# Paramedic: Cops abuse law to detain people



## MMiz (Nov 29, 2009)

*Paramedic: Cops abuse law to detain people*

A veteran paramedic sued his employer and Brooklyn Center Police Department on Thursday, alleging they have routinely abused a state law that allows police officers to bring mentally ill people to a hospital if they are a threat to themselves or others.

Nate Berg, 30, who has spent almost 10 years working as a paramedic in the metro area, said he has personally witnessed more than 200 incidents in which an individual's civil rights have been violated. He said local police agencies have been misusing the law as a way to temporarily force people into hospitals when they don't have enough information to support an arrest.

*Read more!*


----------



## el Murpharino (Nov 29, 2009)

Some questions this raises with me...

- What tipped him over the edge, I just can't see one 15-year old kid doing it to him.
- If he personally transported "questionable" hold patients to the hospitals, why didn't he express his concern to the physician or document that the patient was not a danger to himself or others? - but then again, doctors aren't going to argue with the cops if they say he threatened to kill himself.

Something just doesn't sit right with this situation...


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 29, 2009)

el Murpharino said:


> why didn't he express his concern to the physician or document that the patient was not a danger to himself or others? - but then again, doctors aren't going to argue with the cops if they say he threatened to kill himself.
> 
> Something just doesn't sit right with this situation...


 
EMTs and Paramedics have no powers of detainment. Some Paramedics and EMTs have problem with that because they feel "qualified" to judge mental competency when in fact they are not when it comes to making a decision that may change that patient's life forever. The LEO has that power to detain for whatever reasons within his/her guidelines due to acts that appear to be harmful to the patient or others. The LEO does not make a medical decision but just believes the person needs further observation by a QUALIFIED professional. The person detained for the emergency hold is then seen by a qualified health care professional/doctor to determine if the hold is legitimate. The patient has that right while being detained. Quite often the 72 hour hold can be overturned by that doctor and the patient is admitted voluntarily or released. 


> temporarily force people into hospitals when they don't have enough information to support an arrest.


 
Detaining someone should not be confused with an arrest. It actually might be to the patient's benefit rather than having a criminal record especially if given the opportunity to have it changed to voluntary observation. 


Florida's Baker Act was scrutinized and revised a few years ago also when many patients,especially the elderly, were being detained for questionable reasons. The guidelines were rewritten to be clearer and the patients are informed of their rights.  Florida also has a separate act for detaining those with drug and alcohol addictions where other states may have the patients under the same mental health detainment act.


----------



## Summit (Nov 29, 2009)

Don't worry, Linus will be here shortly to explain how cops are saints until they are convicted, but the paramedic must  be a pot smoking hippie who steal candies from babies because he said mean things about the popo.


----------



## Summit (Nov 29, 2009)

Da Article said:
			
		

> "An administrative hold is an incredibly powerful tool," said Patrick Burns, Berg's lawyer. "You're denying somebody their civil liberties and it's something that shouldn't be used as a means for a hospital to make money, for ambulance companies to make money or municipal law enforcement officers to shirk their duties and responsibilities."



The guy has a point... but I think his suit is rather weak... suing his employer? Exactly what are the damages he is claiming? Or is it a cease and desist? IANAL.

Shouldn't he be getting someone like the ACLU to represent the wrongfully detained people who actually can claim a violated right and damages?

On the other hand, there is some majorly fishy stuff going on... a paramedic making a good faith complaint to the proper organization gets reprimanded on the basis of it "upsetting our working relationship." That's fishy as heck.


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 29, 2009)

Summit said:


> Shouldn't he be getting someone like the ACLU to represent the wrongfully detained people who actually can claim a violated right and damages?
> 
> On the other hand, there is some majorly fishy stuff going on... a paramedic making a good faith complaint to the proper organization gets reprimanded on the basis of it "upsetting our working relationship." That's fishy as heck.


 
It is possible he felt he was the medical person in charge and should be calling the shots. However, sine he has no powers of detainment, the LEO makes the call since it is within his/her authority and he/she will have to answer when that person, physician or state files a complaint...not the Paramedic. 

This Paramedic will need proof that these people were harmed by the LEOs actions. How many of those 200 were released as soon as a qualified health care professional saw them? How many actually spent the entire 72 hours in detainment? An ED bill is a lot cheaper than jail, attorneys and losing a job to an arrest record?   And why did it take him 10 years?  Why not file a report when the incident is still fresh?  Has he kept a "file" on all of these patients?  That in itself is a little scary depending on where he kept this information and how much. 

The LEO and Paramedic may only spend 15 minutes on scene with that person. Neither are trained to adequately judge a person's mental capability but if there is a question, the LEO should detain so a more qualified professional can make further determination of the person's mental status. As far as it being a profitable business for the hospitals, many of the patients may not have insurance. There is funding available in some states to pick up some of the cost to alleviate the stress of an involuntary detention for the patient. 

Also, since this expands over 10 years and involves 200 patients, how many of those former patients want this Paramedic talking about their past especially if the situation was already resolved. Many may have moved on an put a bad detention behind them. Those who where were juveniles at the time may hope their records stay sealed as they may now have families and employers who don't know about their screwy childhood. Others may have known they messed up or were messed up and have put that behind them. Some may have been found to have medical issues that caused the problem which required them to be detained. Thus, the detention may have been dismissed. I'm sure some would want to know that their medical records will remain private and not be hashed out in court.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 29, 2009)

To me, the last three paragraphs may be the most interesting part of the article, and may (I repeat MAY) be the basis for the lawsuit.



> Roger Schwab, a state regional ombudsman for mental health and developmental disabilities, said the emergency hold law doesn't address whether EMTs or paramedics have permission to transport patients. The statute says only peace or health officers are allowed to transport patients. Emergency medical technicians and paramedics aren't considered health officers under the statute, Schwab said.
> 
> "It always used to be that law enforcement were the ones to transport," Schwab said. "Now it's an issue because law enforcement agencies need their officers in the field and don't want to be doing transport. Quite frankly, if the peace officers were that concerned, they could have transported the individual themselves."
> 
> Schwab said the statute needs to be updated and the question of whether emergency medical personnel can transport patients under an emergency hold should be addressed.


If this is the case, I can see where his concerns come from especially if the patient is not suffering from any injuries or illnesses that would necessitate transport via ambulance instead of LE.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 29, 2009)

ffemt - I agree. As it states EMS has no powers to detain and the LEOs do. If the patient makes no comments in front of the EMS personnel that raise any of the "can't refuse transport" flags, is it legal for EMS to transport them against their will based on the cops word? I think someone could argue that technically the LEO is turning over detainment of the pt to EMS which may not be legal.

When holds are done around where I am I would say 75% end up being transported by LEO. If the pt has any new injuries (as in not the broken leg they got 2 weeks ago), is too intoxicated to stand and walk without assistance, or there is concern that the pt has taken an overdose or has a medical problem LEO will call us to transport. 

There are also times where we end up transporting a patient who has no medical complaints and LEO is unable to explain why we are transporting instead of them, but no one raises a big fuss. I know in a couple of cases it has been done for appearances because the family didn't want the patient leaving in a cop car. 

What does make me nervous about those transports though is the fact that there is no paperwork exchanged between LEO and us, or the hospital and us. LEO provides us with nothing attesting that we transported the pt under their orders and they were legally detaining the pt for a psych hold. Neither does the hospital, aside from giving us the standard face sheet we always get. 

I would love to see some sort of affidavit type form similar to a PCS that the LEO has to fill out and give to us so we have something documented and signed to include with our paperwork. I know the LEOs keep records, but it still makes me nervous. I generally get the LEOs full name and badge number for my report just to be on the safe side.


----------



## vquintessence (Dec 2, 2009)

Aidey said:


> (original post cut)
> What does make me nervous about those transports though is the fact that there is no paperwork exchanged between LEO and us, or the hospital and us. LEO provides us with nothing attesting that we transported the pt under their orders and they were legally detaining the pt for a psych hold. Neither does the hospital, aside from giving us the standard face sheet we always get.
> 
> I would love to see some sort of affidavit type form similar to a PCS that the LEO has to fill out and give to us so we have something documented and signed to include with our paperwork. I know the LEOs keep records, but it still makes me nervous. I generally get the LEOs full name and badge number for my report just to be on the safe side.



What does EMS in most states do to protect themselves for situations Aidey described???

In Massachusetts, if an officer has deemed a pt to be a danger to themselves or others (not only limited to SI/HI), the officer on scene can issue a Section 12.  MD's may also order Section 12's remotely... this is seen in a lot of Nursing home settings.

The document is about as sacrosanct as a DNR, and it must be to the same standards (i.e. Identify the person and be entirely filled out).  It also has to specifically identify the recieving facility, NO EXCEPTIONS.  MA old hospital diversion status was notorious for screwing the ambulances transporting (obviously unintentional...).

After the section 12 is filled out, it is handed to EMS whom MUST keep the copy and transfer the original document to the recieving facility AFTER securing a copy for their own records to be filed with their PCR.

The section 12 effectively grants EMS the ability to "legally" force a pt to remain under their care for the duration of that ONE DIRECT transport.  Chemical or physical (padded) restraints may be used if necessary; however those extremes are seldom needed/used (as well as Online orders being required for chemical restraint).

A Section 12 isn't an infallible shield however... EMS can still be scrutinized and held accountable for any damages (physical or emotional) that are inflicted.  That has led to many instances of pts (under section 12) have been able to flee the "temporary granted custody" of EMS... because the providers were afraid of bodily harm to themselves and the pt.


----------



## DrParasite (Dec 4, 2009)

if the cop is deeming the patient needs to go to the hospital, the cop will transport with the patient in the back of the ambulance.  if the cop is forcing the issue, then they are taking the ride with EMS.  EMS cannot restrain someone or transport against their will, but the LEO can place the patient in protective custody, and transport them under their authority.


----------



## Jeffrey_169 (Jan 12, 2010)

This is not limited to the big city either. While I was on clinical rotations here in Amarillo there was an instance where an officer brought in a paranoid schizophrenic and he was taunting him. He was in the ER and he was handcuffed to the beg. The officer told him repeatedly to "get up", and when he tried he tazed him. The man was restrained and unable to move, and the officer continued to taunt and taze him, and then he thought it was funny.

At the risk of being judged, I will tell you he wasn't laughing when his supervisor, the charge nurse and the ER doc found out. 

I cannot stand a bully. Call me wrong, but he had no right doing this to a person unable to defend himself. If I have to be professional then so do they as far as I am concerned.


----------

