Whether law enforcement may conduct a warrantless emergency mental health detention during a traffic stop based solely on subjective observations of 'odd' or 'strange' behavior without objective clinical criteria

No question identified. : The Case was assigned Appeal No. 24-50724 in the Fifth Circuit. Oral Argument was heard on June 8, 2025. The Fifth Circuit issued a terse “1 sentence affirmation” of the District Court’s Judgment on June 5, 2025. Petitioner Ronald Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc on June 6, 2025. Rehearing was denied on June 23, 2025. This would indicate any Certiorari Petition is due on or before September 22, 2025. B. REASONS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME, AND THE NECESSITY FOR THIS COURT’S REVIEW 1. Petitioner Ronald Smith, through Counsel, requests a 58 day extension of time to file his Certiorari Petition. 2. This case involves “police violations” effected during a sham “emergency mental health detention.” This faux mental crisis arose after 39 minutes into a routine traffic stop. Petitioner was physically blocked by Respondent Sanchez’ motorcycle, seized, handcuffed, searched, and placed in the back of a cruiser for 2 hours and 27 minutes. No criminality was discovered, asserted, or charged. Respondent suddenly found Smith was having a mental crisis after 39 minutes of being handcuffed and safely tucked away in the back of a locked cruiser. Smith was transported to a Hospital—where he was summarily discharged on his own accord. No mental crisis had occurred, and Smith was quite calm and rational. Smith and his car had been scoured for guns, drugs, contraband, stolen vehicles, and fugitive wants and warrants. This foray proved useless. The purported basis of the stop—Speeding, was never addressed. 3. This Court has briefly broached the subject of the Civil Mental Health Process in several cases, O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), and Addington v. Texas, 414 U.S. 418 (1975). However, there is no holding from this Court on what is required to justify a warrantless “emergency mental health detention” in the context of a traffic stop or street encounter with the public. The Fifth Circuit tried to ingrain its own personal impressions of what could constitute a lawful basis for such a seizure—rather than empirical criteria and definitions used by mental health practitioners. In other words, subjective criteria, rather than objective standards. This Court should address these issues and pronounce a standard of what would satisfy a warrantless basis to seize a citizen in a street encounter based upon an emergency mental crisis. The Fifth Circuit found “odd answers” and “strange behavior” satisfied the probable cause requirement. However, to represent a mental crisis, there must generally be elements of self-destructive behavior (suicidal), or harm to third parties (homicidal). 4. On July 22, 2025, Petitioner’s Counsel Andres Cano suffered a serious fall due to a plumbing overflow. Counsel Cano slipped and fell on concrete, tearing a thigh muscle in his leg, and fracturing his right knuckles. The thigh muscle is making progress. However, the fractured right knuckles are deformed. This hinders and prevents typing (Cano is right-handed). Furthermore, it is unclear if Orthopedic surgery will be required to repair them. Beyond that, it is unclear if anything could restore the hand’s previous form and function. Counsel Cano is forced to exclusively type and input data with his left hand. It seriously hampers brief writing and involved legal stylings. 5. Contemporaneously with the physical harm from falling, Counsel Cano experienced a total system “computer crash.” A valued laptop for 5 years shut down and failed. This system had much legal research, writing, case law, and templates. Most of the data was not recoverable. Thus, Counsel Cano may have to reinvent “the wheel” and recreate documents and templates which he previously created and stored. This will greatly slow the creative, the writing, and the argument processes. 6. On a personal and familial level, Counsel Cano is the primary caregiver for his 91 year old Mother. She has many conditions reflective of her age, and cannot take care of herself. These