Site Navigation

Crowd Control, BodyCams and Other Police Policies
Reviewed by Portland Copwatch

The Portland Police Bureau (PPB) has continued posting its policies, also known as Directives, asking for public input. Often, Portland Copwatch (PCW) is the only entity making comments. There continue to be occasional substantive, though more often administrative, changes made based on our suggestions. Some recognition of PCW's contributions to the review process itself was made by project manager Ashley Lancaster at a public meeting in March (see DOJ article). However, in general, the policies are deliberately vague, making it difficult to hold officers accountable, especially in serious matters such as crowd control and use of Body Worn Cameras-- two of the policies that came back up for review in early 2024. Here is a summary of the last several months' worth of reviews:

January: The Bureau's policy on body cameras once again included a caveat that the Police Association allegedly has a right to bargain about this policy in a different way from all other Directives. That's debatable. The policy was not much changed from March, 2023, but in theory the next version will be informed by the pilot project that took place from August to October (PPR #91). Thus, PCW repeated most of its comments from the previous round hoping that common sense will outweigh fear of the "union," and such things as ensuring protection under the state's anti-spying law, being explicit about what kinds of discipline officers can face if they mis- use the cameras, and better supervision will make it into the revised version.

The "copwatching" Directive, also up in January for review, still reminds officers that it's legal for community members to record their on-duty, public activities... but also still contains provisions to restrict those rights if officers think someone is "interfering" or "failing to obey a lawful order."

PCW also repeated its ongoing concerns about the Bureau's policies on interacting with people with mental illness, including urging them not to take guns into psychiatric facilities. Regarding the Employee Information System, we thanked the PPB for planning to add a definition for "traumatic incidents" which show up in officers' records.

February: The Directive on "Active Bystandership" was re-posted, and PCW found that 2.5 of its eight previous recommendations were adopted, including explaining what "passive bystandership" means (failing to intervene as required by state law) and adding what had been a missing part of the definition of retaliation (that an officer can be guilty of retaliation even if a person's original complaint that led to that retaliation is dismissed).

March: A huge lift every time it comes up, the Crowd Control (now "Public Order Events") Directive included six partial or full adoptions of our previous comments. Nonetheless, it led to a five-page set of recommendations of things that still need to be addressed. This includes more prioritization of de-escalation, clarity on chemical use, whether officers should be able to conceal their identities, and making sure people have an escape route when police decide to shut down a protest.

A second set of Directives included one about the Special Emergency "Reaction" Team (which PCW keeps suggesting be renamed as a "Response" Team) which incorporated a few minor changes based on previous comments, but now needs to address the Public Order Team taking the place of the Rapid Response Team (see settlements article). The policy on Extra Employment was coincidentally posted after the egregious violation of that Directive led to Officer Brian Hunzeker being found in violation (seee PRB article). PCW also raised concerns about police car accidents such as the one by Sgt. Bret Barnum that cost the City $350,000 (see settlements article sidebar) as part of feedback on the Traffic Crash Investigations policy.

April: PCW submitted comments about the Mental Health Directives again, noting that a recommendation from the Behavioral Health Unit Advisory Committee (see DOJ article) was neither included in the public comments packet nor incorporated into the policies. The draft policy on juvenile detention refers to indigenous youth as "Indian juveniles" and PCW asked for that to be changed.

Sheriff's policies also up for review:

Though not posted as frequently, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office also posts some of its policies online for public input. In February, PCW made a point to comment on their restraints policy, which ok's such pleasant products as maximum restraints (hog-tying), "spit shields," leg irons, and restraint chairs. PCW urged more de-escalation, and more humane responses such as always ensuring individuals are clothed.

They also posted a policy about peer support for Sheriff's employees that month, and others on officers being subpoenaed and going on leave in March, which PCW commented on although they mostly do not have a direct impact on the community.

May, 2024
Also in PPR #92

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