423.020
Department of Corrections; duties and powers; fees. (1) The Department of Corrections
is created. The department shall:
(a) Supervise the
management and administration of the Department of Corrections institutions,
parole and probation services, community corrections and other functions
related to state programs for corrections;
(b) Carry out
legally mandated sanctions for the punishment of persons committed to its
jurisdiction by the courts of this state;
(c) Exercise
custody over those persons sentenced to a period of incarceration until such
time as a lawful release authority authorizes their release;
(d) Provide
adequate food, clothing, health and medical care, sanitation and security for
persons confined;
(e) Provide
persons who are motivated, capable and cooperative with opportunities for
self-improvement and work;
(f) Conduct
investigations and prepare reports for release authorities; and
(g) Supervise
persons sentenced or placed in the community for the period of time specified
and in accordance with conditions of supervision ordered by the release
authority.
(2) The
Department of Corrections may provide consultation services related to the
criminal justice system to local or statewide public or private agencies,
groups, and individuals, or initiate such consultation services. Consultation
services shall include, but not be limited to, conducting studies and surveys,
sponsoring or participating in educational programs, and advising and assisting
these agencies, groups or individuals. Nothing in chapter 320, Oregon Laws
1987, is intended to diminish the state’s efforts to plan, evaluate and deliver
effective human services programs to offenders, either in an institution or on
probation or parole. Therefore, the Department of Corrections and the
Department of Human Services shall continue to jointly develop and implement
needed social and rehabilitative services, including services for adults in
custody housed in regional minimum security facilities.
(3) The
Department of Corrections shall be the recipient of all federal funds paid or
to be paid to the state to enable the state to provide corrections programs and
services assigned to the Department of Human Services before June 15, 1987.
(4)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the department may charge a person
confined in a Department of Corrections institution a reasonable health care
fee for any health care services, medications and equipment provided the person
during the person’s confinement if the department:
(a) Provides
necessary medical care regardless of the person’s ability to pay;
(b) Provides
equal treatment to all persons confined in a department institution regardless
of a person’s ability to pay;
(c) Establishes a
system that notifies the person of the fees and what services are covered; and
(d) Establishes a
grievance system that allows a person to challenge the deduction of a fee from
the person’s account.
(5) The
department may provide ordinary medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological,
hygienic or other remedial care and treatment for a person under 18 years of
age who is confined in a Department of Corrections institution and, in an
emergency in which the safety of the person appears urgently to require it, may
authorize surgery or other extraordinary care. [1965 c.616 §2; 1967 c.352 §1;
1967 c.585 §6; 1969 c.597 §98; 1971 c.401 §107; 1987 c.320 §1; 1995 c.523 §2;
2001 c.195 §1; 2019 c.213 §143]
Note: The Legislative Counsel has not,
pursuant to 173.160, undertaken to substitute specific ORS references for the
words “chapter 320, Oregon Laws 1987.” Chapter 320, Oregon Laws 1987, enacted
into law and amended the ORS sections which may be found by referring to the
1987 Comparative Section Table located in Volume 22 of Oregon Revised Statutes.
423.025 [1969 c.597 §§97,137; repealed by
1971 c.319 §11]
423.027 [1969 c.597 §111; 1975 c.605 §21;
repealed by 1985 c.565 §66]
Notes of Decisions
Clark v. Schumacher, 795 P.2d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 6× “Furthermore, ORS 423.075(5)(d) allows the director of the Department of Corrections to "adopt rules for the government and administration of the department.”
Billings v. Gates, 916 P.2d 291 (Or. 1996).
· cites it 2× “ORS 423.020 in part provides: "(1) The Department of Corrections is created.”
Alexander v. State, 390 P.3d 1109 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In his brief, plaintiff presents an argument that he had a job “per *** ORS 423.020(l)(e) and was receiving wages,” but he does not identify where in the summary judgment record there is evidence to support that contention.”
State v. Wilson, 92 P.3d 729 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“Here, by contrast, ORS 423.020(l)(c) requires the DOC to “[ejxercise custody over those persons sentenced to a period of incarceration.”
Fort v. Palmatter, 10 P.3d 291 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“*572 ORS 423.020(l)(d). Because all of plaintiffs food came from defendant, plaintiff had no choice but to eat the food defendant served.”
Do Mun Kim v. Multnomah Cnty., 909 P.2d 886 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
““(2) The priority of duties and assignments is to be determined by the supervisor,” 8 OAR 291-31-005 (since amended on August 20, 1992) provided, in part: “(1) Authority: The authority for this rule is granted to the Director of the Department of Corrections in accordance with…”
Zavalas v. State ex rel. Dep't of Corr., 809 P.2d 1329 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“” ORS 423.020(1)(g). “[T]he concept of foreseeability refers to generalized risks of the type of incidents and injuries that occurred rather than predictability of the actual sequence of events.”
AFSCME Local 2623 v. Dep't of Corr., 820 P.2d 892 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “They contend that, under Article I, section 9, and applicable case law, administrative searches cannot be based on a general grant of authority.”
Batten v. Corr. Div., 733 P.2d 915 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“ORS 423.020(1)(a) and (b). It is required to maintain certain institutions as penal and correctional facilities.”
Hessel v. Dep't of Corr., 380 P.3d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “We rejected the challenge and upheld the rule, reasoning: “The functions, duties and powers enumerated in ORS 423.020 are not exclusive, nor are they intended to limit the powers and authority of the department.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.020(1) — 1 case
AFSCME Local 2623 v. Dep't of Corr., 820 P.2d 892 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“They contend that, under Article I, section 9, and applicable case law, administrative searches cannot be based on a general grant of authority.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.020(1)(a) — 1 case
Batten v. Corr. Div., 733 P.2d 915 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“ORS 423.020(1)(a) and (b). It is required to maintain certain institutions as penal and correctional facilities.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.020(1)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.020(1)(g) — 2 cases
Zavalas v. State ex rel. Dep't of Corr., 809 P.2d 1329 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“” ORS 423.020(1)(g). “[T]he concept of foreseeability refers to generalized risks of the type of incidents and injuries that occurred rather than predictability of the actual sequence of events.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.020(i)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.020(l)(a) — 1 case
Hessel v. Dep't of Corr., 380 P.3d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“We rejected the challenge and upheld the rule, reasoning: “The functions, duties and powers enumerated in ORS 423.020 are not exclusive, nor are they intended to limit the powers and authority of the department.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.020(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Wilson, 92 P.3d 729 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“Here, by contrast, ORS 423.020(l)(c) requires the DOC to “[ejxercise custody over those persons sentenced to a period of incarceration.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.020(l)(d) — 3 cases
Fort v. Palmatter, 10 P.3d 291 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“*572 ORS 423.020(l)(d). Because all of plaintiffs food came from defendant, plaintiff had no choice but to eat the food defendant served.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.020(l)(e) — 1 case
Alexander v. State, 390 P.3d 1109 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In his brief, plaintiff presents an argument that he had a job “per *** ORS 423.020(l)(e) and was receiving wages,” but he does not identify where in the summary judgment record there is evidence to support that contention.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.