PortlandOnline

POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Griffin-Valade Divisions IPR CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2002
February 5, 2002

CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES: February 5, 2002
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lopez, Stone, Ueland, Browning, Miggins, Terrell, Shannon, and Alexander
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pollard
CITY STAFF PRESENT: IPR Rosenthal, Hess, and Gang
CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Rees
Meeting called to order at 5:40 pm
Introductions of members and staff and distribution and reading of the Ground Rules for the meeting were reviewed.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
  1. Declinations: 01-29 - the review committee cannot deal with the validity of the court process
    01-24 - the review committee cannot deal with the issue of court conviction.
  2. Withdrawal: 01-19 - withdrawn by the appellant

WORK GROUP REPORTS
External Policy - Looking at the Code for officer shootings and death in custody. Will distribute this for committee review. Will be able to discuss it at the 2/13/02 meeting. The PIIAC monitoring committee recommendations will be taken up as the priority issues for presentation to the full committee. The form for standards of review is being updated. A mission statement will be ready for review at the above meeting.
Internal Policy - This group will meet at 1pm-2pm for the next two meetings then go back to 12 noon. Carol will send out the usual notices. Basically the schedule will alternate with the Outreach group.
Outreach Work Group - An affiliate list is being developed. All members are asked to contact TJ Browning with appropriate organizations to be added. This will increase our awareness of community desires beyond the appeal process. Since this is public informational type of contact, it is very difficult to do with the current gag order. This needs to be reviewed to move things along. Miggins indicated it will be addressed by the Internal Policy group ASAP.

Appeal 01-15
The purpose and the protocol of the appeal process were reviewed by the chair.
The appellant and the officer involved were not present.
IPR report was summarized by M. Hess and D. Director of IPR. A confidential Memo was distributed to members.
Complaint synopsis: This complaint is regarding an incident in which the appellant alleges that a Portland Police Bureau officer stopped and handcuffed him without sufficient cause and used profanity toward him.
The allegations and the Police Bureau findings were as follows:
  1. Officer A stopped and handcuffed the appellant without sufficient cause.
    Conduct: Exonerated.
  2. Officer A inappropriately grabbed the appellant and tore his shirt.
    Use of Force: Exonerated.
  3. Officer A used profanity toward the appellant.
    Courtesy: Sustained.
  4. Officer A told the appellant he would harass him every time he sees him.
    Conduct: Exonerated
IAD report was reviewed by Lt. Bechard.
Committee Reviewers - the file was complete.
PUBLIC INPUT
C. Williams -
D. Handelman -
D. Lane
M. Rooklidge
IPR Director - It is possible to take new facts. This would include statement of the appellant to IPR.
City Attorney - Littering is inclusive of cigarettes.
VOTE
#1 - Motion to affirm by Stone and Seconded by Shannon
Discussion - none
In favor - Alexander, Lopez, Stone, Ueland, Browning, Miggins, Terrell, Shannon
Against - 0
Motion carries - 8-0 to affirm
#2 - Motion to affirm by Stone and Seconded by Shannon
Discussion - Felt the arrest was done in a reasonable manner.
In favor - Stone, Ueland, Miggins, Shannon, Alexander, Lopez
Against - Browning, Terrell
Motion caries 6-2 to Affirm
#3 a- Motion to affirm by Shannon and Seconded by Ueland
Discussion - Harassment is a term. This is a he said she said situation. The appellant is not a liar and the cop is not bad.
In favor - Shannon, Ueland, Terrell
Against - Alexander, Lopez, Stone, Browning, Miggins
Motion voted down 5-3
#3b - Motion by Miggins to recommend to IAD a finding of Insufficient Evidence and seconded by Browning
Discussion: none
In favor: Miggins, Alexander, Lopez, Stone, and Browning
Against: Terrell, Shannon, and Ueland
Policy Issues
  1. timeliness of IAD investigations
Appeal IPR 01-16
The purpose and the protocol of the appeal process was reviewed by the chair
Absent for the vote Browning
The appellant and the officer were present. Both agreed to their names being used in the hearing.
IPR report was summarized by M. Hess, Deputy Director of IPR.
Complaint summary: The appellant alleges she was falsely arrested in August 1998 for failure to disperse following a public demonstration.
The allegations and the Police Bureau findings were as follows:
  1. PPB officers falsely arrested the Appellant.
    Conduct: Declined.
  2. PPB officers injured the Appellant when they arrested her and caused her to suffer from depression.
    Conduct: Declined.
  3. A PPB officer told the Appellant she was ignorant for using her baby as a shield, and she hoped the Appellant would never get her baby back from child protective services.
    Courtesy: Declined.
The appellant presented her case for appeal. She had videotapes of the incident, grocery bills to identify the time of the start of the incident.
Officer - using a map discussed the case from her point of view. She later agreed that she very likely did say something about the return of the child. Commander Foxworth of the NE Precinct gave the general background and emphasized that there was a crowd control problem
IAD report was reviewed by Lt. Bechard - This appeal was declined because of timeliness of the complaint
Reviewers found the file to be complete. The TV video was not there.
Public Input
C. Williams
M. Rooklidge
D. Lane.
D. Handelman
B. Sutton -
The appellant's last statement was that she would like an investigation of her complaint.
City Attorney outlined the legal standard for affirming or challenging the IAD finding.
VOTE
#1Motion to affirm IAD findings was made by Alexander and seconded by Ueland
In favor: Shannon, Alexander, Lopez, Stone, Ueland, Miggins, and Terrell
Against 0
Motion carries 7-0 to affirm
#2 Motion to affirm IAD findings made by Alexander and seconded by Ueland
In favor: Lopez, Stone, Ueland, Miggins, Terrell, Shannon, and Alexander
Against: 0
Motion carries 7-0 to affirm
#3a Motion to affirm IAD findings made by Shannon and seconded by Ueland.
In favor: Miggins, Shannon, and Ueland
Against: Terrell, Alexander, Lopez, and Stone
Motion fails 4-3
#3b Motion to recommend service Complaint made by Lopez and seconded Stone.
In favor: Lopez, Stone, Miggins, Terrell, Shannon, and Alexander
Against: Ueland
Motion carries 6-1
Policy
  1. Timeliness of investigation.
Public Comments
B. Sutton
D. Handelman
M. Rooklidge
C. Williams
D. Lane
Mrs. Rosser

Policy Issues
  1. Timeliness
Adjourn: 10:05 p.m.
*APPROVED