Excludes specified periods of time from the time period within which a person released from custody must be arraigned.
Summary
HB 4072 amends Oregon’s arraignment statute to clarify and slightly adjust the deadlines for when a defendant must be arraigned after arrest. Under current law, arraignment generally must occur within 36 hours for a person in custody and within 96 hours in other cases, with certain time periods excluded. The bill keeps those basic deadlines but adds an explicit exclusion for any time period during the court’s normal business hours when the court is closed, in addition to holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays. It also preserves the existing exceptions for good cause and for a defendant’s request.
The bill applies only to arraignments on accusatory instruments filed on or after its effective date, and it takes effect 91 days after adjournment of the 2026 regular session. In practical terms, it updates criminal procedure timing rules for courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, and arrested defendants by making the arraignment clock more precise when court closures occur during normal business hours.
Impact
HB 4072 amends ORS 135.010, the statute governing arraignment timing after an accusatory instrument is filed and a defendant is arrested. The change narrows the time calculation by excluding additional court-closure periods from the 36-hour and 96-hour arraignment windows, which affects how courts and criminal justice agencies schedule initial appearances and measure compliance with statutory deadlines. The bill does not change the underlying right to arraignment or the general custody/non-custody framework, but it does alter the timing rules that apply in criminal cases statewide.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received very positively and without recorded opposition. It passed the House committee 8-0, the House floor 46-0, the Senate committee 6-0, and the Senate floor 28-0. The unanimous votes suggest broad agreement that the amendment is a technical or procedural clarification rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record, and no committee transcripts were provided. The only likely area of interest is the practical effect of excluding additional court-closure periods from the arraignment deadline, which may matter to courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and jail administrators responsible for timely processing. However, the unanimous votes indicate that any concerns were not significant enough to generate recorded opposition.