Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Commitment Transport topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated public testimony as committee considers HB 4106 to expand officer immunity during civil‑commitment transports
Summary
House Bill 4106 would limit criminal or sole civil liability for peace officers using restraints or physical force during transportation for involuntary civil commitment when acting in good faith and reasonably. Committee heard extensive, sharply divided testimony: local officials and law enforcement urged limited protections to keep transports possible; disability advocates, clinicians, and people with lived experience argued the bill would expand immunity and risk harm to vulnerable people.
House Bill 4,106 would bar criminal or sole civil liability for a peace officer who uses restraints or physical force while transporting a person under a civil commitment order if the officer reasonably believes the force is necessary and acts in good faith. Sponsors Rep. Kevin Mannix and Rep. Tom Anderson said the measure is intended to fill a statutory gap that leaves officers uncertain about legal exposure when performing transports for civil commitments.
"This bill recognizes that reality in a narrowly tailored way," Anderson said. "If these standards are violated, accountability still remains." Mayor Julie Hoy of Salem, Marion County Commissioner Danielle Bethel and Chief Trevor Womack (speaking for the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police) urged support, citing operational strain around the Oregon State Hospital and a shortage of non‑law‑enforcement transport options. Chief Womack testified the law currently authorizes custody under ORS chapter 426 but does not clearly authorize reasonable force during transport; HB 4106 would add that clarity and associated liability protections.
Proponents argued the change is limited and would not create a blanket immunity: several witnesses described the measure as a "protective cone" that permits action while law enforcement agencies retain supervision and liability under other regimes. Marion County Commissioner Bethel urged the committee to adopt language excluding gross negligence and willful misconduct.
Opponents—led by Disability Rights Oregon attorney Dave Boyer, clinicians, advocates and people with lived experience—urged rejection. Boyer said officers already enjoy broad immunities and that expanding them will make accountability harder and raise the risk of harm or death during transport. "This bill is an expansion of immunity for police officers and is taking Oregon backwards," he said, citing documented local and national cases where restraint during transport caused severe injury or death. Mental‑health providers and crisis‑response trainers cautioned that transport is among the most volatile moments in a crisis and that non‑law‑enforcement transport options should be developed instead of broadening immunity.
Multiple members of the public recounted personal experiences—both of harm during law‑enforcement encounters and of family members helped when appropriate crisis teams and trained responders intervened. Supporters among family members and county associations said workforce gaps for mobile crisis teams are real: the Association of Counties estimated 300 funded statewide positions with many vacancies and said roughly 50–60 additional positions may be needed.
Committee members asked technical questions about comparing civil liability in criminal versus civil contexts, whether the bill should create affirmative statutory authority rather than a liability shield, and where the line for gross negligence would be drawn. The hearing closed after an extended public‑comment period; no committee action was taken that day.
