MENTAL HEALTH CODE
Act 258 of 1974
330.1438 Order of hospitalization; protective custody; transportation; conditions to release after 24 hours.
Sec. 438.
If it appears to the court that the individual requires immediate assessment because the individual presents a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm to themself in the near future or presents a substantial risk of significant physical harm to others in the near future, the court may order the individual hospitalized and may order a peace officer to take the individual into protective custody and transport the individual to a preadmission screening unit designated by the community mental health services program. After the individual is taken into protective custody by a peace officer, the court may, also, order a security transport officer to transport the individual to a preadmission screening unit designated by the community mental health services program. If the preadmission screening unit authorizes hospitalization, the peace officer or security transport officer must transport the individual to a hospital designated by the community mental health services program, unless other arrangements are provided by the preadmission screening unit. If the examinations and clinical certificates of the psychiatrist, and the physician or the licensed psychologist, are not completed within 24 hours after hospitalization, the individual must be released.
History: 1974, Act 258, Eff. Nov. 6, 1974 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 402, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1982 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 290, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 320, Eff. Feb. 14, 2017 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 593, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019 ;-- Am. 2022, Act 146, Eff. (sine die) ;-- Am. 2022, Act 214, Imd. Eff. Oct. 14, 2022
Compiler's Notes:
Act 593 of 2018 did not amend this section and evidently should not have been cited as amended.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2023–2025 · leading case:
In Re Jgs Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
In Re Jgs Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 6× “Respondent moved to dismiss at the outset, contending that the clinical certifications were completed after respondent was hospitalized for 24 hours, in violation of MCL 330.1438. The trial court acknowledged that it dismissed the case previously for untimely certifications but…”
In Re Bsm (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “Beyond that threshold issue, respondent argues that she did not meet the statutory requirements for involuntary hospitalization and that the trial court should have considered alternative treatment options.”
In Re Ss (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “Respondent further argues that she did not meet the statutory requirements for involuntary hospitalization and that the court should have considered alternative treatment options.”
In Re Ss (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “Respondent further argues that she did not meet the statutory requirements for involuntary hospitalization and that the court should have considered alternative treatment options.”
In Re Mat (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “1435(3); see also MCL 330.1438. In contrast, the stakes are much higher at a mental-health hearing, where the trial court has the authority to enter an “order of involuntary mental health treatment” that may include hospitalization “not [to] exceed 60 days,” assisted outpatient…”
In Re Jh (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “472a(1), as well as court-ordered, MCL 330.1438, and medically- certified, MCL 330.”
In Re Kh (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“[MCL 330.1438.] In contrast with proceedings in which the petition is seeking the involuntary hospitalization of the respondent, it is typical that during proceedings for examination and transport, “the respondent ordinarily has no idea that such a process is underway .”
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.