State v. Lee
This text of 846 P.2d 424 (State v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellant appeals an order committing him to the Mental Health Division under ORS 426.005. His sole contention is that he was not given proper notice of the proceeding under ORS 426.070.1 The court denied his motion to dismiss the commitment proceedings on that ground. We affirm.
Appellant was taken into custody by a police officer who thought that he was in need of immediate treatment for mental illness. He was later taken to the commitment hearing.
He contends that the notice provisions of ORS 426.070(2) should apply to a peace officer hold under ORS 426.215. There is no requirement in the latter statute that a notice under oath be provided when an officer takes a person into custody on a mental health hold. We do not interpret the notice provisions of ORS 426.070 to apply to a peace officer hold. Appellant makes no constitutional challenge to the procedure of ORS 426.215.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
846 P.2d 424, 118 Or. App. 93, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lee-orctapp-1993.