Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 426.223
Retaking persons in custody of or committed to Oregon Health Authority

  • assistance of peace officers and others


In retaking custody of a person with mental illness who has been committed to the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 426.130 (Court determination of mental illness) and who has, without lawful authority, left the custody of the facility to which the person has been assigned under ORS 426.060 (Commitment to Oregon Health Authority), or in the case of a person alleged to have a mental illness who is in custody under ORS 426.070 (Initiation), 426.095 (Commitment hearing), 426.228 (Custody) to 426.235 (Transfer between hospital and nonhospital facilities) or 426.237 (Prehearing detention) at a hospital or nonhospital facility and who has, without lawful authority, left the hospital or nonhospital facility, the facility director or designee 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. [1975 c.690 §25; 1993 c.484 §20; 2009 c.595 §400; 2013 c.360 §37]
§§ 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