PortlandOnline

POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Griffin-Valade Divisions IPR CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2002
May 21, 2002

CRC Minutes
May 21, 2002, at 5:30 pm , King Center
Members present: Ueland, Stone, Miggins, Browning, Terrell, Lopez (chair), Shannon, Pollard, Alexander
Members introduced themselves, as did the city staff.
The Chair reviewed the rules of the meeting.
Minutes: Apr 16 and May 7 will be reviewed and discussed next meeting.
Director Report
1. Press release for May 17 was sent too late.
2. 2/13 vote on 01-17 was sent back to IAD and additional findings will be reviewed.
3. May 7 review of 01-10 challenging the PPB findings is now at the PPB Review Level.
4. Process for appeal and appointment and re-appointment will be distributed
5. Two appeals were received for pre-hearing
6. The final Quarterly Report is now on the IPR website.

Appeals – The Protocol was reviewed
02-10. Appellant alleges she was taken into custody outside her residence and taken to the Hooper Detoxification Center without cause.
IPR report reviewed by M. Hess.
Appellant was present and noted her disagreement with the report
Officer was not present but was represented by the PPA rep.
CRC Reviewers gave their thoughts and the committee questioned those giving evidence.
3 witness of the appellant were questioned.
Public Comment was made by D. Handelman, D. Lane, C. Hess, K. Jahe, Det. Simpson
Appellant made a final statement
The Officer’s rep made a final statement
IPR Director and the City Attorney commented.
Vote – Allegation I
Motion made by Ueland and seconded by Alexander to affirm all four findings.
Discussion followed
In favor: Alexander and Ueland
Against: Miggins, Browning, Shannon, Pollard, Terrel, Lopez, Stone.
Vote – Allegation I
Motion made by Browning and seconded by Pollard to challenge and recommend a finding of insufficient evidence.
Discussion followed.
In favor Lopez and Shannon
Against: Ueland, Alexander, Miggins, Browning, Stone, Pollard, Terrel.
Vote – Allegation I
Motion made by Stone and seconded by Terrell to challenge and recommend a finding of exonerated with debriefing.
Discussion followed
In favor: Unanimous
Vote – Allegation II
Motion made by Miggins and seconded to challenge and recommend a finding of insufficient evidence.
Discussion followed
In favor: Unanimous
Vote – Allegation III
Motion made by Browning and seconded by Terrell.to challenge and recommend exonerated
In favor: Pollard, Shannon, Ueland, Miggins, Browning
Against: Terrell, Lopez, Stone, Alexander
Vote – Allegation IV
Motion made by Ueland and seconded by Alexander to affirm the finding
In favor: Unanimous
Policy issues suggested by this appeal: More clarification regarding police management of youths if an adult is removed from the area of responsibility.

02-13. Appellant alleges that an officer neglected to cite a driver for a traffic infraction and then issued a citation to the appellant in retaliation for accusing the officer of failing to perform his duty.
M. Hess reviewed the IPR report.
Co-appellant’s statements.
Officer Rep – PPA.
IAD report reviewed.
Commander Grubbs of the SE Precinct commented.
CRC reviews gave their review.
CRC questioned the witnesses
Public Comment came from D. Handelman and D. Lane.
Appellant made a final statement.
IAD had no statement
Officer’s rep gave a final statement.
IPR Director and City attorney made comments.
Vote – 02-13
Motion made Alexander and seconded by Ueland to separate the allegations
Discussion followed
In favor: Unanimous
Vote – Allegation 1
Motion made by Pollard and seconded by Stone to Exonerate
Discussion followed
In favor: Stone, Lopez, Shannon, Miggins, Browning, Terrell, Pollard
Against: Ueland and Alexander
Vote – Allegation 2
Motion by Pollard and seconded by Terrell to challenge and recommend insufficient evidence and a debriefing.
Discussion followed.
In favor: Stone, Lopez, Shannon, Miggins, Browning, Terrell, Pollard
Against: Ueland and Alexander.
Vote – Allegation 3
Motion made by Pollard and Miggins to affirm findings.
Discussion followed.
In favor: Unanimous.
Vote – Allegation 4
Discussion re: the allegation indicated that since this had been handled in the criminal court system it should be not be considered by CRC.
Motion made by Alexander and seconded by Ueland to decline to consider.
In favor: Pollard, Miggins, Browning, Terrell, Ueland, Shannon, Lopez Alexander
Against: Stone

01-16 Follow up
1. Affirmed declination #1
2. Affirmed declination #2
3. Courtesy – Voted 4-3 to challenge
Vote
Motion by Ueland to affirm declination of all allegations – No second.
Motion by Miggins to accept the Internal Process Workgroup proposal.
Seconded by Alexander.
Discussion followed.
Appellant showed grocery receipt and medical info.
In favor: Alexander, Ueland, Terrell, Miggins
Against: Stone and Lopez
Future meetings – Miggins moved that the CRC meet once in June, July, and August. Seconded by Alexander.
Accepted unanimously.
Public Comment was recorded.
Meeting adjourned at 10pm.

*APPROVED August 20, 2002