Since the Tarasoff case of 1976, mental health professionals are recognized to have a “duty to protect” third-party targets from violence-threatening patients, but little is known about what happens after clinicians warn law enforcement. In 2000, Huber et al. published a study that surveyed Michigan police about “Tarasoff warnings.” We conducted a 20-year follow-up study, inviting all Michigan police and sheriff departments to participate. There were no significant differences between studies about knowledge of Tarasoff-related policies, which was low in both surveys. We found significant decreases in the number of officers who had ever intervened due to warning calls. Of the survey respondents, 83% supported documenting warning calls. For those who received warnings, 96% followed up with at least one intervention. In both studies, notifying other officers was the most common action taken. 56% said they would take action to remove a firearm. We identified opportunities for training law enforcement.

中文翻译：

---

对警察使用塔拉索夫警告的经历进行的 20 年跟踪调查：执法部门如何应对临床医生的保护义务

自 1976 年的塔拉索夫案以来，精神卫生专业人员被认为有“保护”第三方目标免受暴力威胁患者的“责任”，但在临床医生警告执法部门后会发生什么，人们知之甚少。2000 年，Huber 等人。发表了一项调查密歇根警方关于“塔拉索夫警告”的研究。我们进行了一项为期 20 年的跟踪研究，邀请密歇根州所有警察和治安部门参与。关于塔拉索夫知识的研究之间没有显着差异- 相关政策，在两项调查中均较低。我们发现因警告电话而进行干预的警官人数显着减少。在调查受访者中，83% 的人支持记录警告电话。对于那些收到警告的人，96% 的人至少进行了一次干预。在这两项研究中，通知其他官员是最常见的行动。56% 的人表示他们将采取行动移除枪支。我们确定了培训执法人员的机会。