Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 426.140
Place of confinement

  • attendant


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.


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

§§ 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)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021