Declares that peace officers are immune from criminal and civil liability for the use of restraints or physical force during the transportation of a person subject to involuntary treatment, provided certain criteria are met.
Summary
House Bill 4106 would add a new liability protection for peace officers who transport people subject to involuntary treatment under Oregon’s mental health and related civil commitment laws. The bill states that, in addition to existing immunity under ORS 426.335(6), an officer may not be held criminally or civilly liable for using restraints or physical force during transport if the officer reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect the person, the officer, or the public, and if the officer acts in good faith and without malice.
The measure applies to transports conducted under several statutory schemes governing involuntary treatment, including provisions in the mental health, developmental disability, and substance use treatment chapters. It would take effect on the 91st day after adjournment sine die of the 2026 regular session, and would amend the practical legal exposure of law enforcement during these transports without changing the underlying criteria for involuntary treatment itself.
Impact
HB4106 would expand statutory immunity for peace officers by shielding them from both criminal and civil liability when they use restraints or physical force during the transportation of individuals subject to involuntary treatment, so long as the officer’s actions are reasonably believed necessary for safety and are taken in good faith and without malice. The bill would affect Oregon’s involuntary treatment transport framework across ORS 426.005 to 426.390, 426.701, 427.235 to 427.292, and 430.397 to 430.401, while leaving the existing transport and treatment statutes in place. Its practical impact would be to reduce legal risk for law enforcement agencies and officers involved in these transports and potentially alter how such transports are carried out.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and officer-protection bill, with no recorded committee testimony or votes available in the provided materials. The sponsorship by Representatives Andersen and Mannix suggests support from lawmakers concerned with clarifying or strengthening protections for peace officers. Because the bill was still in committee upon adjournment, there is no evidence here of final legislative consensus or opposition, only that the proposal advanced far enough to be introduced but not enacted.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the balance between officer protection and the rights and safety of people subject to involuntary treatment. Supporters would likely argue that officers need clear immunity when using necessary restraints or force in volatile transport situations, while critics may worry that broad immunity could reduce accountability or invite excessive force against vulnerable individuals. The bill tries to limit that concern by requiring a reasonable belief that force is necessary and by conditioning immunity on good faith and the absence of malice, but those standards could still be disputed in practice.