CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE
EXHIBITS MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES

They pledge to hear more cases, then decline more than they hear

From mid-March to July, the Citizens Review Committee (CRC), the nine-member, volunteer panel of Portland's "Independent" Police Review Division (IPR) voted to change the findings in three police misconduct cases, requesting that one allegation against an officer be "Sustained" (meaning there was a violation of Bureau policy).

The Police Bureau has accepted every recommendation from the CRC to date (except for one in limbo at deadline). That's hardly surprising since the CRC, under the influence of IPR Director Richard Rosenthal, also recommended a number of less "severe" findings than called for by the evidence.

CASE #01-17: Officer on Emergency Tickets Horn Honker

Dr. McMillen, the appellant in case #01-17, was driving along SE MLK Boulevard when an officer pulled out in front of her without a turn signal or overhead lights, even though he was supposedly responding to a "Code 2" (second-highest emergency) call. When Dr. McMillen honked her horn, the officer pulled her over, became angry, and ticketed her for using her horn "inaPPRopriately."

The Bureau's Internal Affairs Division (IAD) originally categorized the complaint as an "Inquiry"-- a "minor rule violation that, if sustained, would not result in discipline." In February, the CRC recommended that IAD re-investigate and make findings on the complainant's three allega-tions (reckless driving, rudeness, and failure to identify). IAD Captain Schenck eventually complied (initially, he and IAD Lt. Bechard argued against further investigation--see PPR #26) by interviewing Dr. McMillen and her husband, who was also in the car. But Schenck under- mined the CRC's request when he categorized all three allegations as "Conduct" (instead of separating them as "Procedure," "Courtesy" and "Conduct"), issuing one finding of "Exonerated with debriefing" for all of them.

None of this reflects Dr. McMillen's claim that the officer ticketed her in retalia-tion (a violation of Directive 310.20). Yet Traffic Division Commander Grubbs appar-ently counseled the officer because his actions could be considered retaliatory.

During the June CRC hearing, the Committee became convinced from all the testimony, including the officer's, that his manner of responding to a Code 2 call violated Directive 630.10--Driving Responses. Lt. Bechard attempted unsuccessfully to interpret the Directive in favor of the officer. The CRC recommended that the Bureau's finding for this allegation be changed to "Sustained." The Committee also recommended changing the finding for the rudeness allegation to "Insufficient Evidence with debriefing."

Even though the officer apparently only provided his name after four requests, the CRC let stand the Bureau's "Exonerated with debriefing" finding regarding Identification (Directive 312.50).

If the Bureau refuses to change the findings, the case will go before City Council--an as yet untested aspect of the IPR process.

CASE #02-13: "Merry Christmas, Mr. Hoffman"

In this case, Mr. Hoffman and his friend Sally Decker were pulled over and cited for traffic violations after arguing that the officer involved should have ticketed another driver for running a red light.

This case included an allegation categorized as "Retaliation"--the first such case heard by the CRC. We should note here, in one of our rare "Kudos to Cops" moments, that Commander Grubbs made the original finding, "Insufficient Evidence with Debriefing" ­acknowledging the possibility that the officer retaliated­then counseled this officer on his behavior.

However, Grubbs issued a finding of "Unfounded" for Mr. Hoffman's accusation that the officer behaved rudely despite statements supporting his claim by Ms. Decker and the back-up officer. It was revealed during the CRC hearing that after a judge suspended the appellant's fine for a traffic infraction, the officer stated in a sarcastic tone: "Merry Christmas, Mr. Hoffman." These facts led the CRC to recommend changing the finding to "Insufficient Evidence with debriefing."

IPR Director Rosenthal convinced the CRC that the final allegation (that the officer lied in court) was a legal matter and they refused to consider it. Copwatch recommended that the CRC review such allegations in the future, by applying the Bureau Directive on Truthfulness, which has a lower standard of proof than the criminal statute on perjury.

CASE #02-10, "I was supposedly unable to care for myself--what does that mean?"

In this case, a woman alleged she was taken to Detox without cause. This was at least the fourth case of improper transport to Detox that the CRC has heard in 5 months. Copwatch continually recommends--with little success--that all such cases be looked at as possible retaliation by officers.

After her niece's boyfriend was chased into her home by officers, the woman followed them out of the house. While holding a half-full glass of wine, she questioned the need for four police cars and the arrest of the young man. The officer claimed that after he told her that she could not drink wine while on her neighbor's lawn, she drank down the liquid and dropped the glass to the ground. The officer stated "You are intoxicated and I am taking you to Detox."

Officers may take intoxicated individuals home or to Detox. Officers must take intoxicated people to Detox when they can't care for themselves or endanger themselves or others. According to Deputy District Attorney Wayne Pierson, an officer should not merely use standard terms (such as "officer safety" ) to justify decisions to take someone to Detox, but instead articulate exact reasons for it. As the appellant put it, "I was supposedly unable to care for myself--what does that mean?"

The appellant provided reasonable explanations for what appeared to be symptoms of intoxication (she always walks with a limp, it was late at night), which raised serious questions about the officer's decision. (The Bureau does not use breath or blood tests--an officer determines "intoxication" from observable conditions.) Choosing to take her to Hooper almost immediately after she challenged the officer's decision to make the arrest appears like retaliation. It also becomes questionable if you examine the officer's lack of concern about leaving a 12-year-old boy (the woman's son) in the care of what the officer thought (erroneously) was an intoxicated 16-year-old girl (her niece, who was 18 and claims she was sober).

Although the CRC contemplated recommending an "Insufficient Evidence" finding for the alleged transport to Detox without cause, Director Rosenthal and Deputy City Attorney Linly Rees talked them out of it. The CRC merely added a "debriefing" to the original "Exonerated" finding.

The CRC voted unanimously to recommend an "Insufficient Evidence" finding to the allegation (previously declined by IAD) that the officer lied to Detox staff about how much wine the appellant drank. (Allegedly, the officer claimed she drank two glasses.) If the Bureau rejects this suggested finding, the case will be heard before City Council, giving the IPR a chance to interview Hooper staff.

The CRC also recommended a finding on the (also previously declined) allegation that the officer caused injury to the appellant's wrists because the handcuffs were too tight--unfortunately they chose an inaPPRopriate finding: "Exonerated." This implies the cuffs were tight enough to cause injury but that was within Bureau policy.

Finally, the appellant also alleged disparate treatment, meaning that her niece's boyfriend was being racially profiled. The IAD dropped this charge, claiming the appellant asked them to, although she mentioned it in her appeal letter and at the hearing. This fact went nowhere, partly because IPR Director Rosenthal discourages the CRC from recom-mending additional allegations be considered, and partly because the CRC has not yet fully grasped the concept of disparate treatment.

CASE #01-16 (again!)­CRC Admits Screwing Up, But Refuses to Fix It

The case of Kendra Rosser, who was called "ignorant" or "stupid" by Officer Kristi Gustafson in 1998 (see PPR #26), came back before the CRC because the members' original recommendation (Feb-ruary 5) was faulty. At the urging of Director Rosenthal and IAD Captain Schenck, they had voted to change the "Declined" finding to a "Service Complaint," even though that categorization was inaPPRopriate.

Contrary to the definition of "Service Complaint"--that it must not allege misconduct and must be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant­the officer admitted she violated the Bureau's Courtesy directive. Mrs. Rosser believes such evidence supports a "Sustained" finding.

Although Chair Hector Lopez expressed deep concerns about this case, a majority of the CRC voted to affirm the "Service Complaint" recommendation. They adopted a letter written by Director Rosenthal that admits the mistake, but excuses the error as meaningless. The letter implies that the officer received enough "punishment" at the public hearing (comments of disaPPRoval from the public, but not from her supervisor nor from CRC members), describing this as the "desired outcome." However, a "Sustained" finding would stay on the officer's record longer and could trigger a review of her overall record, thereby possibly preventing further misconduct.

This CRC hearing was held in Northeast Portland--its first away from City Hall. The agenda that evening did not provide for the public to give meaningful or sufficient input, despite the CRC's function of outreach to the community.

Pre-Hearings: How To Shut Citizens Out of the Process

As reported in PPR #26, the CRC agreed to hold "pre-hearings" on every appeal filed to the IPR. They shunned Director Rosenthal's catch-all reason for declining a complaint--that "there is no reasonable possibility that the CRC, after conducting a full hearing, would recommend any changes with respect to the Bureau's handling of the complaint." In particular, Chair Lopez mentioned that it was important to give the citizens their "day in court." Nonetheless, the Committee voted to decline hearings for 80% of appeals reviewed in pre-hearings (see sidebar, above).

Despite our impression that CRC hearings can be a frustrating process, we hope more people will attend the meetings. More public input to the Committee members, and more people who truly understand the shortcomings of the process, could help improve police accountability in Portland.

The CRC generally holds hearings at 5:30 PM on the first and third Tuesday each month. Call the IPR at 503-823-0146 for more info.

Peopl e's Police Report #27 Table of Contents
People's Police Report Index Page
Return to Copwatch home page