POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Hull Caballero Divisions Independent Police Review CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2002
August 20, 2002



MINUTES FOR AUGUST 20, 2002 (Approved by CRC on 9/17/02)

CRC members present: Lopez (Chair), Stone (Vice-Chair), Miggins, Browning, Alexander, Pollard, Ueland

IPR staff present: Auditor Gary Blackmer, Richard Rosenthal (Director), Michael Hess (Deputy Director , Lauri Stewart (Community Relations Coordinator, Linly Rees (Deputy City Attorney for IPR)

IAD staff present: Captain Darrel Schenck, Lieutenant George Babnick
  1. Meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chair Lopez.
  2. Introduction of members, city staff, and public

    Captain Darrel Schenk introduced Lieutenant George Babnick, who was recently appointed to IAD to replace Captain Steven Bechard. Lieutenant Babnick gave a brief summary of his background and previous assignments with the Portland Police Bureau.
  3. Ground rules reviewed by Chair Lopez.
  4. Guest speaker: Michael Mills, City of Portland Ombudsman
  5. Appeal Hearing: CRC No. 02-22 (IPR No. 2002-C-0143)

    The appellant was present with three witnesses (his sons).

    CRC Members Alexander and Pollard were assigned to this case.

    This case involved an incident in which the appellant alleged that police officers have been continuously harassing and intimidating him by pulling him over and questioning him and that he was cited for traffic offenses he did not commit. He alleged that he is a victim of racial profiling.

    After hearing from the appellant, one of his sons, the officer’s supervisor (Lieutenant McGeachy of North Precinct), and IAD Captain Schenk, as well as hearing public comments from D. Lane, D. Handelman, M. Bonneau, R. Koenig, and L. Berman, the CRC made the following decisions.

    Pollard made a motion and Stone seconded that all four allegations be investigated by IAD. Hank Miggins made an amendment to the motion, accepted by Pollard, to send only allegations 3 and 4 back to IAD for investigation.

    CRC voted unanimously in favor of the revised motion. (Alexander, Ueland, Stone, Pollard, López, Browning, and Miggins all voted yes.)

    The following policy issues were brought up and discussed:

    Browning and Alexander: CAD unit histories should be kept longer than they currently are in order to be able to document how many times an individual or a vehicle has been pulled over by police officers and to better differentiate similar names, near hits, etc. to minimize the possibility of mistaken identity.

    Browning: CRC needs a training session on how to read CAD printouts.

    Miggins: Concerned that the Police Bureau has no directive on officers calling in stops (officer safety issue).
  6. Discussion of the Mediation Program

    Lauri Stewart (IPR Community Relations Coordinator) and Richard Rosenthal (IPR Director) presented a draft protocol for the IPR mediation program. Chair López suggested that the protocol be discussed by the Internal Process Workgroup prior to the September 3, when the mediation program is scheduled to begin operation. Hank Miggins agreed to hold an Internal Process Workgroup meeting for this purpose prior to September 3.
  7. Prehearing Review: CRC No. 02-24 (IPR No. 2002-C-0162)

    Stone and Pollard, who were assigned to this case, presented a summary of the case with their recommendations and concerns. Stone pointed out the following possible discrepancies and concerns:

    · how the officers gained entry into the apartment

    · whether the officers told the appellant where he was being taken

    · whether the officers turned off the appellant’s stove

    · why the appellant was not allowed to get dressed or take a change of clothes with him

    · why the officers did not confiscate the appellant’s air pistol as opposed to hiding it in a closet

    Pollard agreed with the issues brought up by Stone and stated that he believed the case should be heard. After discussion, Stone made a motion to return allegations 1 and 5 to IAD for investigation. Ueland seconded the motion.

    The motion did not carry. The vote was as follows:

    Yes: Alexander, Stone, Browning

    No: Pollard, Ueland, Miggins, López

    Pollard made a motion to hold a full hearing on this case. Alexander seconded the motion.

    The motion carried, 6-1. The vote was as follows:

    Yes: Miggins, Browning, Ueland, López, Pollard, Alexander

    No: Stone
  8. IPR Director’s Report: Richard Rosenthal

    · If the Director is admitted to the Oregon Bar, Oregon Attorney rules of ethics require that IPR staff must ask each complainant or appellant if they are represented by legal counsel. If they are, it will be necessary to obtain their attorney’s consent before any questions are asked about their case.

    · Several IAD policy changes have been implemented. The “Inquiry” finding will no longer exist. Precincts will be held to a shorter time limit for completing Service Complaints, and it will no longer be necessary for the Bureau to have the agreement of the complainant in order to handle a handle complaints as Service Complaints.

    · IPR declined one appeal (CRC number 02-21) since the last CRC meeting. The reason for the declination was that the appellant did not have standing to make the complaint (i.e., the appellant was not a witness or directly involved in the incident in any way). As per protocol, two CRC members reviewed the case and concurred with the declination.

    · There has been a proposal by the Internal Process Workgroup to eliminate IPR declinations of appeals except in rare cases, as for example when the appellant lacks standing.
  9. The minutes of the May 21, 2002, CRC Meeting were unanimously approved with one amendment.
  10. Workgroup Reports:
    1. Internal Process Workgroup (Hank Miggins)

      Hank Miggins reviewed the minutes of the August 14, 2002, Internal Process Workgroup meeting. The Internal Process Workgroup proposed that a revised protocol for declining appeals be developed by the Director for consideration of the full CRC.

      The Internal Process Workgroup made the following motions:
      1. That the CRC should address questions arising out of public comment. The questions should be addressed to the CRC and not staff. The Chair should be the spokesperson and should restrict discussion of the question to allow for necessary research. The Chair should control this and advise the questioner when a question would be responded to by CRC. Motion was seconded by TJ Browning and carried unanimously.
      2. That draft CRC minutes be prepared by IPR staff and reviewed by the CRC Recorder before being submitted to the CRC for approval. Motion was seconded by TJ Browning and carried unanimously.
    2. Policy Workgroup (Denise Stone)

      The workgroup is involved in ongoing research and in developing work plans on issues that are being considered for recommendations.
    3. Community Outreach Workgroup (TJ Browning)
      1. Press releases have gone out regarding the upcoming public forums.
      2. Five key questions for the forum have been drafted and reviewed.
      3. Public forum topics are being tied in with issues being addressed by the Policy Workgroup.
  11. New Business

    A motion was made by TJ Browning and seconded by Bryan Pollard to reopen CRC case number 02-17 and schedule it for a prehearing. Motion carried unanimously.
  12. Public Comment

    R. Koenig, M. Bonneau, D. Lane, and D. Handelman.
  13. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.