2017 ORS 426.301¹
Release of committed person
  • certification of continued mental illness
  • service of certificate
  • content
  • period of further commitment
  • effect of failure to protest further commitment

(1) At the end of the 180-day period of commitment, any person whose status has not been changed to voluntary shall be released unless the Oregon Health Authority certifies to the court in the county where the treating facility is located that the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment. The authority, pursuant to its rules, may delegate to the director of the treating facility the responsibility for making the certification. The director of the treating facility shall consult with the community mental health program director of the county of residence prior to making the certification. If the certification is made, the person will not be released, but the director of the treating facility shall immediately issue a copy of the certification to the person and to the community mental health program director of the county of residence.

(2) The certification shall be served upon the person by the director of the facility where the person is confined or by the designee of the director. The director of the facility shall inform the court in writing that service has been made and the date thereof.

(3) The certification shall advise the person of all the following:

(a) That the authority or facility has requested that commitment be continued for an additional period of time.

(b) That the person may consult with legal counsel and that legal counsel will be provided for the person without cost if the person is unable to afford legal counsel.

(c) That the person may protest this further period of commitment within 14 days, and if the person does not protest the further commitment, commitment will be continued for an indefinite period of time up to 180 days.

(d) That if the person does protest a further period of commitment, the person is entitled to a hearing before the court on whether commitment should be continued.

(e) That the person may protest either orally or in writing by signing the form accompanying the certification.

(f) That the person is entitled to have a physician or other qualified professional as recommended by the authority, other than a member of the staff at the facility where the person is confined, examine the person and report to the court the results of the examination.

(g) That the person may subpoena witnesses and offer evidence on behalf of the person at the hearing.

(h) That if the person is without funds to retain legal counsel or an examining physician or qualified professional as recommended by the authority, the court will appoint legal counsel, a physician or other qualified professional.

(4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section requires the giving of the warning under ORS 426.123 (Observation of person in custody).

(5) When serving the certification upon the person, the authority shall read and deliver the certification to the person and ask whether the person protests a further period of commitment. The person may protest further commitment either orally or by signing a simple protest form to be given to the person with the certification. If the person does not protest a further period of commitment within 14 days of service of the certification, the authority or facility shall so notify the court and the court shall, without further hearing, order the commitment of the person for an additional indefinite period of time up to 180 days. [1973 c.838 §15; 1975 c.690 §19; 1987 c.903 §32; 2001 c.962 §60; 2009 c.595 §418; 2013 c.360 §54]

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 245-270 (1974)

Notes of Decisions

Where certificate of need for further treat­ment is filed prior to expira­tion of 180 days, passage of 180th day does not deprive court of jurisdic­tion. State v. G., 26 Or App 197, 552 P2d 574 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Further commit­ment certifica­tion process did not deprive patient of federal due process rights or rights under state constitu­tion. State v. Johansen, 125 Or App 365, 866 P2d 470 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

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.