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 29, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Stone Presiding; Shannon; Pollard; Terrell; Miggins; Ueland; and Alexander.
ABSENT: Lopez and Browning.
CITY STAFF: R. Rosenthal, M. Hess and L. Rees.
Meeting called to order 5:30 p.m. The members were introduced and the ground rules of the meeting were read.
The minutes of January 4, 2002 were submitted. Terrell moved to accept them and Miggins seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously accepted.
Directors Report
  1. The draft minutes will be distributed only to members, IPR staff and the city attorney.
  2. Officer Involved Shooting draft is still in process. There is the intention to involve the CRC in the selection of the expert. There will be an initial review and an annual review and report.
  3. IPR 01-11 Appeal finding was discussed with IAD. The CRC finding was accepted and is reflected in the officer's record.
  4. The IPRD Quarterly Report will be completed without input from the CRC. Beginning with the next the CRC will be involved.
  5. Declinations: 01-121 - This was relative to a court finding and not appropriate for appeal here
    01-131 - This was a court finding and not appropriate for appeal
    02 - 04 - Court finding not appropriate for CRC appeal.
Internal Policy Work Group
Meetings 1/30 canceled
Meeting scheduled: Feb 6, 13, 27 at noon
Outreach Work Group - no report
External Policy Work Group
Standard Review Worksheet is being developed
Priority list is being developed
Will be ready to distribute a list.
APPEALS - Prior to each appeal the protocol to be followed was described by the chair. Members of the committee were introduced. The City attorney described basis for an affirmative vote ( what a responsible person would find based on the evidence) .
Appeal 01-004 was presented by M. Hess. There was some discussion relative to the legal definition of contact. The attorney pointed out that actual contact would be considered assault. Racial profiling could be considered disparate treatment. An officer observing an act can file a complaint. The DA will decide from there.
Neither the officer nor the appellant was present.
Complaint Synopsis: This complaint is regarding an incident in which the appellant alleges that a Portland Police Bureau officer used racial profiling in citing him for violating a city ordinance prohibiting offensive physical contact.
Allegations and Police Bureau Findings:
  1. Officer A inappropriately cited the appellant for Offensive Physical Contact.
  2. Officer A's action toward the appellant constituted racial profiling.
IAD Report was summarized by Lt. Bechard. CRC questioned the lack of witnesses. The complainant seemed to think that he was harassed. IAD addressed the conduct (False Arrest and Deparite Treatment) to
Judge the issue of harassment rather then the feeling of harassment. Police can use threats if they can legally carry them out.
CRC Reviewers pointed out that there was a question threat of 2500 dollars fine (not possible) and it was difficult to understand why this man was singled out.
Public Comment:
M. Rooklidge - There appears to be a difference in the facts and the investigation. There was no info from the victim of the contact
D. Lane - There was no information from the victim. The police issues are presented as fact while the complainant information is presented as a perception.
D. Handelman - There is disparate treatment. Prior convictions are irrelevant. $2500 fine is a treat.
VOTE: Motion by Ueland and seconded by Miggins was to affirm the IAD findings.
In favor: Shannon, Pollard, Terrell, Miggins, Ueland, and Alexander.
Against: Stone
Motion carries 6-1
Policy Issues
  1. Look at the issue of harassment.
Appeal 01-09 was presented by M. Hess. The timelines of the incident were outlined for the committee.
The officer was not present.
Complaint Synopsis: This complaint is regarding an incident in which the appellant alleges that Portland Police officers failed to respond in a timely and adequate manner to a 911 assault and robbery call.
Allegations and Police Bureau Findings:
  1. Officers A and B took too long to respond to 911 call.
  2. Officers A and B were not able to arrest the suspects or find stolen items because they arrived so late.
  3. Officer A did not question witnesses who saw the appellant leaving a bar with the suspects.
  4. Officers A and B did not offer assistance to the appellant or take pictures of her injuries.
The appellant described the circumstances from her experience. She felt that the police were late coming. Did not stay with her. Cared more about her car's damage then her injuries from the assault. Left her stranded. She had to drive home barely able to see without her glasses. She noted she was a victim of abuse in the past and this was another instance of victimization to be followed by further victimization by the police and then the legal system. Her attackers still are around and her level of anxiety runs very high.
She feels that her case just lingered. The people who were friends of the perpetrators were questioned and not her witnesses. There was no effort to question the persons she believed attacked her.
IAD investigation was summarized by Lt. Bechard. There was confusion re the site of the incident. The computer readout indicates the police responded in a timely fashion. The appellant refused medical attention. There were no witnesses to interview. The officers did not find the perpetrators.
Reviewer found the file to be ok. There were tapes of the 911 call. There was clear instruction on that tape of the address and the location of the victim.
Public Comment
D. Lane - time line is in question. Should the police go to the scene or assist the victim.
D. Handelman - Quoted the victim stating that she was hurt. This inconsistency tends to discredit the whole report. It took too much time to get to this victim.
C. Hess - Communication is a problem. There needs to be pursuit of the accused.
Appellant's last statement was related to the fact that crimes against women are not taken seriously enough.
VOTE: Motion by Alexander and seconded by Ueland to affirm the IAD finding
In favor: Shannon, Stone, Terrell, Miggins, Ueland, and Alexander.
Against: 0
Absent: Pollard left prior to the vote.
Motion carries 6-0.
Policy Issues
  1. Need to identify disabled appellants.
  2. Photos should be used for all injuries.
  3. How do victims get home?
  4. There needs to be help to follow the process of an investigation.
  5. Do officers need training in signing?
  6. We need to understand the CAD system.
  7. Service complaints need to be included more. There should be a category for this.
Public Comment
D. Lane
D. Handelman
C. Hess
Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.
Next Meeting: Feb.5, 2002