April 13, 2000
Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee
MINUTES
April 13, 2000
(Approved: May 11, 2000)
Citizen Advisors Present: Charles Ford, Presiding; Denise Stone (Vice
Chair); Robert Ueland; Ric Alexander; Shirlie Karl; Robert Wells; Gene Bales;
Les Frank; Leora Mahoney; Kitsy Brown Mahoney
Citizen Advisors Absent: Jose Martinez; Dapo Sobomehin; Tou
Cha
City Staff Present: Capt. Bret Smith, IAD; Sgt. Steve Bottcher, IAD;
Sgt. Suzanne Whisler, IAD; Sgt. Jay Drum, IAD; Dr. Michael Hess, PIIAC
Examiner
Media Present: Dan Handelman (Portland Copwatch); Janet Marcley-Hayes
(Portland Free Press)
Mr. Ford opened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. PIIAC Citizen Advisors and City
Staff introduced themselves.
The minutes of the March 9, 2000, PIIAC meeting were approved as written.
PIIAC Examiner Michael Hess announced that there would be only two cases
heard tonight, since the Appellant for PIIAC Case 99-27 had called to say that
he was sick.
PIIAC #00-04 (IAD #99-310)
PIIAC Examiner Michael Hess presented this case. Appellant was present.
Dr. Hess summarized the incident and the Appellant’s allegations. A Portland
Police Officer (Officer A) was dispatched to assist the Siletz tribal police
chief in recovering property belonging to the tribe at the Appellant’s
residence. Appellant alleged that Officer A had no authority to assist in this
action. She alleged that Officer A spoke and acted in an arrogant and
threatening manner and that he failed to give the Appellant his police
identification number when she asked him for it.
Dr. Hess stated that the Appellant was fully interviewed during the intake
process and that the decision to deny the complaint was clearly stated in the
letter of disposition. Based on his analysis, he recommended that the Advisors
affirm IAD’s decision to decline the complaint.
Citizen Advisor Robert Ueland made a motion to have a vote on the combined
recommendations of the examiner. Leora Mahoney seconded the motion. This motion
was voted down (4 in favor, 6 opposed). Shirlie Karl made a motion to vote on
each allegation separately. Kitsy Brown Mahoney seconded this. This motion
carried.
The declination of the procedural aspect of the complaint (that Officer A
lacked authority to assist the tribal police chief) carried unanimously.
[Y=10]
The declination of the procedural aspect of the complaint (that Officer A
intimidated the Appellant by showing up at her residence in uniform and with a
police car) carried by majority vote. [Y=8, N=2]
The declination of the communications aspect of the complaint (that Officer
A’s speech and demeanor were arrogant) carried by majority vote. [Y=8,
N=2]
There was discussion among the advisors regarding Officer A’s failure to
provide the appellant with his police identification number when asked. It was
pointed out that this is a clear violation of the General Order on
Identification, and that this behavior has been seen several times in the past.
Captain Smith responded that he wrote a memorandum to the officer’s commander
advising him that Officer A should be counseled about this.
PIIAC #00-06 (IAD #99-146)
Citizen Advisor Robert Wells presented this case. Appellant was present with
her father.
Mr. Wells described an incident in which the Appellant was approached by a
Portland traffic officer (Officer A) in court following a traffic accident. The
Appellant alleged that Officer A’s display of angry words and demeanor in the
courthouse was inappropriate and intimidating to her and her family.
The Appellant and her father expressed their frustrations with the internal
investigation process and the lack of responsiveness and timeliness of the
Traffic Division in completing the investigation. (The appellant’s father and
the Appellant had filed a separate complaint against Officer A relating to his
conduct at the site of the traffic accident.)
After discussion and some public input on this case, Mr. Ueland made a motion
that the case be returned to IAD for reinvestigation, and that both complaints
be looked at together since they were so closely related. Mr. Wells seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously. [Y=10].
Other Business
Chairman Ford announced that the next meeting of the PIIAC advisory committee
would be held on May 11, 2000, at 6:30 p.m. in the Rose Room on the third floor
of the Portland City Hall.
Dr. Hess announced that he had received the response of Chief Kroeker to the
recommendations of the PIIAC Monitoring Subcommittee, and that the Chief had
accepted all of the PIIAC recommendations.
Public Input
Dan Handelman criticized Dr. Hess for stating in his presentation of the
first case that "a reasonable person would not consider the mere presence of a
uniformed police officer to be a threat." Mr. Handelman pointed out that in a
recent Supreme Court opinion it was acknowledged that many persons do have a
reason to feel intimidated by the mere presence of a police officer.
A previous PIIAC Appellant stated that he did not think that he had been
given sufficient opportunity to present his side of his case. He asked the
Advisors to consider letting him come back before them to further present his
case. There was no motion made by any of the Advisors to do so.
A citizen read a letter to the PIIAC Advisors claiming that their decision in
a previous PIIAC case was flawed.
A citizen stated that she feels that it may be a conflict of interest for an
officer’s direct supervisor to be assigned an investigation on one of his or her
employees.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Michael H. Hess, D.D.S.
PIIAC Examiner