Site Navigation

Police Overwhelm Community with Policies to Review;
Sheriff Asks for Feedback on Crowd Control

The Portland Police normally send out Directives (policies) twice each month for public comment, often in a package of several at a time. They posted a total of 25 Directives for feedback by mid- January, an overwhelming number made easier for Portland Copwatch (PCW) because our group has been submitting suggestions for over seven years. The policies often do not include major changes. A few times, the PPB adopted some recommendations from Copwatch. PCW commented on two of four youth-related Directives in February and six more, mostly related to Use of Force, in April. At the March Training Advisory Council (TAC) meeting, Ashley Lancaster, the civilian staff person who administers policy reviews said her program was moved under the auspices of Inspector General Mary Claire Buckley. When the TAC asked how they could help, Lancaster suggested leading public discussions on relevant Directives-- a great idea, except the TAC only meets once every two months and turnaround time for comments is either 15 or 30 days. In late January, Sheriff Mike Reese posted the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office policies on crowd control for review. Here is a summary of some of PCW's comments.

January: The first batch of Directives involved accountability, reporting and Use of Force. While the Bureau previously referred to our comments as not being "actionable," there were several times our comments appear to have led to changes, some more than grammatical. These included clarifying the Auditor's role in appointing civilian members to the Police Review Board (337.00), documenting efforts to resolve complaints before investigations (330.00), and dropping the ability for officers to come to work somewhat under the influence of alcohol (317.40). However, the PPB continues to use the term "Not Sustained" to mean there was insufficient evidence to prove an allegation of misconduct (332.00, 334.00, 335.00)-- although they did change a reference from "not sustained" complaints to "non sustained" to eliminate confusion between referring to Exonerated, Unfounded and Not Sustained findings collectively and that one category. PCW also pointed out that the (then still-unfinished) PPA contract would impact the Discipline Guide Directive (338.00) and that a new state law technically gave the "Independent" Police Review access to all Bureau databases, encouraging the PPB to allow IPR to compel officer testimony in addition to accessing data (330.00).

The second round included the Bureau's policies on response to people in mental health crisis (850.20-.25) and to Active Violence Incidents (730.00), Identification (312.50) and 635.20 Community Member Observation of the Police, which we call the "Copwatching Directive." Most of these had no significant changes. PCW again suggested separating the Directive on contact with immigrants and people with diplomatic immunity (810.10) into two distinct policies.

February: For Directive 640.40 about investigations on school property, PCW once again noted that the policy doesn't focus enough on the rights of students--including the right to refuse to answer questions and whether they have the right to have an advocate present during an interview. We also noted that the PPB is likely to remove reference to School Resource Officers as that program was defunded in 2020 (PPR #81).

The Child Abuse Investigations Directive (640.30) was improved as the PPB incorporated two earlier suggestions from PCW-- to be clear cops can't question someone unless they waive their Miranda rights, and that instead of asking officers to "be sensitive," they are now asked to "provide service in a professional manner with due care and concern for the individuals affected."

April: PCW made comments on the Bureau's "Managing Public Spaces" Directive (835.20), pointing out it's really about sweeping houseless encampments. The Bureau also decided to split up the Use of Force Directive, which was consolidated just a few years ago, so that Less Lethal weapons, force reporting, and medical aid after force are again addressed separately. Notably, though in only one place, the Bureau finally listened to our concerns and made a distinction between de-escalation prior to use of force and lowering the amount of force used once that line has been crossed-- they now call the latter "reactive de-escalation."

Sheriff's Policies

PCW submitted comments on the Sheriff's policies around Crowd Control and uniforms worn at protests. We noted that the first policy only had two references to de-escalation, did not remind officers about Oregon's anti-spying law and seemed to over-emphasize the use of weapons to manage crowds. The second one reflects a state law which allows officers to wear something other than their actual name on their uniforms; PCW urged the Sheriff not to let officers blend into a faceless entity like stormtroopers in a Star Wars movie.

As noted in the past, PCW appreciates that the community is allowed to comment on Bureau and Sheriff's Office policies. However, while a handful of our suggestions were adopted, there is no good reason so many ideas are being ignored repeatedly.

May, 2022
Also in PPR #86

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