MOVES TO CHANGE FINDINGS
IN 4 OF ITS FIRST 18 CASES
IPR's CITIZEN COMMITTEE
MOVES TO CHANGE FINDINGS
IN 4 OF ITS FIRST 18
CASES
The IPR's Citizen Review Committee (CRC) began hearing appealed cases of alleged police misconduct in January. At seven hearings from January 4 to March 5, the CRC heard a total of 18 cases. Among these cases, the Police Bureau's Internal Affairs Division (IAD) identified, categorized, and issued findings on 76 alleged acts of misconduct. Of those 76 allegations, the CRC recommended that 11 receive different findings.
In other words, the IPR agreed with 86% of the Bureau's findings. Nonetheless, IAD complained to the IPR Director, Richard Rosenthal, and pressured him to add an extra layer of review not outlined in the ordinance. IAD Captain Schenck proposed a meeting where Bureau officials would try to change the CRC members' minds rather than sending the cases to City Council to affirm the recommendations, where the findings become final.
Schenck's new protocol was proposed almost immediately after the CRC heard case #01-10 on February 5 and requested that one finding be changed from "Insufficient Evidence" to "Sustained." The CRC voted to change two of the other findings, from "Exonerated" to "Exonerated with debriefing," letting stand the three other findings--including one "Sustained" courtesy violation.
The case involved six allegations of misconduct during a traffic stop of four African American visitors to Portland. Although the visitors were pulled over in broad daylight in a convertible with its top down, the officer claims she did not know their race when she pulled them over for speeding. CRC agreed with IAD that there wasn't any reason to support an allegation of Disparate Treatment, and agreed to exonerate the officer's actions. The members also approved of the Bureau's decision to sustain an allegation of profanity, since the officer admitted to IAD that she told the driver she was going to tow his car "because you're an ass and I can."
The CRC got tough on three other allegations. The most serious charged a second officer with being rude when he told the appellant and his pregnant wife "I don't care if she's seven months pregnant or 25 months pregnant," before he ordered them to walk away. The CRC members judged the testimony of the three adult motorists as credible and boldly decided to recommend, for the first time, a finding of "Sustained." As usual, IAD Lt. Bechard desperately tried to defend the officer, stating that the cop's remark might not have been considered discourteous by the Bureau. He also proudly declared that it "ended the argument, didn't it?"
The fact that the visitors were 80 miles from home also came under consideration, leading the CRC to propose changing two findings to "Exonerated with debriefing." (The new finding would mean that although the officers' actions were within Bureau policy, they needed a talking-to about using poor judgment). While the officers had the right to tow the car, and the right to strand the couple in a city that was not their own, they certainly could have used common sense and allowed the passenger--the man who rented the car, and who had a valid license--to drive it away.
In the end, the CRC acknowledged that the officers telling the complainant why they pulled him over in the first place would probably have prevented the situation from unfolding as it had. However, they did not add a "debriefing" to the "Exonerated" finding on that allegation. (Officers are not required to say why they pull you over.) The CRC may recommend a policy that officers state the reason for a traffic stop upon first contact with the driver.
CRC recommended a changed finding for another case (#01-16) involving Kendra Rosser, whose one year old son was wrestled out of her arms by police in 1998. She was arrested for allegedly not moving after officers ordered the dispersal of a demonstration along Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd (see PPRs #16-17). Rosser alleged false arrest, injury (physical and psychological, for her and her son), and rudeness by Officer Kristi Gustafson (#13205).
Officer Gustafson and Northeast Precinct Commander Derrick Foxworth (who issued the order to disperse) attended the February 5 hearing to give their lengthy, detailed side of the story.
When asked about the allegation that she told Rosser she was "ignorant" for "using her baby as a shield," Gustaf-son showed her continuing disdain. She told the Committee that Rosser was a bad mother and admitted that she had probably called Rosser "stupid." (That's soooo much better, isn't it?)
This statement clearly violates police Directive #310.40, Courtesy, that mandates officers to show respect to everyone on all occasions; therefore the finding should have been "Courtesy- Sustained." Instead, the CRC allowed IAD Captain Schenck to talk them into inappropriately recommending the case be categorized as a "Service Complaint," meaning Gustafson's supervisor would (supposedly) chat with her, but nothing serious would go on her permanent record. One other problem: that categorization requires that the appellant (Rosser) agree with that resolution (she did not).
After Copwatch pointed out this error, a majority of the CRC agreed to reconsider their recommendation at their next general meeting. At that February 13 meeting, Director Rosenthal informed the Committee that he felt the officer received adequate admonishments from the CRC members, and was concerned that a "Sustained" finding would "further rub salt in the wound" of the "first [and] only officer to appear" before the CRC. We are not making this up.
The CRC remained unconcerned about the other allegations, and about officers firing "beanbag" rounds into the crowd, despite our encouragements that the members at least discuss such high- risk police action as a policy issue.
Case #01-11, heard January 10, was the second case before the CRC involving officers transporting civilians to Hooper Detox in questionable circumstances, the first case in which an appellant showed up to testify, and the first case they sent back for changed findings. In this case, the appellant, known as "Sean," alleged improper transport to detox, and further claimed that Sergeant Harry Jackson (#9556) had failed to identify himself and had yelled in his face. The original findings on all three allegations were "Exonerated," meaning that the Bureau believed Jackson acted within policy.
The appellant, who was about one block from his home on a Saturday night, had come out to observe a police action in the neighborhood. Jackson may have taken Sean to Detox in retalia-tion for challenging him by asking for his name and badge number. The Directive on Retaliation (#310.20) prohibits officers using intimidation or ridicule in response to the questioning of officer authority. Rather than raise that question, the CRC voted to change the finding on whether the detox transport was appropriate from "Exonerated" (meaning it was within Bureau policy) to "Unfounded" (meaning the CRC felt the available evidence showed that Jackson did not bring Sean to Detox without reason).
On the other two findings, the CRC asked that Sgt. Jackson be given an "Exonerated with debriefing" for refusing to identify himself when asked, and an "Insufficient Evidence" finding on whether he yelled in Sean's face.
A fourth case with a changed finding (#01-12), also involving a change from "Exonerated" to "Unfounded," is described in the sidebar (left).
In one other case (#01-17), the CRC did not propose changed findings, but rather decided to send
it back to IAD for more investigation because the only witness (other than the appellant and the
officer) was not interviewed.
In typical defensive fashion, the IAD argued against the CRC request. They asked what could be gained by an interview, since the original findings of "Inquiry," mean the officer's behavior didn't rise to the level of misconduct. The CRC should ignore any of IAD's future such attempts to stall the process, and inform them the case will move on to City Council as provided by City Code.
All in all, the members of this review board seem to be handling the responsibility of their roles more seriously than many of the Citizen Advisors in the old PIIAC. But, as noted above, they need more training and are severely restricted by the IPR ordinance. It's also apparent that some members (and the staff and Bureau) seem to disrespect the word and concerns of people with low economic status while showing concern about those who are better off, "nicely" dressed, or more educated.
To sum up trends, it's noteworthy that there are numerous complaints which appear to be about: officers retaliating after citizens question their authority, officers failing to identify themselves (although we've been raising this issue for ten years now!), failure to write police reports, excessive force, and use of Detox or citations for those who flunk the "attitude test." Police escalation of minor incidents seems to be a common theme as well.
Full Copwatch analyses of all the CRC hearings are available by email at copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org; the IPR can be reached at 503-823-0146.
Peopl
e's Police Report
#26 Table of Contents
People's Police
Report
Index Page
Return to
Copwatch
home page