POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Hull Caballero Divisions Independent Police Review CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2002
January 4, 2002

January 4, 2002
Members Present: All present. Sign in sheet Attachment 1.
  1. INTRODUCTION of the committee and City staff.
  2. GROUND RULES of conduct reviewed.
  3. MINUTES: 12/18/01 minutes were reviewed and corrected by A. Shannon.
    Corrections: #1: Page 2. Section V. A. 6. Line 5: Should read: cannot make an appeal re: department initiated complaints. Attachment 2.
  4. OLD BUSINESS: Not in this meeting.
    1. IPR Director’s Report:
      1. Outreach staff hired.
      2. Complaints received were 18. Four were declined. The CRC will be reviewing these: #1 – concerned an interpretation of a statute. This is not the CRC responsibility. #2. – Police search of the vehicle after stop that involved no police misconduct. #3. - Appeal about an appeal. No reason to suggest a second hearing would be necessary.
      3. Police shootings: Proposed ordinance not complete. Deadline put off until 1/16.
      4. ID cards will be coming for the CRC members.
      5. Information system nearly completed. Necessary for tracking.
      6. Director will be making a couple of TV appearances.
      7. The Oregonian did cover the CRC. There was one small error.
    2. POLICY (Internal) Report: Not in this meeting
    3. POLICY (External) Report: Not in this meeting
    4. OUTREACH Report: Not in this meeting
    5. APPEALS – All members are present and introduced. The City attorney and the City staff introduced. The DIRECTOR IPR gave the order for the presentations.
      1. Appeal: IPR# 01-01 is postponed for correction in the IPR report. It needs a confidential addendum for a fair hearing.
      2. Appeal: IPR#01-02 - attached
        Report was prepared and presented by M. Hess the Deputy Director IPR.
        It is attached.
        The appellant was notified by phone and letter. There was no response. The appellant was not at the meeting. IAD presented their report. Discussion followed:
        1. This was declined by the IAD, as it did not articulate any misconduct.
        2. CRC- There was question regarding the necessity of 4 beanbags since after 3 the appellant appears to have been no danger. The appellant was hit three times. The Chair Lopez felt that when the appellant is absent the CRC should ask questions that the appellant might ask if present. Based on this he wondered why the case was declined.
        3. IAD report presented by Lt. Bechard declined because #1 appeal was based on the issue of a false arrest. IAD felt there was clear reason for the arrest. #2 appeal was a false arrest issue again. IAD pointed out that the person was clearly identified in an alleged robbery. #3 The legality of the arrest was the issue. IAD notes the police do not determine what is a legal arrest. #4 racial prejudice was the issue. IAD felt there was nothing to suggest prejudice. The Appellant did not follow reasonable police orders. #5 a broken wrist resulting from the handcuffs was the issue. IAD indicated that the medical reports did not find this and in their letter indicated that bruising can occur.
        4. Procedural issues were discussed by IAD Captain Schenck
          1. a citation is an arrest.
          2. declination by IAD comes after a preliminary investigation.
          3. An investigator does the preliminary but it is reviewed by the Capt. or Lt.
          4. less then lethal force is reviewed by the Training division and
          5. if there were a problem--IAD would be notified.
        5. The use of force was explained by the fact the appellant had and was threatening with throwing stars.
        6. The officer was not reinterviewed after the appellant to get the officers point of view related to specific allegations made by the appellant. IAD sees this as saving limited resources. CRC felt it would be a good cross check.
        7. CRC pointed out that the use of term bruise really minimizes a sprain as reported by medical review.
        8. In the reports there was no evidence of racial prejudice i.e. no comments
        9. CRC DISCUSSION: REVIEWERS: Lopez and Stone
          Stone and Lopez found the file to be complete and in order. The findings by IAD were supported by the evidence. Miggins clarified that the witness mentioned in the file was actually the victim in the robbery. Pollard felt that some consideration needed to be given to misconduct as a sprain can occur in a struggle. Double locking is required on handcuffs to prevent tightening.
        10. PUBLIC COMMENT:
          Mary Rooklidge: Allegations are not clear and the inconsistencies of the appellant v the officer needs to be checked.

          Diane Lane: PIIAC had an agreement with the police that all use of force complaints would be investigated. A victim is not a disinterested witness.

          Don Handelman: This was a summary review. It is a review with an officer bias. An arrest needs a crime.

          R. King: IAD is doing a good job from the union point of view. Police do not need to invest more resources.

          ? Hess: One minute for public comment is insufficient.
        11. CRC VOTE: Motion by Lopez to Affirm IAD findings
          Stone seconded
          VOTE: Unanimously affirms the IAD findings
        12. POLICY ISSUES:
          1. The external Policy WG needs to look at the issue of IAD reviewing all use of force complaints.
          2. The internal Policy WG needs to examine the issue of the amount of time given for public comment during each appeal.
          3. Immediate remedy. While the issue is in a work group a MOTION was made by Alexander and seconded by Browning to extend the time for public comment to 2-minutes for pertinent comments. Shannon amended it to include for this meeting only. There was no second. DISCUSSION: Ueland opposed desiring the WG to handle it. Pollard wanted assurance that it was only a temp fix. VOTE: Eight in favor. Ueland against. MOTION CARRIED.
      3. APPEAL: IPR 01-03 Attachment 4.
        IPR REPORT: prepared and presented by M. Hess
        Appellant and Officer notified both absent.
        IAD Report Presented by Lt. Bechard
        DISCUSSION followed
        1. IAD: Felt the complaint was without merit. There was a witness prior to the police arriving. There was no medical evidence of injury. Person was taken to Detox because she was viewed as a danger. Persons do have the right to refuse detox. They need to be told. Detox does take voluntary admissions.
        2. CRC DISCUSSION: Pictures would have been nice to see injuries.
          Generally found the reports sufficient. Pollard did question the use of force. There was observation of the appellant by a witness.
        3. PUBLIC COMMENT:
          Mary Rooklidge: It is a problem when the person is not being told they are going to detox. This does not allow voluntary Detox admission. Badge # is to be given on demand.

          D. Lane: All force cases should be investigated; PIIAC did make this arrangement with the prior chief. The vote should be put off.

          D. Handelman: PIIAC did have the arrangement with the police. Badge # problems are common. EMT may not have seen a struggle to explain the person’s complaints. Would like the vote held for further investigation.

          R. King: IAD uses the standard that a reasonable person would make the same judgement. If it were not this IAD would have investigated. Should note that a business card was provided.
        4. VOTE: R. Rosenthal as informational pointed noted that each allegation can be voted on separately.
          MOTION #1 by Pollard and seconded by Ueland #1 complaint regarding the use of force should be challenged. VOTE: Affirm: Alexander, Browning, Miggins, Shannon, Stone, Terrell, Ueland. Challenge: Lopez, Pollard MOTION DEFEATED, IAD FINDING AFFIRMED.
          MOTION#2 by Alexander and seconded by Ueland to affirm IAD findings in #2, 3, 4 complaints. VOTE: Unaminous affirm. MOTION CARRIED
        5. POLICY ISSUES
          1. External Policy WG needs to look at the need for investigating the use
            of force in every compliant of this nature.
          2. Internal Policy WG needs to look at how to involve the appellant in the appeal process if he/she is absent.
          3. What is the communication policy
          4. Need info on Hooper Detox – tour and how are police trained to make determinations and what are the policies.
  6. NEW BUSINESS: not at this meeting
  7. OTHER:
    1. Rosenthal: Need to look at the number of cases--on 1/10/02.
    2. Browning: Need to keep up with the time limits. This format should be examined in a policy work group.
    3. Browning: Need to look at the roles of the IPR, the Director IPR and the relationship to the CRC to deal with issues of independence and oversight.
    1. D. Lane: Pictures would be very helpful – There should be investigation in all complaints of excessive force – IAD can answer questions re: report in evidence – police should give ID or card to an individual, not leave it with another person.
    2. Mary Rooklidge: The director’s role needs to be clarified
    3. D. Handelman: The standard of review is what a reasonable person would do –Is there enough evidence? There needs to be more investigation. The fact of insufficient evidence should be a choice. In the first case there appears to have been the use of none lethal force after there was no threat.
    The two appeal cases heard.
    The minutes for 12/18/01
    1. 1/09102 – Outreach
    1. Dan Handelman
    2. Diane Lane – Copwatch
    3. Mary Rooklidge
  12. ADJOURNMENT: after 9 PM

Submitted by: amshannon