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 13, 2002

CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES: FEBRUARY 13, 2002
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lopez, Stone, Terrell, Pollard, Miggins, Shannon, Browning, Alexander, Ueland
CITY STAFF PRESENT: IPR: Rosenthal, Hess, Gang
City Attorney: Rees, Woborial
IAD: Schenk, Bechard
Meeting called to order: 9:45 a.m.
Introduction of members and city staff were made prior to each appeal.
The alternating chairs Lopez and Stone prior to each appeal reviewed the Ground Rules and the protocol of the meeting.
IPR APPEAL 01-23
IPR REPORT was reviewed by the Deputy Director Hess.
SYNOPSIS:
This complaint is regarding an incident in which the appellant alleges that a Portland Police Bureau officer verbally abused him, failed to give him a business card upon request, and refused to write an incident report.
ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS:
1. Officer A verbally abused the appellant by telling him he would like to beat him up.
Courtesy: Inquiry
2. Officer A did not follow procedure by making a report of incident.
Procedure: Inquiry
3. Officer A refused to give his business card to the appellant's brother upon request.
Procedure: Inquiry
APPELLANT presented his case.
OFFICER was not present.
IAD report was reviewed by Lt. Bechard. He noted variances in the interviews.
CRC REVIEWERS Ueland and Pollard discussed the case.
CRC MEMBERS asked several questions.
PUBLIC INPUT was given by D. Lane, N. Wicks, D. Handelman, R. King.
APELLANT'S FINAL STATEMENT related to the incident and comments to issues brought up in the discussion.
IPR DIRECTOR Rosenthal explained the finding of Inquiry.
CITY ATTORNEY reviewed the standard of review for the committee.
Motion: To AFFIRM the IAD findings in toto by Ueland and seconded by Browning.
Discussion: Clarified the facts of the case and addressed the fact that there was no evidence to suggest a referral for an IAD investigation.
VOTE:
In favor: Ueland Browning, Shannon, Terrell, Stone, Lopez,
Against: Miggins, Pollard, Alexander
Motion carries to AFFIRM IAD findings.
POLICY ISSUES:
1. Officer identification
2. Should investigators call witnesses at work?
3. Made later in the meeting, the suggestion that 911 indicate no bias when sending officers to the scene.
APPEAL 01-17
IPR Director as a point of information gave the definition of Code 2.
IPR REPORT was reviewed by the D. Director Hess.
SYNOPSIS:
This case is regarding an incident in which the appellant alleges an officer acted improperly at a traffic stop.
ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS:
1. Officer A pulled in front of the appellant and cut across traffic without using a turn signal causing the appellant to be alarmed, apply her brakes, and sound her horn.
Inquiry
2. Officer A was angry at the appellant for sounding her horn and acted like a child having a temper tantrum.
Inquiry
3. Officer A refused to provide his name until she asked for it repeatedly
Inquiry
4. Officer A committed perjury at the court trial regarding the traffic citation.
(Not part of IAD allegations.)
APPELLANT who chose to use her name reviewed her complaint and allegations.
OFFICER was not present.
IAD REPORT was reviewed by Lt. Bechard. He noted that the allegation of perjury was not investigated.
CRC REVIEWERS Shannon and Terrell felt the investigation interview was not done with skill. There was no information from the husband as a witness.
CRC discussed the incident and the findings. There was interest in the level at which counseling is taken into consideration re: personnel issues. It was noted this type of incident does enter the risk alert system.
PUBLIC INPUT was given by D. Lane, D. Handelman, N. Wicks, C. Hess.
APPELLANT FINAL STATEMENT reviewed the incident and the inadequacy of the investigation.
IPR Director noted that perjury is not an issue of review for the committee.
CITY ATTORNEY reviewed the standard of review.
Motion: To CHALLENGE the IAD findings on allegations #1-#3 and recommend further investigation with interview of the husband as a witness was made by Shannon and seconded by Pollard.
Discussion: This outlined the issue was that there was a witness to be interviewed and there were disputed facts.
VOTE:
In favor: All members
Against: 0
Motion carries to CHALLENGE the IAD findings with the recommendation of further investigation.
ALLEGATION #4 was declined for review by the committee by consensus.
POLICY ISSUES
1. Investigation issues
2. How do we handle retaliation?
APPEAL 01-10
IPR REPORT was reviewed by D. Director Hess.
SYNOPSIS:
This complaint is regarding an incident in which the appellant alleges that a Portland Police Bureau officer made a traffic stop based on racial profiling, was rude to the appellant and his pregnant wife, and improperly towed the vehicle he was driving.
ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS:
1. Based on racial profiling Officer A stopped four African Americans in a red convertible with California plates.
Disparate Treatment: Unfounded
3. Officer A referred to the appellant as an "asshole" to his wife.
Communication: Sustained
4. Officer A should not have ordered the vehicle to be towed since a licensed renter of the vehicle with the required insurance was in the car.
Procedure: Exonerated
5. Officer B was rude and discourteous, saying that he didn't care if the appellant's wife was 7 months pregnant and telling the appellant to "get the hell out of here."
Communication: Insufficient Evidence
6. Officer A left the appellant and his 7-month pregnant wife stranded on the street 80 miles from their home in Corvallis.
Procedure: Exonerated
7. Officer A did not tell the appellant why she was stopping him until the end of the contact.
Procedure: Exonerated
APPELLANT who chose to use his name reviewed the incident. The appellant's wife reviewed her assessment of the situation and noted she was particularly upset by the verbal abuse.
OFFICER was not present.
IAD REPORT was reviewed by Lt. Bechard. Allegation #2 was SUSTAINED.
CRC REVIEWERS Alexander and Miggins found the situation was a simple traffic stop that escalated beginning with the officer not giving identifying inf. and stating the reason for the stop which was speeding. Noted the witness made a very credible statement supporting the appellant.
CRC DISCUSSION: Various technical aspects of the stop and the options open to the officer were discussed as well as the opportunities for the use of discretion in several instances. On the whole this was an escalating situation starting with the officer not giving his name when requested. Although there did not appear to be racial profiling there did appear to be cultural insensitivity. There was lack of consideration of the area where the stop took place and two of the occupants being left beside the road with one of them being pregnant. It was noted that the officer received incorrect information, re: the Driver's ID. It was also noted that the License was not confiscated although it was invalid.
PUBLIC INPUT was given by D. Lane, E, Bonneau, D. Handelman, N. Wicks, N. Wicks, Jr.
APPELLANT FINAL STATEMENT summarized the incident and his frustration with the treatment.
IPR DIRECTOR clarified issues related to the findings.
CITY ATTORNEY alerted the committee to issues of credibility and the level of review.
Motion: #1 to AFFIRM IAD findings was made by Miggins and seconded by Alexander.
Discussion was limited.
VOTE:
In favor: Ueland, Alexander, Browning, Shannon, Miggins, Pollard, Terrell,
Against: Stone, Lopez
Motion to AFFIRM IAD findings allegation #1 carries 7-2.
#2 not considered.
Motion: #3 to CHALLENGE IAD findings and recommend Exonerated with Debriefing by Alexander and seconded by Browning.
Discussion:
VOTE:
In favor: Alexander, Browning, Shannon, Miggins, Pollard, Terrell, Stone, Lopez.
Against: Ueland.
Motion to CHALLENGE IAD findings carries 8-1.
IPR Director notes that based on the discussion an after action report will ask IAD to investigate the incident with Officer B more fully.
Motion: #4 to CHALLENGE IAD findings and recommend a sustained finding was made by Miggins and seconded by Alexander.
Discussion: The witnesses were credible and supported the appellant's point.
In favor: Alexander, Browning, Shannon, Miggins, Pollard, Terrell, Stone, Lopez.
Against: Ueland
Motion to CHALLENGE IAD findings carries 8-1.
Motion: #5 To CHALLENGE IAD findings and recommend Exonerated with debriefing was made by Alexander and seconded by Browning.
Discussion was minimal.
VOTE:
In favor: Browning, Alexander, Shannon, Stone, Lopez.
Against: Ueland, Miggins, Pollard, Terrell
Motion carries to CHALLENGE IAD findings 5-4.
Motion: #6 To AFFIRM IAD findings was made by Miggins and seconded by Alexander.
Discussion: this revolved around these findings versus the issue as a policy issue.
VOTE:
In favor: Ueland, Alexander, Browning, Shannon, Miggins, Terrell.
Against: Lopez, Stone.
Motion carries to AFFIRM IAD findings.
POLICY ISSUE
1. Use of profanity
2. 9-month turnaround by Command is too long.
3. Why sustain this incident of profanity and pass on others.
4. The appellants need better orientation to the process of committee review.
5. How to handle the IPR report in a different manner completing the correction process prior to the meeting.
BUSINESS
IPR DIRECTOR'S REPORT
1. The current limit on parking reimbursement is 12 dollars. After the office budget is approved it will be $9.50.
2. After action report on Appeal 01-09. The recommendation for Service Complaint is not possible. A request for contact to make with the officer regarding the level of service provided.
3. The backlog of cases is being reduced quickly. There is a lot of work to be done by IAD. This is pushing them beyond their resources. At this time there are 8 old cases and 7 new cases. IPR Director feels the committee can review the new cases and vote to decline with the two prime reviewers given 2 votes. He would like phone comment. It was pointed out that this needs to be discussed for full consideration. This will be done at the next business meeting.
4. The Officer Involved Shooting etc. ORD needs to be ready by March 6. It was agreed to meet Feb 19, 2002 at 4:30 rather then 5:30 to specifically discuss this issue.
5. March 14 meeting canceled to help IAD out will be held to have a full day Business Meeting.
WORKGROUP REPORTS
1. Outreach presented a Mission Statement. It was very specific. The issue of quality service was added. The committee present Ueland, Browning, Alexander, Shannon, Miggins, Stone voted in favor of the motion for acceptance by Browning and Alexander.
2. Policy presented their mission statement. The above voted in favor of a motion to accept made by Miggins and Stone.
MINUTES of January 29 and February 5, 2002 were accepted by above members on a motion by Alexander and Miggins.
Adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
*APPROVED