PortlandOnline

POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Griffin-Valade Divisions IPR IPR History PIIAC Quarterly Reports
1st and 2nd Quarter 2001 Monitoring Report

CITY OF PORTLAND
CITIZEN ADVISORS TO
THE POLICE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS
AUDITING COMMITTEE
(PIIAC)
MONITORING REPORT
FIRST AND SECOND QUARTERS YEAR 2001

 
Monitoring Subcommittee Members
Robert Ueland, Chair
Robert Wells
Denise Stone
Ric Alexander
Shirlie Karl
Michael H. Hess, DDS, MPH
Police Internal Investigations Examiner
 
Approved by PIIAC Citizen Advisors: 6/14/01
Approved by City Council: 8/1/01

 
CITY OF PORTLAND
CITIZEN ADVISORS
MONITORING REPORT TO THE
POLICE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS
AUDITING COMMITTEE (PIIAC)
January-June 2001
 
The PIIAC Citizen Advisors Monitoring Subcommittee is responsible for surveying cases handled by the Portland Police Bureau's Internal Affairs Division (PPB/IAD) involving citizens’ and PPB employees' complaints about alleged police misconduct. The Subcommittee analyzes complaints, IAD investigations, and Risk Management data to "highlight trends of police performance, suggesting necessary Police Bureau policy and procedural changes. Patterns of behavior, unclear procedures, policy issues and training needs may be identified for review."
This report combines monitoring results from the first two quarters of year 2001. Attachment A is a summary of the current recommendations. Attachment B is a summary of the recommendations of the previous monitoring report. Attachment C is a compilation of accomplishments of the PIIAC Monitoring Subcommittee from 1983 to present. Attachment D contains definitions of IAD complaint categories and findings. Attachment E contains IAD quarterly statistics. Attachment F is a copy of General Order 310.40 (Courtesy).
This will be the final quarterly monitoring report of the City of Portland’s Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee (PIIAC). On June 6, 2001, the Portland City Council unanimously passed a new City Code replacing PIIAC with the Independent Police Review Division in the Office of the City Auditor. A nine-member Citizen Review Committee will be selected to replace the current PIIAC Citizen Advisory Committee.
 
I. PIIAC/IAD STAFFING
 
PIIAC Citizen Advisory Committee
 
Charles Ford (Mayor Katz) and Denise Stone (Commissioner Sten) continue to serve as Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively, of the PIIAC Citizen Advisory Committee. The other PIIAC Citizen Advisors are: Robert Ueland (Central Northeast Neighbors); Robert Wells (Commissioner Hales); Leora Mahoney (North Portland); Les Frank (Southeast Uplift); Dapo Sobomehin (Commissioner Saltzman); Gene Bales (East Portland); Ric Alexander (Northeast Portland); Shirlie Karl (Southwest Neighborhoods); Tou Cha (Commissioner Francesconi); Jose Martinez (Mayor Katz). Kitsey Brown Mahoney (Northwest Coalition) resigned from PIIAC due to scheduling conflicts. Mr. Gene Bales (East Portland) has expressed his intent to step down due to other commitments but has not officially resigned.
Internal Affairs Division (IAD): On June 8, 2001, Chief Kroeker announced the appointment of Captain Darrel Schenck to replace Captain Bret Smith as commander of the Internal Affairs Division. Captain Smith has directed Internal Affairs since 1999.
 
II. APPEALED CASES
 
In the first six months of calendar year 2001 the PIIAC Citizen Advisors held four meetings. The following ten appeals were heard.
PIIAC #00-25 (IAD #98-209). Appellant alleged a Portland Police officer stopped him for a traffic violation because he was an African American male driving a Corvette. The Advisors voted 6-2 to affirm the Police Bureau’s finding of Disparate Treatment: Insufficient Evidence. The appellant later appealed the case to the City Council, which voted 3-1 to recommend changing the finding to Disparate Treatment: Sustained. Chief Kroeker disagreed with the Council recommendation and left unchanged the finding of Insufficient Evidence.
PIIAC #00-19 (IAD #00-262). Appellant, who was not present for the hearing, had alleged that Portland Police officers responding to a domestic disturbance call falsely arrested him and refused to call for a supervisor as he requested. He had also alleged the officers were rude to him and refused to give him their identification when he requested it. The Advisors voted unanimously to uphold IAD’s declination of the procedural aspects of the case and their decision to treat the courtesy aspects as an Inquiry (an allegation of a minor rule violation which, if sustained, would not require disciplinary action.)
PIIAC #00-27 (IAD #98-222). Appellant alleged Portland Police officers used excessive force when they arrested him following a car and foot pursuit and that an officer videotaped the arrest. Advisors decided by majority vote to change the finding from Use of Force: Exonerated to Use of Force: Insufficient Evidence with Debriefing. The case will be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council when the Advisor who examined the case submits a final report.
PIIAC #00-28 (IAD #99-114). Appellant (who did not desire to appear) alleged Portland Police officers broke the back door of her house in apprehending her daughter for an outstanding warrant; that the officers lied in their police report about her daughter lighting up a cigarette in the police car; and that the officers beat and pepper maced her daughter when she was in custody. Advisors unanimously voted to affirm the findings of Use of Force: Unfounded and Conduct: Unfounded with Debriefing (Officer A) and Use of Force and Conduct: Exonerated (Officer B).
PIIAC #00-03 (IAD #00-019). Appellant alleged a Portland Police officer followed him too closely on a freeway, exceeded the speed limit, displayed road rage, and intimidated the appellant. City Council had previously sent this case back to IAD for further investigation. Following the additional investigation, the appellant again appealed to the Advisors. The Advisors voted unanimously to affirm the Police Bureau’s finding of Conduct: Unfounded.
PIIAC #00-20 (IAD #00-287). Appellant alleged that an IAD sergeant and a precinct sergeant lied about the appellant in police reports and that the IAD Captain and the Precinct Commander share the blame for their lack of truthfulness. The Advisors voted unanimously to affirm IAD’s declination. The declination was subsequently reaffirmed by unanimous vote of the City Council.
PIIAC #00-30 (IAD #99-173). Appellant was a witness of an incident in which he alleged that two Portland police officer used excessive force in arresting a man who refused to obey an exclusion order for littering in Pioneer Square. He also alleged that one of the officers rubbed a food tray in the man’s face and that the other officer used profanity toward bystanders. The Advisors voted unanimously to affirm the Police Bureau’s findings, which were as follows:
Officer A: Use of Force: Exonerated; Courtesy: Insufficient Evidence; Conduct: Sustained. Officer B: Use of Force: Exonerated; Courtesy: Unfounded
The appellant has requested an appeal before City Council.
PIIAC #00-26 (IAD #00-430). Appellant alleged a Portland Police officer lied in a police report regarding a parental visitation incident, refused to amend the report, and received inappropriate assistance from another police officer in writing the report. Advisors voted unanimously to affirm the declination of this case due to lack of merit.
PIIAC #00-31 (IAD #00-696). Appellant alleged Portland Police officers were negligent in responding to a 911 call, that they failed to investigate a crime, and that they lied and deliberately withheld information from the appellant. Advisors decided by majority vote (9-1) to affirm IAD’s declination of this case. Appellant has requested to appeal this case to City Council.
PIIAC #00-32 (IAD #00-378). Appellant alleged a Portland Police sergeant left threatening messages on her home answering machine, was discourteous, and refused to apologize. Advisors voted 7-3 to recommend that the sergeant apologize to the appellant and voted 6-3 (with one abstention) to recommend sustaining the allegation of discourtesy.
Summary
Of the 10 cases heard by PIIAC in the first two quarters of Year 2001, PIIAC Advisors made the following decisions:
 
Decision
No.of cases
Findings affirmed
8
Returned to IAD for further investigation
0
Recommended change of finding
2
 
III. MONITORING ACTIVITY
 
The Monitoring Subcommittee randomly monitors closed cases, including those that involve use of force, disparate treatment, complaints with sustained findings, and cases that went to PPB’s Review Level Committee. From January through April 2001 we audited 22 of the 56 IAD cases that were closed.
 
FINDINGS F
HCATEGORY
Unfoun-ded
Exon-erated
Insuff.
Evid.
Sus-
tained
Inquiry
Sus-
pended
Declined
Media-
tion
Total
Force
8
18
2
1
29
Control Tech.
3
           
3
Conduct
16
5
1
2
       
24
Disp. Treatment
1
 
1
     
1
 
3
Courtesy
10
1
3
2
       
16
Procedure
7
7
1
2
1
18
Performance
2
2
(Note: A single complaint may reflect multiple allegations and findings and may involve more than one officer.)
Sustained complaints were initiated both internally (from Police Bureau members) and externally (from citizens). Sustained allegations included courtesy, use of force, performance, and conduct issues.
The average completion time of audited cases (excluding declined cases) was 15 months. The average completion time of audited cases in the previous two quarters was 14 months.
 
IV. NEW ISSUES
 
Telephone Interviews
Telephone interviews by IAD investigators sometimes fall short of the high interview standards set by the Police Bureau simply because they are conducted over the phone. At times these interviews interrupt complainants and witnesses at work and provide them little opportunity to prepare themselves for the interview. A number of appellants have stated that they would have preferred a face-to-face interview. Some did not understand that the telephone interview was a formal recorded interview and expected to be called in at a later date. Although sometimes telephone interviews are unavoidable or preferred by the person being interviewed, we recommend that citizens be given the option of a face-to-face interview or a telephone interview and that they be advised that interviews are tape recorded to preserve the accuracy of statements.
Interview Question Lists
We have noted higher quality of interviews in which written questions were prepared by the investigator prior to the interview. The Institute of Police Technology and Management, a nationally recognized training institution, recommends this practice in its Police Internal Affairs course. We recommend that interview questions be prepared by investigators whenever practical and that the question lists be made part of the IAD file.
Crisis Intervention Training
We continue to see allegations involving escalation of use of force and communication problems with persons who appear to be mentally ill or emotionally distraught. We recommend that all Portland Police officers receive ongoing crisis intervention and communication skills training to defuse difficult situations involving persons with mental or emotional disabilities.
Early Warning System
  1. We have noted that a relatively small number of officers receive a disproportionate number of citizen complaints. Efforts by the Monitoring Subcommittee to receive a briefing about the Early Warning System (EWS) have not been successful. We recommend that the Police Bureau provide a detailed briefing to the City Council and the City Auditor, with specific examples, on the effectiveness of the Early Warning System in identifying and improving the performance of officers who receive an excessive number of complaints. The briefing should include information on who in the Bureau is responsible for identifying officers for the EWS and conveying this information to the appropriate supervisors.
Business Cards
Although we noted one case (IAD Case #00-422) in which all involved officers gave the complainant their PPB business cards, we continue to see complaints about officers’ reluctance to provide their names and DPSST numbers to citizens. We recommend that all officers be provided standardized Bureau-issued business cards with the officer’s name, rank, and DPSST number and that officers be instructed to provide citizens with their business card whenever it is safe and practical to do so. This would curb some complaints and and would demonstrate a willingness of police officers to promote the tenets of community policing.
 
Distraction Technique
PIIAC has noted that the term "distraction technique" is frequently used by officers and supervisors to describe striking a suspect to gain compliance. The Training Division has informed PIIAC that the "distraction technique" or "distraction principal" is not an approved technique and that officers are taught to strike a person only in response to a physical threat. However, there is a clearly documented pattern involving the use of this technique by Portland Police officers for at least the past five years. This term is immediately identified and understood by officers, sergeants, command staff and is routinely used in police reports and IAD interviews. It is a practice that has been strongly questioned by at least two precinct commanders.
The "distraction technique" was first brought up as a concern in the First Quarter 1996 PIIAC Monitoring Report:
"Both PPB command staff and the PIIAC Monitoring Subcommittee have noted several situations where officers described having used force as a ‘distraction technique.’ In several cases we monitored, the officer, in the police report and IAD interview, explained that he had struck, kneed or kicked a combative or resisting subject to distract the subject enough to get him under control. One police report said that the ‘technique’ was used to ‘direct pain to another part of the body’ to gain compliance. Another officer said he ‘applied a kick.’ Several officers said their awareness of distraction techniques came from their defensive tactics instruction. Although PPB does not prohibit officers from hitting, kicking or kneeing if essential, there are no Bureau-approved ‘distraction techniques.’
"We will be monitoring this closely. PPB Command Staff has already commented on this issue, advising supervisors and complaint investigators to use good judgment and commnon sense when assessing excessive use of force complaints and not be swayed by the idea of ‘distraction techniques.’" (Page 6, 1996 First Quarter PIIAC Monitoring Report)
 
In a May 9, 1996, memorandum to PIIAC, a Senior Risk Specialist stated she was currently investigating a tort claim "where ‘distraction blows’ were used by one of the officers involved."
In IAD case #99-070, Commander Derrick Foxworth of Northeast Precinct wrote a Letter of Finding in which he stated the following with regard to "the distraction principle":
 
"I have raised this issue with you before in other IAD recommendations. I have also had conversations with you (Captain [Bret] Smith), Training Division, and the CHO [Chief’s Office] regarding the distraction principle. In this case, Officer ____ punched the complainant twice in the torso while yelling for the complainant to ‘show me your hands." This may not necessarily be the best tactic available to officers to gain compliance. Under our current training this practice is allowable [italics added]. I strongly feel that our tactics as it relates to someone on the ground with their hands underneath them can be improved. Merely punching someone and yelling to show me your hands does nothing to control the situation or what the person may do when they finally show their hands…. I strongly feel that we need to emphasize control techniques (pressure points, wrist and arm bars) which may be more effective at controlling a situation versus punching and yelling. I believe our officers and the public would be better served."
 
In IAD case #99-193, Commander Larry Findling of Central Precinct wrote the following:
"The attempt to take him into custody lasted for a short time (less than one minute?) and a distraction blow was delivered to make the CO [complainant] comply. Eventually complainant was handcuffed." On the next page, Commander Findling continued: "…it should be noted that there was a distraction blow delivered by one of the officers. The officer who delivered the blow named it as such. He said in his police report that it did not work as anticipated. The blow (though not fully described in the report) was a punch to CO’s ribs in an effort to distract CO from his resistance long enough so the officers could get his hands behind his back and get him handcuffed. The officer expected just a momentary break in CO’s concentration to facilitate the handcuffing. What happened was it made the CO more upset, an observation made by other officers and the CO. The officer who delivered it admitted it did not work; in fact, it backfired."
In IAD case #98-222, in the interview of one of the officers, the IAD investigator, in asking about an alleged blow to the complainant’s head or jaw, asked the officer, "Did one of you hit [the complainant] in the back of the head or the jaw?… No distraction?" The officer replied, "No, it wasn’t needed."
In IAD case #98-170 the complainant alleged that an officer struck him in the jaw with his fist and choked him while telling him to spit out what the officer believed to be a controlled substance in his mouth. In his Letter of Finding, Commander Foxworth again strongly questioned the appropriateness of this technique, stating the following:
 
"I recommend that the Training Division study the cases in which the distraction principle has been applied and develop some guidelines for the use of the principle. The guidelines should be in close alignment with our current use of force continuum, specifically addressing when it is appropriate to strike someone in the head, which has the potential to result in serious physical injury. Following the review of these guidelines they should be incorporated into the Bureau’s defensive tactics training."
 
Captain Bret Smith of IAD wrote in the Disposition Letter for this case "that a debriefing of the incident with Officer [X] would be done" and that "the Training Division has also been advised of the incident and direction has been given from the Chief’s Office to look into an officer’s use of force while attempting to secure evidence."
We recommend that the practice of teaching and using force for the purpose of "distraction" be thoroughly examined and, if found to be an unjustifiable and inappropriate use of force, that the Bureau should order the discontinuation of this practice.
Photographic Evidence in Use of Force Incidents
A serious drawback to evaluating excessive use of force allegations is the frequent absence of any real-time photographic evidence of the use of force. Jail booking photographs, when available, are often useful in assessing facial injuries and determining if the allegation made by the complainant corresponds with the photographic evidence. It is our understanding that it is current PPB policy to issue a Polaroid camera to all officers. Whether or not there is a visible sign of injury, it would be in everyone’s best interest if officers were to take a photograph of the subject in incidents involving use of force and attach this photograph to the use of force report.
Written Response of Chief to PIIAC Recommendations
It is specified in City Code 3.21.100 that "the Chief, after reviewing a report provided by the Committee, shall respond promptly to the Committee in writing, but in no event more than 60 days after receipt of the Committee report."
Although the Chief responded in person to the City Council regarding the recommendations of the Third and Fourth Quarters 2000 Monitoring Report, we have not received a written response; nor have we received a written response to the Council’s recommended change of findings on IAD Case #98-054.
 
V. UNRESOLVED ISSUES
 
To our knowledge, the following previous issues have not been resolved.
  • Despite repeated assurances from Chief Kroeker since March 2000 that General Order 310.40 regarding profanity is being re-examined, to date we have seen no proposed amendment to this General Order.
  • Although we continue to see a disproportionate number of citizen complaints from African Americans (22.6% in year 2000 and 21.8% in the first half of year 2001), we have yet to see any movement toward instituting a regular cycle of diversity training in Portland Police Bureau’s In-Service Training schedule.
  • To our knowledge there has been no mechanism established for routine tracking and reporting on the timeliness of IAD investigations. If there is a mechanism, as stated by Chief Kroeker in his oral response to the last monitoring report, we request a copy of the tracking report so that we can evaluate timeliness of investigations.
  • Although it has been several years since it was first recommended, we have not seen a training update addressing the problem of lifting and moving uncooperative and unwilling heavy persons who are taken into custody.
  • We have seen no written protocol for unit and precinct commanders clearly stating how internal investigations should be conducted and by whom.
  • We have seen no written protocol on who is assigned to investigate senior officers (captain and above) so as to remove any appearance of conflict of interest.
  • We have not seen implementation of Chief Kroeker’s commitment to make public documents regarding the Police Bureau (for example, the General Orders) more accessible to the public by making them available on the Internet and at public libraries.
 
 
Attachment A
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
FIRST AND SECOND QUARTERS YEAR 2001
  1. We recommend that complainants and witnesses be given the option of a face-to-face interview or a telephone interview and that they be advised that interviews are tape recorded.
  2. We recommend that interview questions be prepared by investigators whenever practical and that the written questions be made part of the IAD file.
  3. We recommend that all Portland Police officers receive ongoing crisis response and communication skills training to defuse difficult situations involving persons with mental or emotional disabilities.
  4. We recommend that the Police Bureau provide a detailed briefing to the City Council and the City Auditor, with specific examples, on the effectiveness of the Early Warning System in identifying and improving the performance of officers who receive an excessive number of complaints.
  5. We recommend that all officers be provided standardized Bureau-issued business cards with the officer’s name, rank, and DPSST number and that officers be instructed to provide citizens with their business card whenever it is safe and practical to do so.
  6. We recommend that the practice of teaching and using force for the purpose of "distraction" be rigorously examined. If this technique as currently practiced and taught is found to be inappropriate, the Chief should order its discontinuation.
  7. Whether or not there is a visible sign of injury, it would be in everyone’s best interest if officers were to take a photograph of the subject in every incident involving use of force and attach it to the use of force report.
  8. We request a written response from the Chief to the previous Monitoring Report (Third and Fourth Quarters 2000) and to the City Council’s recommended change of findings on IAD Case #98-054.
Attachment B
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTERS YEAR 2000
  1. We continue to await revision of G.O. 310.40 making the guidelines for acceptable use of profanity more specific.
  2. We again request a commitment from the Police Bureau to regularly cycle a refresher course of diversity training during the In-Service training for all officers.
  3. We strongly urge the Police Bureau to act quickly to simplify public records accessibility and make the fee schedule equitable for all citizens. We look for implementation of the Chief’s commitment to make public documents such as the General Orders available via the Internet. We also repeat our request that the General Orders and other appropriate public documents be made available at public libraries.
  4. To reduce the number of complaints about officers refusing to provide their name and DPSST number, we recommend that the Chief specifically address this issue with the Training Division and commanding officers.
  5. We recommend that a mechanism be instituted whereby all IAD cases are tracked based on how long they have been open and that the IAD Captain and the Chief be provided with a list every month of cases that have been open for over sixty days, ninety days, six months, and one year.
  6. We request an update on whether the problem of lifting and transporting uncooperative and unwilling heavy persons has been further addressed.
  7. We recommend a written protocol to deal with the issue of who is assigned to investigate a senior officer (captain or above) so as to remove any appearance of conflict of interest when this situation arises.
  8. We recommend a written protocol for precinct commanders clearly stating how investigations should be conducted and by whom.
  9. We request that the Chief address the reasons that mediation is no longer happening.
 
Attachment C
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PIIAC MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE
1983-85
Addition of a complaint categories to include disparate treatment based on race.
Discontinuation of the Bureau’s "File Pending Court" policy to suspend complaint investigations
Use of internal investigations information as a management tool for identifying "high complaint" officers.
Sending a written notice to the complainant to acknowledge receipt of an inquiry.
Establishing criteria for inquiries and declinations.
Requiring that all investigations and inquiries be numbered.
Checking officers’ prior complaint history when investigating a complaint and noting if a similar prior complaint has been filed.
Classification of all excessive use of force complaints as Internal Investigations Division (IID) cases and not to consider these as inquiries or declinations.
Including a Notice of Right to Appeal as part of the letter sent by the Police Bureau as a result of an adverse decision.
1986-87
Maintaining and publishing declination statistics.
Requiring that inquiry investigative files be maintained at IID rather than at the precincts or another department.
Retaining copies of all disposition letters to complainants in IID.
Retention of tape recordings of intake telephone calls.
Keeping of statistics regarding all declinations
Treating all allegations of misconduct as "complaints" (even those that are declined or otherwise resolved)
Keeping documentation in IID of complaints filed with precincts.
Maintaining inquiry investigative files at IID rather than at the precinct or responsible unit.
Maintaining records of all IID and inquiry investigations in the officers’ complaint files.
1988-92
No monitoring records available
1993-94
Sending complainants detailed letters to explain the findings.
Providing investigative guidelines for IID investigators.
Conducting a review of high risk stop procedure
Establishing and maintaining a central records system for all complaints.
Requiring that investigations that are diverted to the precincts or other units be tracked and returned to IID.
Requiring that commanding officers making recommendations on findings also provide the rationale for the recommended findings.
Requiring IID investigators to ask officers specific questions to elicit facts about the allegations (as opposed to asking the officer if the alleged behavior was "in compliance with Bureau guidelines."
Documenting reasons for missing taped interviews in IID files.
Revising the one year rotation policy for IID investigators so that they can devolep experience in handling IID complaints.
Requiring that any member of the Police Bureau who receives a complaint of misconduct or observes misconduct shall document and forward the complaint to IIID.
Providing training for officers and supervisors on dealing with difficult people in difficult situations and on responding to diverse groups, and communication skills and tactics.
Requiring Command Review of officers with high numbers of IID complaints.
Implementing an investigative checklist/activity log in IID.
Providing a written letter to complainants acknowledging that their complaints have been received and which detective has been assigned the case.
Including in the IID file a notation of any special circumstances that may have led to a delay on completing the investigation within recommended timelines.
Providing a course for PIIAC Citizen Advisors on PPB’s Use of force policies and practices.
Incorporating information on inappropriate statements about complainants in new investigator training.
PIIAC review of Risk Management records as an adjunct to IID monitoring.
Applying all appropriate categories to allegations contained in a complaint.
Categorization of complaints to be made by the Internal Affairs commander.
Not allowing a finding of "unsubstantiated" for allegations involving excessive force. (The "unsubstantiated" finding category was subsequently discontinued.)
Including the Bureau definitions and the rationale for findings in letters of disposition to complainants.
Describing specific behaviors rather than labeling complainants as mentally ill, "mental", 12-34," etc.
 
[In 1995 Internal Investigations Division’s name changed to Internal Affairs Division (IAD)]
 
1995-96
Developing a tracking system for IAD declinations.
Providing letters of disposition and notice of right to PIIAC appeal to all complainants, including cases that are given a finding category of declined, miscellaneous, or suspended.
Following the same procedures in precinct investigations as are used in IAD.
That precinct supervisors not investigate serious allegations, such as Excessive Use of Force.
Providing for a fifth IAD investigator position.
Obtaining case management computer software for IAD.
Reporting findings for each allegation in Letters of Disposition.
Discontinuing the ability to decline any Use of Force cases.
Requiring that officers provide their BPSST identification numbers if asked for a "badge number."
Handling minor procedural violations identified during investigation of a complaint as performance issues, separate from the main complaint procedure.
Notifying PPB officers of their right to appeal to PIIAC.
Developing a mechanism by which supervisors may conduct a debriefing when there is a non-sustained finding but the situation could have been handled better .
 
1997-2000
Making complaint brochures available in various languages.
Increasing the number of IAD investigators.
Issuing a General Order directing officers to make every attempt to assist persons whose vehicles are towed to reach a safe location.
Providing additional communication training to officers.
Providing ongoing refresher courses in diversity for all officers.
Reviewing the General Order on Courtesy with respect to use of profanity.
Examining the fee schedule for public records and lowering the charge to the public for certain records (e.g., address query requests lowered from $50.00 to $5.00).
Attachment D
IAD COMPLAINT CATEGORIES (Revised 1/12/00)
1. Force: An allegation of excessive or inappropriate physical or deadly physical force. This includes, but is not limited to, all instances where there is an actual injury or an impact weapon was used.
2. Control Techniques: An allegation that a "control technique" was used unreasonably or improperly. This would include control holds, hobble, "takedowns," and handcuffing. Temporary discomfort, skin discoloration or marks, or temporary pain are considered normal consequences of the use of a control technique.
3. Conduct: An allegation that tends to bring reproach or discredit upon the Bureau or City of Portland. It involves behavior by a Bureau member that is unprofessional, unjustified, beyond the scope of their authority, or unsatisfactory work performance. Typically this would include violation of the Bureau's Standard of Conduct, Conform to Laws, Unsatisfactory Performance, Truthfulness, etc.
4. Disparate Treatment: Allegations of specific actions or statements that indicate inappropriate treatment of an individual that is different from the treatment of another, because of :
(a) Race.
(b) Other: sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, economic status, political or religious beliefs, appearance, handicap, etc.
5. Courtesy: Allegations relating to attitude and rude or discourteous conduct other than disparate treatment.
6. Procedure: Allegations that an administrative or procedural requirement was not met. This normally would include G.O.s such as the identification, report writing, notebook entries, and property/evidence handling.
 
FINDING CATEGORIES
1. Unfounded: Claim is false. Based on the facts of the investigation, there is no basis to the allegation.
2. Exonerated: Actions of the officer were within the guidelines of Bureau policy and procedure.
3. Insufficient Evidence: There was not enough evidence to prove or disprove the allegation(s).
4. Sustained: Officer found to be in violation of Bureau policy or procedure.
5. Declined: Police Bureau declines to conduct full investigation.
6. Suspended: Investigation is suspended, usually because complainant fails to provide key information.
7. Inquiry: The investigation concerns an allegation of a minor rule violation that, if substantiated, would not result in discipline.