36-514. Visitation; telephone; correspondence; religious freedom; legal residence
A. Every person who is detained for evaluation or treatment pursuant to this chapter shall have the following additional rights:
1. To be visited by the person's personal physician or other health care professional, guardian, agent appointed pursuant to chapter 32 of this title, attorney and clergyman or any other person, subject to reasonable limitations as the individual in charge of the agency may direct.
2. To have reasonable access to telephones between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. to make and receive confidential calls. In addition, a person who is confined pursuant to this title is allowed to make two completed local telephone calls within two hours after initial confinement. Long-distance calls are allowed if the patient can pay the agency for them or can properly charge them to another number. The agency may restrict the telephone privileges of a patient if it is notified by the person receiving the calls that the person is being harassed by the calls and wishes them curtailed or halted. Restriction of telephone privileges shall be entered into the patient's clinical record and the information in the record shall be made available on request to the person and that person's attorney, guardian or agent appointed pursuant to chapter 32 of this title.
3. To be furnished with reasonable amounts of stationery and postage and to be allowed to correspond by mail without censorship with any person.
4. To enjoy religious freedom and the right to continue the practice of the person's religion in accordance with its tenets during the detainment, except that this right may not interfere with the operation of the agency.
B. Court-ordered evaluation or treatment pursuant to this chapter does not operate to change the legal residence of a patient.
Notes of Decisions
In Re Pinal Cnty. Mental Health No. Mh-201000029, 240 P.3d 1262 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “84, § 1 (former A.R.S. § 36-514(B)). But these examinations were apparently limited in scope and related only to the mental health of the patient.”
In Re Burchett, 530 P.2d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 6× “On October 16, 1972, the court held a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-514, as amended laws 1958, to receive evidence regarding whether or not James L.”
State v. Clemons, 515 P.2d 324 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 3× “§ 36-514 A.R.S. Once a patient has been committed he has at least two avenues of release.”
State v. Freeman, 559 P.2d 152 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 2× “It further provides that: “If the court finds the condition of the defendant to be permanent, it can either commit the defendant civilly if it finds him committable under the civil standard of Ariz.”
Roubos v. Miller, 138 P.3d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See former A.R.S. § 36-514, 1958 Ariz. Sess. Laws, eh.”
State v. Buchanan, 381 P.2d 954 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 2× “On March 16, 1962, in a proper civil proceeding, A.R.S. § 36-514 et seq., he was adjudicated mentally ill and incompetent and ordered committed to a mental institution until restored to reason or otherwise dis *102 charged according to law.”
Wissner v. State, 520 P.2d 526 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “5 states: “If the court finds the condition of the defendant to be permanent, it can either commit the defendant civilly if it finds him committable under the civil standards of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 36-514 (c) (Supp. 1972) (dangerous to himself or others), or release him…”
State ex rel. Dep't of Corr. v. Burchett, 530 P.2d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 6× “On October 16, 1972, the court held a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-514, as amended laws 1958, to receive evidence regarding whether or not James L.”
Swartz v. Superior Court, 466 P.2d 9 (Ariz. 1970).
“When the superintendent determines that the conditions justifying hospitalization under § 36-514 no longer obtain, he shall give the patient a complete discharge.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-514(B) — 5 cases
In Re Burchett, 530 P.2d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
“On October 16, 1972, the court held a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-514, as amended laws 1958, to receive evidence regarding whether or not James L.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Corr. v. Burchett, 530 P.2d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
“On October 16, 1972, the court held a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-514, as amended laws 1958, to receive evidence regarding whether or not James L.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-514(c) — 1 case
State v. Freeman, 559 P.2d 152 (Ariz. 1976).
“It further provides that: “If the court finds the condition of the defendant to be permanent, it can either commit the defendant civilly if it finds him committable under the civil standard of Ariz.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.