Searching Psych Patients

[kevkei]

Reread my last post. The threat isn't DA or police, it's the patient deciding to sue.

Sometimes there's going to be cases where you might have to search patient anyway, for the safety of everyone, but you should be aware of the low possibility of future legal reprecussions. Hey, you might end up winning and creating case law in our favor, but just be aware of the law.

One of the things I can think of that will save you is if it's an implied consent treatment (Suicidal, Under the Influence, Altered LOC). They can't refuse treatment and you would have searched in order to treat them, thus implied consent might cover searching them. Protocols such will come into play during the case, but unless there's caselaw on that, you can't count on that as a defense.

Re-read my post, did I direct my comments to you? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the ability that would allow a patient to sue you for searching them? Keep in mind in your litigous society in the U.S, you can be sued for anything so how does this matter here?

It will be a cold day in Hell before I worry more about the chance of being sued by a patient than protecting my welfare for doing a body search for weapons. How about your family launching a wrongful death suit after you are killed by a concealed weapon that had you taken 1 minute to look, could have been avoided.

[PRPGfirerescuetech]

Re-read my post, did I direct my comments to you? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the ability that would allow a patient to sue you for searching them? Keep in mind in your litigous society in the U.S, you can be sued for anything so how does this matter here?

It will be a cold day in Hell before I worry more about the chance of being sued by a patient than protecting my welfare for doing a body search for weapons. How about your family launching a wrongful death suit after you are killed by a concealed weapon that had you taken 1 minute to look, could have been avoided.

In his defense, anybody can sue anybody for anything...

[kevkei]

In his defense, anybody can sue anybody for anything...

Isn't that what I said too? So because you can be sued for anything, you won't search a patient? You can be sued for not treating their pain, taking them to the wrong hospital, taking to long to respond.... The list goes on. How often does anyone you know get sued for their actions or lack thereof at work?

[PRPGfirerescuetech]

Isn't that what I said too? So because you can be sued for anything, you won't search a patient? You can be sued for not treating their pain, taking them to the wrong hospital, taking to long to respond.... The list goes on. How often does anyone you know get sued for their actions or lack thereof at work?

Ahh, you are correct. I will add 5 "hail kevkeis" to my prayer tonight...

That being said, how often do you know someone who contracts a BBP at work? Do you not wear gloves?

How often do you know someone who gets shot at work? Do you drive down the middle of ghetto wearing cowboy hats, playing country music over the PA?

You have to plan for all possibilities regardless. No one will fault you for searching a patient, except the patient (barring departmental policies)

Just remember, keep extra eyes and ears around when you do it, my partner got accused of theving 8 bucks and a bus pass last month. He didnt do it, but just the same, you open yourself for liability everytime you search someone.

Just a thought,

PRPG

[AnthonyM83]

Re-read my post, did I direct my comments to you? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the ability that would allow a patient to sue you for searching them? Keep in mind in your litigous society in the U.S, you can be sued for anything so how does this matter here?

It will be a cold day in Hell before I worry more about the chance of being sued by a patient than protecting my welfare for doing a body search for weapons. How about your family launching a wrongful death suit after you are killed by a concealed weapon that had you taken 1 minute to look, could have been avoided.

Well, you directed your post to " those of you that are nieve enough to think it is illegal to "search' someones pockets " and I had just made the statement that it was illegal, so I thought you were replying to my post. My apologies then.

I hear you that lawsuits are common, nowadays, but in this case, the patient can actually say you were violating the law, and he'd be correct. So, for those times that you will find yourself in when you need to search someone for safety reasons, be aware that you're breaking the law (but with good reason) and that someone could bring actions against you.

No one is saying not to be safe and my goal here isn't an argument. Simply reminding people that this common practice is technically illegal, so they might want to consider other options IF possible. Oftentimes it's won't be, so just do it with caution. I really just wanted to share the legal aspect of this discussion.

PS These is based on laws in my state, as best I know them, not taking into account any case law that might exist that I'm not aware of.

[paramedicmike]

I hear you that lawsuits are common, nowadays, but in this case, the patient can actually say you were violating the law, and he'd be correct.

PS These is based on laws in my state, as best I know them, not taking into account any case law that might exist that I'm not aware of.

What state are you in and what is the reference to the law? What law would I be violating to search a patient? Do you even know what the law is in your state? Because you've just admitted you don't know the law.

How is my saying, "You don't have anything on you that could hurt me or any one at the hospital, do you?" while I'm feeling their pockets, waist band etc a violation of the law?

People keep saying it's a violation of the law but no one has provided any kind of verification. I'm not a cop. I don't work in a law enforcement capacity. Therefore, there is no unreasonable search taking place.

Further, if it comes down to my safety versus the feelings of a psych patient regarding a pat down, my safety and the ability to go home at night will always, each and every time, come first.

If you can't provide a reference, then please stop arguing the point. Because until you can provide that reference, you're just blowing hot air.

-be safe.

[AnthonyM83]

I was considering replying with only quotes from my previous posts, because it's pretty much all there, but once again (with elaboration):

I'm in California.

Searching without consent would be a violation of California Penal Code 242 (battery).

You are touching them without consent. They might be giving informed consent to treatment, but not to touch them by searching their pockets or patting them down for weapons or removing weapons. You wouldn't be violating an unlawful search law; you'd be violating a battery law.

What I admitted was that there might be CASE LAW which I'm not aware of where someone rendering aid may have already been brought to court for conducting a search and the court deemed that the search was okay in those circumstances.

I'm not a lawyer and haven't researched this topic at all, so we're just going off what normal state law says. If someone thinks EMS is an exception, they have the burden of proof of showing there's a law, caselaw, court precedent, or other that makes provisions for them. I know what I'm basing my comments off of, but I don't know what everyone else is basing theirs off of.

Furthermore, I hope everyone takes their safety into consideration first and remember the saying: Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I just want people to be informed about POSSIBLE consequences when searching the fine suit-happy members of our society.

[kevkei]

I was considering replying with only quotes from my previous posts, because it's pretty much all there, but once again (with elaboration):

I'm in California.

Searching without consent would be a violation of California Penal Code 242 (battery).

You are touching them without consent. They might be giving informed consent to treatment, but not to touch them by searching their pockets or patting them down for weapons or removing weapons. You wouldn't be violating an unlawful search law; you'd be violating a battery law.

So if a patient gives consent to treat, they consent to allow you to touch their person, right? They have implied their consent to allow you to touch them (not battery). If in the course of your head to toe assessment, you do a rudimentary 'patting down' of their pockets and other hiding places all the while everything is done on the outside of their clothing. If any articles of clothing are removed from their person (coat, bags, etc) how is searching these items unlawful if all we are talking about is battery?

As well, when a person gives consent to treat, it is implied that there are no restrictions and they have the right to stop the proceedings at any time. Consent is formed from the moment a person calls for EMS or they ask you for treatment. If they are a psych patient being arrested under mental health laws, they have no rights, consent is implied by the mental health law (unless your local laws say something different). Otherwise in non mental health situations, unless they specify what you can and can not do, consent is implied that your permission is global and unrestricted. For example, when the police ask if they can enter a persons home, once inside if they can visibly see anything, they have the right to broaden their search based on evidence found in line of sight. If I am searching them (I mean doing a head to toe exam) and they tell me to stop, a warning light goes off. What are they trying to hide and why? I would also be suspicious of anyone that would attempt to sue through the courts as opposed to trying to first lay criminal charges.

If on your head to toe exam (search) you find an object that you feel is a concealed weapon, you should have the right to disarm them of that object (i.e a knife in their waist band) because you feel they are a threat.

Bottom line is do what you need to do, with good reason, to make it home after every shift. If you have reason to believe they have something on them, let them sue. Document your reasons well, formulate your thoughts and let the trial begin. I'd find it hard pressed that any civil action will be found against you for trying to protect your safety. I would think they would be laughed out of the courthouse.

[Dustdevil]

Do you mean when you're travelling lights & sirens or for all transports?

ALL transports. ALL the time. NO exceptions.

[Dustdevil]

Who said anything about no consent? They either consent or they wait for police to transport them. Given that choice, I have never had one refuse.

And you broken records who keep pretending to know of a specific law prohibiting us from searching patients need to either produce the law, verbatim, along with a verifiable link to it, or step off. And this needs to be a federal law, since you continue to claim that this applies to all of us.