|
|
Site NavigationHomeAbout us People's Police Report Shootings & deaths Cool links Other Information Contact info Donate
|
Citizen Review Committee Sustains a Complaint With a consultant's report urging them to get more power, review more policies, and obtain their own staff person (see article in this issue), the Citizen Review Committee (CRC) has recently taken action. In addition to presenting their policy review on police towings to City Council (the first ever), pushing the Transit Police to establish means for accountability, and speaking their minds on the consultant's assessment of the "Independent" Police Review Division (IPR), the CRC voted to sustain a complaint at their February meeting. Unfortunately, it was for the wrong reason. They also elected Mike Bigham, previously Vice Chair, to take over as Chair from Hank Miggins, who had held that position since December, 2003. Miggins is now the Vice Chair. Bigham, a former Port of Portland Police officer, has shown moderation in his approach to issues. While he praises the "behind-the-scenes" philosophy of Auditor Gary Blackmer, who oversees the IPR and thus its 9-member CRC, Bigham also is considering changes such as allowing citizens to appeal complaints which have not been fully investigated. Meanwhile, as IPR Director Leslie Stevens took herself out of the "Independent" review process and into the Police Bureau's new Office of Professional Standards, Assistant Director Pete Sandrock took over her duties while a new Director is sought. The IPR, for its part, quietly released its 2005-2006 annual reports, one and two years after they were due by City Ordinance. Case #2007-x-0008: "I'm a concerned citizen, I'll be waiting for my Christmas card in the mail." In February, the CRC heard case #2007-x-0008, in which off-duty Officer Kevin Wolf (#40799) pointed a gun at a contractor as she was working on the house next to his at 11 PM in Silverton, OR. After an investigation by the Bureau's Internal Affairs Division (IAD), the officer's commander and the Performance Review Board (PRB) found Wolf guilty of using profanity, intimidation, and failing to write a report on the incident. The appellant thinks Wolf also should not have pointed the gun at her, and failed to identify himself as an officer. The PRB said the officer was within policy ("Exonerated") but should be "debriefed" on the gun pointing because he should have called 911 and waited for police, instead of confronting the woman and her boyfriend by himself. They said he had the right to point a gun if he believed they were committing a crime. The CRC generally agreed, but voted 4-2 to recommend that the Bureau "Sustain" the use of force allegation--not because Wolf pointed a gun "in her face" when she was clearly unarmed and posed no threat, but because the use of force directive (1010.20) says an officer can only use the force "reasonably necessary" to accomplish their law enforcement purposes. The CRC said Officer Wolf took steps putting himself unnecessarily in the position of using his gun. Chair Bigham noted that the officer placed himself in considerable danger by not calling for backup, and if other officers were present he might not have "needed" the gun. This logic shows that CRC was more concerned for the officer's safety than for what happened to the citizens. A member of Portland Copwatch raised the question, what would have happened if the officer had used his gun and shot someone? The CRC, IPR, Internal Affairs, and the Commander all supported the gun pointing; it is disturbing that such escalation of force is now considered commonplace and acceptable. Regardless, this is the first time since 2005 that the CRC has voted to sustain a finding, and only the third time the Bureau has accepted the recommendation as made out of a total of seven efforts since 2002. CRC member Mark Johnson mentioned directive 311.30, guiding the off-duty responsibility of officers. It includes factors to consider before taking action, which Officer Wolf seems to have ignored. Johnson also read into the record that the officer had consumed three beers in two hours, and had fallen asleep. The Silverton police allegedly did not smell alcohol on him so that was not considered relevant. This was the first CRC case where police used the new "Unproven" finding, which combines the old "Unfounded" (incident did not occur as alleged) and "Insufficient Evidence" (he said/she said) findings. The Bureau applied "Unproven" to whether or not the officer identified himself. Wolf told investigators he said he was a police officer but "didn't say it loud" so as not to alert others in the house of his presence. This makes no sense, especially since the appellant and her boyfriend agreed that the officer yelled just about everything else. The appellant said she asked Wolf repeatedly to identify himself and he refused, including at the end, when she asked for and received names and information from the Silverton officers. Officer Wolf told her, "I'm a concerned citizen, I'll be waiting for my Christmas card in the mail." IAD investigated whether Wolf ever identified himself as a police officer, but Commander Crebs said that he did not investigate whether Wolf violated directive 312.50, which would have required him to give his name and badge number upon request. CRC failed to fully address that allegation, instead voting to add a "debriefing" to the Bureau's finding by a vote of 6-0, meaning Crebs will talk to Wolf about his actions. In her March letter to the CRC accepting the proposed changes, Chief Sizer says she agrees with their recommendation, but says nothing about the directive on officer identification.
Stepping Up Under Pressure? Those who regularly read the People's Police Report have a long-term view of the IPR/CRC as a police oversight body that moves slowly and rarely takes initiative, in part because those CRC members who tried to do so in 2003 ultimately resigned in frustration as the Auditor and staff stopped them at every turn (PPR #30). However, in recent months, perhaps due to the scrutiny of the consultant examining their work, they have stepped up in a few areas. For example, Vice Chair Hank Miggins has continued to pursue concerns about the Police Bureau's Transit Division. In 2006, the CRC discovered that officers from outlying agencies around Portland do not have to comply with Portland's Directives even while under control of a PPB commander, including that they can't be compelled to testify at IAD. To follow up, Miggins brought in Transit Commander Vince Jarmer to the March meeting (also see Tri-Met article). In response to City Council and the consultant's concerns about "Service Complaints" (the "dirty fork" finding), incidents which supposedly would not result in discipline even if sustained, CRC set up a work group to audit these complaints. The last time they did so was in 2003-2004, meaning that there has been no oversight of how these cases are handled for four years. In that time, the number of Service Complaints averaged over 120 per year, while only about 55 cases a year were fully investigated. In March, CRC held a discussion regarding the consultant's report and talked about making it possible to appeal Service Complaints--a good idea, since in 2002 the IPR Director changed the rule so citizens no longer had to sign off on the complaints. They also discussed reviewing at least five recent cases in which people objected to Service Complaints, and making mediation an alternative to an appeal for a Service Complaint. CRC members Sherrelle Owens and Mark Johnson both suggested clarifying and strengthening CRC's role in defining allegations, after several back-and-forths with staff about whether they are allowed to add allegations during their appeal hearings. CRC presented its Tow Policy Report (PPR #43) to City Council in January. Although only their third policy recommendation about Bureau directives in six years of existence, it was the first to be accepted publicly by Council. Unfortunately, while some of the Commissioners agreed that it would be good to pursue collecting data on the race and other traits of those whose cars are towed, they did not vote to force Chief Sizer to accept that recommendation. The IPR staff also did some stepping up, though behaving a little like students writing their homework in class. The annual reports for 2005-2006 were combined into one document and released quietly on February 27, one day before the consultant's report was scheduled to go to Council. IPR didn't present the reports to Council, even though the consultant noted such reports create transparency and ensure elected officials are informed about police oversight. The report shows IPR dismissed 63% of the complaints in 2006, an all-time high. Overall less than 10% of all complaints that citizens bring to the IPR ever get fully investigated. The CRC received 90 appeals in 2002-2004, but only 15 in 2005-07, holding 31 hearings in '02-'04 and just 7 in '05-07. The number of complaints to IPR has been roughly 700 a year. Although the annual report includes charts on the lower number of use of force complaints and profanity complaints (and police shootings--see article in this issue), there is no way to tell whether that means police are using less force and profanity or if people are avoiding the IPR system because of its shortcomings. The report also says that of 508 tort claims reviewed by IPR, the Bureau sustained misconduct allegations in just 2 of 24 cases they investigated. Also in March, Acting Director Sandrock presented the "Director's Report," and for the first time in the IPR's history handed out a written version. Sandrock has always been better than Stevens and her predecessor, Richard Rosenthal, in making sure the public has information it needs.
PARC Work Group and Performance/ Use of Force Review Boards The CRC continues to review the recommendations made by the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) regarding shootings and deaths in custody (PPRs #31, 37 & 41). Even though the PARC work group agreed initially to review all 115 PARC recommendations, they have succumbed to the IPR Director's suggestion of limiting the review to the 26 made in 2005 and 2006. Some major issues raised by PARC have to do with the Use of Force and Performance Review Boards (UFRB/PRB). These bodies are made up mostly of police personnel, but involve one or two citizens from a pool of 20, including several members of CRC. When CRC called in the Bureau staff person for the UFRB/PRBs, she was unable to state how many times the boards had met or how many cases each has deliberated on. The UFRB and PRB meetings are closed to the press and the public, and board members are sworn to secrecy. The PRB is primarily supposed to handle cases involving proposed "Sustained" findings where the discipline will be time off or greater. Sgt. Mitch Copp wrote in the February 2008 issue of the Portland Police Association's Rap Sheet, "low level cases are being referred to the PRB by some precinct commanders. What our members don't appreciate is the public scrutiny that accompanies board review." We wonder what "public scrutiny" he's worrying about, since we can't even get raw statistics about the Boards' meetings. Copp calls the process a "morale killer" and urges the Bureau to handle discipline "internally." We hope the City Council will look at these boards and make them more integrated, public and transparent. Nobody Knows What Goes On Behind Closed Doors At April's CRC meeting, Auditor Blackmer brought up some ideas regarding the consultant's assessment report. He mentioned that he and the Mayor were going to split the costs of a new staff person who would work half time supporting the CRC and part of their other half time could include conducting investigations. This is a big step for Blackmer, who vehemently opposes IPR conducting investigations. He also suggested that he was willing to look at ways for citizens who are unhappy with their cases being dismissed to file some kind of appeal. Rather than lead a discussion on these ideas, Chair Bigham referenced a meeting coming up two days later, but refused to comment on that meeting when pressed by PCW. It turns out that four members of CRC--less than a quorum so they did not have to invite the public--agreed to meet Blackmer privately to discuss the upcoming changes. The CRC inadvertantly proved the consultant was right about working too much "behind the scenes." In other IPR/CRC News: --The Bias Based Policing work group, currently reviewing cases for Bureau policy and IPR/IAD process issues, finally made a presentation to the City's Racial Profiling committee in March (also see article in this issue). --The CRC's Outreach Committee and Director Stevens put their outreach efforts on hold, claiming they had hoped the consultant's report would contain specific recom-mendations but did not. On the contrary, the report listed many specific ideas including creating a speakers' bureau for the CRC. Contact the IPR at 503-823-0146.
|
May, 2008
|
|
Portland Copwatch Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.
People's Police Report
#44 Table of Contents
|