Site Navigation
Home
About us
People's Police Report
Shootings & deaths
Cool links
Other Information
Contact info
Donate
|
|
Portland Copwatch Testimony on
US Dept of Justice/City of Portland Settlement (Section 8)
8. TRAINING AND THE DOJ AGREEMENT
Summary: Training should include input from all of the community; changes to training
should look at national and local past and present trends; trainers should be chosen carefully.
We support the AMA Coalition's ongoing concern that training of officers should include members
of the community most likely to be subject to officer conduct, from the planning stages and
including the actual training. Senior Bureau officials seem to be happy with the way that
institutional racism training has been created, which involved members of the Community and
Police Relations Committee in the design and implementation, going so far as to offer CPRC an
award for its work. That collaborative process can prove a template for the Bureau to include
community members at all levels of training. While the Agreement calls for the Training Division to
consider public input (paragraph 79-f), it is not explicit whether it means input beyond the Training
Advisory Council (TAC). As with our recommendations elsewhere, adding such specific
requirements for the Bureau will remove ambiguity in the Agreement. When recruiting members to
the TAC, the City required criminal background checks and adherence to a confidentiality statement,
excluding many community members.
Similarly, the Agreement calls for the Bureau to incorporate changes based on "concerns reflected
in court decisions" (paragraph 79-g), which should be clarified to include both higher court rulings
and results of civil lawsuits against the City/Bureau. Also, when looking at "law enforcement
trends" to improve training (paragraph 79-i), it should be a requirement to include the history of
Portland Police to avoid re-introducing problematic tactics. For example, the carotid ("choke") hold
is included in paragraph 38 as an example of lethal force, even though the Bureau banned those
holds in 1985.
The exclusion criteria for trainers, like the ones for the CIT Team, rely too much on sustained force
complaints (and only against people with mental illness--paragraph 83) since, as noted in section 7, very few force complaints are ever sustained. It also
only calls to disqualify officers if a civil judgment has been rendered against the City because of the
officer's use of force, while much of the time lawsuits in which the City does not prevail end in
settlements. The Agreement broadly calls to ensure that trainers "do not have a history of using
excessive force," so it seems that adding repeated complaints of excessive force and lawsuits that
end in jury verdicts or settlements should also be included, at minimum. (It's interesting, too, that
officers' history of generating lawsuits is not part of the CIT criteria.)
Along those lines, teaching officers how force could lead to civil liability (paragraph 84-a-iv) would
be more meaningful if the lawsuit payouts in Portland came out of individual officers' pockets, the
Bureau's budget, or, as is being considered in Minneapolis, mandatory individual insurance policies
for each officer.
Again, we do have support for some concepts listed in the Agreement: training through role playing
(paragraph 84-a-i), incorporating de-escalation into making arrests without force (paragraph 84-a-ii)
and teaching tactics such as disengaging, waiting, and calling for appropriate backup units (not
necessarily for more firepower--paragraph 84-a-iii).
In short, parts of the Agreement which are vague should be more clearly defined and strengthened
before the City moves forward with its proposed changes, and there should be deeper community
involvement in training than just the Training Advisory Council.
DOJ Letter
of Findings (September 12, 2012)
DOJ / City of
Portland Settlment Agreement (November 14, 2012)
Back to top
|
|
Testimony sections:
• Intro/background
1. Appealing Findings
on Deadly Force Cases
2. Taser Use
and the DOJ Agreement
3. Accountability--
Independent Police Review
4. Accountability--
Citizen Review Committee
5. Accountability--
Police Review Board
6. Use of Force
and the DOJ Agreement
7. Mental Health Provisions
8. Training
and the DOJ Agreement
9. Tracking Police Contacts
/ Demographic Information
10. Implementation and
Transparency
11. Oversight of the
Agreement / Conclusion
• (Additional Materials
/Exhibits)
•Testimony in pdf
format
(16
pgs)
|