Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee
October 12, 2000
Citizen Advisors Present: Charles Ford, Presiding; Denise Stone (Vice
Chair); Robert Ueland; Ric Alexander; Shirlie Karl; Leora Mahoney; Jose
Martinez; Robert Wells; Dapo Sobomehin; Gene Bales; Kitsy Brown
Citizen Advisors Absent: Les Frank; Tou Cha
City Staff Present: Capt. Bret Smith, Sgt. Suzanne Whisler, Sgt. Steve
Bottcher, IAD Sgt. Jay Drum, IAD; Sgt. Jerry Jones, IAD; Sgt. Sam Pronesty;
Michael Hess, PIIAC Examiner
Media Present: Dan Handelman (Flying Focus Video)
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.
PIIAC #00-01 (IAD #99-270)
The Appellant was not present. PIIAC Examiner Michael H. Hess, DDS, presented
this case, involving the arrest of the Appellant’s son for an outstanding
warrant and the placement of the Appellant’s granddaughter in protective
- That a Portland Police officer had been harassing the Appellant’s son
because of alleged drug activity and had been making wild accusations that the
Appellant’s son’s house was a drug house.
- That Officer A told Appellant’s twelve-year-old granddaughter what
"no-good SOBs" he and his son were.
- That the child’s maternal grandfather heard Officer A tell his
twelve-year-old granddaughter that the Appellant was a "no-good slime bag
piece of shit" and that her father was a "piece of shit" and should be in jail
and that the Appellant should be in jail with him.
- That officers intentionally waited until the Appellant’s son was released
from the penitentiary to serve a 3-year arrest warrant on him and that the
officers pushed their way into the house and searched it without consent.
Dr. Hess stated that the investigation was flawed by having been assigned to
the officer’s shift sergeant to conduct the investigation, despite the fact that
this sergeant had been on scene with the officer when the incident took place.
Dr. Hess pointed out that this was an apparent conflict of interest and that the
investigation should have been assigned by the precinct to a different
Based on the facts of the case, Dr. Hess’s recommended affirmation of
Internal Affairs Division’s decision to decline the PROCEDURE aspect of the
complaint. He also recommended affirmation of the findings of INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE regarding COMMUNICATION and EXONERATED regarding CONDUCT. Due to the
apparent conflict of interest, he recommended referral of this case to the PIIAC
Monitoring Subcommittee to deal with the issue of a precinct assigning a case
for investigation to a supervisor who was directly involved in the incident in
Mr. Ueland made a motion to accept the recommendations of the Examiner, and
Mr. Wells seconded the motion. The motion passed by majority vote.
Yes = 9 (Ford, Ueland, Wells, Mahoney, Brown-Mahoney, Bales, Sobomehin,
No =2 (Stone, Alexander)
PIIAC #00-11 (IAD #99-159)
The Appellant was present. PIIAC Advisor Ric Alexander presented the case.
The Appellant alleged that Portland Police officers who were arresting him for
Disorderly Conduct used excessive force in handcuffing him, resulting in
hairline fractures and bone chips in both elbows; that an officer tackled him
after he had been handcuffed; that an officer sprayed pepper spray directly into
his eyes; that officers laughed when he requested medical attention; and that
officers wrote false police reports.
The Appellant further alleged during his oral presentation to the PIIAC
Advisors that his arrest involved a police conspiracy against him and that a
noninterested witness to the incident had been paid by the police to testify
falsely against him.
The PIIAC advisors, after listening to the Appellant’s verbal allegations,
voted unanimously to uphold the Police Bureau’s findings in this case (Use of
Force: Exonerated; Conduct: Unfounded.)
As the Appellant boisterously left the room, Dr. Hess informed him that he
had the right to appeal the Advisors’ decision to the full PIIAC (City Council)
if submitted within thirty days in writing. The Appellant did not respond.
Chairman Ford announced that the next meeting of the PIIAC advisory committee
would be held on December 12, 2000 in the Rose Room of the Portland City Hall.
Since the next meeting was expected to be a longer meeting than usual with a
possibility of four cases, the Advisors agreed to begin the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
rather than 6:30 p.m.
There was discussion about having a training session for Advisors some time
after Mike Hess and Robert Wells return from the course in Police Internal
Investigations in November. Captain Smith offered to have IAD staff provide part
of the training.
A community member publicly criticized the Advisors for their decision to
uphold an investigation that involved apparent conflict of interest rather than
sending the case back to be investigated by a different supervisor.
Another community member repeated the latter criticism and expressed his
objections to the current system of oversight. He also asserted that the Police
Bureau should not involved in the training of PIIAC advisors.
Dan Handelman again suggested that there should be a prepared form for
Appellants to submit to appeal a decision to the City Council. He also supported
bringing in trainers from outside of the Police Bureau, such as defense
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Michael H. Hess, D.D.S.