INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIVISION
CITZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE
Minutes: March 5, 2002 at 5:15 p.m.
Present: All members except for Pollard and Shannon
Introductions of those present took place.
Ground rules and Protocol was reviewed.
There were alternating chairs: Stone and Lopez
IPR Director Rosenthal's Report: The IPR has completed its first Quarterly report, covering the 4th Quarter, 2001 and distributed copies of the report to all of the members of the CRC. Proposed working drafts for "Guidelines for Declination" and "CRC Appeals Protocols" were also distributed to the members for discussion on 3/14/02. PPB Crowd Control Training on Saturday, March 16, 2002 was announced and CRC members were recommended to attend. The Police Bureau has officially changed their finding on IPR Case No. 01-16 from "declined" to "service complaint" as requested by the CRC on March 5, 2002. Since the time of the last meeting, the IPR Director declined 4 requests for CRC review. They were declined for the following reasons: Case 1: the complainant did not have standing to make the complaint and the actual party involved failed to follow up on the complaint; Case 2: no act of misconduct occurred; Case 3: the complaint related solely to the validity of a criminal conviction; Case 4: the complaint related solely to the validity of a criminal conviction and the allegations appeared to be trivial.
Minutes of last meeting was approved through a Motion by Ueland and seconded by Miggins with acceptance by consensus.
Appeal IPR 01-12
IPR D. Director Hess reviewed the IPR report
Synopsis of the complaint: This complaint was regarding an incident in which the appellant alleged that officers used racial profiling when they cited he and his companions for jaywalking. It was also alleged that the officers made sarcastic comments and used profanity toward the appellant and his companions.
Summary of Allegations and IAD Findings:
Appellant was not present and Mr. Hess read the complaint's letter and court information available. He noted that there was a request for a postponement but that there had been several contacts and so we proceeded with the schedule.
Officers were not present but Kevin Warner, PPB of the Police Officers Association spoke on their behalf.
IAD report was reviewed by Captain Schenk and Sgt. Adams.
CRC Reviewers Stone and Browning discussed the case.
CRC questioned all the presenters.
Public Input was given by M. Rootlidge, D. Handelman, and D. Lane.
Appellant's Final Statement was a four-page letter (June 5, 2002) written to LT. Bechard of IAD (Eric Terrell read the letter).
Officer Final Statement was given by Detective Warren.
IAD Final Statement was done by Capt. Schenk.
IPR Director clarified certain aspects of the case.
City Attorney clarified the legal issues and the standard of review.
Motion for Allegation #1 to challenge the IAD finding was made by Stone and replaced by the finding of unfounded. This was seconded by Browning.
Discussion: There was no evidence that the racial profiling had occurred. There was also the feeling that to accept exonerated finding is to understand that racial profiling is a PPB standard and practice and that the involved officers were acting within guidelines. This is not the case.
All in favor: 7
Motion for Allegation#2 was made by Browning to accept the finding, as there was insufficient information to establish categorization and seconded by Stone.
Discussion: Some felt that the allegation should be returned. L. Rees the City Attorney felt the finding was made by IAD.
All in favor: 7
1. Categorize the allegations in a clearer manner.
2. Use correct titles when referring to the various participants in the process.
3. Need to review all racial profiling issues.
4. Consider the role of IPR in interviewing appellants, witnesses, others when information is missing in an investigation.
Appeal IPR #01-22
IPR D. Director M. Hess reviewed the IPR Report.
Synopsis of the Compliant: This complaint was regarding an incident in which the appellant alleged that a Portland Police Bureau officer stopped and detained him without sufficient reason and treated him discourteously.
Allegations and IAD Findings:
Appellant not present.
Officer not present but represented by Kevin Warren of PPA who spoke for him.
IAD Report was reviewed by Capt. Schenk.
CRC Reviewers Ueland and Lopez
CRC Members asked questions of all.
Public Comment was given by D. Lane and D, Handelman.
Officer Final Statement was given by K. Warren.
Motion by Lopez to affirm findings of #1,3,4 allegations and seconded by Ueland.
All in favor: 7
Motion by Ueland to affirm allegation #2 and seconded by Lopez.
All in favor: 7
1. Charges dropped or dismissed DMV errors
2. "Near by", "near-hits".
1. Miggins will take location issue.
2. Motion by Outreach Working Group - Communication Guidelines - CRC may not identify individuals involved in cases that come before the committee to any persons other then themselves. Nor will any committee member release any hearing documents to any person outside of the committee. No CRC will represent the CRC without permission of the committee. Seconded by Miggins.
3. VOTE: Unanimous in favor.