INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIVISION
CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 (approved on October 15, 2002)
CRC members present: López (Chair), Miggins, Browning, Alexander, Terrell, Shannon, Ueland, Pollard
IPR staff present: Rosenthal, Hess, DeAngelis, Stewart
PPB staff present: Captain Schenck (IAD), Lieutenant Babnick (IAD), Sergeant King (PPA)
- Chair López called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
Mia Butzbaugh and Toni Jaffe, newly selected CRC members, who will be sworn in next month, introduced themselves and gave a brief personal background.
- Chair López reviewed the ground rules.
- The minutes of the CRC meetings of 7/16/02, 8/20/02, and 9/3/02 were adopted with one correction to the minutes of 7/16/02.
- IPR Director’s Report: Richard Rosenthal
· On October 9, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. the City Council will swear in the two incoming CRC members and recognize the two outgoing members.
[Browning and Miggins arrive. (5:45 p.m. and 5:48 p.m.)]
· There is $1,800 in the IPR budget for support of the CRC. These funds could be used to continue reimbursing parking and for other miscellaneous costs. Ric Alexander volunteered at the last CRC meeting to take the lead on food and refreshments.
· The Director reminded CRC that Merrick Bobb, who will be conducting the review of officer-involved shootings and deaths in custody, will be in Portland all day on October 1. He will be meeting with the Mayor, other city officials, Police Bureau representatives, and the CRC.
- Workgroup Reports
- Internal Process Workgroup (Miggins)
The Internal Process Workgroup met on 9/11/02. The following items of business were transacted:
· The workgroup proposed the following amendment to the Guidelines for Declinations of CRC Appeals: To replace 2.b. with 1.j., which will then state: “The appeal is not supported by the evidence. (A CRC member making a motion to decline pursuant to this subsection will state the specific reason for the decline.) ” The motion to adopt this protocol amendment was seconded by Browning and carried unanimously.
· The workgroup discussed the issue of what constitutes an “IAD file” for the purpose of CRC review. The IPR Director agreed to begin to include in the IPR review file a catalogued list of all documents and exhibits that should be reviewed prior to prehearings and hearings.
· The workgroup recommended that the rule regarding CRC members speaking to the media and the public remain unchanged until such time as this issue be reconsidered by the full committee. Chair López directed that this item be included in the next CRC meeting agenda.
- Policy Workgroup (Ueland)
The Policy Workgroup met with Joseph DeAngelis on 8/30/02 and discussed the possibility of having IPR interns contact other police departments and municipalities on policy issues that are being researched by the workgroup. The workgroup is continuing to work on draft recommendations for referral to the full CRC and the City Council.
Beginning with the next meeting, there will be a change of location for Policy Workgroup meetings. The new meeting location will be the Rose City Park United Methodist Church (5830 NE Alameda).
- Community Outreach Workgroup (Browning)
The first of two public forums was held last Thursday at the Kaiser Town Center in North Portland. The forum was well attended and went smoothly. Outstanding issues brought up by the public at the forum included the following: crowd control measures (including “corking” at critical mass bicycle rides); use of pepper spray; officer identification issues; police accountability; “militarization” of the police; reinstatement of the four-year degree requirement for PPB police officers. Examples of excellent community policing included the Domestic Violence Intervention Team and the Crisis Intervention Team.
The second public forum is scheduled for September 18, 2002, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Multnomah Center in Southwest Portland.
Chair López directed that an evaluation of the two public forums be included on the next meeting agenda.
- CRC No. 02-17 (IAD No. 01-177). In this case, the appellant alleged he was falsely arrested and that officers used excessive force in arresting him. The appellant was present with his attorney. Terrell and Miggins, who reviewed the case, presented a summary and their rationale for supporting the Police Bureau findings. After discussion by CRC members, Miggins made a motion to affirm the findings and decline a full hearing. Ueland seconded the motion. The appellant and his attorney presented their rebuttal of the motion and requested either a full hearing or a re-opening of the investigation. The appellant stated that several allegations had been ignored in the investigation, including false police reports, perjury by the officers, and disparate treatment.
The motion to affirm the findings was defeated by a vote of 5 to 3.
Yes: Terrell, Miggins, Ueland
No: Pollard, Browning, Alexander, López, Shannon
Alexander made a motion to hold a full hearing after the appellant’s tort claim is settled. Browning seconded the motion. Pollard’s proposed friendly amendment that a hearing be scheduled without waiting for settlement of the tort claim was not accepted by Alexander.
The motion to hold a full hearing after the appellant’s tort claim is adjudicated carried unanimously.
Yes: Pollard, Browning, Alexander, López, Shannon, Terrell, Miggins, Ueland
- CRC No. 02-25 (IPR No. 2002-C-0168). In this case, the appellant alleged that a police sergeant cited him for criminal mischief in retaliation for previous complaints the appellant filed against officers on the sergeant’s shift. The appellant was present. Director Rosenthal noted that the appellant’s attorney had given his consent for the prehearing to be held, but at the time the consent was given, the pre-hearing protocol did not allow for a statement by the appellant. (With the amended protocol, the appellant may speak to the issue if there is a motion to affirm the Police Bureau findings.) The appellant’s attorney made it clear to Mr. Rosenthal that he does not want the appellant to speak to IPR or CRC about this case before the criminal case goes to court. Chair López asked the appellant if he would like the prehearing to proceed without having the opportunity to respond. The appellant stated that he wanted to have the opportunity to speak.
Pollard made a motion to table the prehearing on this case until next month’s meeting, giving Mr. Rosenthal the opportunity to speak again with the appellant’s attorney. Terrell seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 6 to 2.
Yes: Pollard, Terrell, Miggins, Ueland, López, Shannon
No: Alexander, Browning
- CRC No. 02-26 (IPR No. 2002-C-0193). In this case, the appellant alleged that a police officer who responded to the appellant’s complaint of noise from an adjacent apartment had an attitude, interrupted the appellant, claimed he didn’t hear the noise, would not tell the neighbors to turn down their TV, and would not enter the apartment so he could hear the noise. The appellant was not present.
Alexander and Ueland summarized their review of the case file. Ueland made a motion to decline to have a full hearing. Alexander seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Yes: Pollard, Terrell, Miggins, Ueland, López, Shannon, Alexander, Browning
The reason given by CRC for the declination to have a full hearing was that the complaint was not supported by the evidence. (The specific reason given for this decision was that CAD printouts documented that the officer responded to the noise complaint twice on the same night and spent approximately 20 minutes the first time and 10 minutes the second time attempting to resolve the issue.)
Director Rosenthal stated that he had considered declining this case following initial intake, but was concerned about the rudeness allegation. He sought advice of the CRC on whether or not he should decline cases of this nature. Ueland suggested that this question be referred to the Policy Workgroup.
- Public Comment: D. Lane (Portland Copwatch), D. Handelman (Portland Copwatch)
- Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.