Friday, September 5, 2008
The General Assembly is not in session.

Tracking Virginia’s General Assembly
since 2007.

Search 2008 Bills:

SB143: Temporary detention order; extends time period.

Chief Patron

Sen. John Edwards (D-21)

John Edwards (D-21)
Served: 1996–

Progress

Yes Introduced
No Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Status

01/28/2008: Failed to Pass in Committee

View Entire History

Summary

Temporary detention order; extend time period.  Extends the duration of a temporary detention order to 96 hours.

  View Full Text »

Video

Votes were cast on this bill on the following dates for which Richmond Sunlight has video: 01/21/2008, 01/21/2008 and 01/28/2008.

Comments

R P McMurphy writes:

THIS IS UNCONSCIONABLE! I strongly oppose this bill.

May I remind you 96 hours is 4 DAYS! These agencies are already authorized two "working days" (48 Hours). And the law specifically excludes weekends and holidays. Guess these agencies don't want to be inconvenienced. So may I ask “Where is the concern for the "inconvenience" of a detained person?”

May I add the detained person is typically imprisoned in an overbearing and depersonalizing institutional setting with all of its "turning one's life upside down" aspects during this period. For example, in my case, I was forcibly separated from my wife, not allowed to see her again, not allowed to contact her, and not even allowed to say goodbye to her, much less guarantee she was adequately settled in a room. I was literally thrown out of the hospital. AND THIS WAS BEFORE A COMMITMENT HEARING.

May I add the criterion for a TDO is barn door wide and exceedingly ambiguous. Indeed, it seems daring to disagree with a prescreener is in and of itself a cause for a TDO under the "incapable or unwilling to volunteer for treatment" criterion.

As such, the current two day limit is more than sufficient to determine if there is sufficient cause to commit. Indeed, if such information is not sufficiently researchable within two days, it seems unlikely the criterion for commitment will be met with further research. Is not the purpose of commitment to provide a "safe and secure environment" for a current "crisis" and not an opportunity for our big brother nanny state to go over a person's life with a fine tooth comb?

May I suggest these lackadaisical CSB employees get off of their rears and do their job within the current 48 hour timeframe with the proper mindset that they are grossly disrupting a detained person 's life and are grossly violating a detained person 's basic human and civil rights.

Support the
			Virginia Interfaith Center

Poll Results

2 votes

?

Tags

Separate each tag with a space: tax highway vdot. Multiple word tags must be enclosed within quotes: “capital murder”.

Bill Text

Related Bills

  • SB129
    Introduced: January 03, 2008
    Status: in subcommittee
    : Emergency custody orders, temporary detention orders, and involuntary commitment; criteria.
  • HB1059
    Introduced: January 09, 2008
    Status: in subcommittee
    : Emergency custody orders, temporary detention orders, and involuntary commitment; criteria.
  • SB86
    Introduced: December 26, 2007
    Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
    : Involuntary commitment hearings; third-year law students may represent petitioner.
  • SB144
    Introduced: January 04, 2008
    Status: in subcommittee
    : Emergency custody orders, temporary detention orders, and involuntary commitment; criteria.
  • HB1006
    Introduced: January 08, 2008
    Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
    : Emergency custody order and temporary detention order hearings; evidence.
  • Subscribe

    RSS Feed Keep track of the status of this bill as it moves through the General Assembly — subscribe via RSS.