426.140 Place
of confinement; attendant.
(1) 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.
(2) 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
Cited in
4
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case:
State v. Gibson, 66 P.3d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Gibson, 66 P.3d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “residents could be convicted for precrimes they were about to commit. Convicting a person for a crime before the crime is committed is preventive detention.”
State v. P. F. (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “2 ORS 426.140(1) provides: 2 The legislature recently made significant amendments to the civil com- mitment statutes, which became operative on January 1, 2026.”
State v. P. F. (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “2 ORS 426.140(1) provides: 2 The legislature recently made significant amendments to the civil com- mitment statutes, which became operative on January 1, 2026.”
Ray v. Bachik, 791 P.2d 150 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “He contends that he is being confined with persons who have been charged with a crime in violation of ORS 426.140(1). The trial court held that the statute does not apply to confinement in a hospital.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.140(1) — 4 cases
State v. Gibson, 66 P.3d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“residents could be convicted for precrimes they were about to commit. Convicting a person for a crime before the crime is committed is preventive detention.”
State v. P. F. (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“2 ORS 426.140(1) provides: 2 The legislature recently made significant amendments to the civil com- mitment statutes, which became operative on January 1, 2026.”
State v. P. F. (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“2 ORS 426.140(1) provides: 2 The legislature recently made significant amendments to the civil com- mitment statutes, which became operative on January 1, 2026.”
Ray v. Bachik, 791 P.2d 150 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“He contends that he is being confined with persons who have been charged with a crime in violation of ORS 426.140(1). The trial court held that the statute does not apply to confinement in a hospital.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.140(2) — 1 case
State v. Gibson, 66 P.3d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“residents could be convicted for precrimes they were about to commit. Convicting a person for a crime before the crime is committed is preventive detention.”
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.