Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 426.123
Observation of person in custody

  • warning
  • evidence


(1)

Whenever specifically required under ORS 426.070 (Initiation), 426.072 (Care while in custody), 426.180 (Emergency commitment of individuals in Indian country) or 426.234 (Duties of professionals at facility where person admitted), a person shall be given a warning that observations of the person by the staff of the facility where the person is in custody may be used as evidence in subsequent court proceedings to determine whether the person should be or should continue to be committed as a person with mental illness.

(2)

The warning described under subsection (1) of this section shall be given both orally and in writing.

(3)

Failure to give a warning under this section does not in itself constitute grounds for the exclusion of evidence that would otherwise be admissible in a proceeding. [1987 c.903 §11; 1993 c.484 §18; 2013 c.360 §27]
§§ 426.070 to 426.170

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)

§§ 426.005 to 426.395

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)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021