"Duty To Warn" in AZ

[thevern]

I had a "Duty to Warn' filed with the Phoenix PD.

I have since applied to the dept.

Will this show up on the BI? Do I tried to do a records check for it and the city records could not find it...

Yes, before you ask I did include it on the app. Just wanted to prep for the question on it.

Thanks!

[Sgt. Slaughter]

What was it for? If you've had anything filed with them it will show up. City records clerks don't have access to ALL records.

[retdetsgt]

Whassa duty to warn?

[Sgt. Slaughter]

It's normally used in counseling or phsychiatry where someone may present a threat to themselves or someone else and they are obligated to notify the authorities.

[retdetsgt]

It's normally used in counseling or phsychiatry where someone may present a threat to themselves or someone else and they are obligated to notify the authorities.

Ah, thanks. Never heard it called that. Thought it had to do something with telling someone before we choked them half to death.....

[GoDirectly2Jail]

Ah, thanks. Never heard it called that. Thought it had to do something with telling someone before we choked them half to death.....

You're. About. To. See. The. Inside. Of. Your. Eyelids!

[retdetsgt]

You're. About. To. See. The. Inside. Of. Your. Eyelids!

You only have one right. That's to breathe. You just waived it......

[Jennifer]

I had a "Duty to Warn' filed with the Phoenix PD.

I have since applied to the dept.

Will this show up on the BI? Do I tried to do a records check for it and the city records could not find it...

Yes, before you ask I did include it on the app. Just wanted to prep for the question on it.

Thanks!

When I first read this, I thought that you filed the paperwork and was thinking, "well, he did the right, ethical, and legal thing to do, why would that hurt him/her?" (I can't tell your gender from your avatar name).

But then I reread it and went, "ohhh."

This is going to come up in your background for a variety of reasons: 1. you will be asked to sign a ROI for your medical hx. 2. You must have been seeing a mental health professional, they are going to want to know why. 2. The "Duty to Warn" is serious. In order for your mental health professional to have gone to the either the person you were talking about or to the police indicates to me (a mental health professional) that you "presented a serious danger of violence to another" (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1976).

retdetsgt

Ah, thanks. Never heard it called that

AKA: Tarasoff case, named after a precedent case involving a psychiatrist and his patient who stalked and eventually killed a woman named Tatiana Tarasoff. It is also referred to as "Duty to Warn" but due to the Supreme Court's second ruling, is "Duty to Protect".

[retdetsgt]

AKA: Tarasoff case, named after a precedent case involving a psychiatrist and his patient who stalked and eventually killed a woman named Tatiana Tarasoff. It is also referred to as "Duty to Warn" but due to the Supreme Court's second ruling, is "Duty to Protect".

Oregon has had that law as far back as I can remember, but it's comes up so rarely that no one ever gave it a name around here.

It's one of those that looks really cool on paper, but is fairly worthless since the police can't act against anyone until they commit a crime anyway. Hell, I knew a lot of people on the street that were dangerous, I didn't need a shrink to tell me that. But I still couldn't do anything about them unless they did something.

[thevern]

Thanks for all the responses.

I duty to warn was against me so....

Am I SOL?

So I take it the PHX PD BI would be able to view it?

[Jennifer]

Oregon has had that law as far back as I can remember, but it's comes up so rarely that no one ever gave it a name around here.

It's one of those that looks really cool on paper, but is fairly worthless since the police can't act against anyone until they commit a crime anyway. Hell, I knew a lot of people on the street that were dangerous, I didn't need a shrink to tell me that. But I still couldn't do anything about them unless they did something.

So, I'm curious. If one has this in their background, unless they acted upon it, it's OK? That is Thevern's question anyhow.

While this is more of a CMA for the therapist, as Tarasoff came about from the civil negligence trial. It can also be grounds for a civil commitment in which police would transport the individual to a psychiatric facility. So, yes, legally the police are not the ones who have to worry about anything as the onus is strictly on the therapist.

This law is even more convoluted in that states have their own interpretation of the law and some like, GA really don't. For example, in Utah, unless the patient communicates an actual threat of physical violence against a clearly identified victim, there is no duty to warn.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Am I SOL?
Depends on what it was. However, many applicants WON'T have this. Common sense should tell you who they'd choose were all things equal.

So I take it the PHX PD BI would be able to view it?
You'll have to disclose it anyway, but yes. PPD probably has an in-house system that tracks that kind of info.

[thevern]

Thanks Sgt. Slaughter,

This is the exact info I was looking for.

I am currently have a good job, so what if I went for a "reserve officer" spot?

I know the criteria are the same for reserves, but would this "discretionary" item be looked upon less harshly in the reserve force?

I did directly threaten someone and it was reported by TERROS to PHX PD through the crime stopper line.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

I know the criteria are the same for reserves, but would this "discretionary" item be looked upon less harshly in the reserve force?
No. The only difference between reserves and career positions are that one group is paid for their services.

I did directly threaten someone and it was reported by TERROS to PHX PD through the crime stopper line.
It's up to PPD to decide whether or not they'd allow that. I don't believe that's an AZ POST disqualifier, but it was serious enough that it was reported. That would most likely be a large part of the background on you. Again, other candidates WON'T have that issue. Also, you're competing against lots of people who already have AZ POST certifications from the other academies around the state and want to keep it active until they can get on full time with another department. That means they've already passed BI's and meet AZ POST requirements for certification. That puts us right back to your issue placing you on the bottom of the pile if it doesn't outright disqualify you with Phoenix.

[retdetsgt]

So, I'm curious. If one has this in their background, unless they acted upon it, it's OK? That is Thevern's question anyhow.

For example, in Utah, unless the patient communicates an actual threat of physical violence against a clearly identified victim, there is no duty to warn.

The fact itself they were reported wouldn't mean that much, but the diagnosis and treatment would be.

And for the second part, there shouldn't be. A lot of people go into therapy for issues that make them angry. If people thought they were going to be routinely reported, how could a therapist be successful? When I was going through therapy for PTSD, you can bet I expressed some anger at some people and situations I was put in by them. That didn't mean I had any intention of acting on any of my frustrations. If I made a specific threat at a certain person and said I was going to do it, that's a horse of another color.