Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 426.150
Transportation to treatment facility


Upon receipt of the order of commitment, the Oregon Health Authority or its designee shall take the person with mental illness into its custody, and ensure the safekeeping and proper care of the person until the person is delivered to an assigned treatment facility or to a representative of the assigned treatment facility. The representative of the assigned treatment facility, accompanied by any assistants the authority or its designee may deem necessary, shall proceed to the place where the person is in custody, and upon demand shall be given custody of the person, together with the certified record required by ORS 426.170 (Delivery of certified copy of record). The representative shall issue appropriate receipts and immediately transport the person safely to the assigned treatment facility and deliver the person and the record to the director or a designated employee of the facility. In taking custody of the person, the authority, its designee or the representative of the facility has all the powers provided by ORS 133.225 (Arrest by private person) and 161.255 (Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest) and may require the assistance of any peace officer or other authorized individual.


The committing judge, upon approval of the examining physicians or other qualified professionals as recommended by the authority and upon request of a legal guardian, friend or relative of the person with mental illness, may authorize the legal guardian, friend or relative to transport the person to the assigned facility when the committing judge determines that means of transportation would not be detrimental to the welfare of the person or to the public. [Amended by 1963 c.325 §1; 1973 c.838 §24; 1975 c.690 §10; 2009 c.595 §395; 2013 c.360 §33]
§§ 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