09.   

     AN ACT Relating to consideration of respondents' recent and past acts in involuntary commitment proceedings; amending RCW 71.05.212, 71.05.245, and 71.05.157; creating a new section; and providing an effective date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1   To effectuate the legislature's goal of protecting public safety, as provided in RCW 71.05.010, within the context of the Washington state supreme court's holding in In re Harris, 98 Wn.2d 276 (1982), the legislature intends that a court determining whether a person presents a likelihood of serious harm have the ability to consider a respondent's recent and past acts where such acts would indicate a substantial risk to public safety.

Sec. 2   RCW 71.05.212 and 1999 c 214 s 5 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) Whenever a ((county)) designated mental health professional or professional person is conducting an evaluation under this chapter, consideration shall include all reasonably available information and records regarding: (1) Prior recommendations for evaluation of the need for civil commitments when the recommendation is made pursuant to an evaluation conducted under chapter 10.77 RCW; (2) history of one or more violent acts; (3) prior determinations of incompetency or insanity under chapter 10.77 RCW; ((and)) (4) prior commitments under this chapter; and (5) other available treatment records.
     ((In addition,)) (2) When conducting an evaluation for offenders identified under RCW 72.09.370, the ((county)) designated mental health professional or professional person also shall consider an offender's history of judicially required or administratively ordered antipsychotic medication while in confinement.

Sec. 3   RCW 71.05.245 and 1999 c 13 s 6 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) In determining whether a person presents a likelihood of serious harm under RCW 71.05.020(23), the legislature recognizes that in the case of In re Harris, 98 Wn.2d 276 (1982), the Washington state supreme court held that in some circumstances it is necessary for a court to find a substantial risk of physical harm as evidenced by a recent overt act prior to ordering a civil commitment. For the purposes of this section, an act is deemed to be recent if it has occurred within three years prior to the current evaluation by a designated mental health professional or the current court hearing, excluding any time spent, but not acts committed, in a mental health facility or in confinement as a result of a criminal conviction.
     (2) In making a determination of whether there is a likelihood of serious harm in a hearing conducted under RCW 71.05.240 or 71.05.320, the court shall give great weight to any evidence before the court regarding whether the person has: (1) A recent history of one or more violent acts; ((or)) (2) taken an action or engaged in behavior, accompanied by signs of a mental disorder that, when considered in light of past behavior of the respondent, is likely to be followed in the near future by an attempt to do physical harm or cause substantial property destruction; or (3) a recent history of one or more commitments under this chapter or its equivalent provisions under the laws of another state which were based on a likelihood of serious harm. The existence of prior violent acts or commitments under this chapter or its equivalent shall not be the sole basis for determining whether a person presents a likelihood of serious harm.
     ((For the purposes of this section "recent" refers to the period of time not exceeding three years prior to the current hearing.))

Sec. 4   RCW 71.05.157 and 2007 c 375 s 9 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) When a designated mental health professional is notified by a jail that a defendant or offender who was subject to a discharge review under RCW 71.05.232 is to be released to the community, the designated mental health professional shall evaluate the person within seventy-two hours of release.
     (2) When an offender is under court-ordered treatment in the community and the supervision of the department of corrections, and the treatment provider becomes aware that the person is in violation of the terms of the court order, the treatment provider shall notify the designated mental health professional and the department of corrections of the violation and request an evaluation for purposes of revocation of the less restrictive alternative.
     (3) When a designated mental health professional becomes aware that an offender who is under court-ordered treatment in the community and the supervision of the department of corrections is in violation of a treatment order or a condition of supervision that relates to public safety, or the designated mental health professional detains a person under this chapter, the designated mental health professional shall notify the person's treatment provider and the department of corrections.
     (4) When an offender who is confined in a state correctional facility or is under supervision of the department of corrections in the community is subject to a petition for involuntary treatment under this chapter, the petitioner shall notify the department of corrections ((and the)). If the department of corrections has classified the offender as a high risk or high needs offender, the department shall provide documentation of its risk assessment ((or)), records of the offender's compliance with any conditions of his or her sentence or community supervision related to participation in mental health treatment, and any other concerns to the petitioner and the court ((if the department of corrections classified the offender as a high risk or high needs offender)).
     (5) Nothing in this section creates a duty on any treatment provider or designated mental health professional to provide offender supervision.
     (6) No jail or state correctional facility may be considered a less restrictive alternative to an evaluation and treatment facility.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 5   If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 6   This act takes effect January 1, 2010.