Opinion: Ruling forces focus on how police deal with mental health calls

For over eight years, I ran a psychiatric emergency team, and for more times than I can say, I sat with a broken soul who needed help, not handcuffs.

Recently, El Cajon has been the center of a new conversation about changes in how certain calls for service are handled.  A recent decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals takes away qualified immunity for public safety personnel, which means that police can be sued and lose their jobs, pensions or even their homes if something goes wrong on one of these calls and someone is hurt or hurts themselves.

For some, this shift has caused concern. But for those of us who have worked for decades to ensure people in crisis are met with compassion rather than criminalization, this approach is not a step back — it’s an opportunity to put principle into practice.

Mental health advocates, me included, have long argued that individuals in crisis should not be criminalized, and that most people with mental illness are not inherently violent or dangerous to others. Yet when police step back from calls where someone is experiencing suicidal thoughts, but is not an immediate threat to others, some of those same advocates express alarm.

We should be consistent in our advocacy if we are standing on principle, and that principle — for many — is avoiding unnecessary criminal justice involvement in mental health crises.

Public trust in police is a complex issue. Certain segments of society have argued for years that police presence can escalate some situations. Yet when police reduce their footprint in those very situations, critics often voice frustration that they’re not there. It’s a paradox that elected leaders and police chiefs must navigate carefully.

Suicidal ideation is not a crime. If someone in crisis begins threatening others, police can and will respond. But not every cry for help requires a uniformed officer to walk through the door.

Across the country, mental health providers in clinics, hospitals, schools and community programs treat people experiencing suicidal thoughts every single day without police involvement. The location of the crisis should not automatically dictate police presence. What matters is ensuring the right responders, with the right training, arrive to meet that need.

These shifts in response are not happening in a vacuum. Legal precedent shapes public policy — and police policy — every day. Just as Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 changed the rules for interrogation, and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson in 2024 altered how cities address homelessness and public camping, rulings affecting qualified immunity influence how officers assess personal and departmental risk.

When courts limit the protections officers rely on, departments naturally adjust policy to reduce the chance of lawsuits or financial liability.

As both a mayor and a mental health provider, I believe the key is to create a system where compassion, safety and practicality work together. That means strengthening community-based mental health crisis teams, clarifying when police presence is necessary and when it’s not, educating the public about what to expect when they call for help, and ensuring that every decision is guided by both empathy and evidence.

We owe it to our community to have these conversations openly and honestly. Change is not easy, especially when it touches something as deeply human as how we respond to people in crisis. But with consistency, transparency and compassion, we can build a system that protects the vulnerable, uses resources wisely, and strengthens trust between the public, our police and our mental health professionals.

That’s the El Cajon I believe in — and the one I will keep working toward.

Wells is mayor of El Cajon. He is also a registered nurse and a doctor of psychology who has worked in mental health since 1988.