Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee
July 13, 2000
Citizen Advisors Present: Charles Ford, Presiding; Denise Stone (Vice
Chair); Robert Ueland; Ric Alexander; Shirlie Karl; Tou Cha; Les Frank; Leora
Mahoney; Jose Martinez,
Citizen Advisors Absent: Dapo Sobomehin; Gene Bales; Kitsy Brown
Mahoney; Robert Wells
City Staff Present: Capt. Bret Smith, Sgt. Suzanne Whisler, Sgt. Steve
Bottcher, IAD Sgt. Jay Drum, IAD; Sgt. Jerry Jones, IAD; Michael Hess, PIIAC
Elected Officials Present: Mayor Katz, Commissioner Dan Saltzman
Media Present: Dan Handelman (Portland Copwatch); Janet Marcley-Hayes
(Portland Free Press)
This meeting was held in the Rose Room of the Portland City Hall.
Mr. Ford opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. PIIAC Citizen Advisors and City
Staff and members of the public introduced themselves. The minutes of the May 11
and June 8 PIIAC meetings were approved with minor corrections.
PIIAC #00-08 (IAD #99-094)
The Appellant was present. Advisor Jose Martinez presented this case which
involved a police response to a 911 domestic disturbance made by the Appellant’s
girl friend. The Appellant alleged that a Portland Police officer (Officer A)
who arrested him threw the handcuffed Appellant to the ground and kicked him in
the ribs. IAD classified the Appellant’s complaint as Use of Force regarding
Officer A. After hearing Mr. Martinez’s presentation and the explanation of the
Appellant, the Advisors discussed the case. Following the presentations of the
Advisor and the Appellant’s and subsequent discussion, Mr. Martinez made a
motion to accept the IAD
Mr. Martinez then made a motion that the Advisors affirm IAD’s finding of
Insufficient Evidence with Debriefing. Mr. Ueland seconded the motion. The
motion to accept the IAD finding passed unanimously (Y = 13).
PIIAC #00-10 (IAD #98-155)
The Appellant and the Appellant’s son were present. Advisors Leora Mahoney
and Dapo Sobomehin withdrew themselves from this case because they knew the
Appellant. Advisor Denise Stone presented the case. The Appellant alleged that a
Portland Police Officer (Officer A) had used profane and abusive language to his
son; used excessive force in arresting his son; failed to provide his name and
identification number when requested; detained his son for an excessive amount
of time; and falsely claimed that his son had a lock pick in his pocket at the
time of the arrest, even though no lock pick was ever documented in the property
evidence report. Ms. Stone also mentioned the extreme lack of timeliness in
investigating this complaint, stating that the investigation took nearly two
years to complete.
After both the Appellant and the Appellant’s son presented their view of what
happened, there was a lengthy discussion of the allegations and the
The Advisor’s recommendations were as follows:
- Affirm the finding of Insufficient Evidence regarding Communication
- Affirm the finding of Exonerated regarding Use of Force
- Affirm the finding of Insufficient Evidence on Procedure (failure to give
name and identification number)
- Affirm the finding of affirm the finding of exonerated on procedure
(excessive time of detention of a juvenile)
- Return the case to IAD for further investigation of the allegation that
Officer A claimed to have found a lock pick on the person of the Appellant’s
son, and then made no mention of a lock pick on the property receipt.
- Recommend that IAD review the timeliness aspect of this investigation and
provide the Appellant and PIIAC within thirty days written explanation of each
time gap in the investigation.
The Advisors agreed to consider the first four recommendations as a unit and
to vote separately on the last two recommendations.
The majority of the advisors voted to accept the first four recommendations.
Y=7: (Stone, Wells, Tou Cha, Ueland, Martinez Alexander, Karl) N=4 (Ford,
Brown-Mahoney, Bales, Frank).
The Advisors voted unanimously to return the case to IAD for further
investigation of the property allegation regarding the lock pick and for the IAD
to provide a written explanation of the time gaps and delay in the
Advisor Brown-Mahoney stated on record that she would like the Police Bureau
to write a letter of apology to the Appellant and his son.
PIIAC #00-12 (IAD #99-227)
The appellant was present. Advisor Robert Wells presented this case, in which
the Appellant alleged that Portland police officers used excessive force in
controlling him when he refused to obey a police order to cross a busy street in
a lawful manner. He also alleged that one of the officers lied about the
circumstances and failed to file his citation because he knew it was
After hearing from the Advisor and the Appellant, the majority of the
Advisors voted to affirm the IAD findings of Exonerated (Use of Force),
Unfounded (Conduct); and Insufficient Evidence (Procedure). Y=9: (Ford, Wells,
Mahoney, Tou Cha, Ueland, Martinez, Brown-Mahoney, Bales, Frank); N=4 (Stone,
Sobomehin, Alexander, Karl).
Chairman Ford announced that the next meeting of the PIIAC advisory committee
would be held on August 10, in the Hawthorn Inn and Suites, 4319 N.W. Yeon.
Advisor Denise Stone asked what had happened with the cases that PIIAC has
returned to IAD for further investigation. Mike Hess stated that Captain Smith
told the Monitoring Subcommittee that he would not investigate PIIAC #00-02
(allegations of perjury and disparate treatment) due to lack of merit. Mr.
Ueland stated that PIIAC 00-06 had been settled by agreement with the
complainant and her father. The remainder of the cases sent back to IAD are
A member of the public stated her opinion that IAD is not following proper
procedures in reaching its findings.
Another person stated that it would be desirable to have a citizen review
body that is empowered not just to look at individual cases but also to review
police training and procedures on an ongoing basis.
Another person stated that persons who are stopped by the police have the
right to ask why they are being stopped, and officers should not question this
Dan Handelman commended IAD for using the finding Insufficient Evidence more
often now when there is no way to determine the facts of the case. He also
stated that there is a tendency by police to mistreat citizens who don’t pass
the "attitude test."
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Michael H. Hess, D.D.S.