Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.123 (2026)

Observation of person in custody; warning; evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      426.123 Observation of person in custody; warning; evidence. (1) Whenever specifically required under ORS 426.070, 426.072, 426.180 or 426.234, 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]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: State v. N. G., 563 P.3d 402 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. N. G., 563 P.3d 402 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “First, appellant contends that the medical staff violated ORS 426.123. ORS 426.123(1) provides, in relevant part, that “a person shall be given a warning that observations of the person by the staff of the facility where the person is in cus- tody may be used as evidence in…”
State v. C. M. C., 454 P.3d 30 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “Appellant challenges a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days on the ground that he has a mental illness.”
State v. D. L. C., 343 Or. App. 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “, 298 Or App 280 , 281-82, 443 P3d 742 (2019) (concluding that the failure to give the required warnings was not plain error because “a violation of ORS 426.123 is not grounds to dismiss a com- mitment proceeding” and the appellant had “not shown that the Due Process Clause…”
State v. C. F. P. (In re C. F. P.), 447 P.3d 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “In a second assignment of error, appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed because the court failed to timely serve the citation and warrant of detention and failed to provide in the warrant of detention that appellant was given the warning in ORS 426.123.…”
State v. D. L. C., 343 Or. App. 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “, 298 Or App 280 , 281-82, 443 P3d 742 (2019) (concluding that the failure to give the required warnings was not plain error because “a violation of ORS 426.123 is not grounds to dismiss a com- mitment proceeding” and the appellant had “not shown that the Due Process Clause…”
State v. N. R., 333 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “, 298 Or App 280 , 281, 443 P3d 742 (2019) (“[A] violation of ORS 426.123 is not grounds to dismiss a com- mitment proceeding.”
State v. L. D. W., 334 Or. App. 656 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “P3d 742 (2019) (“[A] violation of ORS 426.123 is not grounds to dismiss a commitment proceeding.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.123(1) — 6 cases
State v. C. M. C., 454 P.3d 30 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “Appellant challenges a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days on the ground that he has a mental illness.”
State v. N. G., 563 P.3d 402 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “First, appellant contends that the medical staff violated ORS 426.123. ORS 426.123(1) provides, in relevant part, that “a person shall be given a warning that observations of the person by the staff of the facility where the person is in cus- tody may be used as evidence in…”
State v. D. L. C., 343 Or. App. 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “, 298 Or App 280 , 281-82, 443 P3d 742 (2019) (concluding that the failure to give the required warnings was not plain error because “a violation of ORS 426.123 is not grounds to dismiss a com- mitment proceeding” and the appellant had “not shown that the Due Process Clause…”
State v. D. L. C., 343 Or. App. 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “, 298 Or App 280 , 281-82, 443 P3d 742 (2019) (concluding that the failure to give the required warnings was not plain error because “a violation of ORS 426.123 is not grounds to dismiss a com- mitment proceeding” and the appellant had “not shown that the Due Process Clause…”
State v. N. R., 333 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “, 298 Or App 280 , 281, 443 P3d 742 (2019) (“[A] violation of ORS 426.123 is not grounds to dismiss a com- mitment proceeding.”
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.