📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 1998-1999

An Investigation of a Police Shooting of a Mentally-ill Citizen

7 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 8 findings

F1 Page 74
The client was under the care and supervision of MH Department for 12 years as a CONREP client and received multiple services including group and individual therapy sessions. CONREP requires participants to endorse and adhere to individualized plans and sets of conditions. These include attending individual and group therapy sessions, submitting to substance abuse screening, allowing home visits and collateral contacts, having periodic psychological assessments, and taking psychotropic medications as prescribed. Failure to adhere to the terms and conditions set by CONREP can result in revocation of the community out-patient status. The County received $134,169 in 1997-98 to provide services to CONREP clients released to the County. The 1997 budgeted cost of CONREP per patient, one of whom was this client, was $21,879.
F2 Page 75
MH Department is required to provide the Court with quarterly reports on CONREP clients. These reports demonstrate that this client: a. Remained on the same psychotropic medication in increasing dosages, finally receiving Haldol 150 mg., monthly; b. Exhibited the same symptoms of his mental illness; and c. Had the same therapeutic goals set each year.
F3 Page 75
There was no documented evidence of progress during the 12 years. Despite not attaining any of the goals set for him, mental health services were reduced on a predetermined time table.
F4 Page 75
In the 12 years between July 18, 1986 and his death July 16, 1998, the client was threatened three times with revocation of his out-patient status due to non-compliance with his medications. Each time, the revocation was rescinded with his renewed promises of compliance with the terms and conditions of his contract.
F5 Page 75
In 1990, a psychological assessment of the client recommended the continued structure of day treatment programs and ongoing supervision from the CONREP program or there was a "risk of engaging in violent behavior." Also noted in that report was that the client "suffers from serious problems in thinking. There is a concrete, immature quality to his thought processes that leads to faulty conceptualizations and poor judgment."
F6 Page 75
At the time of his death, the client was under additional emotional stress. He was to have a court hearing July 17, 1998, regarding his continued participation in CONREP and he had an upcoming hearing on his Social Security benefits. The MH Department documented increased symptoms of his mental illness and anxiety attacks. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150 "When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7 or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation. Such facility shall require an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention of the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled. If the probable cause is based on the statement of a person other than the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, such person shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement which he or she knows to be false." (5150) Findings
F7 Page 79
not to ask for mental health department assistance.
F8 Page 79
to continue the confrontation after the client returned to his apartment building.

Recommendations 3