Public Record & Policy Proposal: Oregon State Hospital, Due Process Failures, and ORS 161.370 Reform
Publication Date: March 28, 2026
Introduction
This post serves as a public record of formal communications submitted to the Office of Governor Tina Kotek through the official State of Oregon contact system. It is published to preserve documentation, establish a clear timeline of notice, and ensure transparency regarding conditions within the Oregon State Hospital and their impact on due process rights.
The issues described here involve both constitutional access to the courts and broader structural failures within Oregon’s “aid and assist” system under ORS 161.370. This publication is intended not only to document those concerns, but to propose a path forward.
Message Submitted to the Office of Governor Tina Kotek
Governor Kotek,
I am writing to formally request your review and intervention regarding policies and practices at the Oregon State Hospital that interfered with my ability, as a civilly committed patient, to access legal materials, obtain copies, and meaningfully participate in my legal proceedings.
While a patient at the hospital, I submitted multiple written requests for legal materials, copies of grievances and documents, and constitutional and statutory resources necessary to prepare for and communicate in my case. These requests were directed to my assigned social worker, unit staff, and the program director, and I also filed formal grievances documenting these concerns.
I was repeatedly informed that all legal copies had to be made exclusively during scheduled law library time. However, law library access was limited to approximately 30–45 minutes per week, and this time was required to cover legal research, printing, and copying. There were no accommodations made for canceled sessions, and staff declined to provide requested materials directly. As a result, I was required to choose between researching applicable law, printing statutes, or making copies of documents necessary to communicate with my attorney, the court, and other officials.
In addition, I requested a copy of the hospital policy being cited to justify these restrictions. Supervisory staff acknowledged the request and indicated that a copy would be provided, but despite multiple follow-ups, no policy was ever produced.
I maintained contemporaneous documentation of these events, including communication forms, grievances, and a detailed log of interactions with staff and supervisors. These records demonstrate repeated notice to hospital personnel and a failure to take corrective action.
I have also previously contacted the Oregon Attorney General’s Office regarding these concerns, providing notice of the limitations on access to legal materials and copies, as well as related issues affecting my ability to participate in my legal proceedings. To date, these concerns remain unresolved.
The practical effect of these policies and practices was to interfere with my ability to assist in my own defense and to access the courts. While I was provided with legal counsel, the restrictions placed on access to materials and copying limited my ability to prepare, document concerns, and communicate effectively regarding my case.
At the same time, the broader system presents serious public safety concerns. During my time at the hospital, I had direct conversations with my roommate, Grant, who described intentions to leave the hospital, obtain a knife, commit homicide, and be recommitted for life because he considered himself institutionalized. Grant was, to my understanding, a dangerous sex offender. I reported these conversations to hospital staff, spoke with doctors, and submitted written communication to the Psychiatric Security Review Board. Despite these warnings, no meaningful resolution occurred, and he was later released into another placement in Portland.
This reflects a failure on both ends of the system: individuals who present a potential danger are being released, while others—particularly those facing misdemeanor charges—are being held in conditions that undermine their ability to defend themselves.
Justice delayed is justice denied. Individuals held on misdemeanor charges are, in practice, being confined in a hospital setting for durations that approach or exceed the maximum penalties associated with their charges, while lacking the necessary tools to participate in their own defense. This is a direct due process concern.
I am requesting that your office review:
- The adequacy of law library access for patients at the Oregon State Hospital
- Policies governing access to legal materials and copying
- Procedures for providing patients with copies of grievances and legal documents
- Whether current practices meet constitutional standards for meaningful access to the courts
This issue reflects a broader systemic concern affecting patients across the hospital system.
Policy Proposal: Reforming ORS 161.370
In addition to the concerns outlined above, there is a structural issue in how Oregon determines whether a defendant is able to aid and assist in their own defense under ORS 161.370.
The current model relies on hospital-based evaluation and restoration, often resulting in individuals being held for extended periods—commonly 60 days at minimum, and frequently several months. In my experience, many individuals remained for 6 months or longer. I was released after approximately 30 days of continuous advocacy.
During this time, patients are typically given generalized study materials, such as index cards with rudimentary legal questions. These materials are not tailored to the individual’s case, are not presented through structured instruction, and are often expected to be completed independently without meaningful educational support.
Evaluations are then conducted using abstract or hypothetical questions that may be unrelated to the actual charges. In my case, I was asked hypothetical questions involving felony-level conduct that had no connection to my misdemeanor case. These questions did not assess my ability to understand or participate in my own legal proceedings.
Many individuals at the hospital clearly understood their charges and the nature of the legal process but were still subjected to prolonged evaluation. It was also common for individuals to have been through the process multiple times, with some reporting as many as eight prior admissions for similar evaluations.
Additionally, I observed firsthand that some individuals intentionally sought admission to the hospital as a means of securing temporary housing and stability. This reflects a broader systemic issue but also highlights how the current structure can be misused.
At the same time, there was little observable evidence of meaningful rehabilitation or targeted treatment that would directly impact an individual’s ability to aid and assist in their defense.
For these reasons, ORS 161.370, as currently implemented, is not functioning as intended and requires reform.
I recommend that the State of Oregon consider shifting away from default hospital-based evaluation and instead require a case-specific competency assessment conducted or proctored by defense counsel, subject to court oversight. Defense attorneys are in the best position to determine whether their clients understand the charges and can participate in their defense.
Hospitalization should be reserved for cases where there is clear evidence that a defendant cannot meaningfully engage with counsel. For misdemeanor cases in particular, there should be a strong presumption against extended hospitalization when less restrictive alternatives are available.
A restructured system that focuses on case-specific evaluation, timely determination, and targeted intervention would better serve defendants, the courts, and public safety.
Closing Statement
This publication serves as a formal, timestamped record of notice to state leadership. It reflects both documented experience and a proposed path forward.
Any response, action, or inaction by state officials will be preserved as part of an ongoing effort to ensure that Oregon’s institutions operate within constitutional standards and fulfill their intended purpose.
Comments
Post a Comment