PortlandOnline

POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Mary Hull Caballero Charter, Code and Policies Policies & Rules (PPD) Public Safety Independent Police Review
PSF-5.03 - Citizen Review Committee - Independent Police Review Division - Appeals Procedures

CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE (CRC) - INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIVISION (IPR) - APPEALS PROCEDURES
Administrative Rules Adopted by Auditor's Office Pursuant to Rule-Making Authority
ARB-PSF-5.03

 

 

1.  Any community member complainant or officer who is dissatisfied with an investigation of alleged misconduct by the officer may request to appeal.

 

2.  The appeal request must be filed within 14 days of the community member receiving notification from the Independent Police Review regarding the disposition of the case (Portland City Code 3.21.140.B). An appeal requested by the police officer must be filed within 14 days of the officer receiving notification from the Chief of Police regarding the disposition of the case. (See 3.21.140B and Protocol 5.15 for exceptions.)

 

3.  If a request is made within 14 days, IPR shall schedule a Case File Review and an Appeal Hearing. The Case File Review and Appeal Hearing may occur on different dates, in necessary. The Case File Review will assess the completeness and readiness of the investigation for appeal. (See 3.21.150 and Protocol 5.11.)

 

4.  If the Citizen Review Committee agrees the appeal request is timely, the case file is complete, and consideration of the evidence appears warranted, the Committee shall vote on when to hold an Appeal Hearing.

 

5.  IPR staff shall prepare a case summary to be available at the Appeal Hearing. The case summary shall be written in a neutral manner that does not adopt the position of any party involved in the appeal. The case summary will not contain any recommendations regarding the recommended findings, but must include the following:

 

a.  A synopsis of the complaint;

 

b.  A summary of the appellant, officer and witness interviews;

 

c.  A summary of the information brought forth from the Case File Review, if held on a different date (See Protocol 5.11) and any new information, including timeliness, completeness, and adequacy of that new information;

 

d.  A recitation of the specific allegations, the Portland Police Bureau Command staff’s findings related to each of those allegations, and the definitions of those findings; and

 

e.  A summary of the options available to Committee at the appeal.

 

A draft of the case summary shall be forwarded at least two weeks before a hearing to two members of the CRC, appointed on a rotating basis by the Chair, to be reviewed for accuracy. Any corrections must be submitted to IPR no later than five calendar days after receiving the draft. Copies of the final case summary shall be delivered to the complainant, involved officer(s), and the Portland Police Association at least one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Every member of Committee will review the Internal Affairs and IPR files prior to the time scheduled for the hearing. A copy of the case summary will be posted on IPR’s website and made available at the appeal hearing.

 

6.  Only Committee members who have reviewed the complete administrative case file will participate in the appeal.

 

7.  The appeal hearing shall be conducted in the following manner:

 

a.  Introduction by the Committee’s Chair, who will explain the roles of the participants and procedures to be followed. The Chair will impose time limits, if necessary.

 

b.  A concise summary of the investigation presented by IPR staff.

 

c.  Statement by the appellant, a chosen representative of the appellant and any material witness(es) proffered by the appellant.

 

d.  Statement by the respondent officer or complainant, a representative of the respondent, and any material witness(es) proffered by the respondent.

 

e.  Overview of the investigation by Internal Affairs or IPR, depending on which entity conducted it.

 

f.  Explanation of Command Staff's findings by a designated Police Bureau representative.

 

g.  Comments by IPR about the case.

 

h.  Recitation by Committee Chair or designee of each allegation and finding, and the Committee's options for reviewing each finding; questions and discussion among Committee members.

 

i.  Public comment of limited duration relevant to the case under consideration.

 

j.  Rebuttal comments proffered by the complainant or a representative, the involved officer(s) or a representative, and representatives of Internal Affairs or IPR, depending on which entity conducted the investigation.

 

k.  Instructions by a City Attorney and/or IPR Director on the standard of proof and identification of issues to be addressed by the Committee.

 

l.  Questions and clarifications by Committee members. Motion and second by Committee members to affirm or challenge a Police Bureau finding or refer the case back to Internal Affairs or IPR for further investigation.

 

i.  The Committee may make one request for additional investigation or information to the investigating entity, i.e. Internal Affairs or IPR at any point during its review. The investigating entity must make reasonable attempts to conduct the additional investigation or obtain the additional information within 10 business days or provide a written statement to the CRC explaining why additional time is needed. The request for additional investigation or information may contain multiple points of inquiry, but no follow-up requests will be permitted. The additional request be voted on by a quorum, the members voting must have read the Case File in order to vote, and any request with multiple points of inquiry

 

m.  Roll call vote by Committee members with each member providing an explanation of her or his vote. (Committee members can vote to affirm the findings, challenge the findings, recommend a change in the findings, or recommend further investigation. Committee members are not permitted to abstain from voting unless a reason is given.

 

n.  Explanation to appellant by Committee Chair of the outcome of votes and next steps.

 

o.  Discussion by Committee members of possible policy, training, or quality of investigation issues to be addressed at a later time.

 

8.  The Committee may find the outcome of an administrative investigation unreasonable if the committee finds the findings are not supported by the evidence, whether or not it agrees with the findings. (See 3.21.080 (S), 3.21.160).

 

9.  In a case where a majority of the voting members of the Committee affirms the Police Bureau's findings, IPR shall send notice of the Committee's decision to the complainant and the Police Bureau.

 

10.  In a case where a majority of the voting members of the Committee challenges any of the Police Bureau's findings and recommends a different finding, the IPR Director shall draft a notice of the Committee's recommendations. The draft must be approved by the Committee Chair and at least one other member who voted with the majority. Once the draft notice is approved, the IPR Director shall send a notice to the complainant and the Captain of Internal Affairs to formally advise the Police Bureau of the Committee's recommendations. The IPR Director shall confer with the Internal Affairs Captain and the Police Bureau's Command staff to determine if the Police Bureau is willing to accept the Committee's recommendations.

 

11.  If the Police Bureau accepts the recommendations, the IPR Director shall notify the Committee at the next regularly scheduled meeting. If the Police Bureau does not accept a recommendation, the IPR Director shall schedule the case for a Committee conference hearing. At the hearing, the Police Bureau Command staff will have the opportunity to advise the Committee of any concerns or disagreements they might have with respect to the Committee's prior recommendations. IPR will have the opportunity to discuss any opinions or concerns about the disagreement between the Committee and the Police Bureau. IPR will provide the appellant and respondent(s) with notice of this conference hearing.

 

12.  If the Committee, by a majority vote, is able to reach an agreement with the Police Bureau as to the appropriate findings, the appeal will be concluded and the case will be closed. If the Committee, by a majority vote, disagrees with any portion of the Police Bureau's findings, the IPR Director shall schedule the case for a hearing before the City Council pursuant to 3.21.160.A. IPR will keep appellant apprised of the appeals process until its conclusion.

 

HISTORY NARRATIVE

 

Adopted 01-10-2002

 

Amended 03-14-2002

 

•  Adopted the Committee pre-hearing review hearing process.

 

•  Referred to IPR interim report to be prepared for a Committee pre-hearing review.

 

•  Adopted a process for IPR to confer with the Police Bureau after the Committee has recommended changes in findings.

 

•  Created a Committee "conference hearing" with Police Bureau command staff where the Police Bureau or IPR do not believe the Committee’s recommendations should be followed.

 

•  Added a reference to IPR/Committee Ordinance Section 3.21.160.A, which provides for appeals to be sent to City Council if the Police Bureau and the Committee are unable to agree on an appropriate finding.

 

Amended 09-03-2002

 

•  Section 2. Added the following:

 

° "A police officer requested review must be filed within 30 days of the officer receiving notification from the Chief of Police regarding the disposition of the case."

 

•  Section 3. Added the following:

 

º "The IPR Director may make recommendations to the Police Bureau Command staff regarding changes in findings or allegations as appropriate."

 

•  Section 6. Added the following:

 

° "IPR staff shall notify the appellant of the result of the Committee's pre-hearing review.

 

•  Verbiage changes to other sections.

 

Amended 07-03-2003

 

•  Deleted references to the preparation of an Interim IPR report and the pre-hearing process.

 

•  Created a new process for Committee declinations of appeals (Section 4).

 

•  Removed references to post-hearing Conference Committee with Police Bureau command staff.

 

•  Identified a random, rotating process for the assignment of Committee members to appeals.

 

•  Added a provision to permit Police Bureau Command staff to justify findings, rather than the Internal Affairs Division Captain.

 

Amended 03-16-2004

 

•  Verbiage changed to make this protocol consistent with the pre-hearing protocol (5.11) as amended on 2/17/04

 

•  Re-created a post-hearing Conference Committee with Police Bureau command staff.

 

Amended 10-13-2010

 

•  Verbiage changed to make this protocol consistent with Ordinance changes providing for both Internal Affairs and IPR investigations.

 

•  Additional provisions added to ensure the case summaries created for Appeals have a more consistent format.

 

•  Additional provisions added to guide the appeals hearing in a structured manner to ensure fairness to all parties and full discussion of issues to be followed by public comments before votes on the appeal are initiated

 

Amended 3-7-12

 

•  "Citizen initiated complaint" changed to "complaint involving a community member."

 

•  For complaints where community members request an appeal, removed IPR Director’s preliminary review of investigations and added provision for case file review by the Committee and a reference to Protocol 5.11.

 

•  "Committee" changed to "CRC"

 

•  "IAD" changed to "IA"

 

Amended 11-20-15

 

•  Protocol altered to reflect changes in to City Code 3.21.150

 

•  Clarifies ability of Committee to request additional investigation

 

•  Only Committee members who have reviewed complete administrative investigation case file may participate in discussion of case

 

•  Inserted language from City Code referring to the Committee’s standard of review

 

 
HISTORY
 
Submitted for inclusion in PPD October 23, 2002.
Originally published as CRC PROTOCOL NO. 02-03, approved by IPR Citizen Review Committee, effective January 10, 2002. Amended by CRC March 14, 2002, September 3, 2002, July 3, 2003, March 16, 2004, October 13, 2010, March 7, 2012, and November 20, 2015.

Table of Contents
PSF-5.01 - Independent Police Review Division - Internal Affairs Protocols & Procedures - Citizen Initiated Complaints
PSF-5.02 - Independent Police Review Division - Internal Affairs Protocols & Procedures - Bureau Initiated Complaints (Deleted)
PSF-5.03 - Citizen Review Committee - Independent Police Review Division - Appeals Procedures
PSF-5.04 - Citizen Review Committee - Independent Police Review Division - Communication Guidelines
PSF-5.05 - Citizen Review Committee - Independent Police Review Division - Guidelines for Declinations of CRC Appeals (Deleted)
PSF-5.06 - Citizen Review Committee (CRC) - Independent Police Review Division (IPR) - Process for Appointment and Reappointment to CRC
PSF-5.07 - Citizen Review Committee - Public Comment Protocol
PSF-5.08 - Independent Police Review Division - Internal Affairs Protocols & Procedures - Service Complaint Protocol
PSF-5.09 - Independent Police Review - Mediation Program Protocols
PSF-5.10 - Independent Police Review - Mediation Program Guidelines
PSF-5.11 - Citizen Review Committee - Independent Police Review Case File Review Meeting Protocol
PSF-5.12 - Citizen Review Committee (CRC) - Workgroup Protocol
PSF-5.13 - Citizen Review Committee (CRC) - IPR - Supplemental Appeal Hearing Protocol
PSF-5.14 - Citizen Review Committee (CRC) - Protocol for Request for Reconsideration of CRC Decision
PSF-5.15 - Independent Police Review - Untimely Appeal Protocol
PSF-5.16 - City Council Appeals Protocol for Independent Police Review Division's Citizen Review Committee Appeals
PSF-5.17 - Citizen Review Committee - Independent Police Review Division - Guidance for Working Together Effectively
PSF-5.18 - Citizen Review Committee - City Auditor's Independent Police Review Division - Policy Review Protocol
PSF-5.19 - Independent Police Review Division - Case Handling Guidelines
PSF-5.20 - Internal Affairs Guidelines For Screening Referrals From IPR
PSF-5.21 - Independent Police Review - Citizen Review Committee - Appeal Process Advisor
PSF-5.22 - Citizen Review Committee - Election of Officers
PSF-5.23 - Citizen Review Committee - Independent Police Review Division - CRC Member Duties and Responsibilities
PSF-5.24 - Independent Police Review - Review of Tort Claims and Civil Complaints Alleging Tortious Conduct by Portland Police Officers