State v. T. L.

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a civil commitment judgment because the citation did not provide adequate notice that the appellant was alleged to be unable to meet her basic personal needs. The court held that, under ORS 426.090 and due process requirements, the citation had to identify the theory of commitment, and the incorporated emergency-hold notice did not sufficiently identify a basic-needs theory. The court did not decide whether the statute requires the citation to state the reasons of the court, investigator, or emergency-hold doctor.

Holdings

1. A citation under ORS 426.090 must provide sufficient specific-reasons notice to reveal the theory of commitment, including whether the person is alleged to be dangerous to self, dangerous to others, or unable to meet basic personal needs.
2. The citation was insufficient because it failed to notify T. L. that she was believed to be unable to provide for her basic personal needs due to a mental disorder and could be committed on that basis.
3. The civil-commitment judgment could not stand because T. L. was committed solely on the basic-needs theory, which the citation did not adequately disclose.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the citation satisfied ORS 426.090 and due process by stating the specific reasons T. L. was believed to be a person with mental illness.
2. Whether incorporation of the doctor's notice of mental illness adequately notified T. L. that the state would seek commitment under the theory that she was unable to provide for her basic personal needs.

Disposition

reversed