A Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department car parked outside a church where a man fatally shot four people, including three of his children, before turning the gun on himself on February 28, 2022. The tragic incident left the community reeling and prompted discussions on crisis response systems and the role of law enforcement in mental health situations.
In a recent podcast episode, CalMatters revisits the story of police stepping back from responding to mental health calls and the implications of this shift on crisis response systems. The phrase “Mental illness is not a crime” has gained traction as advocates push for better treatment of individuals in crisis. Across the United States, over 100 communities have adopted a new approach, dispatching mental health experts instead of armed police to certain 911 calls.
Several sheriff’s departments in California have now joined this movement by refusing to respond to some 911 calls involving mental health issues. Sacramento Sheriff Jim Cooper made headlines in February when he announced that his deputies would only intervene in mental health situations if a crime had occurred, was ongoing, or if someone other than the individual in crisis was in immediate danger. Cooper emphasized that law enforcement’s primary focus is on dealing with crime rather than mental health crises.
Veteran journalist Lee Romney, who has covered mental health issues in California for nearly 25 years, expressed surprise at Cooper’s decision. She highlighted the trend towards collaboration between law enforcement, clinicians, and paramedics in handling mental health crises, making Cooper’s stance seem extreme. Romney’s article for CalMatters delves into the implications of this new policy, featuring insights from Cooper, other law enforcement officials, and families impacted by severe mental illness.
One of the main drivers behind Sheriff Cooper’s decision to limit responses to mental health calls was concerns over legal liability. He referenced a recent court ruling that held Las Vegas police officers accountable for the death of a mentally ill man in 2019. However, legal experts have contested Cooper’s reasoning, asserting that officers still have legal protections when handling mental health emergencies. Despite the criticism, some sheriff’s departments are following Sacramento’s lead in an effort to spark a broader conversation about the role of law enforcement in addressing mental health challenges.
Critics, including lawmakers, firefighters, and community members, have expressed apprehension that Cooper’s policy could jeopardize the safety of civilians and first responders. Yet, mental health advocates have applauded the move, believing it will prompt Sacramento to explore alternative approaches to managing mental health crises without solely relying on police intervention. Cooper’s decision has spurred discussions on the need for more effective strategies to support individuals in crisis while ensuring the safety of all involved.
