You were held for three days and you believe you should not have been. The question you are asking is whether the law gives you anything for that. The honest answer is that it gives you less than you would expect against the people who wrote the hold, and more than you would expect against one person in particular.
The short answer: the people who lawfully detain you are immune — but only for "exercising this authority in accordance with the law."¹ Welfare and Institutions Code §5278 says that individuals authorised to detain a person for 72-hour treatment, to certify for intensive treatment, or to petition for post-certification treatment "shall not be held either criminally or civilly liable for exercising this authority in accordance with the law."¹ Those last five words are the whole case. Public employees and public entities have a further layer: no liability "for any injury resulting from determining in accordance with any applicable enactment … whether to confine a person for mental illness or addiction,"² and none "resulting from diagnosing or failing to diagnose that a person is afflicted with mental illness or addiction."³ The §856 immunity is written around the word determining, and has a subdivision preserving liability for the negligent or wrongful carrying out of the determination;² §855.8 protects the diagnosis but preserves liability for negligent prescribing and for negligence in administering the treatment prescribed.³ Against one category of person the statute does the opposite of immunising: where the probable cause "is based on the statement of a person other than" the officer or clinician, that person "shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement that the person knows to be false."⁴
What "in accordance with the law" requires
The immunity in §5278 is conditional on the detention having been done lawfully, so the first question in any wrongful-hold claim is what the law required. Section 5150 sets it out.
Probable cause, for a statutory reason. The authorised person may take someone into custody "upon probable cause" that "as a result of a mental health disorder," the person "is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled."⁵ Three grounds. Not "acting strangely," not "refusing help," not "a family member is worried."
A required look at history. The person deciding "shall apply the provisions of Section 5150.05, and shall not be limited to consideration of the danger of imminent harm."⁶ Section 5150.05 requires them to "consider available relevant information about the historical course of the person's mental disorder if the authorized person determines that the information has a reasonable bearing on the determination," and defines that information to include evidence from the person's own mental-health providers, from family members, and "evidence presented by the person subject to a determination … or anyone designated by that person."⁷ The application form must "record whether the historical course of the person's mental disorder was considered."⁴
An assessment before detention. The facility's professional person or the county-designated professional "shall assess the person to determine whether the person can be properly served without being detained," and if so, "the person shall be provided evaluation, crisis intervention, or other inpatient or outpatient services on a voluntary basis."⁸
A written application. If detention is the judgment, "the admitting facility shall require an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention" of the detaining person and stating that they have probable cause on one of the three grounds.⁴ That document exists, it is about you, and it is the first thing to obtain. How to get your records →
Release when the ground is gone. Once admitted, you "shall be released before 72 hours have elapsed only if the psychiatrist directly responsible for the person's treatment believes, as a result of the psychiatrist's personal observations, that the person no longer requires evaluation or treatment."⁹ That sentence is often read as a right to be released early. It is, more precisely, a rule about who may authorise release and on what basis — and the same section keeps a person held where the psychiatrist and psychologist disagree, unless the medical director overrules, and sends any other authorised professional's disagreement with the psychiatrist to the medical director for the final decision.⁹
A hold that skipped the assessment, or was written on a ground the statute does not recognise, or ignored history the statute said to consider, is a hold about which the "in accordance with the law" argument can be made. A hold that followed each step but reached a conclusion you disagree with is the kind the immunity was written for.
The three immunities, and the door each leaves open
§5278 — the detaining and certifying individuals. Quoted above. It reaches everyone "authorized under this part" to detain, certify, or petition, whether they work for a county or a private designated facility.¹ Its condition is lawfulness.
Gov. Code §856 — the public decision to confine. "Neither a public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for any injury resulting from determining in accordance with any applicable enactment: (1) Whether to confine a person for mental illness or addiction. (2) The terms and conditions of confinement for mental illness or addiction. (3) Whether to parole, grant a leave of absence to, or release a person confined for mental illness or addiction."² And then subdivision (c): "Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by his negligent or wrongful act or omission in carrying out or failing to carry out: (1) A determination to confine or not to confine a person for mental illness or addiction …"² The decision is protected; the execution is not.
Gov. Code §855.8 — the public diagnosis. No liability "for injury resulting from diagnosing or failing to diagnose that a person is afflicted with mental illness or addiction or from failing to prescribe for mental illness or addiction."³ And again a door: nothing "exonerates a public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by his negligent or wrongful act or omission in administering any treatment prescribed for mental illness or addiction."³
Two things follow. First, the Government Code immunities are for public entities and employees; a private hospital's staff stand on §5278 and on ordinary law, not on §856.² Second, §5278 and §856 protect a determination made in accordance with the law, and all three sections withdraw protection from a negligent or wrongful act. What happened to you on the unit — restraint, medication, an injury — is analysed differently from the decision to admit you. Can they restrain me or put me in seclusion? → · Can they medicate me against my will? →
The one person the statute makes liable
Most holds begin with a phone call. Where the probable cause "is based on the statement of a person other than the peace officer, professional person in charge of the facility …, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county, the person shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement that the person knows to be false."⁴ Section 5150.05 repeats it: the person making the statement "shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement that they know to be false."⁷
Read the two conditions. The statement must have been the basis of the probable cause, and it must have been intentionally false — known to be false by the person making it. A relative who exaggerated, panicked, or was simply wrong is not on the face of this sentence. A relative who invented a threat is.
The release immunities work the other way
If your complaint is not that you were held but that someone else was released — a family member let go who then came to harm — the code answers that too, and the answer is immunity. The professional in charge, the treating psychiatrist, and the psychologist "shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any action by a person released before the end of 72 hours" where §5152 has been met, nor "for any action by a person released at the end of the 72 hours."¹⁰ The detaining officer has the same protection for releases "at or before the end of the 72 hours," and a mobile crisis team member or county-designated professional who detained or transported the person is protected, "as a result of detaining or transporting the person," on the same terms.¹⁰
Before you sue: the clock that runs against public defendants
A claim against a county, a county hospital, a police department, or their employees is not filed in court first. It is presented as a government claim, and for "injury to person" the claim "shall be presented … not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action."¹¹ Six months from the hold. The court case comes after the claim is rejected. Miss the six months and the question of immunity never gets reached. Private defendants are on ordinary limitation periods, which this page does not calculate.
A worked example
Teresa's brother called the police and said she had threatened to kill herself with pills she had bought that afternoon. She had said no such thing; there were no pills. Officers took her to the county's designated facility. The intake clinician, who knew nothing of her history, wrote the application on the officers' account of the brother's call, did not ask whether she could be served voluntarily, and admitted her. She was released after 48 hours.
Against the brother, the statute is direct: if his statement was the basis of the probable cause and he knew it was false, he "shall be liable in a civil action."⁴ Against the officers, the analysis begins with §5278 — did they act "in accordance with the law" on probable cause as it appeared to them?¹ Against the county clinician, the statutory duties are the question: the assessment of whether she "can be properly served without being detained" is mandatory,⁸ and the application must record whether her history was considered.⁴ ⁷ If those steps were skipped, the argument is that the determination was not made "in accordance with any applicable enactment," which is the condition on which §856(a) depends.² Whichever way that argument goes, the government claim against the county has to be presented within six months of the hold.¹¹ And separately from any lawsuit, the hold's consequences — the firearms prohibition, the record — have their own procedures. Does a 5150 go on my record? →
The routes that are not lawsuits
A lawsuit is one of four routes and, for most people, the slowest. The others: a complaint to the county patients' rights advocate, whose statutory job includes investigating complaints about rights violations in facilities; a complaint to the facility's licensing agency; and, where the person who wrote the hold holds a professional licence, a complaint to that board. Who is the patients' rights advocate? → · Can I sue my therapist? →
Q&A
Q: Is a wrongful hold "false imprisonment"? A: That is the common-law name for the claim a person would bring. Whether it succeeds against someone covered by §5278 depends on whether they acted "in accordance with the law."¹ This page describes the immunity; it does not predict how a court would apply it to your facts.
Q: Can I sue the hospital itself rather than the person who wrote the hold? A: Section 5278 immunises "individuals."¹ Section 856 covers "a public entity" as well as its employees, but only public ones.² The position of a private hospital as an entity is a question of ordinary law and is not answered by either section.
Q: I was held in the ER and never admitted to a psychiatric unit. Does any of this apply? A: The sections quoted here are about the 72-hour hold under §5150. The ER before a hold is a different question. Can the ER hold me while I wait for a psychiatric bed? →
Q: Can I get the application that was written about me? A: The statute requires it to exist and to state the circumstances and the ground.⁴ It is part of your record, and the rules on access to your own records apply. How to get your records →
Q: I'm still being held. Is a lawsuit the way out? A: No — a lawsuit is for afterwards. While held, the routes are the patients' rights advocate and, once you are certified, the certification review hearing and the writ of habeas corpus. The 72 hours are up. Can they keep me? →
The hold itself, explained: What is a 5150 hold? → · The bill afterwards →
Our therapist directory: See its current status →
Sources
- Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §5278 — "Individuals authorized under this part to detain a person for 72-hour treatment and evaluation pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5150) or Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200), or to certify a person for intensive treatment pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 5250) or Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 5260) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 5270.10) or to file a petition for post-certification treatment for a person pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 5300) shall not be held either criminally or civilly liable for exercising this authority in accordance with the law." — california.public.law.
- Cal. Government Code §856 — (a) quoted on this page; (c) quoted on this page through paragraph (1), and continuing "(2) The terms or conditions of confinement of a person for mental illness or addiction. (3) A determination to parole, grant a leave of absence to, or release a person confined for mental illness or addiction"; (b) "A public employee is not liable for carrying out with due care a determination described in subdivision (a)." — california.public.law.
- Cal. Government Code §855.8 — (a) "Neither a public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for injury resulting from diagnosing or failing to diagnose that a person is afflicted with mental illness or addiction or from failing to prescribe for mental illness or addiction"; (b) "A public employee acting within the scope of his employment is not liable for administering with due care the treatment prescribed for mental illness or addiction"; (c) "Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee who has undertaken to prescribe for mental illness or addiction from liability for injury proximately caused by his negligence or by his wrongful act in so prescribing"; (d) "Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by his negligent or wrongful act or omission in administering any treatment prescribed for mental illness or addiction." — california.public.law.
- Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §5150(e) — "If, in the judgment of the professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or the professional person designated by the county, the person cannot be properly served without being detained, the admitting facility shall require an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention of the peace officer, professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county, and stating that the peace officer, professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled. The application shall also record whether the historical course of the person's mental disorder was considered in the determination, pursuant to Section 5150.05. If the probable cause is based on the statement of a person other than the peace officer, professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county, the person shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement that the person knows to be false. A copy of the application shall be treated as the original." — california.public.law.
- Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §5150(a) — "When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. The 72-hour period begins at the time when the person is first detained." The subdivision's remaining two sentences require that assessment and evaluation, as defined in §§5150.4 and 5008(a), be conducted on an ongoing basis, and permit crisis intervention to be provided concurrently — california.public.law.
- Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §5150(b) — "When determining if a person should be taken into custody pursuant to subdivision (a), the individual making that determination shall apply the provisions of Section 5150.05, and shall not be limited to consideration of the danger of imminent harm."
- Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §5150.05 — (a) "When determining if probable cause exists to take a person into custody, or cause a person to be taken into custody, pursuant to Section 5150, a person who is authorized to take that person, or cause that person to be taken, into custody pursuant to that section shall consider available relevant information about the historical course of the person's mental disorder if the authorized person determines that the information has a reasonable bearing on the determination as to whether the person is a danger to others or to themselves, or is gravely disabled"; (b) "For purposes of this section, 'information about the historical course of the person's mental disorder' includes evidence presented by the person who has provided or is providing mental health or related support services to the person subject to a determination described in subdivision (a), evidence presented by one or more members of the family of that person, and evidence presented by the person subject to a determination described in subdivision (a) or anyone designated by that person"; (c) "If the probable cause in subdivision (a) is based on the statement of a person other than the one authorized to take the person into custody pursuant to Section 5150, a member of the attending staff, or a professional person, the person making the statement shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement that they know to be false"; (d) "This section does not limit the application of Section 5328." — california.public.law.
- Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §5150(c) — "The professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county shall assess the person to determine whether the person can be properly served without being detained. If, in the judgment of the professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county, the person can be properly served without being detained, the person shall be provided evaluation, crisis intervention, or other inpatient or outpatient services on a voluntary basis. This subdivision does not prevent a peace officer from delivering an individual to a designated facility for assessment under this section. Furthermore, the assessment requirement of this subdivision does not require a peace officer to perform any additional duties other than those specified in Section 5150.1 and 5150.2."
- Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §5152(a) — "A person admitted to a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation under the provisions of this article shall receive an evaluation as soon as possible after the person is admitted and shall receive whatever treatment and care the person's condition requires for the full period that they are held. The person shall be released before 72 hours have elapsed only if the psychiatrist directly responsible for the person's treatment believes, as a result of the psychiatrist's personal observations, that the person no longer requires evaluation or treatment." The subdivision continues with the psychiatrist–psychologist collaborative-release rule, and: "In the event of a clinical or professional disagreement regarding the early release of a person who has been placed under a 72-hour hold, the hold shall be maintained unless the facility's medical director overrules the decision of the psychiatrist or psychologist opposing the release." — california.public.law.
- Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §5154 — (a) "Notwithstanding Section 5113, if the provisions of Section 5152 have been met, the professional person in charge of the facility providing 72-hour treatment and evaluation, their designee, the medical director of the facility or their designee described in Section 5152, the psychiatrist directly responsible for the person's treatment, or the psychologist shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any action by a person released before the end of 72 hours pursuant to this article"; (b) the same persons "shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any action by a person released at the end of the 72 hours pursuant to this article"; (c) "The peace officer responsible for the detainment of the person shall not be civilly or criminally liable for any action by a person released at or before the end of the 72 hours pursuant to this article"; (d) the mobile crisis team member or county-designated professional "shall not, as a result of detaining or transporting the person, be civilly or criminally liable for any action by the person if the person is released at or before the end of the 72 hours pursuant to this article." — california.public.law.
- Cal. Government Code §911.2(a) — "A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action." — california.public.law.
All sections read on the operative text on 14 September 2026. This page describes the statutes and says nothing about how courts have applied them to particular facts; the meaning of "in accordance with the law" in §5278 is developed in case law, which is a reason to consult a lawyer rather than a reason to rely on this page. It is not legal advice.
Paid for by participating therapists. Inclusion is computed from availability data — never purchased. No ads, no data sold.