2017 ORS 426.160¹
Disclosure of record of commitment proceeding

(1) The court having jurisdiction over any proceeding conducted pursuant to ORS 426.005 (Definitions for ORS 426.005 to 426.390), 426.060 (Commitment to Oregon Health Authority) to 426.170 (Delivery of certified copy of record), 426.217 (Change of status of committed patient to voluntary patient), 426.228 (Custody), 426.255 (County to pay costs) to 426.292 (Release prior to expiration of term of commitment), 426.300 (Discharge of committed persons) to 426.309 (Effect of ORS 426.217 and 426.301 to 426.307 on other discharge procedure), 426.385 (Rights of committed persons), 426.395 (Posting of statement of rights of committed persons), 426.701 (Commitment of “extremely dangerous” person with mental illness) and 426.702 (Discharge from commitment of extremely dangerous person with mental illness) may not disclose any part of the record of the proceeding or commitment to any person except:

(a) The court shall, pursuant to rules adopted by the Department of State Police, transmit the minimum information necessary, as defined in ORS 181A.290 (Certain information required from agencies), to the Department of State Police for persons described in ORS 181A.290 (Certain information required from agencies) (1)(a) or (b) to enable the department to access and maintain the information and transmit the information to the federal government as required under federal law;

(b) As provided in ORS 426.070 (Initiation) (5)(c), 426.130 (Court determination of mental illness) (3) or 426.170 (Delivery of certified copy of record);

(c) On request of the person subject to the proceeding;

(d) On request of the person’s legal representative or the attorney for the person or the state; or

(e) Pursuant to court order.

(2) In any proceeding described in subsection (1) of this section that is before the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, the limitations on disclosure imposed by this section apply to the appellate court record and to the trial court record while it is in the appellate court’s custody. The appellate court may disclose information from the trial or appellate court record in a decision, as defined in ORS 19.450 (Appellate judgment), provided that the court uses initials, an alias or some other convention for protecting against public disclosure the identity of the person subject to the proceeding. [Amended by 1965 c.420 §1; 1969 c.148 §1; 1973 c.838 §21; 1993 c.223 §11; 1993 c.484 §19; 1995 c.498 §3; 2009 c.826 §2; 2011 c.332 §§1,6a; 2011 c.547 §45; 2013 c.715 §§7,18]

Notes of Decisions

Unless effectively waived, the court must have all pro­ceed­ings (including testimony) reported or utilize other methods which will preserve a record of the pro­ceed­ings so as to assure an adequate and effective ap­peal. State v. Collman, 9 Or App 476, 497 P2d 1233 (1972)

Where the court in a sec­ond hearing relies upon evidence presented in a prior hearing, there must also be an adequate record of the prior hearing. State v. Anderson, 21 Or App 263, 534 P2d 1159 (1975)

Where record is partially or wholly unavailable, lack of record does not entitle appellant to relief absent prima facie showing of error, unfairness at trial or miscarriage of justice. State v. Cutri, 184 Or App 625, 56 P3d 955 (2002)

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. O’Neill, 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. O’Neill, 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. O’Neill, 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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 426, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano426.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.