Loading policy item
HB 4106
This proposal did not become law. The bill would have granted 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 might have increased reliance on physical restraint but simultaneously would have removed a key deterrent against excessive force, leaving transported individuals with fewer avenues for legal recourse if injured.
Generated explanation · Introduced · Analyzed 8/19/2026 · Open official Introduced text
This proposal did not become law.
Affected groups have not been established in a brief for the latest available text. Check the official text for eligibility and exceptions.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This proposal did not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would have required if enacted.
The bill would have granted 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 might have increased reliance on physical restraint but simultaneously would have removed 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
Potential effect if enacted: Gain statutory immunity for restraint/force use during specified transports, contingent on good faith and reasonable safety beliefs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Face potential increases in physical restraint during transport with diminished legal recourse against officers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Encounter a higher statutory barrier to pursuing criminal or civil claims related to these specific transport incidents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Behavior and obligations shift toward standardized documentation of safety justifications for restraint use to preserve immunity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: 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 might have tilted 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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 would have applied 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 might have lowered internal accountability thresholds.
Sources · Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure prioritizes officer safety and operational flexibility during involuntary treatment transports over individual accountability for restraint-related injuries.
Would have reduced legal vulnerability for officers, potentially encouraging timely transport in volatile situations without fear of litigation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would have clarified liability standards, reducing administrative burden on agencies defending restraint-related incidents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: Shifts financial and physical risk away from law enforcement toward vulnerable individuals subject to involuntary treatment.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. 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. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
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
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced bill remains the only adopted text; no qualifying adopted replacement is shown.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced bill remains the only adopted text; no qualifying adopted replacement is shown.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. In addition to any liability limitations provided under ORS 426.335 (6), a 6 peace officer may not be held criminally or civilly liable for the use of restraints on or 7 physical force against a person in the course of the peace officer’s transportation of the 8 person under ”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. In addition to any liability limitations provided under ORS 426.335 (6), a 6 peace officer may not be held criminally or civilly liable for the use of restraints on or 7 physical force against a person in the course of the peace officer’s transportation of the 8 person under ”
Introduced
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
No replacement transition is documented.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. In addition to any liability limitations provided under ORS 426.335 (6), a 6 peace officer may not be held criminally or civilly liable for the use of restraints on or 7 physical force against a person in th”
Introduced
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
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.
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.