PortlandOnline

POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Griffin-Valade Divisions IPR CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2002
January 10, 2002

INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIVISION
CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2002
All members present except for B. Pollard. Sign in sheet attached. Stone and Browning left early with voting reflecting the absences.
  1. INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS
  2. GROUND RULES outlined by the chair H. Lopez.
  3. MINUTES: January 4, 2002, minutes approved.
  4. OLD BUSINESS: none
  5. STANDING AGENDA:
    1. IPR Director's Report:
      1. Handout - protocol revision
      2. Role of director: Director's role during meetings is to provide guidance to the CRC and to participate in the discussions as needed. It is a non-voting role.
      3. Interns introduced.
    2. Internal Process Workgroup will meet at noon every other Wednesday starting 1/16/02.
    3. Outreach Workgroup will be meet at noon every other Wednesday starting 1/23/02.
    4. Policy Workgroup will meet 1/17/02 at 5:30pm.
    5. Appeals: 9:00am - 12:00pm IPR01-06
                                                 IPR01-07

                    1:00pm - 5:30pm   IPR01-08
                                                 IPR01-11
                                                 IPR01-01
  6. NEW BUSINESS: none
  7. PUBLIC COMMENT: C. Hess, Norman Wicks SR and JR, M. Bonneau, D. Handelman and D. Lane of Copwatch, M. Rootlidge,
  8. HANDOUTS: Appeal case information as listed.
    Appeal Hearing Protocol (Att. #1)
    Minutes of January 4, 2002 (Att. #2)
  9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next CRC Meeting will be on 1/29/02 at 5:30pm
  10. ADJOURNMENT: 6:30pm

Submitted by amshannon
APPEALS
IPR 01-06. ASSIGNED TO ALEXANDER AND MIGGINS
Complaint is regarding an incident in which police officers were dispatched to a residential area where a resident had called the police to complain about two adult males camping on the street in a pickup camper.
Introduction of committee members, review of the appeal procedure by the Chair.
IPR Report and summary of allegations and IAD findings (ATT #3) presented by M. Hess, IPR Deputy Director.
Appellant and witnesses were not present. M. Hess reported that they had been contacted and had agreed to be present, but left a phone message this morning stating they had a conflicting appointment and would not be present at the scheduled time for the hearing.
Motion by Ueland to proceed. Seconded by Shannon
Discussion: There was a general discussion to ensure there had been contact and notification.

Vote: unanimous in favor of the motion to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the appellants.

CRC reviewers reported that the IAD file was informative.
CRC had questions concerning the use of foul language ("fucking hands up") reflected in the report. The tapes of the incident substantiated this. It was a repetitive order. There was discussion about the lengthy time of the complaint investigation and the appeal. The issue of insufficient staffing was identified as a problem but not discussed at this time.
Since appellant was not present, M. Hess read the appellant's interview summary on his behalf.
Officers involved were not present.
LT. S. Bechard, Portland Police Department, summarized IAD report. He indicated that all the officers had been interviewed. The appellant and civilian witnesses had been interviewed. It was IAD finding that there were conflicting stories and the appellants had made untrue statements. For example, the tape involved did not support the fact of profanity being used beyond the demand for the raising of hands. Witness did not support the appellant's point of view. There was no physical evidence that handcuffs were used inappropriately.
CRC was interested in the issue about the tape used by the appellant. There is an Oregon statute regarding interception of communications. Evidentiary tapes in the IAD file included both the 911 call made by the appellant and the tape made by the appellant. There were two witnesses. One chose not to become involved. There was one allegation by the appellant not addressed in the Letter of Disposition from IAD. It was unfounded, but in the letter was not specifically addressed. There was some discussion regarding the use of handcuffs. IAD investigation indicated that it was an unfounded allegation.

No one saw a police officer in the cell with the appellant. There was no evidence of injury. IAD indicated they would look into possible missing property. The police response to the site of the motor home was generated by a call from a neighbor.
CRC reviewers found the file to be in order. Alexander felt the tapes contradicted the complaints. Miggins found no problems in the file.
CRC discussion limited to the above.
Public comment was provided by D. Handelman and D. Lane of Copwatch.
IPR Director indicated that there could be occasions where IPR would contact witnesses to supplement the IAD investigation.
City Attorney stated the requirement for affirmation of the IAD finding, i.e., that a reasonable person would find the evidence supports the findings of the IAD investigation
Motion by Miggins to affirm the IAD findings on #1-12 allegations.
Seconded by Alexander
Motion passed by unanimous vote (8-0).
Policy review recommendations included:
  1. Use of profane language
  2. Length of time for investigations
  3. Use of cameras in the holding cells
  4. Reading appellant's interview summary if the appellant is not present

IPR 01-07. ASSIGNED TO UELAND AND TERRELL
Complaint is regarding an incident in which the complainant, who was arrested for selling cocaine to a plainclothes officer, alleges that his personal property was not returned to him or placed in the property evidence facility.
CRC members were re-introduced and protocol reviewed by the Chair.
IPR Report and summary of allegations and IAD findings presented (Att#4) by M. Hess, IPR Deputy Director. He noted that several unsuccessful attempts had been made to contact the appellant by phone. Letters were mailed to the appellant regarding the hearing.

Appellant was not present. M. Hess read the request for appeal to represent the appellant's point of view.
Officers were not present.
IAD report was summarized and presented by Lt. Bechard, Portland Police Department.
The officer involved did not recall the appellant having a daily planner with him.
CRC wondered if the wife was a witness to the arrest. (She was not.)
CRC reviewers found no problem with the file.
A confidential memo was reviewed with the CRC members in executive session.
CRC discussion revealed the appellant is unsure of the property loss. The allegation regarding the loss of a pair of gold earrings was not part of the original complaint.
Public comment was provided by D. Lane and D. Handelman from Copwatch, Merrick and Tycain Bonneau.
There was CRC discussion about the finding of Inquiry. This is a confusing finding requiring change. It does show on an officer's record.
City Attorney restated the requirement for affirmation of the IAD findings i.e. a reasonable person would find the evidence supports the findings of the IAD investigation.
Motion was made by Ueland to affirm IAD findings, seconded by Terrell.
Votes for affirmation: Terrell, Miggins, Browning, Alexander, Shannon, Ueland
Votes against affirmation: Lopez, Stone
Motion to AFFIRM carried (6-2).
Policy review recommendations included:
  1. Clarify the status of Copwatch as media or a public representative.
  2. The use of Inquiry finding needs to be addressed.
  3. What part does Risk Management play in allegations such as this where there is possible criminal intent.
  4. Confidential memos should be formalized in the protocols.
  5. Absent appellant representation should be formalized.
  6. Booking training should be provided to CRC.
  7. There should be a clarification of what constitutes confidential information.
  8. Consider transcribing the appellant's statement when contacted by IPR.

IPR 01-08. ASSIGNED TO BROWNING AND SHANNON
Complaint is regarding an incident in which the appellant alleges she was unlawfully detained and beaten by a person impersonating a police officer.
Re-introduction of the CRC members and review of the appeal protocol by the Chair.
IPR report and the summary of allegations (Att #5) and IAD findings were presented by M. Hess, IPR Deputy Director. M. Hess attempted to contact the appellant. She called today to say she would not be at the hearing. There was a confidential memo for the CRC members only.
Appellant not present.

Motion by Miggins to proceed with the hearing.
Seconded by Browning.
Vote in favor: Ueland, Browning, Terrel, Miggins, Shannon, Alexander
Vote against: Stone, Lopez
Motion carried.
Officer was not present.
IAD report was summarized by LT. Bechard, Portland Police Department. He clarified that the appellant was stopped. She provided a drawing of an officer with an officer's name. They did not match a member of the Portland Police Bureau. There is an officer of the same name, but his assignment and description do not match this appellant's account.
CRC was interested in why the appellant was actually stopped. IAD pointed out that the officer was concerned for her well-being. This is a duty of police officers.
Reviewers found no problems with the file. They noted that there were medical findings to be reviewed.
Motion to go into executive session was made by Browning
Seconded by Ueland
Vote was unanimous in favor with Pollard absent.
Confidential memo was reviewed in executive session.
CRC discussion noted the pencil drawing was not very specific.
Public comment was provided by D. Lane and D. Handelman from Copwatch
City Attorney restated the requirement for affirmation of the IAD findings, i.e., a reasonable a person would find the evidence supports the findings of the IAD investigation.
Motion to affirm the IAD find was made by Browning
Seconded by Shannon
Vote: Unanimous to AFFIRM
Policy review recommendations:
  1. Excessive force declinations by IAD should be evaluated
  2. Improve the file-monitoring checklist.
  3. Develop handouts for the appeal hearings to avoid repeating basic information prior to each hearing.
After this hearing the appellants from the IPR 01-06 file arrived. They wanted to have the case reheard.
Motion was made by Ueland to continue with the hearings as scheduled
Seconded by Shannon
Vote was unanimous in favor.
The appellants were asked to make a statement at the end of the hearings.
IPR 01-11. ASSIGNED TO MIGGINS AND LOPEZ
Complaint is regarding an incident in which a Portland Police Bureau sergeant placed an allegedly intoxicated individual in protective custody and transported him to a detoxification center.
All members present except for Pollard and Stone (last half of hearing - votes note her absence)
Introduction and protocol for hearings were repeated by the Chair.
IPR report and summary of allegations and IAD findings (ATT#6) presented and reviewed by M. Hess, IPR Deputy Director. He noted an error on page three. Inquiry is incorrect finding. Findings were all Exonerated.
CRC noted that the letter from Commander Foxworth , PPD, had no clear finding. This needs to be corrected by the IPR letter.
Appellant was present. He noted that it was very annoying to get the letter with the error. He introduced himself. He brought a map to describe the situation. He noted that he lives in a neighborhood that had just had a shooting with death. He was hyperalert. He could not sleep. He heard and saw the police, so he went to observe what was happening in his neighborhood. He said the officer did not give his number, became angry with him, got him into the "position," pulled him, handcuffed him, and took him to Hooper Detox, where he was kept until he found out he could call for someone to pick him up. He felt the police officer overestimated his drinking and that he should have just been sent home as he lived in the neighborhood.
CRC clarified the situation through questions. No new information was identified. A clear picture of the appellant's appreciation of the events was developed.
Officer was not present.
IAD report was presented by Lt. Bechard, Portland Police Department. He identified a mix-up with this investigation resulting in the letter from Commander Foxworth. He also noted that the mix-up led to a prolonged time for the investigation and the response. When they investigated, it appeared that the appellant was intoxicated and did need to be taken to the detox center. The center did in fact keep him until a responsible person picked him up.
CRC questioned the reason for using the detox center since the appellant lived in the area and was on foot. IAD clarified that this is discretionary on the part of the officer.
Motion made by Shannon to go to executive session for discussion of the medical records
Seconded by Miggins
Vote: Consensus in favor.
The appellant was at Hooper for about two hours. No evidence that he was informed of the rules or his rights. He was there on a police hold.
Reviewers found the necessary information in the file, but the file was disorganized. They had questions about whether "stand back" means to leave the scene. It was hard to follow the time line.
CRC discussion was limited to above.
Public comment was provided by D. Handelman and D. Lane of Copwatch and by Tycain Bonneau.
Appellant made a final statement. He pointed out that he did not have a witness and that he had walked away and the sergeant followed him in his car before deciding to take him to the detox center. The appellant believed the sergeant was acting in retaliation.
City attorney restated the requirement of affirmation of the IAD findings, i.e., a reasonable person would find the evidence supports the findings of the IAD investigation.
Motion #1 made by Miggins was that #1 allegation be challenged and recommend debriefing regarding allegation #1. Seconded by Lopez.
In favor: Miggins, Terrell, Lopez, Alexander, Browning
Against: Shannon, Ueland
Absent: Stone, Pollard
The motion carried (5-2).
Motion #2(a) made by Miggins to affirm the IAD finding on allegation #2
Seconded by Ueland
Discussion: Alexander suggested maybe there was yelling going on. Shannon and Browning thought there was insufficient evidence.
In favor: Miggins,Ueland,
Against: Terrell, Lopez, Shannon, Alexander, Browning
The motion failed (2-5).
Motion #2(b) made by Alexander to recommend changing #2 finding to Insufficient Evidence
Seconded by Browning
In favor: Miggins, Terrell, Lopez, Shannon, Alexander, Browning
Against: Ueland
The motion carried (6-1).
Regarding allegation #3 (retaliation) a motion was made by Miggins to challenge the finding of Exonerated. Seconded by Browning
Discussion: the motion was thought to be nonspecific. Miggins removed the previous motion and restated the motion to change the finding regarding retaliation from Exonerated to Unfounded.
Seconded by Ueland
There was discussion concerning the need for a "safety first" attitude during a high risk stop. Further investigation might be helpful, but it was thought that Hooper would not have kept the appellant if it was not appropriate for him to be taken there.
In favor of the motion: Miggins, Terrell, Ueland, Lopez, Shannon, Alexander
Against: Browning
Motion carried (6-1).
Policy review recommendations:
  1. Need training on Hooper Detox
  2. Use of the Breathalyzer at the detox center
  3. Persons given their rights at Hooper.

IPR 01-01. ASSIGNED TO ALEXANDER AND STONE
Complaint is regarding an incident in which the appellant was arrested for jaywalking after failing to stop for police officers that sought to question him for a suspected drug transaction. Appellant alleges excessive force by the officers who arrested him.
All members were present except Pollard, Browning and Stone
Re-introduction of the members and review of the hearing protocol by the Chair.
IPR report and summary of allegations and IAD findings (att #7) was presented and reviewed by M. Hess, IPR Deputy Director. He pointed out that there were a number officers involved and there were a number of allegations. There were injuries incurred. There was a Confidential Memo to be reviewed by the committee.
CRC members had no questions.
Appellant was represented by his attorney Marwick. She pointed out that the first draft of the report was corrected. It was noted that the one for the hearing was correct. She believed that the reports followed the police officers' point of view. The appellant was jaywalking, did not understand the police officers actions, and reacted out of fear.
The confidential memo was released by the appellant through his attorney. It notes several mental disabilities with specific problems with communication and behavior. He could not immediately cooperate. He believes he was on his stomach under police control immediately with a take down, with no fighting. Photos showed a number of bruises to the posterior thighs and bruises to the face, feet and ankles. On the legs there appeared to be multiple hits.
The appellant's attorney described client as a "sitting duck" because of his disabilities.
CRC members questioned again about drug use. Drug use was denied. The attorney noted that the photos of the injuries showed no injuries to the anterior of the legs. She pointed out that if the appellant had been approached differently, this may not have happened.
Officer not present.
IAD report presented and discussed by Lt. Bechard, Portland Police Department. Officer interviews indicated that there had been a significant struggle. The appellant had been stopped for behavior suspicious of drug dealing. He was arrested for jaywalking. The man was over six feet tall and weighed about 200lbs. The ASP baton was used because he would not follow directions and was kicking and moving side to side. Several strikes were necessary. He was later hobbled because he was screaming and kicking. At the time he was arrested, arrests for jaywalking were allowed, but since then this law has changed.
CRC questioned when the police photos were taken. They were taken the same day.. Usually photos are required only when less lethal weapons are used. There was question as to why the injuries were to the back of the legs if he was fighting. This appeared due to the fact that the appellant was rolling side to side.
Reviewers found the file to be in order. They felt the photos showed that the appellant was on his side and that the injuries were consistent with the evidence presented.
Public Comment was made by C. Hess, D. Lane and D. Handelman from Copwatch, Tycain Bonneau, Merrick Bonneau, M. Rooklidge, N. Wicks, Sr. and Jr., K. Huxford.
Appellant's attorney made a final statement that she believed the photos were self-explanatory. The officers went on vacation at the time of the court hearing so the court threw out all the charges. She also pointed out that the appellant's difficulty in talking should have should have alerted the officers to the existence of some kind of problem.
IPR Director pointed out that the appellant was arrested for jaywalking. The situation was one that got out of hand in a situation that was misread. To search someone after arrest is allowed. Alexander pointed out that he was fighting and resisting arrest by his admission.
City attorney restated the requirement for affirmation of the IAD findings. i.e., a reasonable person would find the evidence supports the findings of the IAD investigation.
Motion made by Alexander to affirm the IAD findings.
Seconded by Ueland.
There was discussion about considering the findings separately. No motion was made.
In favor of affirmation: Miggins, Ueland, Shannon, Alexander
Against: Terrell, Lopez
Motion carried (4-2).
Policy review recommendations
  1. Photos of anyone injured entering police custody
  2. Statement of reason for a police stop