Site Navigation

Citizen Committee: Debrief Cops in Case of
Arrested Twerking Protestor, Improve Crowd Policies
New Oversight System Design Commission Named;
Commissioner Open to Improving CRC in Meantime

The existing community board examining police accountability cases, the Citizen Review Committee (CRC), made recommendations to debrief three officers and find one of them out of policy in an appeal they heard in June about a protestor arrested for twerking in a bike lane. After voting on it at their July meeting, they published a 40-page report regarding Portland Police crowd control, making 23 recommendations for improvements in use of equipment, de-escalation, training, and issues around bias. In late July, City Council appointed the 20-person Commission* to establish the guidelines for the new oversight board created by ballot measure in 2020 (PPR #82). At CRC's July meeting, Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty, who championed the new board, visited CRC and expressed support for their work, including being open to improving the way they are allowed to make decisions. For its part, the civilian agency which oversees CRC, the "Independent" Police Review (IPR), put out another insufficient Annual Report (see IPR annual report article in this issue), made worse by failing to present that report to CRC.

Case 2021-x-0001: Officers Single Out Black Woman Twerking for Arrest; One Cop Files Inaccurate Report

On August 17, 2019, during a protest against a right-wing rally held in Portland (PPR #78), Alonna Mitsch was in the bike lane of a downtown street, twerking to some music and, more significantly, flipping off police in an approaching oversize vehicle. The cops had a discussion about it being a "stretch" to arrest her for disorderly conduct, then proceeded to do so. It is disputed whether the three involved officers took her to the ground using force (and/or forcefully put on handcuffs), and existing video did not clarify these issues. Mitsch, who is Black, filed a complaint with eight allegations, alleging improper arrest and use of force by each of the officers, and inaccurate report writing and racial bias by one of them. The original findings were that the officers were in policy ("Exonerated") for the arrest, the claims of force and the report writing were "Unfounded" (evidence showed they did not happen), and whether the arrest was racially motivated was "Not Sustained" (not enough evidence one way or another). Generally speaking, unless an officer uses a racial slur, allegations of Disparate Treatment are very hard to prove.

With the help of attorney Maya Rinta, Mitsch appealed the findings to the CRC (case 2021-x- 0001). The hearing lasted for four hours. Ultimately, because they are saddled with a standard of review requiring them to agree with the police if a "reasonable person" could come to the same conclusion, they agreed the arrest was in policy, but voted to add a debriefing so the officers would be talked to about their performance. The vote was 6-4 on all three findings, with several thinking it was not reasonable. (The addition of the debriefing on the first finding was added on a 10-0 vote, but incorporated in the final two motions.)

While the videos could not prove force was used, they also did not show officers were not using force, so CRC challenged all three force findings. The City Attorney, new to the process, ignored years of precedent and made them vote separately to agree the finding wasn't supported and then to propose "Insufficient Evidence with a Debriefing" findings instead (no wonder the hearing took so long). For some reason, the challenge for Officer A was on a 9-1 vote, while that motion passed 10- 0 for Officers B and C. All three had the revised finding added on 9-1 votes, with member Taylor Snell wanting to propose a "Sustained" (out of policy) finding.

Because of the photographic and video evidence, CRC found that Officer B wrote an inaccurate report when he said Mitsch was the only person standing in the street (she wasn't) and that no force was used (even though it's clear the officers at least put their hands on her and pushed her arms up to cuff her). It will be interesting to see how the Bureau reacts; if the allegation more specifically had said he was lying, the cop would face termination. Penalties for bad report writing are much lower.

In terms of the racial bias question, it is pretty clear the police at least targeted Mitsch because they did not like her attitude; they mentioned she had flipped them off in their reports. Other people who were in the street were not people of color, and she was wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt 9 months before George Floyd was killed, making her stand out. One important fact which came out: the cops' oversize vehicle would not fit in one lane of traffic. Thus, their accusation that Mitsch was blocking traffic while in the bike lane was a circular argument-- the police created the traffic and then arrested her for being in their way. Ultimately, CRC could not prove bias but voted 10-0 to add a debriefing to the "Not Sustained" finding.

Crowd Control Work Group Proposes Limits on Police Responses

CRC's Crowd Control Work Group had held community forums and conducted an online survey to help them formulate their findings and recommendations (PPRs #81-82). The finished document referenced a report by Portland United Against Hate outlining harmful actions during protests, an IPR report regarding a 2017 incident where police "kettled" protestors, a mild but lengthy report by the national Police Foundation which the City commissioned, and, significantly, the CRC's 2015 Crowd Control report containing recommendations which were never fully implemented (PPR #65).

The CRC's report recommends that the Bureau permanently adopt the ban on the use of chemical weapons, protect bystanders from "unintended" harm, have clear identification on officers' uniforms (an issue which got worse after their 2015 recommendation on the matter), and refrain from boxing in protestors on all sides ("kettling"). This last item was added late in the process after Portland Copwatch reminded CRC the previous report only ignored this issue because the Bureau lied to the Committee and said they did not use kettling as a tactic, even though many people--including a member of PCW-- had experienced it first hand. The report was adopted unanimously (8-0) at their July meeting. CRC plans to bring the report before City Council.

Commissioner Praises Volunteer Efforts, Promises Support for Two Years as New System is Designed

Commissioner Hardesty has previously let it be known that she finds the IPR/CRC system far from perfect, one reason she put the new system on the ballot. Nonetheless, she praised the CRC members for their work, and noting it could be 24 months-- July 2023-- before the new system is in place, encouraged them to keep doing their work until the new board is ready to go. CRC members asked whether she would be open to changing their deferential standard of review to be a "preponderance of the evidence" (50%+) instead of the "reasonable person" standard; something they proposed formally in 2018. Hardesty said if they could secure two other Council votes, she would support them.

Members of the Commission include Debbie Aiona of League of Women Voters, Jason Renaud from the Mental Health Association of Portland, Lovisa Lloyd, who formerly helped prosecute officers through the DOJ Civil Rights Division, Seemab Hussaini of the Council of American Islamic Relations of Oregon, Sophia Glenn of Pacific NW Family Circle, and Dan Handelman of Portland Copwatch. Meetings are expected to begin soon and will be open to the public.

Update on Case # 2020-x-0002:Did Internal Affairs Discriminate Against Former Whistleblower Cop?

The appeal of former PPB Sergeant Liana Reyna, heard in November 2020 (PPR #82), has not come back to the CRC with a report on whether their proposed changed findings were accepted or whether more investigation was done on why the Bureau didn't investigate a previous complaint she filed. According to the US Department of Justice Agreement, further investigation is supposed to be completed in 10 days. IPR promised an update at the August 2021 meeting-- 10 months later­­ but sent the information to the Chair rather than electing to present it themselves. Thus, the update won't be presented until September.

Also at IPR/CRC:

--As noted above, Director Ross Caldwell only mentioned IPR's Annual Report in passing during his "Director's Report" to CRC at their July meeting. The Report was released one day after their June meeting. CRC's section is short and inaccurate. While this system continues there needs to be better cooperation and communication. The Director also consistently skims over data in his monthly reports including the status of deadly force investigations, even in July just 13 days after the shooting of Michael Townsend (see the Shootings article in this issue).

--The Policy and Outreach Work Group had several discussions about the pros and cons of body cameras for police, but also started taking a deep look at existing IPR/CRC protocols to see what might be carried over into the new system.

--CRC members expressed relief that after years of demanding it, the Bureau let them access materials for Police Review Boards -- internal hearings to recommend findings and discipline-- by secure internet access. On June 2, City Council made being on the PRB even easier by waiving previous requirements about signing confidentiality statements and going on ride-alongs until the COVID pandemic is over.

--PCW recently examined how many CRC members resigned since 2001 rather than serve their full terms; it is 43 out of 78 members over the course of 20 years, or over 50%.

--At the August meeting, former Chair Kristin Malone came to speak to the Committee about the standard of review issue. She noted that various parties seemed to blame the Auditor's lack of interest, the US DOJ Agreement, or the Police Association contract for the City failing to change the deferential standard.

*- In PPR #83, we reported the Commission would have 15 members rather than 20; PCW regrets the error.
Back to text.

September, 2021
Also in PPR #84

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 #84 Table of Contents
Back to Portland Copwatch home page
Peace and Justice Works home page
Back to top