Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.050
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the right of any person to apply voluntarily to any public or private agency or practitioner for treatment of a behavioral health disorder, either by direct application or by referral. Any person voluntarily admitted for inpatient treatment to any public or private agency shall be released immediately upon his or her request. Any person voluntarily admitted for inpatient treatment to any public or private agency shall orally be advised of the right to immediate discharge, and further advised of such rights in writing as are secured to them pursuant to this chapter and their rights of access to attorneys, courts, and other legal redress. Their condition and status shall be reviewed at least once each one hundred eighty days for evaluation as to the need for further treatment or possible discharge, at which time they shall again be advised of their right to discharge upon request.
(2) If the professional staff of any public or private agency or hospital regards a person voluntarily admitted who requests discharge as presenting, as a result of a behavioral health disorder, an imminent likelihood of serious harm, or is gravely disabled, they may detain such person for sufficient time to notify the designated crisis responder of such person's condition to enable the designated crisis responder to authorize such person being further held in custody or transported to an evaluation and treatment center, secure withdrawal management and stabilization facility, or approved substance use disorder treatment program pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, which shall in ordinary circumstances be no later than the next judicial day.
(3) If a person is brought to the emergency room of a public or private agency or hospital for observation or treatment, the person refuses voluntary admission, and the professional staff of the public or private agency or hospital regard such person as presenting as a result of a behavioral health disorder an imminent likelihood of serious harm, or as presenting an imminent danger because of grave disability, they may detain such person for sufficient time to notify the designated crisis responder of such person's condition to enable the designated crisis responder to authorize such person being further held in custody or transported to an evaluation treatment center, secure withdrawal management and stabilization facility, or approved substance use disorder treatment program pursuant to the conditions in this chapter, but which time shall be no more than six hours from the time the professional staff notify the designated crisis responder of the need for evaluation, not counting time periods prior to medical clearance.
(4) If a person is brought to or accepted at a 23-hour crisis relief center and thereafter refuses to stay voluntarily, and the professional staff of the 23-hour crisis relief center regard the person as presenting as a result of a behavioral health disorder an imminent likelihood of serious harm, or presenting as an imminent danger because of grave disability, they may detain the person for sufficient time to enable the designated crisis responder to complete an evaluation, and, if involuntary commitment criteria are met, authorize the person being further held in custody or transported to a hospital emergency department, evaluation and treatment center, secure withdrawal management and stabilization facility, or approved substance use disorder treatment program pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, but which time shall be no more than 12 hours from the time the professional staff notify the designated crisis responder of the need for evaluation.
(5) Dismissal of a commitment petition is not the appropriate remedy for a violation of the timeliness requirements of this section based on the intent of this chapter under RCW 71.05.010 except in the few cases where the facility staff or designated crisis responder has totally disregarded the requirements of this section.
[ 2023 c 433 s 5; 2020 c 302 s 9; 2019 c 446 s 3; 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 207; 2015 c 269 s 5; 2000 c 94 s 3; 1998 c 297 s 6; 1997 c 112 s 5; 1979 ex.s. c 215 s 6; 1975 1st ex.s. c 199 s 2; 1974 ex.s. c 145 s 6; 1973 1st ex.s. c 142 s 10.]
Notes:
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Effective date—2015 c 269 ss 1-9 and 11-13: See note following RCW 71.05.010.
Effective dates—Severability—Intent—1998 c 297: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: In Re Detention of CW
In Re Detention of CW (2002)
“After evaluating petitioners, the hospital professional staff contacted the County Designated Mental Health Professional (CDMHP) pursuant to RCW 71.05.050. A CDMHP detained each petitioner for 72-hour evaluation and treatment.”
In re the Detention of C.W. (2002)
“After evaluating petitioners, the hospital professional staff contacted the County Designated Mental Health Professional (CDMHP) pursuant to RCW 71.05.050. A CDMHP detained each petitioner for 72-hour evaluation and treatment.”
In re the Detention of C.W. (2001)
“At issue in these consolidated appeals is the timeliness of detention of each respondent by the county designated mental health professional (CDMHP) after notice by the hospitals’ emergency room staff pursuant to RCW 71.05.050 that each respondent needed to be further evaluated…”
Michelle Dalen v. St. John Medical Center (2019)
“We hold that genuine issues of fact exist regarding whether the respondents’ initial detention of Dalen and their continued detention until she could be evaluated by a crisis responder violated RCW 71.05.050 and whether the respondents are entitled to immunity.”
State v. Osborn (1976)
“The regulations require the mental disorder to be one "which presents likelihood of serious harm to others or self or which causes a person to be gravely disabled." WAC 275-55-030.”
In Re the Detention Swanson (1990)
“3 In addition to the sections already noted, RCW 71.05.050 allows hospital emergency room personnel to detain a person for 6 hours while waiting for a designated mental health professional to evaluate the person for possible detention.”
In Re the Personal Restraint of Knapp (1984)
“RCW 71.05.050 (any person voluntarily admitted for inpatient treatment shall be released immediately upon his request).”
In re the Detention of Ross (2002)
“See RCW 71.05.050 (“Any person voluntarily admitted for inpatient treatment to any public or private agency shall be released immediately upon his or her request.”
Poletti v. Overlake Hospital Medical Center (2013)
“” RCW 71.05.050. If a hospital regards such a person as meeting the test provided in the act for involuntary commitment, the hospital “may detain such person for sufficient time” to allow the county designated mental health professional to assess the person: Nothing in this…”
In re Det. of D.H. (2023)
“2d 259 , this court looked at the violation of a different ITA time limit under RCW 71.05.050. The court ultimately concluded that dismissal can be a proper remedy when the State totally disregards statutory requirements of the ITA.”
State v. Ralph (1985)
“The court then deferred Ralph's 20-year sentence on the following relevant conditions: 4) The defendant shall make prompt application for treatment in Western State Hospital Sexual Psychopathy Program pursuant to RCW 71.05.050; 5) If the defendant is found to be a sexual…”
In Re Detention of Ross (2002)
“See RCW 71.05.050 ("Any person voluntarily admitted for inpatient treatment to any public or private agency shall be released immediately upon his or her request.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.050(1) — 4 cases
In Re Detention Of: P.p. (2018)
In Re Detention Of M.l. (2022)
Detention Of D.H. (2022)
Detention of J.S. (2025)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.050(2) — 2 cases
In Re Detention Of M.l. (2022)
Detention Of D.H. (2022)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.050(3) — 3 cases
Michelle Dalen v. St. John Medical Center (2019)
“We hold that genuine issues of fact exist regarding whether the respondents’ initial detention of Dalen and their continued detention until she could be evaluated by a crisis responder violated RCW 71.05.050 and whether the respondents are entitled to immunity.”
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.