HB 4106
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
The bill grants peace officers statutory immunity from criminal and civil liability for using restraints or physical force while transporting individuals under specified involuntary treatment statutes, provided the officer reasonably believes the action is necessary for safety and acts in good faith without malice. Material consequence: Officers face significantly reduced legal exposure during these transports, which may increase reliance on physical restraint but simultaneously removes a key deterrent against excessive force, leaving transported individuals with fewer avenues for legal recourse if injured.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears intended to resolve operational ambiguity or litigation risk surrounding restraint use during involuntary treatment transports by explicitly codifying liability protections. Basis inference: Section 1 expands existing immunity under ORS 426.335(6) specifically for transportation contexts, suggesting a legislative response to prior legal uncertainty or inconsistent judicial interpretation regarding officer liability in this narrow operational window.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Gain statutory immunity for restraint/force use during specified transports, contingent on good faith and reasonable safety beliefs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Face potential increases in physical restraint during transport with diminished legal recourse against officers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Encounter a higher statutory barrier to pursuing criminal or civil claims related to these specific transport incidents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Behavior and obligations shift toward standardized documentation of safety justifications for restraint use to preserve immunity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Costs decrease for officers and agencies regarding litigation but increase for transported individuals regarding physical risk and injury recovery.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Eligibility for involuntary treatment remains unchanged, but enforcement dynamics may tilt toward law enforcement-led transport over medical or crisis-response models due to the clarified liability shield.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Peace officers and public safety
An officer transports a highly volatile individual with a documented history of violence who attempts to escape or attack others. The officer uses necessary restraints to prevent serious harm, and the immunity provision ensures the officer faces no legal penalty despite public scrutiny or civil suits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Individuals subject to involuntary treatment
An officer encounters a compliant but distressed individual requiring transport for treatment. Relying on the broad reasonable belief standard, the officer applies excessive restraints without clear necessity. The immunity clause shields the officer from liability, leaving the individual with injuries and no legal remedy.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The text does not authorize excessive force, retaliation, or transport without legal basis, but the broad statutory shield may lower internal accountability thresholds.
Sources · Introduced
The measure prioritizes officer safety and operational flexibility during involuntary treatment transports over individual accountability for restraint-related injuries.
Reduces legal vulnerability for officers, potentially encouraging timely transport in volatile situations without fear of litigation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Clarifies liability standards, reducing administrative burden on agencies defending restraint-related incidents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Diminishes legal recourse for individuals who experience unnecessary or excessive force, potentially lowering the threshold for restraint use and increasing physical risk to transported persons.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Shifts financial and physical risk away from law enforcement toward vulnerable individuals subject to involuntary treatment.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
high confidence. Analysis is strictly derived from the single introduced bill-text version provided. No external assumptions were applied beyond statutory interpretation and standard legislative drafting conventions.
7 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Kevin Mannix
Regular sponsors: Representative Ed Diehl
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
Yex Labs LLC should monitor this measure because the supplied artifact supports liability for AI outputs and automated decisions and a plausible but not yet specific effect.
68% confidence · deterministic fallback
7 events
Full timeline
7 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Work Session
Not Heard · Agenda item 11 · Room HR B · 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.
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 4 · Room HR B · 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.
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
“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.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.