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 19, 2002

INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIVISION
CITZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 19, 2002
Called to Order 4:30 pm by the Chair
Members Present: D. Stone, Chair, TJ Browning, Alexander, E. Terrell, A. Shannon, M.D.,
B. Pollard, H. Miggins, R. Ueland.
City Staff: R. Rosenthal, M. Hess, and Auditor G. Blackmer
Attorney: L. Rees
By consensus the committee choose to handle the Officer Shooting and Death in Custody issue first.
Blackmer gave a short introduction to the subject and indicated his thoughts on the subject and the basis of the first draft. The IPR Director followed this up with his thoughts and experience in the arena. There was a general emphasis on the expertise required to do reviews in this area. The committee members noted that citizens have important input and would be able as a non-expert to identify bias in the review process. This has to balance against time commitment and the distribution of confidential material.
Motion: By Browning and seconded by Stone. Citizens should be added to the review process.
Discussion: Issue of confidential material was raised.
Vote
In favor: Browning, Alexander, Shannon, Pollard, Terrell, and Stone.
Against: Miggins, Ueland.
This will come to the city counsel on Feb. 28, 2002. Rosenthal and Rees will work on the language.
APPEAL 01-20
The chair reviewed introduction of the members, ground rules for the process and the protocol.
An interpreter was available for the appellant.
IPR Deputy Director M. Hess reviewed the IPR report. This included a confidential Memo for members of the committee.
Synopsis of Complaint: This complaint is regarding an incident that occurred when a Portland Police Bureau officer was asked by a Safeway security guard to assist in removing the appellant from the store.
Allegations and Findings:
  1. Officer A would not listen to appellant when he tried to explain his side of events in regards to the incident in the store.
    Procedure: Declined
  2. Officer A screamed at the appellant and told him to "shut the f--- up."
    Courtesy: Declined
  3. Officer A kicked the appellant in the chest for no reason.
    Force: Declined
Appellant was present and gave his point of view of the situation.
Officer was not present.
IAD Lt. Bechard reviewed the IAD file.
CRC Reviewers Pollard and Browning reviewed the case for the committee. They noted that there were deficits in the questions related to the use of foul language.
CRC had an opportunity to ask questions of all those who had gone before.
Appellant made the last statement.
Public Input by M. Rootlidge, D. Lane, D. Handelman.
IPR Director Rosenthal clarified allegations.
City Attorney l. Rees discussed the issue of probable cause and the basis of the committee review and affirmation vote.
Motion: By Pollard and seconded by Alexander to affirm the IAD findings in all allegations.
Discussion: none.
In Favor: Stone, Alexander, Terrell, Shannon, Pollard, Ueland, Miggins,
Motion carried to affirm IAD findings 7-0.
Policy Issues:
1. Each allegation must be examined when the officer is interviewed.
2. The appellant needs to be better educated related to the appeals process.
APPEAL 01-18
The chair reviewed ground rules and protocol.
The IPR report was reviewed by the Deputy Director M. Hess.
Synopsis of Complaint: This case is regarding an incident in which the appellant alleges an officer arrested him without probable cause and made racially motivated comments.
Allegations and Findings:
  1. Officer A made racial remarks about black people.
    Disparate Treatment: Unfounded
    Conduct: Unfounded
  2. Officer A did not read rights to the appellant when he was arrested.
    Procedure: Declined
  3. The appellant was arrested for criminal trespass in a drug free zone despite showing his variance to police officers.
    Procedure: Declined
  4. Officer A yelled from her patrol car at a group of black people saying, "Hey you blacks, you got any crack for sale?"
    Disparate Treatment: Unfounded
    Conduct: Unfounded
Appellant made a statement regarding the issue.
Officers were not present but a statement was made by Officer King as their representative.
IAD Lt. Bechard reviewed the IAD report.
CRC reviewers discussed the file for the committee.
CRC questions related to specific definitions.
Public Input from M. Rootlidge, D. Lane, D. Handelman.
Appellant made a last statement.
IPR Direct discussed Miranda Rights.
City Attorney discussed the level of review by the CRC.
Motion to affirm all IAD findings was made by Miggins and seconded by Alexander.
Discussion: None,
In favor: Stone, Alexander, Terrell, Shannon, Pollard, Ueland, Miggins.
Motion carried to affirm IAD findings.
DIRECTOR IPR REPORT
1. Handed out new forms for ID.
2. The number of cases is significantly reduced.
3. The declination process was discussed.
4. The Outreach committee has a proposal for the current "gag rule"
Announcements:
1. Carol will be E-Mailing the various committee subgroup-meeting announcements.
Public Comment was given by M. Rootlidge, D. Handelman, D. Lane
Meeting adjourned 9 p.m.
*APPROVED