A. A person detained under emergency detention shall be offered treatment for his mental disorder to which he may consent. The person shall not be treated for his mental disorder without his express consent, except that seclusion and mechanical or pharmacological restraints may be employed as emergency measures for the safety of the person or others pursuant to section 36-513.
B. At the time a person is taken into custody for emergency evaluation, the medical director in charge of the evaluation agency shall, subject to the provisions of section 36-504, notify the person's guardian or, if none, a member of the family other than a person who has made application for emergency evaluation, if known, of the person's presence at the agency.
C. At the earliest time possible during the evaluation, the agency shall inquire into the need to safeguard and preserve the person's personal property or premises. If no responsible relative or guardian is in possession of the property or premises it shall proceed pursuant to the provisions of section 36-508, subsection C.
D. The person detained shall be informed of his rights as stated in this section and in article 2 of this chapter, including the right to consult an attorney. He shall be advised that if he cannot employ an attorney, the court will appoint one for him. The person shall be advised that if a petition for evaluation is filed, the court will appoint the person an attorney to consult with and, if he cannot employ his own counsel, to represent him.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 2007–2012 · leading case:
In Re Jesse M., 170 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
In Re Jesse M., 170 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Section 36-528 provides that a person facing emergency detention for mental health treatment “shall be informed of his rights .”
In re MH 2007-001236, 204 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Cyriac was unable to perform an examination in the evaluation of Appellant, a third physician should have attempted to conduct the exam.”
In Re Mh2011-000914, 275 P.3d 611 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-528(D) (West 2012). 8 . Appellant also argues that the court erred by *316 admitting Dr.”
In Re Mh2010-002637, 263 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “We agree that Appellant has a right to effective assistance of counsel and on this record, remand to the trial court to determine if counsel failed to meet his obligations under A.”
In re MH 2007-001275, 196 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 36-528(D) and-535 (A). ¶ 3 On July 26, 2007, a petition for court-ordered treatment was filed by Dr.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 196 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 36-528(D) and-535 (A). ¶ 3 On July 26, 2007, a petition for court-ordered treatment was filed by Dr.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 204 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Cyriac was unable to perform an examination in the evaluation of Appellant, a third physician should have attempted to conduct the exam.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-528(D) — 7 cases
In Re Jesse M., 170 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Section 36-528 provides that a person facing emergency detention for mental health treatment “shall be informed of his rights .”
In re MH 2007-001236, 204 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“Cyriac was unable to perform an examination in the evaluation of Appellant, a third physician should have attempted to conduct the exam.”
In Re Mh2011-000914, 275 P.3d 611 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“A.R.S. § 36-528(D) (West 2012). 8 . Appellant also argues that the court erred by *316 admitting Dr.”
In Re Mh2010-002637, 263 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“We agree that Appellant has a right to effective assistance of counsel and on this record, remand to the trial court to determine if counsel failed to meet his obligations under A.”
In re MH 2007-001275, 196 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“See A.R.S. §§ 36-528(D) and-535 (A). ¶ 3 On July 26, 2007, a petition for court-ordered treatment was filed by Dr.”
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.