Site Navigation

PPB Continues Seeking Input on Policies, Overwhelming with 17 at Once in September

August

The PPB posted Directive 810.10 on Immigration Enforcement which appropriately cautions Portland officers not to "assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws" and strengthened a prohibition on complying with detainer requests. The Directive says PPB should not assist federal authorities when they are "solely or primarily" focusing on a person's immigration status, though in two places it says "solely" but not "primarily." A loophole in the policy allows police to do things like block traffic for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other authorities, as they did outside ICE headquarters while federal officers cleared a driveway during the occupation in June (PPR #75).

In Directive 635.20 about Community Observation of Police (the "Copwatching Directive"), the PPB removed the clause requiring police to return not just a recording device but also its contents. It is not clear why, but PPB ignored PCW's request to add a section prohibiting the erasure of such recordings. They added some protection against police seizing recordings, including one clause saying a person may give consent in writing for a seizure.

September

Along with the various accountability Directives, the PPB posted the policy on Racial Profiling (344.05). The Bureau reworded their definition of profiling, ignoring whether the officer's stop is based on the person's visible protected class status characteristics (race, gender, etc.). PCW asked them to add the term from the Immigration Directive saying a person's characteristics can't be the sole "or primary" reason for a stop. The word "solely" is still in the Section guiding consensual stops, which does not prohibit officers from disproportionately stopping to talk to people based on protected characteristics (including race). We pointed out the words "or primarily" were added to Directive 310.20 on Discrimination in reference to 344.05.

Accountability policies included Satisfactory Performance (315.30), wherein the PPB removed language PCW pointed out that required officers to "apply force when necessary," because they agreed they do not want a policy that seems to encourage use of force. The Discipline Process Directive (335.00) still directs the Bureau to use the term "Not Sustained" when they mean there is insufficient evidence to prove misconduct (this is also in Directive 332.00). Policy 337.00 on the membership of the Police Review Board (PRB) added new reasons officers might be removed from the Board. Directive 333.00 on Criminal Investigations of officers carves out shootings and deaths as separate cases (they are covered in Directive 1010.10) without acknowledging that administrative and criminal investigations would be easier to keep separate if an independent prosecutor or empowered civilian review board ran one or the other (or both). They did, however, add a clause allowing the PPB to call outside law enforcement to look into criminal charges.

On some other accountability policies:

--The PPB added language to Directive 330.00 on Internal Affairs prohibiting dismissals of force complaints-- and the use of mediation to settle such complaints, following PCW's previous comments.

--Defining the Non-Disciplinary Complaint system now known as "Supervisory Investigations," (331.00) the PPB inexplicably created two new findings that do not match other misconduct findings. They are "substantiated" and "unsubstantiated."

--The policy on internal investigations (332.00) now allows the Bureau to add a "debriefing" even when a deadly force incident is found "In Policy."

Later in September, the PPB posted policies on (homeless) camping (835.20) and "trespass agreements" (630.37). PCW noted that the City finally included language from a 2012 court order in the camping Directive, but unfortunately that language defines a campsite as a place where "personal property" is present. This could give police discretion to clear out a person sitting on the sidewalk with, say, a newspaper. PCW also raised concerns that private security who are essentially empowered by the City ("Clean and Safe") do not have to follow the court rules. On the flip side, the trespass Directive allows police to provide extra protection to property owners who sign agreements, which seems to violate the concept of "people pay taxes and all residents get equal protection."

October

PCW's comments on the Criminal Intelligence Unit Directive focused a lot on how CIU officers are the ones engaged in the Joint Terrorism Task Force (p. 5). We recalled our own history of being spied on by the PPB (PPR #19) and emphasized there should be a way to control the sharing of information that turns out not to involve criminal behavior so it does not end up in other agencies' files.

November

PCW raised concerns about outdated references to body art and gender-based clothing and grooming standards in Directive 1110.00 ("Appearance Standards"). We also raised concerns that the policy doesn't call to fire officers if they obtain white supremacist or other tattoos like the "Brotherhood of the Strong" which Multnomah County corrections officers got back in 2000 (PPR #22).

We asked why the Directive on Critical Incidents leading to time off or reassignment (416.00) still does not clearly define what a "critical incident" is.

Some of PCW's comments, including all 17 policies from September, are at http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/doj.html#directives.

January, 2019
Also in PPR #76

Portland Copwatch
PO Box 42456
Portland, OR 97242
(503) 236-3065/ Incident Report Line (503) 321-5120
e-mail: copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org

Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.

People's Police Report #76 Table of Contents
Back to Portland Copwatch home page
Peace and Justice Works home page
Back to top