430.399 When
person must be taken to sobering or other appropriate facility; admission or
referral; when jail custody may be used; confidentiality of records. (1) Any person who is intoxicated
or under the influence of controlled substances in a public place may be sent
home or taken to a sobering facility or to an appropriate facility by a police
officer or a member of a mobile crisis intervention team as defined in ORS
430.626. If the person is incapacitated, the person shall be taken by the
police officer or team member to an appropriate facility or sobering facility.
If the health of the person appears to be in immediate danger, or the police
officer or team member has reasonable cause to believe the person is dangerous
to self or to any other person, the person shall be taken by the police officer
or team member to an appropriate facility or sobering facility. A person shall
be deemed incapacitated when in the opinion of the police officer or team
member the person is unable to make a rational decision as to acceptance of
assistance.
(2) When a person
is taken to an appropriate facility, the director of the facility shall
determine whether the person shall be admitted as a patient, referred to
another facility or a sobering facility or denied referral or admission. If the
person is incapacitated or the health of the person appears to be in immediate
danger, or if the director has reasonable cause to believe the person is
dangerous to self or to any other person, the person must be admitted. The
person shall be discharged within 72 hours unless the person has applied for
voluntary admission to the facility.
(3) When a person
is taken to a sobering facility, the staff of the sobering facility shall,
consistent with the facility’s comprehensive written policies and procedures,
determine whether or not the person shall be admitted into the sobering
facility. A person who is admitted shall be discharged from the sobering
facility within 24 hours.
(4) In the
absence of any appropriate facility or sobering facility, or if a sobering
facility determines that a person should not be admitted to the sobering
facility, an intoxicated person or a person under the influence of controlled
substances who would otherwise be taken by a police officer to an appropriate
facility or sobering facility may be taken to the city or county jail where the
person may be held until no longer intoxicated, under the influence of
controlled substances or incapacitated.
(5) An
intoxicated person or person under the influence of controlled substances, when
taken into custody by the police officer for a criminal offense, shall
immediately be taken to the nearest appropriate facility when the condition of
the person requires emergency medical treatment.
(6) The records
of a person at an appropriate facility or sobering facility may not, without
the person’s consent, be revealed to any person other than the director and
staff of the facility or sobering facility. A person’s request that no
disclosure be made of admission to a facility or sobering facility shall be
honored unless the person is incapacitated or disclosure of admission is
required by ORS 430.397. [Formerly 426.460; 2011 c.673 §30; 2015 c.730 §3; 2024
c.70 §80]
Note: See note under 430.397.
430.400 [Formerly 475.295; repealed by
1995 c.440 §41]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case:
State v. Premsingh, 962 P.2d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Premsingh, 962 P.2d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 70× “He argued that the officers did not have authority to take him into custody under ORS 430.399, the civil detoxification statute, because he was not in a public place when they took him into custody.”
State v. Wilcox, 560 P.3d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 13× “First, he argued that, while ORS 430.399 may have authorized the officers to take him to a detox facility, the statute did not authorize them to handcuff him.”
Price v. City of Sutherlin, 945 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Or. 2013).
· cites it 8× “Claims Against Officer Woodward Plaintiff next contends that Officer Woodward placed her in danger by not taking her to a treatment or detox facility pursuant to Or.Rev.Stat. § 430.399 7 “when it appeared she was intoxicated to the point of harming herself.”
State v. Wilcox, 522 P.3d 926 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 430.399. Among other things, he contends that the warrantless seizure of his backpack was unlawful under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.”
United States v. Steven Gene Chase, 340 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003).
“695 (allowing minors 14 years of age or older to obtain diagnosis and treatment of, inter alia, a mental or emotional disorder, without parental knowledge or consent in most circumstances); Or.”
State v. Bean, 946 P.2d 292 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “ORS 430.399. 2 Before placing defendant in the secure, back seat portion of the police car, 3 Seymour patted him down *226 and took his fanny pack.”
State v. Stanley, 912 P.2d 948 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “[3] In 1995, the statute was renumbered at ORS 430.399. [4] Kemper testified that after her first contact with McCoy and defendant, she quickly decided to take them into custody for detoxification.”
Scovill v. City of Astoria, 921 P.2d 1312 (Or. 1996).
“460(1) (1989), now numbered ORS 430.399, provided: “Any person who is intoxicated or under the influence of controlled substances in a public place may be taken or sent home or to a treatment facility by the police.”
State v. Chambers, 203 P.3d 337 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “033, the officer’s authority to hold an intoxicated person, ORS 430.399, or any exception to the warrant requirement.”
E. J. T. v. Jefferson Cnty., 518 P.3d 568 (Or. 2022).
“460(1) (1989), renumbered as ORS 430.399 (1995) (emphasis omitted)). In considering whether the legislature had cre- ated statutory liability to enforce violations of that statu- tory duty, this court relied in part on context supplied by a related immunity provision, which…”
State v. Stone, 346 P.3d 595 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“See ORS 430.399(1) (“Any person who is intoxicated or under the influence of controlled substances in a public place may be taken or sent home or to a treatment facility by the police.”
Halvorsen v. Baird, 146 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Hooper Center operated'a voluntary long term detoxification program, and an involuntary emergency dropoff facility for people picked up on the street incapacitated by intoxication.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 430.399(1) — 13 cases
State v. Premsingh, 962 P.2d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“He argued that the officers did not have authority to take him into custody under ORS 430.399, the civil detoxification statute, because he was not in a public place when they took him into custody.”
Price v. City of Sutherlin, 945 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Or. 2013).
“Claims Against Officer Woodward Plaintiff next contends that Officer Woodward placed her in danger by not taking her to a treatment or detox facility pursuant to Or.Rev.Stat. § 430.399 7 “when it appeared she was intoxicated to the point of harming herself.”
State v. Stone, 346 P.3d 595 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“See ORS 430.399(1) (“Any person who is intoxicated or under the influence of controlled substances in a public place may be taken or sent home or to a treatment facility by the police.”
Halvorsen v. Baird, 146 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 1998).
“Hooper Center operated'a voluntary long term detoxification program, and an involuntary emergency dropoff facility for people picked up on the street incapacitated by intoxication.”
State v. Wilcox, 560 P.3d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“First, he argued that, while ORS 430.399 may have authorized the officers to take him to a detox facility, the statute did not authorize them to handcuff him.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 430.399(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 430.399(5) — 1 case
United States v. Steven Gene Chase, 340 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003).
“695 (allowing minors 14 years of age or older to obtain diagnosis and treatment of, inter alia, a mental or emotional disorder, without parental knowledge or consent in most circumstances); Or.”
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.