GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #218

Status
Not open for further replies.
Had the request for the safekeeping hearing been completed by the sheriff by then? It’s my understanding the sheriff makes the request for transfer then the court schedules the hearing. Unsure of when or how the new location is determined, related to the transfer.
The first mention of safekeeping was on Nov. 3. There was no hearing = motion filed, order issued, recusal. IMO he was transferred to White Co. shortly after the initial hearing. I can't find any info about that part of the transfers.
Motion Filed
Request by the Sheriff of Carroll County, Indiana to Transfer Inmate from the Custody of the Sheriff to the Custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections for Safekeeping filed.
Filed By:
Carroll County Sheriff's Department
File Stamp:
11/03/2022​
Order Issued
Order Re: Sheriff's Request for Safekeeping entered, per form.
Judicial Officer:
Diener, Benjamin A.
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Allen, Richard M.
Noticed:
Carroll County Sheriff's Department
Order Signed:
11/03/2022​
Order Issued
Order of Recusal and Certification to the Indiana Supreme Court for Selection of a Special Judge Outside of Carroll County entered, per form. (copy to Indiana Supreme Court)
Judicial Officer:
Diener, Benjamin A.
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Allen, Richard M.
Order Signed:
11/03/2022​
[td]
11/03/2022
[/td]​
[td]
11/03/2022
[/td]​
[td]
11/03/2022
[/td]​
 
Title 35

2024 Indiana Code

IC 35-33-11
Chapter 11. Emergency Transfer of Certain Jail Inmates


IC 35-33-11-1
Inmate in county jail in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents substantial threat to safety of others

Sec. 1. Upon motion by the:

(1) sheriff;
(2) prosecuting attorney;
(3) defendant or his counsel;
(4) attorney general; or
(5) court;

alleging that an inmate in a county jail awaiting trial is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, the court shall determine whether the inmate is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. If the court finds that the inmate is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, it shall order the sheriff to transfer the inmate to another county jail or to a facility of the department of correction designated by the commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement of that prisoner and provided that space is available. For the purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical condition.

IC 35-33-11-2
Posttransfer hearing

Sec. 2. The inmate or receiving authority is entitled to a posttransfer hearing upon request. The inmate may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-3
Overcrowding or inadequacy of local penal facility

Sec. 3. Upon petition by the sheriff alleging that:

(1) the local penal facility is overcrowded or otherwise physically inadequate to house inmates; and
(2) another sheriff or the commissioner of the department of correction has agreed to accept custody of inmates from the sheriff;

the court may order inmates transferred to the custody of the person who has agreed to accept custody. Whenever a transfer order is necessary under this section, only inmates serving a sentence after conviction for a crime may be transferred, unless the overcrowding or inadequacy of the facility also requires transfer of inmates awaiting trial or sentencing.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-4
Return to county jail

Sec. 4. Whenever the court finds that the circumstances which necessitated a transfer under this chapter no longer exist, it shall order the sheriff to return the inmate to the county jail from which he was transferred.

As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-5
Transportation to and from facilities; payment of costs by county

Sec. 5. When an inmate is transferred under this chapter, the sheriff of the county from which the inmate is transferred shall be responsible for transporting the inmates to and from the other facility. If the sheriff is unable to adequately protect the inmate during the transfer, the sheriff or the court may request assistance from any other law enforcement agency. The county which transfers an inmate shall pay:

(1) a per diem of the average daily cost of housing a prisoner at the facility to which the inmate has been assigned; and
(2) any additional costs reasonably necessary to maintain the health and welfare of a transferred inmate.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-6
Delivery of data with prisoner

Sec. 6. When an inmate is transferred under this chapter, the sheriff of the county from which the inmate is received shall deliver with the prisoner a certified copy of the order, a current medical report, if available, and other data relating the proper medical care and classification of the inmate that is established as necessary by written policy of the department of correction or the receiving institution, pertaining to the health, safety, and proper confinement of safekeepers.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-7
Notice of subsequent transfer

Sec. 7. The department of correction will notify the sheriff of the county and judge of the court from which the inmate was transferred of any subsequent transfer of a prisoner within the department of correction necessary to assure the purposes of the original transfer.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-8
Assignment of prisoners serving sentence to program or work

Sec. 8. Prisoners serving a sentence after a conviction and transfer to the department or other receiving institution may be assigned to any program or work consistent with procedures and requirements for other prisoners committed to the department or other receiving institution.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-9
Assignment of prisoners awaiting trial to program or work

Sec. 9. Prisoners awaiting trial may be allowed to work or be assigned to programs consistent with the rights regarding prisoners awaiting trial.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-10
Discipline of prisoners awaiting trial

Sec. 10. The department of correction or other receiving sheriff may discipline prisoners awaiting trial as authorized under IC 35-50.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.
___________________________________________________________________________________________


So it seems that "the inmate" (Richard Allen), under Section 2 above, would be entitled to a post transfer hearing upon his request. That first request occurred on 5 April 2023

It also seems that Carroll County retains jurisdiction: per diems, housing costs, transportation arragements etc throughout in RAs case per Section 5.

Sheriff's Original Motion Requesting Transfer // 3 Nov 2022
Thanks for posting this. I wonder if they added this section with the presumption the defendant was represented by an attorney.
IC 35-33-11-2
Post transfer hearing

Sec. 2. The inmate or receiving authority is entitled to a post transfer hearing upon request. The inmate may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.
 
The first mention of safekeeping was on Nov. 3. There was no hearing = motion filed, order issued, recusal. IMO he was transferred to White Co. shortly after the initial hearing. I can't find any info about that part of the transfers.

Motion Filed
Request by the Sheriff of Carroll County, Indiana to Transfer Inmate from the Custody of the Sheriff to the Custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections for Safekeeping filed.
Filed By:
Carroll County Sheriff's Department
File Stamp:
11/03/2022​
Order Issued
Order Re: Sheriff's Request for Safekeeping entered, per form.
Judicial Officer:
Diener, Benjamin A.
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Allen, Richard M.
Noticed:
Carroll County Sheriff's Department
Order Signed:
11/03/2022​
Order Issued
Order of Recusal and Certification to the Indiana Supreme Court for Selection of a Special Judge Outside of Carroll County entered, per form. (copy to Indiana Supreme Court)
Judicial Officer:
Diener, Benjamin A.
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Allen, Richard M.
Order Signed:
11/03/2022​

[td]
11/03/2022

[/td]
[td]
11/03/2022

[/td]
[td]
11/03/2022

[/td]​
So then to answer your question, the transfer to White Co. probably wasn’t a topic for the initial hearing on the 28th.

Would the request from Leazenby be of any use to you, as I seem to recall seeing it recently (if I can find it again)?
 
So then to answer your question, the transfer to White Co. probably wasn’t a topic for the initial hearing on the 28th.

Would the request from Leazenby be of any use to you, as I seem to recall seeing it recently (if I can find it again)?
I think I've seen that. IIRC, it's basically a form of what to file; except it doesn't include any proof of their concerns. "Bloodlust"
 
I think I've seen that. IIRC, it's basically a form of what to file; except it doesn't include any proof of their concerns. "Bloodlust"
I think the bloodlust was Diener’s response (?). Leazenby’s request was what an attorney later accused him of getting help from the judge in writing it, when, IIRC, it was someone else that assisted (another prosecutor or attorney) but wasn’t the judge or at least couldn’t be proven as such. These are events which I’m not as familiar compared to 2024 & 2025, so take it with a grain of salt.

I didn’t read that proof was required in the safekeeping code. It reads more like it’s a judgement call which is then reviewed by & then ultimately entrusted to the judge. It seems to me the burden of proving a questionable transfer falls on the inmate or his counsel after the transfer & if the transfer is a result of only the inmate’s safety. If an inmate is transferred out of concern for safety of others, then the inmate may not be entitled to legal representation or able to challenge the transfer. RDCV.

JMO
 
I think the bloodlust was Diener’s response (?). Leazenby’s request was what an attorney later accused him of getting help from the judge in writing it, when, IIRC, it was someone else that assisted (another prosecutor or attorney) but wasn’t the judge or at least couldn’t be proven as such. These are events which I’m not as familiar compared to 2024 & 2025, so take it with a grain of salt.

I didn’t read that proof was required in the safekeeping code. It reads more like it’s a judgement call which is then reviewed by & then ultimately entrusted to the judge. It seems to me the burden of proving a questionable transfer falls on the inmate or his counsel after the transfer & if the transfer is a result of only the inmate’s safety. If an inmate is transferred out of concern for safety of others, then the inmate may not be entitled to legal representation or able to challenge the transfer. RDCV.

JMO
If you can find the request from Leazenby, please post it.
 
Here's everything I'm able to link regarding Transfers & Safekeeping


2 Nov 2022:
Sheriff's MOTION Request for Transfer (Due to Safekeeping Requirement):

3 Nov 2022:
Judge Deiner ORDER For Safekeeping:

4 Apr 2023:
Defence Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping/Post Transfer Hearng):
Request includes two exhibits:
Exhibit A)
Exhibit B)

5 April 2023:
Proposed Supplemental ORDER on Safekeeping (Defence):

14 Apr 2023: We know a Treatment Review Committee Hearing was held on April 14, 2023 to evaluate whether or not Richard Allen required involuntary medication. (3 Day Hearings). The document on their findings is not public domain as it would include RA's personal medical information.

14 Apr 2023:
Judge Gull's Supplemental ORDER On Safekeeping

14 Apr 2023:
State's Response To Defence's Emergency Motion To Modify Safekeeping Order


On this:
Thanks for posting this. I wonder if they added this section with the presumption the defendant was represented by an attorney.
IC 35-33-11-2
Post transfer hearing

Sec. 2. The inmate or receiving authority is entitled to a post transfer hearing upon request. The inmate may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.
IANAL, but I would think that is either/or. Some defendants do represent themselves, so it would come from them personally. When represented by a lawyer it still comes "from the defendant" who is represented but it reads as "by and through" the attorney as it was in this case:
1738278482623.png
 
The first mention of safekeeping was on Nov. 3. There was no hearing = motion filed, order issued, recusal. IMO he was transferred to White Co. shortly after the initial hearing. I can't find any info about that part of the transfers.

Motion Filed
Request by the Sheriff of Carroll County, Indiana to Transfer Inmate from the Custody of the Sheriff to the Custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections for Safekeeping filed.
Filed By:
Carroll County Sheriff's Department
File Stamp:
11/03/2022​
Order Issued
Order Re: Sheriff's Request for Safekeeping entered, per form.
Judicial Officer:
Diener, Benjamin A.
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Allen, Richard M.
Noticed:
Carroll County Sheriff's Department
Order Signed:
11/03/2022​
Order Issued
Order of Recusal and Certification to the Indiana Supreme Court for Selection of a Special Judge Outside of Carroll County entered, per form. (copy to Indiana Supreme Court)
Judicial Officer:
Diener, Benjamin A.
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Allen, Richard M.
Order Signed:
11/03/2022​

[td]
11/03/2022

[/td]
[td]
11/03/2022

[/td]
[td]
11/03/2022

[/td]​
Sorry FG, I overlooked your comments here. I was mistaken about what you were inquiring. I get it now. Duh. My fault.
 
I don't think that Indiana previously had any official procedures for transferring of persons awaiting trial from county to county for holding (IE: From Carroll County to White County [overcrowding, threat of harm locally etc, etc is allowable]). It was just Sheriff to Sheriff. Transfer from County to State is another beast (which I've already posted).

I did find this very interesting bit this evening on the Indiana Track Bill site regarding proposed ammendments to the law (the law that I posted earlier) governing Inmate Transfers. It was tabled in the Senate on 13 January 2025. IMO, the proposals all seem to align with RA Delphi case as being the nexus for the proposed changes BTW. Give it a read and see if you agree.

"County to County" is now specified and "Mental Health" is excluded as a basis for transfer. Intersting that.

Indiana SB240 //Transfer of high risk persons from county jail

Proposed Bill.jpg


Some interesting proposed amendments that, if approved, would come into effect on 1 July 2025:
proposed-bill-jpg.561640


Proposed Bill 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't think that Indiana previously had any official procedures for transferring of persons awaiting trial from county to county for holding (IE: From Carroll County to White County [overcrowding, threat of harm locally etc, etc is allowable]). It was just Sheriff to Sheriff. Transfer from County to State is another beast (which I've already posted).

I did find this very interesting bit this evening on the Indiana Track Bill site regarding proposed ammendments to the law (the law that I posted earlier) governing Inmate Transfers. It was tabled in the Senate on 13 January 2025. IMO, the proposals all seem to align with RA Delphi case as being the nexus for the proposed changes BTW. Give it a read and see if you agree.

"County to County" is now specified and "Mental Health" is excluded as a basis for transfer. Intersting that.

Indiana SB240 //Transfer of high risk persons from county jail

View attachment 561648


Some interesting proposed amendments that, if approved, would come into effect on 1 July 2025:
proposed-bill-jpg.561640


View attachment 561643
Thanks Vern.

I’m going to speculate that if there were a procedure to transfer from one county to the next in 2017 likely it wouldn’t go through the court. The record would then likely be retained by one or both of the county jails involved. Point being, there may not be a record within the court case files of RA being transferred to White County & could be why nothing is showing up when looking in the court records.

A sheriff’s transfer request is available through court records due to it being a safekeeping request & that does go through the court & if the judge does in fact decide a transfer is warranted, the inmate is then transferred to IDOC who then decides on the placement of the inmate.

JMO
 
Last edited:
I don't think that Indiana previously had any official procedures for transferring of persons awaiting trial from county to county for holding (IE: From Carroll County to White County [overcrowding, threat of harm locally etc, etc is allowable]). It was just Sheriff to Sheriff. Transfer from County to State is another beast (which I've already posted).

I did find this very interesting bit this evening on the Indiana Track Bill site regarding proposed ammendments to the law (the law that I posted earlier) governing Inmate Transfers. It was tabled in the Senate on 13 January 2025. IMO, the proposals all seem to align with RA Delphi case as being the nexus for the proposed changes BTW. Give it a read and see if you agree.

"County to County" is now specified and "Mental Health" is excluded as a basis for transfer. Intersting that.

Indiana SB240 //Transfer of high risk persons from county jail

View attachment 561648


Some interesting proposed amendments that, if approved, would come into effect on 1 July 2025:
proposed-bill-jpg.561640


View attachment 561643

Interesting

One gets the feeling that this was just some kind of administrative process that the defendant can challenge afterwards. The Judge notes he is unrepresented and makes the determination based on a bunch of stuff that may not have been relevant IMO. Be interesting to know how these applications typically work.

My feeling is still that the bigger issue for the defence is the harm and remedy. Rozzi and Baldwin were appointed in November, so it is not as if the opportunity to be heard on this matter was actually lost for more than some days. They just decided not to apply for months.

The matter was then heard and they lost on the merits, including being rebuked by the judge. Especially they decided not to file the psychosis stuff with any medical basis - presumably because they did not want to open that door.

Issues for me therefore are:

Even if Diener was incorrect to approve this without a hearing, or made a clearly incorrect decision, the remedy was to ask for a hearing which they didn't do.

No appeal court is going to relitigate the facts of the safekeeping hearing. And the psychosis stuff wasn't put to the Judge

The defense needs to argue they should get a new trial because Dieners unconstitutional process ultimately caused the defendant to falsely confess ... but it may be a hard road given it was their own decision to wait many months to challenge and not put psychosis on the table?

I do have some sympathy in terms of what happened here, but they may have shot themselves in the foot by never asking for the hearing until after he already confessed.

Maybe the better way of approaching the constitutionality of the confessions is simply on appeal, where this is one part of the matrix.
 
Interesting

One gets the feeling that this was just some kind of administrative process that the defendant can challenge afterwards. The Judge notes he is unrepresented and makes the determination based on a bunch of stuff that may not have been relevant IMO. Be interesting to know how these applications typically work.

My feeling is still that the bigger issue for the defence is the harm and remedy. Rozzi and Baldwin were appointed in November, so it is not as if the opportunity to be heard on this matter was actually lost for more than some days. They just decided not to apply for months.

The matter was then heard and they lost on the merits, including being rebuked by the judge. Especially they decided not to file the psychosis stuff with any medical basis - presumably because they did not want to open that door.

Issues for me therefore are:

Even if Diener was incorrect to approve this without a hearing, or made a clearly incorrect decision, the remedy was to ask for a hearing which they didn't do.

No appeal court is going to relitigate the facts of the safekeeping hearing. And the psychosis stuff wasn't put to the Judge

The defense needs to argue they should get a new trial because Dieners unconstitutional process ultimately caused the defendant to falsely confess ... but it may be a hard road given it was their own decision to wait many months to challenge and not put psychosis on the table?

I do have some sympathy in terms of what happened here, but they may have shot themselves in the foot by never asking for the hearing until after he already confessed.

Maybe the better way of approaching the constitutionality of the confessions is simply on appeal, where this is one part of the matrix.
The way I read the code in regards to the post transfer safekeeping hearing is it may only apply (refuse transfer) if the reason for transfer was due to the inmate being a threat to himself. If a threat to others, then possibly the hearing request isn’t allowed. I’m no lawyer though, so quite possible I’m misinterpreting.

MOO
 
The way I read the code in regards to the post transfer safekeeping hearing is it may only apply (refuse transfer) if the reason for transfer was due to the inmate being a threat to himself. If a threat to others, then possibly the hearing request isn’t allowed. I’m no lawyer though, so quite possible I’m misinterpreting.

MOO

That's why I am wondering what was the usual judicial practice with these safekeepers. Do you just apply and the judge signs it typically?

As it is on an emergency basis - it doesn't seem to envisage that there would be a hearing until afterwards.

Which makes sense.
 

Typically, pre-trial defendants are held in county jails, but after his arrest Carroll County’s then-sheriff Tobe Leazenby filed notice with the court that he didn’t believe he could keep Allen safe. Judge Benjamin Diener approved the motion, sending Allen first to the maximum-security Westville Correctional Facility. Diener then recused himself.

-.-.-


The request for a safekeeping order fares little better as a source of facts establishing a threat to Richard Allen that only the Department of Corrections could manage. Then-Sheriff Tobe Leazenby simply cited his feelings and the high-profile nature of the case as justification for the order:
Document ......
As you can see from the timing of these documents, the order was signed the day after the Sheriff requested it, without a hearing, and while Richard Allen was still unrepresented by counsel. This order set in motion the sequence of events that led to his extended solitary confinement, his decompensation, and the series of “confessions” he began to make five months into the ordeal.
 
Last edited:
August 2nd, 2024

The initial order, signed by former Carroll Circuit Judge Benjamin Diener, when former Sheriff Tobe Leazenby had asked the court to allow him to move Allen to a state prison “for safekeeping.” Leazenby had said the Carroll County Jail wasn’t equipped to handle the situation, saying that the high-profile case created “potential safety and security concerns because of extensive coverage from an array of various media platforms, both mainstream and social, throughout the state, the United States and the world.”

During testimony this week, Liggett said he was open to moving Allen to the Cass County Jail, one county away to the northeast. That’s where Allen was being held this week during the three days of hearings. Liggett said on the stand that he understood Cass County Sheriff Ed Schroder was open to the idea. Liggett’s concern was that if Allen became a problem in Cass County, he was anxious about taking Allen back to Carroll County, which he said wasn’t equipped with a cell that could keep him out of the general jail population.
 
That's why I am wondering what was the usual judicial practice with these safekeepers. Do you just apply and the judge signs it typically?

As it is on an emergency basis - it doesn't seem to envisage that there would be a hearing until afterwards.

Which makes sense.
Not a lawyer, obviously, but I have no basis on prior safekeeping requests or hearings. Just reading the code itself, I find it pretty interesting there is nothing mentioning inmate’s legal representation for the initial hearing (transfer out of current jail).

If we take an extreme situation like suicide or another (existing) inmate trying to harm the recently arrested (new) inmate, it seems logical there isn’t time to wait around for all counselors, the sheriff, the judge, etc. to get together & schedule a hearing. So, the sheriff makes a request & it goes to the judge & that judge is entrusted to review & possibly even interview the sheriff & finally entrusted to make a final decision on the transfer of the inmate at risk.

After the transfer occurs, that is when the attorney has a chance to step in IF the transfer was due to the inmate’s personal safety, which is refusing the transfer. If the transfer was due to any other circumstances then it’s likely that the inmate has no real choices unless the attorney can somehow argue otherwise or appeal somehow. I feel it would be difficult for attorney to somehow argue he can control other people’s safety.

I come to that conclusion because I just cannot envision NM having the largest case in his career being ruined before it ever begins. Again, I could be giving him too much credit as well as misinterpreting the wording. I hope all that makes some sort of sense. Just my best guess though.

JMO
 
Interesting

One gets the feeling that this was just some kind of administrative process that the defendant can challenge afterwards. The Judge notes he is unrepresented and makes the determination based on a bunch of stuff that may not have been relevant IMO. Be interesting to know how these applications typically work.

My feeling is still that the bigger issue for the defence is the harm and remedy. Rozzi and Baldwin were appointed in November, so it is not as if the opportunity to be heard on this matter was actually lost for more than some days. They just decided not to apply for months.

The matter was then heard and they lost on the merits, including being rebuked by the judge. Especially they decided not to file the psychosis stuff with any medical basis - presumably because they did not want to open that door.

Issues for me therefore are:

Even if Diener was incorrect to approve this without a hearing, or made a clearly incorrect decision, the remedy was to ask for a hearing which they didn't do.

No appeal court is going to relitigate the facts of the safekeeping hearing. And the psychosis stuff wasn't put to the Judge

The defense needs to argue they should get a new trial because Dieners unconstitutional process ultimately caused the defendant to falsely confess ... but it may be a hard road given it was their own decision to wait many months to challenge and not put psychosis on the table?

I do have some sympathy in terms of what happened here, but they may have shot themselves in the foot by never asking for the hearing until after he already confessed.

Maybe the better way of approaching the constitutionality of the confessions is simply on appeal, where this is one part of the matrix.
I'm not so sure Deiner's original ruling to ORDER the Transfer for Safekeeping was incorrect (at the time).

When arrested, RA was on daily anti-anxiety and depression meds (with potential suicide watch) so mental health also factored in (no access to MH assistance in county jails, but there was daily access to such at State level) to the decision. again, we've had testimony (3 day hearings) to that effect but no public doc to back it up due to "personal medical info".

Interesting that the proposed amendments now remove mental health as valid means for supporting Motion For Safekeeping.

I think that proposed change will bear some negative implications in the future with Counties forced to hold anyone who's oviously in need or suffering from MH issues and requires a pro IMO.
 
I'm not so sure Deiner's original ruling to ORDER the Transfer for Safekeeping was incorrect (at the time).

When arrested, RA was on daily anti-anxiety and depression meds (with potential suicide watch) so mental health also factored in (no access to MH assistance in county jails, but there was daily access to such at State level) to the decision. again, we've had testimony (3 day hearings) to that effect but no public doc to back it up due to "personal medical info".

Interesting that the proposed amendments now remove mental health as valid means for supporting Motion For Safekeeping.

I think that proposed change will bear some negative implications in the future with Counties forced to hold anyone who's oviously in need or suffering from MH issues and requires a pro IMO.
Could there be other proposals related only to mental health scenarios? It could be that it falls under the inmate’s attorney to request a hearing if a mental health scenario arises or possibly a mental health professional needs to be involved & go from there.

MOO
 
I'm not so sure Deiner's original ruling to ORDER the Transfer for Safekeeping was incorrect (at the time).

When arrested, RA was on daily anti-anxiety and depression meds (with potential suicide watch) so mental health also factored in (no access to MH assistance in county jails, but there was daily access to such at State level) to the decision. again, we've had testimony (3 day hearings) to that effect but no public doc to back it up due to "personal medical info".

Interesting that the proposed amendments now remove mental health as valid means for supporting Motion For Safekeeping.

I think that proposed change will bear some negative implications in the future with Counties forced to hold anyone who's oviously in need or suffering from MH issues and requires a pro IMO.

Dieners order you kindly posted above seemed to devote attention to what the general public was doing which would seem to be an irrelevant consideration to me?

But i generally agree that it seems like the custodians can just apply for this setting out a basis and the judge signs off or not and you can argue the toss afterwards.

i guess we’ll find out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
598
Total visitors
758

Forum statistics

Threads
625,887
Messages
18,512,857
Members
240,877
Latest member
DarkLight1899
Back
Top