![\"Santa](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Bozman-Moss-and-SR-Police-rotated.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\nIn the photograph, two Santa Rosa police officers stand over Barbara and Denny Bozman-Moss\u2019 37-year-old son, who is face down on a mattress that sits on the floor. A large pile of cigarette butts litters the charred carpet next to him. Dirty clothes, shoes, empty water bottles and energy drink containers are strewn about.<\/p>\n
It was mid-September last year, and the couple had been desperately trying to get their son, who is schizoaffective \u2014 a disorder that combines symptoms of schizophrenia with mood swings \u2014 into a psychiatric facility where he could get the help he needed. A caregiver had become convinced he was a danger to himself and possibly his neighbors. He\u2019d started to leave lit cigarettes on wooden furniture, upholstery and the carpet. During a last visit in late August, he answered the door with blood on his hand but wouldn\u2019t let the caregiver in.<\/p>\n
Over the span of two weeks, his parents called 911 more than half a dozen times. His mother said the scene played out the same in each instance: Police officers showed up with a team of mental health crisis workers, and though that team deemed him eligible for a psychiatric hold, police ended up walking away when he refused help.<\/p>\n
The Bozman-Moss family\u2019s experience reflects a growing dilemma, according to behavioral health advocates, as some local law enforcement agencies have shifted their approach to enforcing psychiatric holds \u2014 known by the state statute code, 5150 \u2014 where someone in acute mental health crisis can be detained and temporarily hospitalized if they are a danger to themselves or others.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Santa Rosa police officers respond to crisis call from Barbara and Denny Bozman-Moss for their son, who lies face down on his mattress in his apartment on a day in September 2025. The couple\u2019s son is schizoaffective. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of his neighbors, the Bozman-Mosses tried unsuccessfully for weeks to get first responders to transport him to a local psychiatric facility. It wasn\u2019t until he became physical with Denny that police went \u201chands on\u201d and arrested him. (Courtesy of Bozman-Moss family)<\/p>\n
![\"Santa](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/First-Responders-on-crisis-call-Bozman-Moss.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n
Santa Rosa police officers, Medic ambulance drivers and inRESPONSE mobile crisis workers respond to a crisis call at the apartment of the son of Barbara and Denny Bozman-Moss in September 2025. Their son is schizoaffective and the couple tried unsuccessfully for weeks last summer to get him transported him to a local psychiatric facility. They said first responders told them a recent court ruling prevented them from going “hands on.” (Courtesy of (Courtesy of Bozman-Moss family)<\/p>\n
Show Caption<\/p>\n
1 of 2<\/p>\n
Santa Rosa police officers respond to crisis call from Barbara and Denny Bozman-Moss for their son, who lies face down on his mattress in his apartment on a day in September 2025. The couple\u2019s son is schizoaffective. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of his neighbors, the Bozman-Mosses tried unsuccessfully for weeks to get first responders to transport him to a local psychiatric facility. It wasn\u2019t until he became physical with Denny that police went \u201chands on\u201d and arrested him. (Courtesy of Bozman-Moss family)<\/p>\n
Expand<\/a><\/p>\n In California and elsewhere, such holds can be involuntary, meaning they don\u2019t require the person\u2019s consent to carry out. Nevertheless, the decision can be complicated in cases where the person refuses care.<\/p>\n In Sonoma County and across the state, law enforcement officials describe an evolving, if inconsistent, \u201ccase by case\u201d approach based on a better understanding of mental health response. Also at play are court rulings some have interpreted as increasing officer liability during such calls, making authorities more hesitant to engage, and especially to use force.<\/p>\n Officers must weigh what\u2019s best for a person in crisis against what a law enforcement agency deems within legal bounds, said Lt. Chris Mahurin of the Santa Rosa Police Department.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s always a tricky balance,\u201d he said, adding that amid the debate, the department has instituted special training to deal with these complicated scenarios.<\/p>\n But the upshot in the field, according to some local health officials and news reports<\/a>, is that officers increasingly are refusing to carry out involuntary holds. In Sonoma County, health officials point to a growing number of what they call unenforced holds they tracked back to late 2024. It shows dozens of such cases since then, primarily in Santa Rosa and in the unincorporated county.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a really big concern of our members,\u201d said Michelle Doty Cabrera, executive director of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California.\u00a0\u201cEvery day we hear of new cases of law enforcement agencies pulling back.\u201d<\/p>\n In Sonoma County, county and nonprofits teams with specialized staff help respond in cases of police calls involving people in mental health crises. The county\u2019s Mobile Support Team, for the most part, responds to crisis calls in the unincorporated area, where the Sonoma County Sheriff\u2019s Office operates; inRESPONSE, operated by Novato-based Buckelew Programs, works in Santa Rosa; and the SAFE Team, run by Petaluma People Services, handles Cotati, Rohnert Park and Petaluma.<\/p>\n In Santa Rosa and the county\u2019s unincorporated area, two jurisdictions that account for the majority of the county\u2019s population, law enforcement in 62 cases between Dec. 1, 2024, and Jan. 23 refused to carry out a hold recommended by mental health crisis responders on scene with officers, according to records compiled by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services.<\/p>\n For context, over that same period, ending in mid-January 2026, Sonoma County\u2019s Mobile Support Team, serving the unincorporated area, was dispatched to 1,937 calls, 365 of which resulted in successful holds.<\/p>\n No comparison for any prior period is possible because data on unenforced holds wasn\u2019t being collected. And a broader snapshot across the county isn\u2019t possible because the SAFE Team does not collect such data.<\/p>\n While there is little wider data available, law enforcement agencies have taken a patchwork of approaches across the state. Sheriffs in Del Norte <\/a>and Sacramento and Orange counties have said<\/a> they may not respond to mental health calls alone. Several police departments in Southern California have said they\u2019ll respond but may leave without a crime in progress or any imminent threat to others.<\/p>\n For families who\u2019ve summoned first responders for assistance, seeing officers walk away after a loved one in crisis rejects aid can leave them feeling helpless.<\/p>\n Local officials warn it could be dangerous.<\/p>\n \u201cThe client basically is left to be in their residence or in the community in that state of mind, and that\u2019s not good,\u201d said David Evans, acute and forensic services section manager for Sonoma County\u2019s Department of Health Services, which operates one of three mobile crisis response teams in the county.<\/p>\n \u201cOur utmost concern is a person taking their lives, or, if they\u2019re a danger to others, taking someone else\u2019s life. \u2026 That is what we\u2019re all trying to avoid happening,\u201d Evans said.<\/p>\n Barbara and Denny Bozman-Moss\u2019 son had been taken into care on a psychiatric hold before without issue. When officers walked away in September, \u201cit floored us, because it was such a different shift,\u201d Barbara said.<\/p>\n The couple said police and mental health crisis workers repeatedly told them \u201cnew case law\u201d tied their hands, and there was nothing they could do if their son was unwilling to go to the hospital. He would have to commit a crime, they said, for them to go \u201chands on,\u201d Barbara recalled.<\/p>\n On Sept. 22, that finally happened. The couple called police after their son knocked Denny down during an encounter. He went willingly after police told him he was under arrest, Barbara said.<\/p>\n While the arrest removed their son from what had become a dangerous environment, it set off a monthslong judicial process that delayed the vital medication he needed to stabilize his condition.<\/p>\n \u201cIf things had been different, and they had just done what they\u2019ve always done in the past,\u201d Barbara said, \u201ceverything would look different than it does right now.\u201d<\/p>\n Ripples from appellate ruling<\/p>\n A July 2024 court ruling out of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly come up as signs point to a broader police retreat from enforcing involuntary mental health holds. The decision wasn\u2019t particularly unusual, but the response it prompted from some law enforcement agencies stood out.<\/p>\n The case, Scott v. Smith, revolved around a man, Roy Anthony Scott, who, distressed and hallucinating that people were after him, called Las Vegas police for help in March 2019. Two officers responded and coaxed him out of his apartment. When prompted, he dropped a metal pipe and handed over a knife.<\/p>\n Though he continued to obey commands, Scott, who said he had schizophrenia, protested that he was too paranoid when told to turn and face a wall. A struggle ensued as officers took him to the ground and leaned on his back and neck. Scott eventually became unresponsive and died.<\/p>\n Judges agreed with a lower court that, weighing the level of force used against the threat Scott posed, officers in this case were not protected by qualified immunity, which shields police from individual liability unless there\u2019s a clear violation of constitutional rights.<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t the first such ruling. The judges, in fact, based much of their reasoning on a similar case and outcome.<\/p>\n \u201cThe whole purpose of this case is to reaffirm what has been already established legally,\u201d said Benjamin Barsky, an associate law professor at UC Law San Francisco who works at the intersection of health and criminal law.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, some law enforcement officials put a stake in the ground after the ruling. In early 2025, Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper announced his department would no longer respond to mental health calls unless a crime was involved or someone besides the person in crisis was in danger. The liability risk for his officers, he said, was now too high, according to a CalMatters investigation<\/a> that documented the fallout.<\/p>\n A number of agencies have moved in Cooper\u2019s direction.<\/p>\n \u201cThe impact of this lawsuit out of Nevada has been pretty significant and growing, not only in California, but nationally as well,\u201d said Doty Cabrera of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California. \u201cAlmost immediately, we started to hear about a handful of law enforcement agencies that fell back on interpreting this case to mean that they could not or would not be able to assist us in crisis response.\u201d<\/p>\n The legal analyses have varied. In the aftermath, a partner from a large law firm representing public safety officers called the ruling \u201ca regrettable restraint on first responders\u2019 ability to act\u201d that left law enforcement with \u201cbad choices.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThey can attempt to restrain the subject and secure the scene and risk losing qualified immunity, or direct officers not to respond,\u201d he wrote in a post.<\/p>\n But in a memo to a host of sheriff and police department clients, an attorney from another prominent public sector firm, while disagreeing with the court\u2019s conclusion, said any broader takeaway that the decision revoked officers\u2019 legal protections was a \u201cmisinterpretation.\u201d<\/p>\n In interactions with first responders, the Bozman-Mosses said they kept hearing references to a court ruling that had shifted the landscape. Then, at a Sept. 8 community meeting with Santa Rosa police and county behavioral health officials, including Evans, officials pointed specifically to Scott v. Smith.<\/p>\n That Monday afternoon meeting, at the southwest Santa Rosa offices for Buckelew Programs, followed a failed attempt the day before by the couple to get their son into a psychiatric facility.<\/p>\n Barbara and Edie Sussman, a local attorney of the Bozman-Mosses helping the couple, said officials at the meeting reiterated what they\u2019d heard from first responders on the street \u2014 law enforcement could not go \u201chands-on\u201d if the person was unwilling to voluntarily agree to emergency intervention.<\/p>\n After reviewing Scott v. Smith herself, Sussman wrote to Evans on Sept. 17 with her own conclusion: \u201cNowhere in the stated decision is there any discussion that could lead one to reasonably conclude that qualified immunity no longer exists.\u201d She asked Evans to share her letter with the county counsel, warning that \u201ccurrent policy is dangerous to the community, as well as to the individual in need of intervention.\u201d<\/p>\n She hasn\u2019t heard anything back from the county health department, she said.<\/p>\n The state of limbo \u2014 for families as much as authorities \u2014 reflects a persistent struggle in the U.S. to adequately address mental health given the massive gaps in services and barriers to treatment.<\/p>\n \u201cTo claim that there is a radical legal departure in this case is incorrect,\u201d Barsky said. Stepping away from mental health calls altogether is \u201ca leap that raises a lot of justified questions and concerns,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n But, \u201cthat doesn\u2019t undermine the concern around (police) responding to someone who is experiencing some kind of behavioral health crisis,\u201d he added, \u201cbecause many officers feel ill-equipped to deal with these kinds of issues.\u201d<\/p>\n Civilian response evolved from breaking point<\/p>\n The nexus between law enforcement and mental health crises has been a longstanding issue in Sonoma County and across the country.<\/p>\n Nearly 20 years ago, during a 12-month period, four Sonoma County residents in severe mental distress were killed by members of three local law enforcement agencies. The slain residents included a mother, a teenager and two men. None of the deaths resulted in criminal charges. Lawsuits by family members of two of the people resulted in settlement payouts totaling more than $2 million.<\/p>\n At the time, mental health care advocates and law enforcement officials sounded the alarm over the fallout of cuts to mental health services, including the closure of two psychiatric hospitals in Santa Rosa in 2007 and 2008.<\/p>\n In 2007, the Sheriff\u2019s Office launched a five-year program of crisis intervention training for local peace officers, immersing them into the world of mental health services. The training included suicide intervention, crisis and tactical communication and strategies for the use of less lethal force.<\/p>\n John Burgess \/ The Press Democrat file<\/p>\n Members of the Sonoma County Mobile Support Team, a group of mental health specialists employed by the county, meet with sheriff’s deputies to talk about the day’s calls and how to decelerate situations involving acute mental health issues. (John Burgess \/ The Press Democrat file)<\/p>\n Behavioral health clinician Jessica Kastrup organizes a Sonoma County Mobile Health Support Team vehicle while refueling at a county facility in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, February 25, 2026. (Christopher Chung\/The Press Democrat)<\/p>\n AODS counselor Steven MacDonald refuels a Sonoma County Mobile Health Support Team vehicle while at a county facility in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, February 25, 2026. (Christopher Chung\/The Press Democrat)<\/p>\n Beth Schlanker \/ The Press Democrat<\/p>\n inRESPONSE Mental Health Support Team members Mariah King, a Sonoma County Behavioral Health Clinician, and Cavan Nelson, an engagement specialist from Catholic Charities, review and evaluate incoming calls at their office in Santa Rosa Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2024. (Beth Schlanker \/ The Press Democrat)<\/p>\n Beth Schlanker \/ The Press Democrat file<\/p>\n A inRESPONSE Mental Health Support Team responds to a call in Santa Rosa Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2024. (Beth Schlanker \/ The Press Democrat file)<\/p>\n Beth Schlanker \/ The Press Democrat file<\/p>\n inRESPONSE Mental Health Support Team member Cavan Nelson, an engagement specialist from Catholic Charities, opens a bin containing new clothes for clients in Santa Rosa Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2024. (Beth Schlanker \/ The Press Democrat file)<\/p>\n Show Caption<\/p>\n John Burgess \/ The Press Democrat file<\/p>\n 1 of 6<\/p>\n Members of the Sonoma County Mobile Support Team, a group of mental health specialists employed by the county, meet with sheriff’s deputies to talk about the day’s calls and how to decelerate situations involving acute mental health issues. (John Burgess \/ The Press Democrat file)<\/p>\n![\"Behavioral](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/TPD-L-5150-022225-CC001.jpg\")
Behavioral health clinician Jessica Kastrup organizes a Sonoma County Mobile Health Support Team vehicle while refueling at a county facility in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, February 25, 2026. (Christopher Chung\/The Press Democrat)<\/p>\n![\"Members](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/33343639-3537-4364-a139-353766633137.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Behavioral](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/1773544872_955_TPD-L-5150-022225-CC001.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n![\"AODS](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/TPD-L-5150-022225-CC002.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n![\"inRESPONSE](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/e28a2322-3e4e-5cf1-8fb7-35fe1fa6cb51.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/9ce815da-130c-541c-94e7-4d75db2c2d22.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n![\"inRESPONSE](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/82925b0a-d407-5eee-a39f-2c813bb380d5.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n
![\"Santa](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/TPD-L-Mahurin-031526-01.jpg\")
Santa Rosa Police Lt. Chris Mahurin (City of Santa Rosa)<\/p>\n![\"Chris](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/8e863800-d83c-527c-9243-e87b0be5c7e7.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Sonoma](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/38373639-6238-4362-b932-646530323431.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Sonoma-County-Sheriff-Office-MH-policy.jpg\")
The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office includes in its “Mental Illness Commitments” policy a section called “Considerations to Disengage.” (Screenshot from Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office , updated Feb. 25, 2026)<\/p>\n