A BILL to amend and reenact § 37.2-808, as it is currently effective and as it shall become effective, of the Code of Virginia, relating to emergency custody orders; transportation to treatment center or to residence of the person subject to emergency custody order.
HB11 would amend Virginia’s emergency custody order law for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The bill keeps the core standard for issuing an emergency custody order: a magistrate or court must find probable cause that a person has a mental illness, is likely to cause serious harm to self or others or suffer serious harm from inability to care for basic needs, needs hospitalization or treatment, and is unwilling or unable to volunteer for care. It also preserves the existing authority to consider physician input, past behavior, treatment history, hearsay, medical records, affidavits, and other relevant information when deciding whether to issue the order.
The bill’s main operational changes focus on transportation and evaluation. It expands and clarifies the use of alternative transportation providers, including family members, friends, community services board representatives, certified evaluators, and other trained providers, while requiring the court or magistrate to determine that the provider is available, willing, and able to transport safely. It also adds or clarifies procedures for transporting a person to a medical facility for emergency medical evaluation or treatment, and then to an approved treatment center or the person’s residence after medical care is completed. The bill further addresses custody transfer, electronic delivery of orders, use of restraint by trained alternative transport personnel, limited civil liability for ordinary negligence, and the role of auxiliary police officers in certain circumstances.
HB11 would amend § 37.2-808 of the Code of Virginia, which governs emergency custody orders in mental health cases. If enacted, it would change how emergency custody orders are executed by broadening transportation options beyond law enforcement, clarifying when and how custody may be transferred to alternative providers, and expressly allowing transport to medical facilities for emergency evaluation or treatment before transfer to a treatment center or home. It would also reinforce notice, documentation, and timing requirements, including the eight-hour custody limit and procedures for returning unexecuted orders, while coordinating with related statutes on temporary detention and medical screening payments.
The available context suggests the bill was treated as a behavioral health measure and moved through committee without recorded opposition in the materials provided. Its continuation to the next session by voice vote indicates at least procedural support, but not final passage. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a technical and operational update to emergency mental health transport procedures rather than a highly partisan proposal.
The main points of potential contention are the expansion of alternative transportation and the balance between safety, patient rights, and law-enforcement involvement. Supporters would likely favor giving magistrates more flexibility to use family members, friends, or trained providers and to route people through medical care when needed. Possible concerns include whether non-law-enforcement transport can be done safely, the use of restraints by contractors, liability protections for transport providers, and whether the added discretion could affect consistency in emergency custody execution. The bill also touches on family presence during evaluation, which may raise questions about patient autonomy versus supportive decision-making.