State v. L. O. W.

“The statutory requirement that physicians give notice ‘immediately’ of an involuntary hold, taken together with the requirement that courts commence proceedings ‘immediately’ upon receiving such notice, plainly contemplate that commitment actions must proceed rapidly following the initial deprivation of a person’s liberty, consistent with the extraordinary nature of such a deprivation.” ORS 426.234(2)-(4); cf. also Addington v. Texas, 441 US 418, 425, 99 S. Ct. 1804 (1979).

Appellant sought reversal of an order of civil commitment. Appellant asserted that the trial court was required to dismiss the commitment case because she was involuntarily hospitalized for more than five judicial days without a hearing in violation of ORS 426.232. In response, the State argued that dismissal was not required because the trial court held a hearing within five judicial days of the trial court’s issuing of a citation, as required by ORS 426.095(2)(a) and that nothing in ORS chapter 426 grants courts the authority to dismiss commitment proceedings when ORS 426.232(2) is violated.  “The statutory requirement that physicians give notice ‘immediately’ of an involuntary hold, taken together with the requirement that courts commence proceedings ‘immediately’ upon receiving such notice, plainly contemplate that commitment actions must proceed rapidly following the initial deprivation of a person’s liberty, consistent with the extraordinary nature of such a deprivation.” ORS 426.234(2)-(4); cf. also Addington v. Texas, 441 US 418, 425, 99 S. Ct. 1804 (1979). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case when the State did not advance any theory as to what a meaningful remedy for such a violation would be, therefore, dismissal was required when Appellant was held for longer than five days in violation of ORS 426.232, which was supported by the procedural requirements of ORS Chapter 426. Reversed.