When a client escapes from a NC state psychiatric hospital like Broughton, how widely do staff have to notify law enforcement, and does it matter whether the client has a history of violence?

Plain-English summary

M.F. Hall, Jr., the Director of Broughton Hospital, asked the AG two questions about G.S. § 122C-205, the statute governing how a 24-hour psychiatric facility must notify law enforcement when a client escapes or breaches a conditional release. First, how extensive does the notification need to be. Second, does the client's propensity for violence enlarge the duty. Senior Deputy AG Ann Reed and Special Deputy AG Michelle B. McPherson answered both questions.

On the scope of notification, the statute uses a reasonableness standard. Under subsection (a), the facility may notify the appropriate law-enforcement agency in three categories of counties: the client's county of residence, the county where the facility is located, and any county where staff have "reasonable grounds to believe that the client may be found." That third category is the operative one. The facility must call any agency in any locale where there is reason to think the client could turn up.

Subsection (c) reinforces that conclusion with concrete mechanics. It directs that initial notification be made by telephone to the appropriate law-enforcement agency or agencies, and where available and appropriate, by Division of Criminal Information (DCI) message to any in-state or out-of-state agency and by entry into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) telecommunications system. The AG read this as the legislature anticipating notice that extends far beyond a single county or even the state, when the circumstances call for it. The AG offered the example of an escapee with personal ties to another state: if those ties give reasonable grounds to believe the client may go there, the facility should notify that state's agencies in addition to the home county and the county where the facility is located.

On the propensity-for-violence question, the AG declined to read into the statute a separate or wider notification duty for violent clients. The statute does not so provide. Reasonable grounds is reasonable grounds, regardless of the client's history. But the AG was careful to note that violence is relevant information and should travel with the notice. The receiving agencies need to know they may be looking for a person who is potentially dangerous, so they can deploy appropriate resources and warn the public if necessary. The two questions are separate: who gets called (the reasonableness scope) and what they are told (the substance, which includes any known propensity for violence).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

G.S. § 122C-205 and related mental-health statutes have been amended over the past three decades, and the practical mechanics of DCI and NCIC entry have evolved. Privacy and HIPAA considerations, which were not as fully developed in 1993, also shape how a present-day facility communicates client information to outside agencies. Anyone with a current question about psychiatric-facility escape notification should consult current Chapter 122C, current SBI/DCI protocols, current federal privacy rules, and counsel familiar with mental-health law.

Common questions

Q: What is the difference between the three categories of counties in subsection (a)?
A: The first two (county of residence and county of the facility) are fixed reference points the facility almost always knows. The third (anywhere the client may reasonably be found) is fact-dependent and requires judgment by staff. The first two are easy; the third is where the real work is.

Q: Who decides what is "reasonable" for purposes of the third category?
A: Front-line facility staff and their supervisors, applying what they know about the client. Sources of information typically include the client's stated plans, family contacts, prior elopement attempts, known associates, prior addresses, and any direct statements the client has made about places he or she might want to go. The standard is reasonableness, not certainty, so a defensible judgment based on the available information is enough.

Q: Does the facility have to notify NCIC and DCI in every case?
A: Subsection (c) says initial notification is by telephone, and notification through DCI and NCIC happens "if available and appropriate." That gives the facility some discretion. For a low-risk runaway who likely walked to a nearby relative's house, calling the local sheriff may be enough. For a higher-risk escape or one where the client may travel out of state, DCI and NCIC entry is the appropriate channel.

Q: Does telling police that a client is violent violate the client's confidentiality?
A: The 1993 opinion focuses on the notification statute, not the broader mental-health privacy rules. Subsections (a) and (c) of G.S. § 122C-205 contemplate disclosure of certain information about an escape, and the AG read those provisions to support providing relevant violence information to receiving agencies. Modern privacy frameworks add complexity, so present-day facilities should work through current confidentiality rules in addition to G.S. § 122C-205 before deciding what specific information to share.

Q: What happens if a facility under-notifies and the escaped client harms someone?
A: The 1993 opinion does not address civil liability. It establishes the AG's reading of the statutory duty. A facility that fails to notify agencies where staff had reasonable grounds to believe the client could be found has, at minimum, not complied with the statute. Whether that non-compliance supports civil liability depends on tort law and on the specific facts of the harm.

Background and statutory framework

G.S. § 122C-205 is part of NC's mental-health code (Chapter 122C). It governs how 24-hour psychiatric facilities respond when a client escapes or breaches a conditional release. The statute's structure puts a baseline notification duty on the facility (the three categories of counties in subsection (a)), then specifies the mechanics of that notification in subsection (c) (telephone first, then DCI/NCIC as appropriate).

The opinion reads those provisions as defining a reasonableness scope rather than a mechanical list. The reasonableness scope is meant to flex with the facts. A client who has lived only in one county and has no out-of-state ties may justify notification to a single county sheriff. A client with family in three states and a history of cross-state travel may justify notice to multiple state and federal law-enforcement channels. Same statute, very different operational outcome.

The AG also takes the modest step of separating the "who" question from the "what" question. The propensity for violence does not widen the duty to notify (it is the same reasonableness standard), but it does affect the content of the notification, because the receiving agencies need to understand what they are dealing with.

Citations

• N.C.G.S. § 122C-205 (notification by 24-hour facilities of client escape or breach of conditional release)
• N.C.G.S. § 122C-205(a) (notification to appropriate law-enforcement agency in client's county of residence, county where facility located, and any county where reasonable grounds to believe client may be found)
• N.C.G.S. § 122C-205(c) (initial notification by telephone; if available and appropriate, by DCI message to any in-state or out-of-state agency and by entry into NCIC)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/scope-of-a-facilitys-notification-to-law-enforcement-agencies-that-a-client-has-escaped/

Original opinion text

June 9, 1993

M.F. Hall, Jr., Director Broughton Hospital 1000 South Sterling Street Morganton, North Carolina 28655

RE: G.S. § 122C-205

Dear Mr. Hall:

You have asked the Office of the Attorney General to respond to the following questions dealing with G.S. § 122C-205: (1) what should be the scope of a facility's notification to law enforcement agencies that a client has escaped? and (2) what impact, if any, should the client's propensity for violence have on the scope of the notification? A copy of your request is attached for your convenient reference.

With respect to how extensive the notification must be, G.S. § 122C-205(a) provides that notification may be given to the appropriate law enforcement agency in the county of residence of the client, in the county where the facility is located, and in any county where there "are reasonable grounds to believe that the client may be found." The test is one of reasonableness, and the facility must notify law enforcement agencies in any locale when there is reason to believe the client may there be found. G.S. § 122C-205(c) offers further guidance and provides, in pertinent part:

. . . the initial notification by the 24-hour facility of the client's escape or breach of conditional release shall be given by telephone communication to the appropriate law enforcement agency or agencies and, if available and appropriate, by Division of Criminal Information (DCI) message to any law enforcement agency in or out of state and by entry into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) telecommunications system.

The foregoing provision suggests that the notification should be as extensive as the circumstances require. For example, if a client escapes from Broughton Hospital and the facility has reasonable grounds to believe that the client may go to another state because of personal ties there, it would be appropriate for the facility to provide notification to law enforcement officials in that state in addition to notifying the officials in the client's home county and in Burke County. Again, the test is whether the facility has reasonable grounds to believe that the client may be found in a particular location within or without the state.

With respect to whether the scope of notification may be expanded where the client has been accused of or convicted of a violent crime, the statute does not so provide. The determining factor is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a client may be found in a given location, regardless of his propensity for violence. However, the fact that the person may be violent is relevant information and should be provided to the relevant law enforcement agency or agencies along with notification of the escape. See G.S. § 122C-205(a) and (c).

Ann Reed Senior Deputy Attorney General

Michelle B. McPherson Special Deputy Attorney General