STILL LOOKING FOR
THE INDEPENDENCE
IN THE "INDEPENDENT"
POLICE REVIEW DIVISION

The past four months have brought many changes, but few improvements to Portland's Independent Police Review (IPR) oversight system. For instance, the IPR continues to refer citizen complaints about the police to the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) rather than performing any independent investigations as the IPR ordinance allows.

Since our last issue, IPR has released two reports, covering the second and third quarters of 2002. Improvements over the first report include the addition of a summary of appeal cases that describes the nature of the complaints and the findings. Additional statistics about cases and allegations are provided, but they're limited since the IPR only tracks complaints filed after January 1, 2002. This means there are no public statistics on cases filed and/or completed between June 2001 and January 2002, making it difficult to do comparative studies about case findings.

The two reports focus--as the first report did--on timeliness goals (see PPR #27). Although the number of complaints received by IPR remained fairly consistent throughout the first three quarters of 2002, the number of cases waiting for investigation by IAD rose from 42 in the first quarter to 144 in the third quarter.

The reports do not include an analysis of the IPR's highly touted monitoring and review of complaint investigations by Internal Affairs. Most alarming is the continuing high rate of declined cases-out of 317 intake decisions on complaints filed from January 1 through September 30, IAD and IPR declined 133 cases (42%).

Equally disturbing, the IPR helped IAD change the definition of "service complaints." Instead of these complaints being resolved to the complainant's satisfaction (as previously required), they're now "resolved" by Bureau supervisors who talk to the accused officers and then write a letter to the complainant. IAD determines whether or not cases will be handled as service complaints, which are not investigated and don't appear on the officer's record. In addition, alleged violations of police directives that would previously have received investigation, such as allegations of officer rudeness or failure to show identification, can now be swept into that classification. This is troubling since service complaints jumped from 10 in the second quarter (before the change) to 29 in the third quarter.

Between the high number of cases being categorized as service complaints and declines, relatively few complaints actually receive a full investigation by IAD's nine full-time investigators.

Highlighted recent IPR activity in the quarterly reports include:

• The IPR Mediation Program started in September. IPR staff has so far reported the succe ssful mediation of just one complaint --categorized as disparate treatment. Only complaints of "minor" misconduct can be mediated, and only if the complainant and officer agree to it. Once mediated, no matter the outcome, a complaint cannot be investigated.

• A review of deadly force cases began in October (see other article).

• The IPR review of the Police Bureau's Early Warning System began in September, which identifies "problem" officers by keeping track of the number of complaints, lawsuits, etc. each officer receives.

• Director Richard Rosenthal currently teaches a one-hour course at the Bureau's Advanced Academy, explaining the IPR/IAD complaint system.

• IPR staff assisted the Bureau in changing some police directives (updated version on PPB's website-www.portlandpolicebureau.com)

• The IPR director participated in the IAD investigation of the alleged police cover-up (see p. 6).

It's important to note that according to the IPR Ordinance, Rosenthal's role as director does not include acting as a legal representative for the IPR. Despite this, the director claims that his Oregon Bar membership prohibits the IPR from communicating with complainants who are legally represented without their attorneys' written permission. Furthermore, Rosenthal stated he will provide legal advice during appeals hearings in addition to counsel given by deputy City Attorney Linly Rees.

Auditor Blackmer continues to try to minimize the importance of public hearings. On September 3, he issued a memo that pushed for the IPR's Citizen Review Committee to decline a full hearing for Merrick Bonneau's appeal of his mistaken identity/excessive force complaint (see CRC article). Blackmer emphasized: "I would urge you to avoid reaching judgments and instead to raise policy issues..." as if it's not important to make decisions about whether or not individual officers used improper or excessive force on an innocent man. Blackmer cited City Council's preference to decline cases such as Bonneau's, in which the complainant also pursues civil litigation against the City. The Auditor's reference to their desire contradicts his numerous public statements that his office is the perfect place for the IPR because it is independent of City Council.

Similarly, Blackmer insisted that the CRC work on appearing impartial when talking to the press about police or IPR issues and when contemplating police policy recommendations. This appears to be a curious request considering that the Auditor created an oversight system that allows the investigation of alleged police officer misconduct to be handled by other police officers. CRC decided not to talk to the press about any policy issues currently being examined by its policy workgroup, even though discussions about those issues take place in public meetings.

Look for an annual report by the IPR to be presented to City Council in February. Council has already asked the Citizen Review Committee for suggested improvements to the IPR Ordinance. Hopefully, the public will be allowed to do the same (see "wish list" on p. 11 of the hard copy of PPR #28).

The IPR can be reached at 503-823-0146.

Peopl e's Police Report #28 Table of Contents
People's Police Report Index Page
Return to Copwatch home page