2015 ORS 426.140¹
Place of confinement
  • attendant

(1) A person, other than a person incarcerated upon a criminal charge, who has been adjudged to be a person with mental illness or against whom commitment proceedings have been instituted may not be confined in any prison, jail or other enclosure where those charged with a crime or a violation of a municipal ordinance are incarcerated, unless the person represents an immediate and serious danger to staff or physical facilities of a hospital or other facility approved by the Oregon Health Authority for the care, custody and treatment of the person.

(2) A person alleged to have a mental illness who has been taken into custody may not be confined, either before or after the commitment hearing, without an attendant in direct charge of the person. If the person is not confined in a community hospital, the sheriff or community mental health program director having the person in custody shall select an appropriate individual to act as attendant in quarters that are suitable for the comfortable, safe and humane confinement of the person and approved by the authority. [Amended by 1973 c.838 §23; 1975 c.690 §9; 1977 c.764 §1; 2009 c.595 §394; 2013 c.360 §32]

Notes of Decisions

Patients in hospital may be housed together regardless of whether they came to hospital as result of civil or crim­i­nal commit­ment. Ray v. Bachik, 101 Or App 507, 791 P2d 150 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

Where defendant in involuntary commit­ment pro­ceed­ing asserted he was denied due process because investigator misled him as to how soon hearing would take place and did not take long enough to complete investiga­tion but defendant did not assert that investiga­tion report was inaccurate or incomplete, due process viola­tion was not es­tab­lished. State v. Pieretti, 110 Or App 379, 823 P2d 426 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Mental Health Division recogni­tion of commit­ment order issued by Indian tribal court, (1979) Vol 40, p 31

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 245-270 (1974)

Notes of Decisions

The doctor-patient privilege applies under these sec­tions. State v. ONeill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

Prior to commit­ment there must be evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is mentally ill as defined. State v. ONeill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

The Oregon commit­ment statutes are not unconstitu­tional on the grounds of vagueness or as an invasion of privacy as protected by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amend­ments to the United States Constitu­tion. State v. ONeill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

Oregon Constitu­tion did not require jury in mental commit­ment hearings. State v. Mills, 36 Or App 727, 585 P2d 1143 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Alleged mentally ill per­son does not have right to remain silent in civil commit­ment pro­ceed­ing. State v. Matthews, 46 Or App 757, 613 P2d 88 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

9 WLJ 63-85 (1973)

Chapter 426

Notes of Decisions

The entire statutory scheme of involuntary commit­ment provides adequate procedural safeguards which satisfies the require­ments of due process and equal protec­tion. Dietrich v. Brooks, 27 Or App 821, 558 P2d 357 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

County of residence paying mental commit­ment costs, (1979) Vol 40, p 147; civil commit­ment to Mental Health Division of per­son against whom crim­i­nal charges are pending, (1980) Vol 41, p 91

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 448 (1979)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 426—Persons With Mental Illness; Dangerous Persons; Commitment; Housing, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors426.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 426, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano426.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.