Opinion ID: 1450555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: General conditions of release agreement.

Text: (1) If a defendant is released before judgment, the conditions of the release agreement shall be that he will: (a) Appear to answer the charge in the court having jurisdiction on a day certain and thereafter as ordered by the court until discharged or final order of the court; (b) Submit himself to the orders and process of the court; (c) Not depart this state without leave of the court; and (d) Comply with other such conditions as the court may impose. (Emphasis added) We agree with the trial court that the abuse of alcohol may result in forgetfulness or irresponsibility which, in turn, may result in defendant's failure to appear at trial. If the defendant had an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record in this case, it was appropriate for the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, to require that defendant neither use, possess nor consume alcohol during the period of the security release agreement. For the same reasons, we also agree that it was not improper for the trial court to require that a defendant under a security release agreement who has had an alcohol problem must report to a custody officer when directed to do so. We cannot assume that the custody officer will abuse that authority by directing the defendant to report to him at unreasonable times or places. We do not, however, agree with the requirement that defendant must report to Lane County Mental Health and participate in all recommended programs there. Requiring defendants to involuntarily participate in governmental health programs is too tenuously related to the assurance of defendants' later appearance at trial to provide the trial courts with authority under ORS 135.265 to impose such a condition in security release agreements. Neither the release officer who recommended such a condition nor the judge who imposed it stated reasons to believe that such a condition would tend to assure defendants' court appearances and we are aware of none. Because there is no substantial relationship between that condition and the statutory purpose for which such conditions may be imposed, we hold that the trial court exceeded its authority in imposing that condition. For these reasons, the peremptory writ of mandamus requested by the defendant in this case shall issue forthwith directing the trial court to strike the condition requiring the defendant to report to Lane County Mental Health and participate in all recommended programs there. [10]