PortlandOnline

POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Griffin-Valade Divisions IPR CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2003
February 18, 2003

INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIVISION
CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE
 
MINUTES FOR February 18, 2003 (approved March 18, 2003)
 
CRC members present: Stone (Acting Chair), Alexander, , Butzbaugh, Jaffe, Ueland, Miggins, Montgomery, Browning (arrived at 6:25 p.m.)
 
IPR staff present: Blackmer (City Auditor), Rosenthal (IPR Director), Hess, Stewart, Rees (Deputy City Attorney)
 
IAD and Police Bureau staff present: Captain Schenck, Lt. Babnick, Commander Grubbs (Southeast Precinct), Lt. Killinger (Southeast Precinct), Sgt. Robert King (PPA President)
  1. Vice Chair Stone called the CRC meeting to order at 5:40 p.m.
  2. Introductions
  3. The CRC unanimously approved the 1/21/03 minutes as written.
  4. IPR Director’s Report: Richard Rosenthal

    • Handed out two new proposed protocols from the Internal Process Work Group for consideration at the next CRC meeting. Internal Process Work Group will be working on a possible revision of the pre-hearing protocol to allow CRC to recommend service complaints and debriefings at pre-hearing stage.

    • Reminder that IPR has initiated the capability of website filing of complaints and commendations. Soon will also be able to listen to audio recording of the CRC meetings on the website.

    • Proposed Wayne Pierson from DA’s Office to provide training regarding pretext stops. Mr. Pierson is an expert on this topic. Consensus of CRC to proceed with arrangements for this training.

    • One untimely request for appeal was received this month. Director would like to work with the Internal Process Work Group and the CRC on how to deal with untimely appeals. City Code specifies a 30-day timeline on appeals.

    • Bush Protest/ Critical Mass update: Investigations have not yet been closed by IAD. If no appeals are received, the Director will advise the CRC that the investigation into the incidents are closed and a policy review can commence.

    • Update on the hearing for CRC No. 02-17. Mr. Rosenthal identified ten allegations based on investigative files and testimony of the appellant. CRC members reviewed and accepted the newly formulated allegations.

    The appellant’s attorney presented three additional allegations, but Mr. Rosenthal declined two of them because they were redundant and already essentially included within other allegations. He declined the third one as not articulating any officer misconduct and involving an officer who had never been previously named in the complaint.

    The appellant failed to make any comments or present any additional allegations for consideration by the IPR.

    The assigned CRC members identified one additional allegation regarding an inaccurate entry about the appellant’s injuries in Officer A’s custody report. Given that the entry involves a minor rule violation that would not normally result in discipline and a service complaint on the issue would have already have been purged from the officer’s record if the issue had been addressed when the arrest occurred, the IPR will decline the allegation as untimely. Assistant Chief Foxworth has assured that the officer will be debriefed about the need to make an accurate entry relating to any injury suffered by an arrestee, no matter how minor.

    The supplemental hearing on this case will be held on 3/18/03.
  5. Hearing: CRC No. 2003-X-0001 (IPR/IAD No. 2002-C-0274)

    The appellant was not present.

    Vice Chair Stone reviewed the pre-hearing protocol.

    Deputy Director Hess summarized the Hearing Report.

    Hank Miggins and Mia Butzbaugh presented the case.

    Sgt. King represented the officer.

    Captain Schenck addressed the IAD investigation.

    Commander Grubbs and Lt. Killinger explained the rationale used in arriving at the Police Bureau finding.

    Director Rosenthal presented his reasons that he believed the finding was not reasonable.

    Public comment: Diane Lane (Portland Copwatch); Dan Handelman (Portland Copwatch); Enrique Andrade; Steve Royal

    Hank Miggins proposed voting on each allegation separately and this was accepted by consensus.

    Hank Miggins moved to recommend changing the finding on allegation no. 1 (that officer was rude and intimidating toward the appellant) from “Insufficient Evidence with Debriefing” to “Sustained.” Toni Jaffe seconded the motion. Motion carried by 5-2 vote.

    Yes: Butzbaugh, Alexander, Stone, Miggins, Jaffe

    No: Ueland, Montgomery

    (Reasons given for the “no” votes: that the officer did what was necessary given the situation and that the finding of “Insufficient Evidence” was reasonable.)

    Hank Miggins moved to recommend changing the finding on allegation no. 2 (that officer was rude to the hall monitor) from “Exonerated” to “Insufficient Evidence.” Toni Jaffe seconded the motion. Motion carried by 6-1 vote.

    Yes: Butzbaugh, Alexander, Stone, Miggins, Jaffe, Montgomery

    No: Ueland,

    (Reason given for the “no” votes: that there was insufficient evidence to support this allegation.)

    Hank Miggins moved to affirm the finding of “Exonerated” regarding allegation no. 4 (that the officer did not secure the appellant’s apartment.) Ric Alexander seconded the motion. Friendly amendment was proposed by Mia Butzbaugh to recommend adding “with debriefing” to the finding. Amendment not accepted by Hank Miggins. Original motion carried by unanimous vote (7-0).

    (TJ Browning declined to vote on any of the above motions because she arrived late.)

    Policy issues:

    • Mia Butzbaugh: the issue of “technical custody” vs. “”implied custody” on police holds.

    • Bob Ueland: proposed looking into the possibility of Crisis Intervention Training for all officers.

    • A third policy issue raised was the issue of who is responsible to secure a premise after a police hold.

    Break

    After the break, Vice Chair Stone raised the issue of whether there was a vote taken at the January 21 meeting to recommend adding a debriefing to the finding on allegation no. 4 in the previous case. The IPR Director advised that at the pre-hearing stage, such a motion was not possible under current CRC protocol. Mia Butzbaugh volunteered to review the audio record of the meeting.

    Recorder Bob Ueland took over as Chair since Denise Stone had to present the following case.
  6. Pre-hearing: CRC No. 2003-X-0002 (IPR/IAD No. 2002-C-0169)

    The appellant was present.

    Bob Ueland repeated the pre-hearing protocol.

    Deputy Director Hess summarized the Interim Report.

    Denise Stone presented the case.

    Denise Stone moved to affirm all the Police Bureau findings. TJ Browning seconded the motion.

    The appellant addressed the CRC.

    Motion carried by a 5-3 vote.

    Yes: Montgomery, Stone, Ueland, Jaffe, Browning

    No: Alexander, Butzbaugh, Miggins

    Policy Issues: The possible IAD option of “Decline with a Debriefing” was referred to the Internal Process Work Group.
  7. There was a consensus on holding a business-only meeting on the first Tuesday of March. Mia Butzbaugh and Ric Alexander registered their opinion that the agendas when hearings and pre-hearings are held are too full.
  8. Pre-hearing: CRC No. 2002-X-0027 (IPR/IAD No. 2002-C-0295)

    (This was the second pre-hearing on this appeal.)

    The appellant was not present.

    Director Rosenthal summarized the Interim Report.

    Denise Stone and Bob Ueland presented the case.

    Bob Ueland moved to affirm IAD’s declination of all allegations. TJ Browning seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

    Policy Issues: None
  9. Pre-hearing: CRC No. 2003-X-0003 (IPR/IAD No. 2002-C-0452)

    The appellant was not present.

    Director Rosenthal summarized the Interim Report.

    Ric Alexander and Bob Ueland presented the case.

    Ric Alexander moved to affirm IAD’s declination of allegations no. 1 and 2. Bob Ueland seconded the motion.. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

    Allegation no. 3 (that the officer called the appellant a “mental case” is to be handled as a Service Complaint by the Police Bureau. As such, no CRC action was taken on that allegation.

    Policy Issues: The appropriateness of the use of the word “mental” to describe mentally ill persons.
  10. Public comment: Dan Handelman (Portland Copwatch) and Diane Lane (Portland Copwatch)
  11. New Business: to discuss a letter from the Latino Network regarding the Mejia Poot case at the March business meeting.
  12. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.