|
September 2024 Police Review Board: Shooting-Adjacent Discipline, Improper Chase, Military Pervo-Cop and More
Table of contents
To: Elizabeth Vogan, Police Review Board Coordinator
Shooting-Adjacent Discipline, Improper Chase, Military Pervo-Cop and More: Police Review Board Fall
2024 The Portland Police Bureau is required to publish reports twice a year about meetings of the Police Review Board (PRB), an internal, police-heavy advisory body on misconduct and discipline cases. The first 2024 PRB Report was published quietly (as usual) on September 25.*-1 The new Report contains an unusually large number of cases (21), many of which appear to have been heard long before the December 2023 Report was released, evidenced by eight cases being reported to Chief Chuck Lovell, who left the top position in October 2023, and six of them in which Lovell made the final decision on discipline. There is no explanation for the delay, but notably three of the cases Lovell weighed in on were among the ten deadly force cases included in the Report. Chief Bob Day, who succeeded Lovell, appears to have made decisions in all but one of the other cases-- a protest case from 2020 where the officer found out of policy could not be identified (#15). There are a few deadly force cases where officers were "debriefed" (given a talking-to) about some of their actions, but only one out-of- policy finding; none were for the actual uses of deadly force. One case in which an officer chased a suspect into Washington state led to two days off without pay (#9). One officer who was under investigation for sexual misconduct in the military failed to let the Bureau know, confessed to the actions, and received eight Sustained (out of policy) findings, leading to Termination (#14). Portland Copwatch (PCW) is often the first entity in the city to review and analyze the PRB Reports, which seems to be the case again this time. It's not clear why a Bureau committed to transparency, which redacts enormous amounts of information from these memos, doesn't do more to let the community know when they've been published. The redactions include: --except in the deadly force cases, the dates the incidents happened --the dates the Police Review Board met --the dates the facilitators wrote their memos --the names and genders of the officers --generally, the gender of involved community members and --the names of the survivors/victims in deadly force cases, even though they're explicitly allowed to be used per City Code.*-2 Another bit of information strangely blocked out: the Internal Affairs case designation. It's one thing that the Bureau stopped publishing the case numbers, but the center bit of information in those (represented as "Y" here: xxx-Y-zzzz), would tell the public if they treated the case as internal to the Bureau ("B") or a community complaint ("C"). In the past, the Bureau labeled all deadly force cases as "B" cases because investigations (or "reviews") are automatic, but PCW calls them "B/C" cases since there's always at least one community member involved. PCW believes that other than the 10 deadly force cases, nine were "C" cases and two were "B". Overall, there was no discipline proposed or meted out in 10 cases-- nine deadly force and the unfindable officer case. Of the remaining 11, three led to resignations or retirements before officers could be terminated (and one prior to a 10 hour suspension), two led to 20 hour suspensions, and one to a 10 hour suspension... though Chief Day lowered the PRB's proposed discipline in that case. Two led to Letters of Reprimand (including one in which Chief Lovell lowered the PRB proposal), and one to Command Counseling (another one lowered by Chief Day). One of the cases involved three officers, two of whom retired and the third received a Letter of Reprimand. While the Bureau goes out of its way to obscure some information, the dates of the deadly force cases confirm they are the shootings of: Alexander Tadros and Andreas Boinay in 2021 (#s 12 & 1), Joel Arevalo, Matthew Leahey, Jonathan Worth, Aaron Stanton, Robert Connelly and Jeremy Rieck in 2022 (#s 6, 16, 13, 10, 19 & 21), and Jack Watson in 2023 (#20). There was also an incident in which Officer Matthew Masunari hit Brian Bruman in the head with a rifle butt, which led to Masunari getting command counseling for poor performance, but not for the actual use of force (#11, B/C4). This is consistent with the City's immoral policy to ensure officers can kill with impunity, expressed most explicitly in their September 4 decision to appeal a jury's verdict against the officer who shot and killed Michael Townsend in 2021. It is interesting that Chief Lovell added a debriefing for the officers who shot Boinay at the request of just one of the seven PRB members. Case #4 (C3) is obviously that of Officer Scott Groshong, who struck a shoplifting suspect with a police van, knocking that person to the ground, and failed to report it. Groshong pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the case and faced being fired, but had retired shortly after the incident. A second officer riding in the van, Sergeant Christopher Kenagy, was also recommended for "Termination" but retired prior to the imposition in January, 2024. It just wouldn't be a PRB Report without at least one case where an officer was disciplined for driving under the influence. This is the second Report in a row where that driving took place in a PPB vehicle when the officer was on duty. This time the officer was spared the mandatory two weeks off without pay as Chief Day, at the request of a minority of the PRB, lowered that to one week off plus rehabilitation (#8, B2). The six not yet mentioned involved an officer who failed to report a child abuse case properly (#2), an officer who improperly used a Taser after a dubious foot chase (#3, the officer who resigned when facing 20 hours off), an officer who got a day off without pay for pushing a protestor in 2020 (#5), an officer who was untruthful about health conditions and whether they received disability pay who was fired (#7, B1), an officer who failed to respond properly to a Domestic Violence incident (20 hours off without pay, #17) and an officer who arrested a person but failed to inventory or take for safekeeping the belongings in their shopping cart (#18). As with the previous Report, the date ranges of the Review Board hearings can be guessed because Elizabeth Vogan, the Review Board Coordinator, did not facilitate any meetings until after July 2023, when City Code was changed. Ms. Vogan is listed as facilitator on cases starting with #9 (and facilitated all but three cases since that time). It is not clear how the order is determined for the memos in the Report; most likely it depends how long the Chief took to respond to recommendations, since as hinted at above Chief Lovell made the determination in case #10, but not in #5 or #s 7-9. Memos in cases #1-3 were sent to Christopher Paille, who has not been Review Board Coordinator since early 2023. Other than the 10 deadly force cases, which prompt automatic Board hearings, the majority of the other cases (eight) appear to have been referred to the Board by the officers' supervisors who proposed "Sustained" findings; the memos now only refer to City Code sections, often without specific reasons included. Case #18 involved Internal Affairs, an Assistant Chief and the "Independent" Police Review (IPR) all "controverting" commanders' proposed non-sustained findings, while #4 included allegations controverted by IPR and IA. Case #15 was picked up because a civil jury found the officer used unreasonable force, but as noted above, the officer was not identified. Significantly, there is a gap in the review of deadly force cases, where in November 2022 the first two Black men shot by the PPB since 2019, Antoine Young (wounded) and Immanueal Clark-Johnson (killed) are not included here. Once those cases are adjudicated and published, all of the 2021 and 2022 cases will have had their hearings completed and publicly addressed, even though these Reports are mostly unsatisfying to those interested in accountability. Several of the officers faced Termination because of untruthfulness (cases #4, 7, and 14), which is supposed to lead to automatic Termination according to the City's corrective action guide. Perhaps it is worth explaining again that the PRB's hearings are closed to the public, the media, and even the person who was harmed by the police (or their survivors). Regular Boards consist of five people-- three PPB members, an IPR staffer and one community volunteer. Force, deadly force and other serious cases have seven members-- an extra PPB officer and one community member are added. Also since July 2023, the pool of PRB community members now includes Citizen Review Committee members, who previously only sat in on the larger Boards (and normally only hear appeals of misconduct cases*-3). Among the cases, the Board made 23 recommendations for policy changes, of which the Bureau accepted all but five in one way or another. Below are details of the 21 cases, often enhanced by public information about the incidents that are not included in the Report.
DEADLY FORCE: NOTHING TO SEE HERE EXCEPT ONE DEVIATION FROM TRAINING
As PCW has noted in the past, the administrative investigations (called "reviews" by the Bureau) into Portland Police deadly force incidents are a more accommodating place for the community to hold officers accountable and to reasonable standards than in criminal court, where the only officer charged with a crime in such an incident in the last 50 years took his own life before his trial even began. Because the City wants to protect itself from liability, looking at these cases for policy violations is also an uphill climb, and, as is often the case, the few decisions that were not outright clearing all officers of wrongdoing were about items other than the force itself. Case #1 (B/C1): Debrief for Officers who Shot and Wounded Andreas Boinay In September 2021, officers stopped the truck Andreas Boinay was driving, which was stolen. The PRB Report indicates that Boinay had driven recklessly, refused to listen to officers and accelerated toward officers who had gotten out of their cars. It even says he admitted intending to harm the officers-- something he would not have done, perhaps, if he'd been properly instructed on his right to remain silent and to have an attorney. It's not clear whether that statement was made to regular PPB detectives or to Internal Affairs as part of the shooting investigation. Between the two officers Jonah Gellman and Ivan Alvarez, the PPB fired fifteen bullets at Boinay, and a Board member recommended they be debriefed about considering the backdrop in a quiet neighborhood. The memo also indicates that whichever one was officer #2 did not know that their partner was the one firing a gun rather than Boinay, who wasn't alleged to be armed. Two other officers used what's termed "less lethal force" but apparently communicated to Boinay before forcing his window open and firing projectiles into the vehicle. Three officers identified as two Sergeants and an acting Lieutenant also were found "In Policy" for their actions. The votes about Gellman and Alvarez were both 6-1 (In Policy vs In Policy with Debrief), all the others were 7-0. Despite it being a very minority opinion, as noted above, Chief Lovell agreed to the debriefs. The Board recommended getting information from the International Association of Chiefs of Police about "managing vehicle interventions"; the Bureau agreed. Case #6 (B/C2): Joel Arevalo Killed: Stray Gunfire "In Policy," Supervisor Gets Debrief About Involved Officers On February 19, 2022, Joel Arevalo was killed by Acting Sergeant Zachary Kenney and Officer Reynaldo Gueavara because, they said, he would not take his hand out of his pants. The story as reported in the media said that bullets hit occupied apartments, but in the PRB Report we learned that those bullets (which hit a total of three apartments) were fired by the PPB, not the suspect. The PRB's only reaction to this endangerment of uninvolved community members was to recommend that the Training Division discuss backdrops in future trainings. They agreed with that suggestion. The Board, however, voted 7-0 that neither officer was out of policy, claiming that Arevalo had pulled a gun and "committed" a felony, contrary to our commonlaw practice of believing people are innocent until proven guilty. A third officer was ordered by a supervisor (Sergeant #7) to fire a less lethal round at Arevalo's lifeless body, since he wasn't complying with orders... because he was dead. Sergeants #5 and 7 were both with the Focused Intervention Team, the unit which had just begun operating in January 2022 and subsequently was involved in a number of shootings in the name of keeping gunfire down in Portland (see cases #10, 16 and 19). Sergeant #4 failed to announce over the radio that they were going to act as incident commander when they arrived on scene, but apparently that's not explicitly required by policy so... no harm no foul? The PRB's only deviation from straight-up absolving cops of wrongdoing was to suggest that Acting Sergeant #8 be debriefed for failing to realize Officer #3 had used the less lethal weapon on Arevalo and was thus to be considered an involved officer. They also recommended the Bureau remind officers of this distinction, with which they agreed. Did this compromise the investigation? We'll never know. The agreement to Debrief #8 and exonerate all the officers in this case came from Chief Lovell, so, sometime before October 11, 2023. Case #10 (B/C3): Aaron Stanton Shot and Killed in Front of His Young Daughter On July 27, 2022, Aaron Stanton was allegedly firing his gun on his own property, into the ground and into the air but not at people. Officer Joshua Dyk shot and killed Stanton when he allegedly pointed the gun at officers. Stanton's six year old daughter witnessed her father's death. Hopefully the lawsuit filed by the family in November 2023 will provide a lifetime of therapy. As far as the PRB was concerned, though, Dyk let Stanton know about "behavior thresholds" (a new term to PCW, which probably means threats that "if you do such and such you will be shot") and fired only when he perceived an immediate threat. Three other officers (#2, 3 and 4) pointed their guns at Stanton, which is considered a use of force in Portland, so their actions were considered and similarly found in policy. Four supervisors also had their actions reviewed. We assume that #6 was found In Policy for their supervisory role, but the Report says "Finding Here." The only deviation from exoneration in this case was Supervisor #7, who was given a debriefing at the unanimous suggestion of the Board because they did not write their own report on the incident. The Board also suggested using this case as an illustration of "thresholds of engagement," and the Bureau agreed. The only mention of Stanton's child was that Officer #4 (who had an AR-15 rifle) and Supervisors #5 and 6 arranged to "secure" her. This was another case adjudicated prior to October 11, 2023 by Chief Lovell. In a recurring problem with the PRB Reports, there is no explanation why the unanimous votes in this case were all 6-0, except for the one for Officer Dyk which was 7-0. Case #11 (B/C4): Be This and Butt a Head: Officer Who Hit Brian Bruman with Gun Gets Talked To On February 11, 2023, officers confronted Brian Bruman, who was in a car and apparently armed with a knife. The PRB reasoned that Officer Masunari was within policy using his rifle butt to hit Bruman in the head-- a form of deadly force-- because Bruman was digging around after his knife was taken away and not complying with commands. (The PRB Report only describes the rifle butt as a "hard object.") So, although there was no real evidence that Bruman posed an immediate danger, Masunari was only found out of policy-- and at that, by just four of six Board members-- for his management of the confrontation. They felt he escalated the situation by rushing up to the car alone, which is not in line with training. Only in their recommendations do they also hint that the rifle- butt-as-weapon is not necessarily part of training either, indicating that Masunari got non-PPB training on "close quarter" combat. They suggested review of such trainings, and to allow officers to evaluate if outside trainings align with the Bureau's (notably, this was just before the civilian "Dean" of training was hired). The Bureau agreed with everything, but dropped the proposed punishment of a Letter of Reprimand (formal discipline) to Command Counseling (a mere talking-to). Disturbingly, one reason the Board did not recommend a higher level of discipline is they said there was "no impact to the community." Not sure Mr. Bruman agrees. In addition, Supervisor #3 was "overeager" to debrief officers on what happened before detectives arrived on the scene, and received a debriefing (based on a 6-0 vote) for the potential compromise of an investigation. This seems like a minor reaction to what may actually have allowed officers to get their stories straight. The counseling and debrief decisions were made by Chief Bob Day, so sometime after October 11, 2023. Once again there is no explanation of why a deadly force board hearing was only attended by six people-- or why only six people voted, if all seven members were present. Case #12 (B/C5): Alexander Tadros Killed in Vengeance Fire After Officer Suffers Minor Gunshot Wound In a confusing scenario on August 27, 2021, federal officers from the Drug Enforcement Administration were trying to serve a warrant on Tadros when he allegedly threatened to kill them. This was the first time they alerted the Portland Police to their operation, bringing in the Special Emergency Reaction Team (SERT). After firing less- lethal weapons, an officer standing behind a wall was hit in the hip, which led Officers Joshua Howery and Jake Ramsey to back off, reassess the plan and call for de-escalation. Just kidding, they shot and killed Tadros. But the decision was not solely theirs-- Supervisor #1 told officers to take a "shot of opportunity" if they could, which was found in policy on a 7-0 vote (more on voting tallies below). Also involved was Supervisor #4, who authorized the use of gas (presumably the less lethal weapon used before the shooting) to avoid a higher level of force. That was clearly not the outcome. At that direction, Officers #5 and 6 deployed the gas which was found in policy because of Tadros' "active resistance." The reviews of Supervisors #1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 all were unanimously in their favor as well, and the narratives here were the first indication that the DEA was involved (and at that, the third supervisor down the list is reported to have been debriefed by the feds upon arrival). The two officers were found in policy for the deadly force on 6-0 votes, inexplicably lacking the seventh vote that came in for Supervisors #1 and 7-10. Supervisors #4 and 11 and officers #5 and 6 all only had six votes. It would not be breaching confidentiality, PCW believes, to explain if someone recused themselves for a particular reason or had to leave the meeting early. The Board recommended that other agencies who are serving warrants in Portland should be required to alert the Bureau ahead of time. Instead, the PPB agreed to send other agencies a list of available services and equipment "considerations" (giving a new meaning to "a killer Portland menu"?). So it was a modified adopted recommendation. The In Policy findings for all 11 cops were accepted by Chief Day after October 11, 2023, well over two years after the incident took place. The PRB was facilitated by Coordinator Vogan, meaning the case wasn't even reviewed until nearly two years after Tadros' death (because it must have been no earlier than July 2023). Case #13 (B/C6): Jonathan Worth Shot At Close Range On July 24, 2022 Jonathan Worth (age 19) was being investigated on Domestic Violence allegations. Worth pulled a gun and fired it, missing both officers who were present, and then Officer Charles Gill took the gun and tossed it down the sidewalk. Nonetheless, Officer Gelsomina Cavalli-Singer fired her gun at least five times at close range and killed Worth. It is true that officers are supposed to make decisions based on what they think at the time and not on 20/20 hindsight, but it seems simple communication between the officers could have spared the young man his life. Here's how the PRB treated this case: They said that Worth's bullet was fired at Officer Gill's head (which is questionable if you look at the video of the incident) and so Cavalli-Singer was "required" to respond. Gill was cleared of wrongdoing for use of force also, it's not clear what that entailed. Supervisors #3, 4 and 5 were all found in policy including for getting medical aid to Worth. The recommendations section on this case is almost as long as the summary of the Board's discussion. The PRB recommended that officers be trained about (1) accessing weapons while engaged in a fight, and (2) "close quarter and braced shooting" when the subject is at arm's length. This incident was video-recorded by community members and the Board also asked that the Bureau "put the video footage into context for the community." If this is anything like the incredibly biased presentation that was made about the August 24 shooting of Robert Seeger, the first caught on PPB body cameras, the Bureau would be better off just releasing the raw footage. These three policies were accepted. A fourth recommendation was to have 911 operators set strict limits on how close people can be to police when recording activity. The Board said "the closeness of individuals filming this incident created complexity and added safety concern for the responding officers." (That concern is not mentioned in the review of the police actions.) The Bureau wisely rejected this recommendation because they already have rules that allow officers to-- within reason-- order people to stand back if there is a safety concern. Again, this case was approved by Chief Day, so at least 15 months after the incident. More unusually, all five votes that officers were "In Policy" were made by five people, when deadly force cases are supposed to be heard by seven people. Were both community members absent? Did two people vote with a different finding? The Report does not say but really should be clear. In other cases, they note when votes were "unanimous," so even when the number doesn't meet the expected size of a Board, the reader has an idea how many people actually voted. Case #16 (B/C7): Matthew Leahey Wounded by Focused Intervention Team Four Months Into Their Tenure On May 6, 2022, less than four months after the formation of the Focused Intervention Team, they performed a traffic stop on Matthew Leahey for unnamed "multiple violations" according to the Oregonian's website from May 7 of that year. Officers initially said that Leahey shot one of the officers, but then walked that inflammatory accusation back. One officer told a community member that Leahey "tried to kill my partner," a sure way to influence public opinion. Leahey was hospitalized for three weeks from injuries caused by the bullets fired by Officers Whitney Anderson, Adi Ramic, John Bartlett and Michelle Petty. The PRB Report, again only just four pages long despite the larger number of involved officers, said the officers tried de-escalation, made a point that Leahey gave them a false name (not a capital offense), and claimed Officer #1 issued warnings. Officer #2 was on the passenger side and saw #1 reach into the car to grab Leahey's hand, heard a gunshot and thought #1 had been shot (perhaps this was the one who leaked false info to the community). Officer #3 was at the driver's window, so probably next to #1 when they "dove" through the window. Officer #3 fired two shots, couldn't see Leahey anymore so stopped, then started again when Leahey's gun was supposedly pointed at Officer #4. That officer was in the rear of the car and saw it rocking, so they sent their gun a-knocking when they heard "no, no, no" and saw #1 fall to their knees. All four were found in policy by 6-0 votes. Three Supervisors labeled #5, 6 and 7 were also found in policy for their actions. These decisions were affirmed by Chief Day at least 17 months after the incident. The Report contains no mention of the Focused Intervention Team (FIT) or whether their stop of Leahey, a 36 year old white man, was due to a suspicion that he had a gun. They made no recommendations. Case #19: (B/C8): Robert Connelly Shot at by FIT, Convinced to Surrender by Civilian... Who's Not Mentioned On August 16, 2022 members of the FIT were wanting to arrest Robert Connelly for outstanding warrants. He ran way from them toward an auto repair shop and Sergeant Charles Elam, along with Officers Amy Li and Christopher Bater fired bullets at him, missing. The Oregonian reported that bystanders had to dodge bullets and that Connelly was not reported to have fired a weapon. Ultimately a man inside the repair shop where Connelly holed up convinced him to turn himself in to make things right with God. No mention of this person's exemplary de-escalation in the Report. How did this unfold from the PRB's point of view? They unanimously cleared all three shooter cops, saying Connelly pointed a firearm at them so it was ok to shoot. Officer #1 said they checked their backstop and saw "a blank wall and a vehicle," and no people. Officer #2 found cover and fired at Connelly until he disappeared into the building. Officer #3 thought #2 had been shot because they fell (that is not explained in #2's narrative). They reported the same backstop as #1. There was only one supervisor involved in both pre-planning and post-shooting follow up, maybe because Connelly was not injured. Still, cops usually come flying through the streets in droves when they hear "shots fired" on the radio. That Supervisor initially said not to try to go through with the arrest due to "lack of resources' but they apparently got all the people they wanted. Chief Day approved of this case also, at least 14 months after the incident occurred. They Bureau also approved the PRB's unusual recommendation to use video of the scene to train officers on foot pursuits. The OIR Group has repeatedly warned officers not to engage in foot pursuits because they often unnecessarily end in the use of force, kinda like what happened here. Hmm. We do not know how many people were on this Board, as all five findings are listed simply as being made "unanimously." Case #20 (B/C9): Jack Watson Killed by Clackamas Deputy and Two Portland Police The most recent deadly force incident covered here took place on April 24, 2023, when Jack Watson was sought for allegedly killing an employee at an adult video store. A car chase led the PPB and a Clackamas Deputy into Clackamas County, where Watson supposedly fired a gun at them, giving them no time to de-escalate (according to the Clackamas County District Attorney). Officers Brian Wheeler and Nicholas Wambold fired alongside the Deputy, killing Watson. Here's what can be found in the PRB memo about this deadly incident: Officer #1 saw the muzzle flash of Watson's gun and fired. Officer #2 also saw the gun go off and fired through his own windshield. PCW is part of a peace group, not a group of firearms experts, but long ago it was noted that officers should not fire through glass because it deflects the path of the bullet.*-4 One other officer had hit Watson's car to force it to stop (a "Pursuit Intervention Technique" or PIT maneuver), and two others boxed in the car. Both tactics are considered use of force. All five officers were found in policy on 6-0 votes. The five other officers in the case (#6-10) also were found in policy. Supervisor #6 approved the pursuit and monitored it from nearby. It's likely #9 and 10 are officers because the first provided "lethal cover" and the second put cuffs on Watson after breaking the driver's window. Sometime between October 2023 and when the Report was published in September 2024, Chief Day agreed there were no violations. Despite the earlier concerns by the PRB about communication between the DEA and the PPB, there was no mention about jurisdictional crossover in this memo. Side note: The Clackamas Deputy, David Sloboda, was identified three days after the incident but the PPB held onto Wheeler and Wambold's names for 17 days, beyond even their supposed policy at the time (15 days), the written policy (24 hours) and ORS 181A.704's provision that law enforcement must respond to public requests for officers' identities within 14 days. Case #21 (B/C10): Jeremy Rieck Shot and Wounded During (Unrelated) Presidential Visit On October 14, 2022, the day President Joe Biden visited Portland, Jeremy Rieck was supposedly threatening people with a sharpened tent stake, according to the Oregonian. But the PRB was told he was "stabbing at people through the window of a parked car." Huh, funny how details might make a difference in decision making. Officer Jonah Gellman (one of the officers who shot Andreas Boinay) shot and wounded Rieck. The presidential visit is explicitly referenced in the recommendations (more on that below) and hinted at in the description of Sergeant #2 showing up and applying a tourniquet to Rieck. The rules normally would dictate supervisors not go "hands-on" but the Report notes the Bureau was "short handed" and the shooting scene was "stabilized" by that time. Sgt. #2 also elicited a public safety statement from Gellman, a step not mentioned in any other incident though it is required by the US Department of Justice Agreement. Sergeant #3 helped set up a perimeter. All officers were found in policy on 6-0 votes, to the agreement of Chief Day who reviewed the case no sooner than a year after it happened. The Board made three recommendations: First, that information be shared with officers who are on overtime when there is a shortage of officers. It's strange that doesn't automatically happen, but the Bureau agreed. The other two recommendations were declined: (a) to review planning to make sure there is minimal impact during presidential visits (the PPB already does that, they say), and (b) to commend Gellman for his "defense" of the community member. The PPB told the Board they can submit a commendation on their own. TWO PROTEST CASES ADD TO LEGACY OF PORTLAND POLICE EXCESSIVE FORCE By PCW's count, there have been at least 15 protest cases from 2020 that came before the Police Review Board since 2021, with 12 leading to proposed discipline for use of force. The two cases in the new Report bring these totals to 14 of 17 incidents. Considering how rare it was for there to be any out of policy force findings prior to those demonstrations, this shows there is at least some accountability being doled out after years of inaction... albeit slowly. Case #5 (C4): Male Protestor Pushed Off His Feet While Walking Away from Police In a rare reveal of a gender pronoun, the PRB Report on this incident which appears to be from September of 2020 lets the reader know the protestor who was pushed by an officer was a male. The Report indicates the officer pushed the person as they were walking away, so the officer inappropriately escalated the situation with the use of force, violating Directive 315.30 on Satisfactory Performance. But they also found the force itself was out of policy because the force was so great the protestor's feet left the ground. There was no immediate threat or resistance, crime or injury involved, and the person had put his hands up. The votes on these allegations are interesting: regarding performance, one PRB member broke away from the other six to claim the finding should be "Not Sustained" (insufficient evidence) because the officer was tired after working 12-16 hour shifts, so their action was justified. However, that person also joined the unanimous 7-0 vote to find the force was excessive. The Board was quite divided on proposed discipline: four members asked for one week off without pay, and one each for two weeks, two days or one day. The majority found the officer posed a risk to public safety and had another force violation within the last five years. The one asking for two weeks cited the significant force used and that it was the second violation in _seven_ years, which is confusing. The one wanting two days off pointed to this happening in the fifth month of protests (which is why PCW believes it was September-- the protests began in late May). The person asking for just one day off was the one who dissented on the Performance violation so the proposed discipline only applied to the one finding about force. Ultimately, Chief Day agreed with this overly sympathetic person, only issuing one day off without pay. That decision came at least three years after the incident happened. This case made it to the Board because the IPR saw a video of the incident on Twitter and opened the investigation; the confusing citation to the City Code implies that the officer's supervisor then planned to Sustain the findings. The Board had no recommendations. Case #15 (C7): Automatic Out of Policy Leads to No Discipline for Ghost Officer Against Female Protestor In one of the shortest memos in the packet, the Report explains that a because a jury verdict of liability requires a Sustained finding, an officer was out of policy for injuring a woman at a protest. PCW's records show only one such person to win their case-- Erin Wenzel, a community medic whose arm was broken on August 14, 2020 in North Portland. (This is the only fact that doesn't fit the PRB case, which supposedly happened in NE Portland.) The hearing for Wenzel's case occurred in October, 2022 and resulted in a $40,272 payment. Because such a finding presumes a policy violation unless an investigation proves otherwise, and there was no officer identified, the Board voted 7-0 to Sustain the allegation but proposed no discipline for lack of someone to apply it to. Thus, there was no affirmation from the Bureau on their finding. However, the memo was written to Chief Day, so it took at least a year to get from the Jury verdict to the Board, over three years after the incident. The Board made no recommendations. OTHER IMPROPER USES OF FORCE LEAD TO NO DISCIPLINE AS 3 OFFICERS LEAVE BUREAU Two other incidents involving the use of force led to out-of-policy findings for four officers, three of whom left the PPB before facing the consequences. Case #3 (C2): Taser Use After Improper Foot Chase Found Inappropriate In a frustrating administrative twist of events, some allegations which previously received findings-- even "Sustained" ones-- do not make it to the PRB for deliberation. In this case it's confusing that the PRB was asked to opine whether the officer in question used excessive force when firing a Taser at a fleeing suspect but not whether the foot chase was out of policy. It appears there were only six people on this particular Board but they all agreed there was a Force violation because the policy doesn't allow a Taser to be used when there is no active aggression, and specifically says it can't be used when someone is merely running away. In considering discipline, they were asked to include the decision the Bureau previously made to find the foot pursuit was out of policy. For the force, they unanimously asked for 20 hours off without pay, while they split 3-3 on whether to give a written reprimand or command counseling for the foot pursuit issue. This is the opposite of the usual problem where there is a finding that the lead-up to force is wrong but not the force itself. But really, since the officer wasn't supposed to engage in the chase and that decision led to the use of force, shouldn't the punishment be equal for both violations? Ultimately the Chief (it's not clear which one) agreed to tell the officer they would get 20 hours off without pay, but they resigned before it could be imposed. Because the memo was written to the previous Review Board Coordinator Christopher Paille, who left that position in early 2023, it's likely but not certain that Chief Lovell made the decision. The Board made no recommendations in this case. Case #4 (C3): Officer Groshong and Partner Face Termination for Hitting Suspect with Van The incident with Officer Groshong running his police van into a shoplifting suspect occurred on June 15, 2020. It appears that the administrative review was held after the criminal case was resolved, which resulted on a guilty plea on July 25, 2022. The Board's report says that Groshong and Sgt. Kenagy (here listed as Officer #2) were conducting surveillance and Groshong saw the suspect "looting," then struck the person with the van. Video was taken by witnesses. Groshong did not report on the potentially deadly action. The Board made findings about Groshong's use of force, which they found unreasonable because the suspect posed no threat, his failure to report his own criminal act (hit and run), his failure in reporting, and his being untruthful by not reporting the action to the Bureau though he admitted it in court. They were all Sustained on 7-0 votes. Kenagy faced five allegations, with only one of the four "Sustained" unanimously found out of policy-- his failure to report. Three others, two truthfulness and one conduct allegation, led to five members wanting to Sustain the allegations but two others thinking they should be "Not Sustained" because they could not prove Kenagy, who was riding in the back of the van, knew that Groshong hit the person. That logic carried over to the second Truthfulness allegation which had to do with Kenagy's responses to Internal Affairs investigators. The last one, on satisfactory performance and force, was proposed as "Not Sustained" because the majority reasoned Kenagy was not responsible for the van hitting the pedestrian. A third officer, Supervisor #3 whose name was not revealed in the media, was found out of policy for not reporting the misconduct. For discipline, the Board voted 7-0 to fire Groshong. Five members wanted to see Kenagy lose his job, but the two who didn't think he had lied only wanted a Letter of Reprimand with a debrief. Six PRB members wanted Supervisor #3 to get a Letter of Reprimand, while one suggested a day off without pay. As noted above, both Groshong (in 2020) and Kenagy (in 2024) retired before being fired. Chief Lovell approved of the recommendations, which means Kenagy received notice before October 2023 but retired one month into 2024. The Board made two recommendations, both of which were rejected. The first was to track injuries to community members, which the PPB reasoned is already part of the After Action process. The second was to have more timely interviews of witness officers, but the Bureau said that could not have happened in this case because of the criminal charges. For what it's worth, some of the allegations were controverted by Internal Affairs and IPR (changed to "Sustained") before the case reached the Board. INCIDENTS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT DEFY CATEGORIZATION Two of the incidents are hard to categorize but are what one might call "eyebrow-raising." One involved an officer who took their vehicle into Washington State where they had no jurisdiction and the other about an officer sexually abusing fellow military personnel raise questions about how effective the screening is when offering people work as Portland officers. Case #9 (C5): Officer Crashes Into Suspect Vehicle in Another State In another strangely short memo, the PRB says that the After Action Report on the officer's car chase led to an investigation and proposed Sustained findings (presumably by the officer's supervisor). First, by pursuing the suspect into Washington without identifying a felony crime as justification and not reporting updates frequently enough, the officer violated the Vehicle Pursuits and Satisfactory Performance Directives. Moreover, the officer used the PIT maneuver without announcing the intent to do so, which violated both the Pursuits and Use of Force policies. Both decisions were made by a unanimous vote of 6-0. The Board recommended a Letter of Reprimand for the first allegation and 20 hours off without pay for the second. Chief Day agreed to the more serious punishment to cover both findings. It's very unclear when the incident occurred, but the memo was written by Ms. Vogan to Chief Lovell, so the hearing likely happened between July and October 2023 with the decision coming sometime after that. The Board recommended that the Bureau remind officers not to take official action when in Washington state, to which the PPB said "No duh!!!" and agreed. Case #14 (C6): TRIGGER WARNING: Officer Admits to Sexual Abuse... to Military, But Not to PPB WARNING: if you don't want disturbing details of this case about sexual abuse you can skip to the next paragraph. It was shockingly easy to tell the gender of the person in the military unit who was abused by the officer in this case, because after the initial note that they were touched in the genital area, the Report several times mentions that the person was touched on their penis three different times. (To be fair, they also used the pronoun "him" prior to that reveal.) The survivor was a Sergeant in this "military organization" (specifics redacted) who complained about the officer, who is also in that troop. To cite the movie "The Producers," the Police Review Board found the officer in this case incredibly guilty. They faced eight allegations, six of them in violation of the "Laws, Rules and Orders" Directive, with the other two on Conduct and Truthfulness. The Board found that the officer confessed in writing to the military and agreed to their imposed discipline. In addition, witnesses corroborated the allegations and the military found probable cause to support the criminal allegations. When a protection order was applied and a criminal investigation was begun on the officer, they failed to report to a supervisor as mandated. The protection order was through an unnamed Sheriff's office, which the officer thought would be sent to the PPB so they didn't self-report as required. The conduct allegation was about unprofessional behavior, particularly in light of the fact that the people involved knew the officer was part of the Portland Police. The truthfulness allegation included the officer claiming that their written confession was supposed to say "I did not" instead of "I did." The PPB and the Board found this unbelievable since they accepted the discipline from the military. The officer also tried to discredit the complainant, typical behavior of an abuser. The votes were all 5-0 to Sustain the allegations, as was the recommendation to fire this officer. There is no mention of a Chief adopting the recommendation, though the memo was sent to Chief Day. The officer resigned or retired before they could be terminated. The Board had no recommendations, which is a shame because cases of these abusive officers come up every once in a while prompting PCW to write about "pervocops." Perhaps telling officers they can't do whatever they want and get away with it might be a good start. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE FAILURES LEAD TO VARIOUS LEVELS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION In three incidents, officers' failure to follow investigative policies led to three different outcomes: Command Counseling, a Letter of Reprimand, and two days off without pay. Looking at the circumstances, it almost seems that the people were treated differently based on who they are rather than their actions, but without their identities being revealed it is hard to say. Case #2 (C1): Officer Shrugs Off Looking Into Abuse of 15 Year Old The mother and father (identified as such in the Report) of a 15 year old boy ("son") who was molested complained that the officer in this case was rude, did not collect evidence and did not advise them to take the boy to the doctor. The Directive on Child Abuse calls for evidence to be collected, including the survivor's phone,, and that a supervisor be contacted. The Board voted 4-1 to Sustain a violation of the policy on these issues, with the dissenter thinking there was not enough evidence to prove the violation. They reasoned that the boy would not delete the evidence and letting him keep his phone would encourage cooperation. Thanks "Minority Report" precog Board member! A second allegation noted the officer was supposed to contact Child Abuse investigators within 120 hours of the incident. This was Sustained on a 5-0 vote. Four members suggested 10 hours off without pay, as the officer received Command Counseling for a similar incident (could this be a case from an earlier PRB Report?). Moreover the officer, who has a supervisory rank, was a 26 year veteran of the force. The fifth member suggested a much less harsh Letter of Reprimand, which Chief Lovell inexplicably agreed to by applying mitigating factors. Lovell's involvement means the case was adjudicated before October, 2023 leading to a question of why this was not included in the December 2023 PRB Report. The Board recommended to study the delay between when corrective action is recommended and when it is imposed. They cited that allegations of "torture, murder or sex abuse" should not face delays in punishment. The Bureau agreed. Case #17 (C8): Lackluster Response to Domestic Violence Call Gets Officer Time Off In another surprisingly short two-page memo, the Board revealed that this case involved an officer responding to a Domestic Violence call where the survivor had been punched in the face by someone who had a no-contact order on them. Not to make too many assumptions but it's likely the perpetrator was male and the survivor was female, as they were identified as having been pregnant at the time, though the officer did not know that because they did not respond in person. As such they also did not collect evidence, or respond with the required two-officer team listed in the Domestic Violence Directive. The accepted photos texted by the complainant but that is not verifiable evidence, apparently. The Board voted 5-0 to Sustain the allegation, with three members asking for 20 hours off without pay as discipline, while one thought ten hours was sufficient, and another just wanted a Letter of Reprimand issued. Chief Day agreed to the 20 hours without pay; he was also the recipient of the memo so the hearing and findings happened after October 11, 2023. The memo makes no mention of recommendations one way or another. Case #18 (C9): Property Kept in a Shopping Cart Not Secured This case seems to dodge around what is probably the central issue: was the person who was arrested and taken to the Justice Center a houseless person, and would they have been treated the same way if they were housed? Another short two-page memo says the arrested person filed a claim because their belongings, which were in a shopping cart, were not secured by the officer. The Directives on Property Procedure and Search/Inventory and a section of City Code make it clear that the officer had a duty to secure the belongings. So, four of the five PRB members voted to Sustain an allegation against the officer. The fifth, which it can be assumed was the officer's supervisor, voted to "Exonerate" the officer, or find them in policy. Setting aside the ridiculous structural issue where the supervisor gets to vote whether or not to agree with themselves, this case made it to the Board because all three reviewing entities-- the IPR, Internal Affairs and an Assistant Chief-- controverted the original finding and found a violation of policy. It's not clear why the officer wasn't also charged with a violation of Laws, Rules and Orders, or for that matter charged criminally for violating City Code. The four Board members who found a violation also suggested the lowest level of corrective action, Command Counseling. Chief Day agreed with this proposal after receiving the memo, so again this case must have been heard past October of 2023. The Board recommended that the Bureau clarify what constitutes property, and the PPB agreed. TWO BUREAU-ONLY CASES: MORE UNTRUTHFULNESS AND A DUI Case #7 (B1): Oops, I Forgot that I Had a Disability This case involves an officer who violated the Truthfulness Directive in three ways. First, they did not indicate that they had filed for disability, and in fact checked a box on an employment form saying they did not, though they later confirmed they had filed and received money. Second, they did not report being diagnosed with two ailments of some kind (not surprisingly, redacted), and other conditions. They gave ambiguous answers and wrote "no" about being diagnosed. Third, they also were not receiving treatment even though they were receiving it through the military. The deceitful behavior came to light because a Restraining Order was taken out on this officer. All three findings of "Sustained" were voted on 5-0 by the Police Review board. They found they could not apply any mitigating factors because Truthfulness violations lead to Termination, which they recommended to Chief Lovell. For some reason, the decision took so long that Chief Day was the one who agreed to fire this officer. The Board made no recommendations. Case #8 (B2): Dee Yew Eye: Showing Up to Work Drunk #2 It took a bit to make sure this was not the same case described in the December 2023 PRB Report regarding a Criminalist who showed up to a crime scene drunk, then drove away and was apprehended by police.*-5 In this incident, an on-duty officer drove a police car to a crime scene with alcohol on their breath at 10:45 AM. Their breath test wasn't administered for 2.5 hours after that, and recorded an .043 level, which is just over half the legal limit. The officer believed enough time had passed since they drank that it would be ok to go to work. Um, (a) why were you drinking before 10:45 AM and (b) if your blood alcohol level was .043 two hours after your supervisor smelled it on your breath, just how drunk were you? Two Directives were invoked, one about Laws, Rules and Orders (you know, the law about drinking and driving?) and one about Drug and Alcohol use. One issue that was a violation of the Directive was carrying a gun while intoxicated (which should also be a crime, maybe?). Though both findings were Sustained on 5-0 votes and the policy clearly says the officer should have gotten a minimum of two weeks off without pay, the Board split on this question. Three people agreed with the mandatory punishment on the Laws, Rules violation, but two felt the officer should be given a chance to go to rehab. All five suggested Termination or an alternative offer for the second violation. They claimed there were exceptional circumstances due to stress and health issues (which would probably be no consolation to a person who was killed if the officer crashed into someone or fired their gun while drunk). The officer had a long history of good work, they said, and officers sometimes, at their discretion, let people off with a warning if their BAC is less than .08. Well, it must have been this officer's lucky day as the memo was sent to Chief Lovell but it was Chief Day who decided to order just 40 hours suspension without pay and for the officer to go to rehab. The Board made three recommendations: 1) to discuss PTSD and unhealthy ways of addressing it (such as drinking). Notably this indicates that they revealed the officer's health issue. 2) To revise the alcohol policy so there is more discretion about discipline. 3) Officers should talk about stress as a way to prevent addiction. The Bureau accepted all three. ... REPEATING PORTLAND COPWATCH SUGGESTIONS FOR BETTER REPORTS PCW once again asks the Bureau to include the following data points to improve the readability, clarity and transparency of the Reports:
--the dates of the incident in question,
--the number of voting members and number of votes
--which opinions were from officers, civilians,
--the gender of all persons involved (both for clarity in
--the names of officers, particularly in cases which have already
--more thorough background summaries for all cases, especially --an explanation of the delay in publishing a case;
--a general summary of the purpose of the PRB with a citation of the
--reports on the progress of PRB recommendations,
--a list of the names of the civilian members of the Board, which Portland Copwatch continues to challenge the Portland Police Bureau and the City of Portland, both of which claim to value transparency, to do a better job both with the Police Review Board Reports and in communicating about the process to the public. Members of the Citizen Review Committee who sit on PRBs should be asked to host the Review Board Coordinator, other appropriate Bureau personnel, and civilian members of the PRB pool to present these twice-yearly reports at public meetings. While the new oversight system is ramping up, it would be a good way to prepare for getting information to the community. The discussions would only have to address the publicly reported information, but ideally would also discuss in a general way how the PRB hearings are conducted. PCW also urges the Bureau to rethink its misguided policy of releasing officer names 14 days after the incident. There have been 24 incidents in Oregon as of October 7, and we believe that officer names in 80% of cases other than the six that have happened in Portland resulted in quicker public release of information.
Thank you
back to top
Shootings
and deaths page Posted October 7, 2024 |
|