2017 ORS 427.293¹
Disclosure of record of proceeding

(1) In any proceeding conducted under ORS 427.235 (Notice to court of need for commitment) to 427.290 (Determination by court of need for commitment), the court may not disclose any part of the record, including any report submitted to the court under ORS 427.270 (Report of diagnostic evaluation), 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)(c) to enable the department to maintain the information and transmit the information to the federal government as required under federal law;

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

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

(d) 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 who is alleged to have an intellectual disability. [1999 c.82 §2; 2009 c.826 §3; 2011 c.332 §§3,6b; 2011 c.547 §46; 2013 c.1 §62; 2013 c.36 §10]

Chapter 427

Notes of Decisions

Former commit­ment pro­vi­sions of this chapter were constitu­tional. State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Standard of proof in former version of this chapter was proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

As commit­ment pro­ceed­ing is not crim­i­nal matter, principle of double jeopardy has no applica­tion. State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Preemp­tion of the Oregon Revised Statutes by the pro­vi­sions of the Interstate Compact, (1973) Vol 36, p 297; civil commit­ment to Mental Health Division of per­son against whom crim­i­nal charges are pending, (1980) Vol 41, p 91

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 439 (1979)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 427—Persons With Intellectual or Developmental Disabilitie, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors427.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 427, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano427.­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.