INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIVISION
CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES FOR March 18, 2003 (approved April 1, 2002)
CRC members present: Lopez (Chair) Stone (Vice Chair), Alexander, Browning, Butzbaugh, Miggins, Montgomery, Ueland, Jaffe
IPR staff present: Blackmer (City Auditor), Rosenthal (Director), Hess (Deputy Director) Stewart (Community Relations), Rees (Deputy City Attorney).
IAD and Police Bureau staff present: Captain Schenck, Lieutenant Babnick, Sergeant Barker, Commander Garvey (Traffic Division) – for pre-hearing 2003-X-0008.
- Chair Héctor López called meeting to order at 5:37 p.m..
- Approval of Minutes
• Minutes of 2/18/03 CRC Meeting were unanimously approved with no amendments.
• Minutes of 3/4/03 CRC Minutes were unanimously approved as amended.
- IPR Director’s Report:
• Ride-alongs: CRC members are encouraged to do ride-alongs with police officers. There have not been any ride-alongs for some time. Members are urged to contact Deputy Director Hess for assistance in scheduling ride-alongs.
• “Centralgate” investigation: IPR Director was involved in the investigation of the aftermath of the Central Precinct beating incident. The Director will issue a report on this incident as soon as he is at liberty to publicly discuss this case.
• IPR/CRC protocol histories are being updated to include the original adoption dates and substance as well as dates and substance of any amendments.
CRC Work Group Reports
Community Outreach Work Group (Toni Jaffe and Lauri Stewart):
• Due to scheduling difficulties, this work group has not been able to meet. Various options on meetings are being explored (e.g., conference calls, etc.)
• Chair López assigned Doug Montgomery to the Community Outreach Work Group.
Policy Work Group (Denise Stone)
• The Policy Work Group is completing final data analysis in preparation for finalizing their recommendations to the full committee on the three issues they have been working on (profanity, officer ID, and use of Hooper Detox).
Internal Process Work Group (Hank Miggins)
• Due to an expanded workload, the Internal Process Work Group has decided to meet more frequently than originally intended. They were originally meeting on an ad hoc basis, and now they are having regularly scheduled meetings, generally the second Tuesday of each month.
• Protocols pending review by the CRC include: “Requests for Reconsideration of CRC Decisions” and “IPR Rules relating to Untimely Appeals.” Also pending is the work group’s mission statement. The Internal Process Work Group is currently working on the issue of how to handle midterm CRC vacancies.
- Proposed changes to the Pre-hearing Protocol
• After full discussion, Hank Miggins made a motion to approve the proposed changes to this protocol, including allowing the CRC to recommend that allegations be handled as service complaints or that “debriefing” be added to findings. TJ Browning seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
• Denise Stone emphasized the importance of ensuring that appellants are well informed of the consequences of motions made at the pre-hearings.
Director Rosenthal announced that the conference committee on Case No. 02-17 was postponed because A/Chief Foxworth was unable to attend due to his involvement in the Police Bureau’s elevated security responses to the Iraqi crisis. The conference committee on this case has been rescheduled for April 15
Status and discussion of Case No. 01-184.
• Linly Rees clarified that the role of the City Attorney is to represent the City of Portland and the City’s interests, not to represent CRC or IPR. It is their role to assist the CRC and the IPR in the interpretation of the law.
• Ms. Rees characterized the two types of authority invested in the CRC by the City Code as “quasi-judicial” and “legislative.” With regard to the legislative authority, there is room for reconsidering changing prior decisions and recommendations, such as on policy issues. However, with regard to the quasi-judicial authority of the CRC, such as in recommendations made on individual appeals, the ability of the CRC to change its mind after the fact is extremely limited, as the committee is subject to City codes and their own protocols, rules, and procedures.
• Regarding Case 01-184, it was Ms. Rees’s legal opinion that a final decision was made on this case based on the protocols in effect at that time, and, as such, the CRC does not have the authority to go back and change their decision at this time. Ms. Rees’s legal advice to the CRC was therefore not to hear this appeal.
• Auditor Blackmer reiterated that the CRC should not ignore other available means for dealing with issues that they feel should be addressed, for example making policy recommendations.
• After discussion, there was no motion by any CRC members to change the decision they had made in the March 4 meeting with regard to this case.
- Pre-hearing CRC No. 2003-X-0008 (IPR/IAD No. 2002-C-0152
The appellant was present. TJ Browning and Ric Alexander presented this case. Commander Garvey of the Traffic Division was present to answer questions of CRC members regarding this case. Lieutenant Babnick presented the rationale for the Bureau’s findings. TJ Browning made a motion to hold a full hearing. Ric Alexander seconded the motion. Hank Miggins made a friendly motion to divide the Allegation No. 1 into four separate allegations, but after some discussion, it was decided that this would be better done at a full hearing. The motion to hold a full hearing carried 5-4. Those who voted against the motion stated that they did not believe that the officer had violated any Bureau policy.
Yes: Browning, Alexander, Butzbaugh, Stone, López.
No: Jaffe, Miggins, Ueland, Montgomery
Pre-hearing CRC No. 2003-X-0006 (IPR/IAD No. 2002-C-0282
The appellant was present. Hank Miggins and Denise Stone presented this case. Captain Schenck and Lieutenant Babnick were present to respond to questions of CRC members regarding this case. Hank Miggins made a motion to affirm the Police Bureau’s findings. Denise Stone seconded the motion. After hearing from the appellant, the CRC voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Policy issues: securing personal property when a person is taken into custody.
Pre-hearing CRC No. 2003-X-0004 (IPR/IAD No. 2002-C-0464
The appellants were present. TJ Browning and Toni Jaffe presented this case. Captain Schenck and Lieutenant Babnick were present to respond to questions of CRC members regarding this case. Toni Jaffe made a motion to affirm the Police Bureau’s findings. TJ Browning seconded the motion. After hearing from the appellants, the CRC voted 6-3 in favor of the motion. Those who voted against the motion stated that this was a civil dispute in which the police were placed in a no-win situation. Those who voted against the motion stated that they had problems with the flagging of the appellants’ 911 calls and officers not responding first to the appellants when they called 911.
Yes: Browning, López, Jaffe, Miggins, Ueland, Montgomery
No: Butzbaugh, Stone, Alexander
Policy issues: Flagging of 911 calls; responding first to the originators of 911 calls.
- Public Comment: Diane Lane (Portland Copwatch), Dan Handelman (Portland Copwatch), and William Levin
- Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.