Temporary detention order; shall not exceed 96 hours. (HB1491)

Introduced By

Del. Dave Nutter (R-Christiansburg)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Temporary detention orders; duration. Provides that the duration of temporary detention shall not exceed 96 hours. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/17/2008Presented and ordered printed 088878660
01/17/2008Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/31/2008Impact statement from DPB (HB1491)
02/08/2008Referred from Courts of Justice
02/08/2008Referred to Committee on Appropriations
02/08/2008Incorporated by Appropriations (HB499-Hamilton)
02/12/2008Left in Appropriations


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 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.