1st and 2nd Quarter 2001 Monitoring Report
CITY OF PORTLAND
CITIZEN ADVISORS TO
THE POLICE INTERNAL
INVESTIGATIONS
AUDITING COMMITTEE
(PIIAC)
MONITORING REPORT
FIRST
AND SECOND QUARTERS YEAR 2001
Monitoring Subcommittee Members
Robert Ueland, Chair
Robert Wells
Denise Stone
Ric Alexander
Shirlie Karl
Michael H. Hess, DDS, MPH
Police Internal Investigations Examiner
Approved by PIIAC Citizen Advisors:
6/14/01
Approved by City Council: 8/1/01
CITY OF PORTLAND
CITIZEN ADVISORS
MONITORING REPORT TO THE
POLICE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS
AUDITING COMMITTEE (PIIAC)
January-June 2001
The PIIAC Citizen Advisors Monitoring Subcommittee is responsible for
surveying cases handled by the Portland Police Bureau's Internal Affairs
Division (PPB/IAD) involving citizens’ and PPB employees' complaints about
alleged police misconduct. The Subcommittee analyzes complaints, IAD
investigations, and Risk Management data to "highlight trends of police
performance, suggesting necessary Police Bureau policy and procedural changes.
Patterns of behavior, unclear procedures, policy issues and training needs may
be identified for review."
This report combines monitoring results from the first two quarters of year
2001. Attachment A is a summary of the current recommendations. Attachment B is
a summary of the recommendations of the previous monitoring report. Attachment C
is a compilation of accomplishments of the PIIAC Monitoring Subcommittee from
1983 to present. Attachment D contains definitions of IAD complaint categories
and findings. Attachment E contains IAD quarterly statistics. Attachment F is a
copy of General Order 310.40 (Courtesy).
This will be the final quarterly monitoring report of the City of Portland’s
Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee (PIIAC). On June 6, 2001, the
Portland City Council unanimously passed a new City Code replacing PIIAC with
the Independent Police Review Division in the Office of the City Auditor. A
nine-member Citizen Review Committee will be selected to replace the current
PIIAC Citizen Advisory Committee.
I. PIIAC/IAD STAFFING
PIIAC Citizen Advisory Committee
Charles Ford (Mayor Katz) and Denise Stone (Commissioner Sten) continue to
serve as Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively, of the PIIAC Citizen Advisory
Committee. The other PIIAC Citizen Advisors are: Robert Ueland (Central
Northeast Neighbors); Robert Wells (Commissioner Hales); Leora Mahoney (North
Portland); Les Frank (Southeast Uplift); Dapo Sobomehin (Commissioner Saltzman);
Gene Bales (East Portland); Ric Alexander (Northeast Portland); Shirlie Karl
(Southwest Neighborhoods); Tou Cha (Commissioner Francesconi); Jose Martinez
(Mayor Katz). Kitsey Brown Mahoney (Northwest Coalition) resigned from PIIAC due
to scheduling conflicts. Mr. Gene Bales (East Portland) has expressed his intent
to step down due to other commitments but has not officially resigned.
Internal Affairs Division (IAD): On June 8, 2001, Chief Kroeker
announced the appointment of Captain Darrel Schenck to replace Captain Bret
Smith as commander of the Internal Affairs Division. Captain Smith has directed
Internal Affairs since 1999.
II. APPEALED CASES
In the first six months of calendar year 2001 the PIIAC Citizen Advisors held
four meetings. The following ten appeals were heard.
PIIAC #00-25 (IAD #98-209). Appellant alleged a Portland Police
officer stopped him for a traffic violation because he was an African American
male driving a Corvette. The Advisors voted 6-2 to affirm the Police Bureau’s
finding of Disparate Treatment: Insufficient Evidence. The appellant
later appealed the case to the City Council, which voted 3-1 to recommend
changing the finding to Disparate Treatment: Sustained. Chief Kroeker
disagreed with the Council recommendation and left unchanged the finding of
Insufficient Evidence.
PIIAC #00-19 (IAD #00-262). Appellant, who was not present for the
hearing, had alleged that Portland Police officers responding to a domestic
disturbance call falsely arrested him and refused to call for a supervisor as he
requested. He had also alleged the officers were rude to him and refused to give
him their identification when he requested it. The Advisors voted unanimously to
uphold IAD’s declination of the procedural aspects of the case and their
decision to treat the courtesy aspects as an Inquiry (an allegation of a
minor rule violation which, if sustained, would not require disciplinary
action.)
PIIAC #00-27 (IAD #98-222). Appellant alleged Portland Police officers
used excessive force when they arrested him following a car and foot pursuit and
that an officer videotaped the arrest. Advisors decided by majority vote to
change the finding from Use of Force: Exonerated to Use of Force:
Insufficient Evidence with Debriefing. The case will be scheduled for a
hearing before the City Council when the Advisor who examined the case submits a
final report.
PIIAC #00-28 (IAD #99-114). Appellant (who did not desire to appear)
alleged Portland Police officers broke the back door of her house in
apprehending her daughter for an outstanding warrant; that the officers lied in
their police report about her daughter lighting up a cigarette in the police
car; and that the officers beat and pepper maced her daughter when she was in
custody. Advisors unanimously voted to affirm the findings of Use of Force:
Unfounded and Conduct: Unfounded with Debriefing (Officer A) and
Use of Force and Conduct: Exonerated (Officer B).
PIIAC #00-03 (IAD #00-019). Appellant alleged a Portland Police
officer followed him too closely on a freeway, exceeded the speed limit,
displayed road rage, and intimidated the appellant. City Council had previously
sent this case back to IAD for further investigation. Following the additional
investigation, the appellant again appealed to the Advisors. The Advisors voted
unanimously to affirm the Police Bureau’s finding of Conduct: Unfounded.
PIIAC #00-20 (IAD #00-287). Appellant alleged that an IAD sergeant and
a precinct sergeant lied about the appellant in police reports and that the IAD
Captain and the Precinct Commander share the blame for their lack of
truthfulness. The Advisors voted unanimously to affirm IAD’s declination. The
declination was subsequently reaffirmed by unanimous vote of the City Council.
PIIAC #00-30 (IAD #99-173). Appellant was a witness of an incident in
which he alleged that two Portland police officer used excessive force in
arresting a man who refused to obey an exclusion order for littering in Pioneer
Square. He also alleged that one of the officers rubbed a food tray in the man’s
face and that the other officer used profanity toward bystanders. The Advisors
voted unanimously to affirm the Police Bureau’s findings, which were as
follows:
Officer A: Use of Force: Exonerated; Courtesy: Insufficient
Evidence; Conduct: Sustained. Officer B: Use of Force:
Exonerated; Courtesy: Unfounded
The appellant has requested an appeal before City Council.
PIIAC #00-26 (IAD #00-430). Appellant alleged a Portland Police
officer lied in a police report regarding a parental visitation incident,
refused to amend the report, and received inappropriate assistance from another
police officer in writing the report. Advisors voted unanimously to affirm the
declination of this case due to lack of merit.
PIIAC #00-31 (IAD #00-696). Appellant alleged Portland Police officers
were negligent in responding to a 911 call, that they failed to investigate a
crime, and that they lied and deliberately withheld information from the
appellant. Advisors decided by majority vote (9-1) to affirm IAD’s declination
of this case. Appellant has requested to appeal this case to City Council.
PIIAC #00-32 (IAD #00-378). Appellant alleged a Portland Police
sergeant left threatening messages on her home answering machine, was
discourteous, and refused to apologize. Advisors voted 7-3 to recommend that the
sergeant apologize to the appellant and voted 6-3 (with one abstention) to
recommend sustaining the allegation of discourtesy.
Summary
Of the 10 cases heard by PIIAC in the first two quarters of Year 2001, PIIAC
Advisors made the following decisions:
|
Decision |
No.of cases |
|
Findings affirmed |
8 |
|
Returned to IAD for further investigation |
0 |
|
Recommended change of finding |
2 |
III. MONITORING ACTIVITY
The Monitoring Subcommittee randomly monitors closed cases, including those
that involve use of force, disparate treatment, complaints with sustained
findings, and cases that went to PPB’s Review Level Committee. From January
through April 2001 we audited 22 of the 56 IAD cases that were closed.
|
FINDINGS F
HCATEGORY |
Unfoun-ded |
Exon-erated |
Insuff.
Evid. |
Sus-
tained |
Inquiry |
Sus-
pended |
Declined |
Media-
tion |
Total |
|
Force |
8 |
18 |
2 |
1 |
29 | ||||
|
Control Tech. |
3 |
3 | |||||||
|
Conduct |
16 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
24 | ||||
|
Disp. Treatment |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 | |||||
|
Courtesy |
10 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
16 | ||||
|
Procedure |
7 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
18 | |||
|
Performance |
2 |
2 |
(Note: A single complaint may reflect multiple allegations and findings
and may involve more than one officer.)
Sustained complaints were initiated both internally (from Police Bureau
members) and externally (from citizens). Sustained allegations included
courtesy, use of force, performance, and conduct issues.
The average completion time of audited cases (excluding declined cases) was
15 months. The average completion time of audited cases in the previous
two quarters was 14 months.
IV. NEW ISSUES
Telephone Interviews
Telephone interviews by IAD investigators sometimes fall short of the high
interview standards set by the Police Bureau simply because they are conducted
over the phone. At times these interviews interrupt complainants and witnesses
at work and provide them little opportunity to prepare themselves for the
interview. A number of appellants have stated that they would have preferred a
face-to-face interview. Some did not understand that the telephone interview was
a formal recorded interview and expected to be called in at a later date.
Although sometimes telephone interviews are unavoidable or preferred by the
person being interviewed, we recommend that citizens be given the option of a
face-to-face interview or a telephone interview and that they be advised that
interviews are tape recorded to preserve the accuracy of statements.
Interview Question Lists
We have noted higher quality of interviews in which written questions were
prepared by the investigator prior to the interview. The Institute of Police
Technology and Management, a nationally recognized training institution,
recommends this practice in its Police Internal Affairs course. We recommend
that interview questions be prepared by investigators whenever practical and
that the question lists be made part of the IAD file.
Crisis Intervention Training
We continue to see allegations involving escalation of use of force and
communication problems with persons who appear to be mentally ill or emotionally
distraught. We recommend that all Portland Police officers receive ongoing
crisis intervention and communication skills training to defuse difficult
situations involving persons with mental or emotional disabilities.
Early Warning System
- We have noted that a relatively small number of officers receive a disproportionate number of citizen complaints. Efforts by the Monitoring Subcommittee to receive a briefing about the Early Warning System (EWS) have not been successful. We recommend that the Police Bureau provide a detailed briefing to the City Council and the City Auditor, with specific examples, on the effectiveness of the Early Warning System in identifying and improving the performance of officers who receive an excessive number of complaints. The briefing should include information on who in the Bureau is responsible for identifying officers for the EWS and conveying this information to the appropriate supervisors.
Business Cards
Although we noted one case (IAD Case #00-422) in which all involved officers
gave the complainant their PPB business cards, we continue to see complaints
about officers’ reluctance to provide their names and DPSST numbers to citizens.
We recommend that all officers be provided standardized Bureau-issued
business cards with the officer’s name, rank, and DPSST number and that officers
be instructed to provide citizens with their business card whenever it is safe
and practical to do so. This would curb some complaints and and would
demonstrate a willingness of police officers to promote the tenets of community
policing.
Distraction Technique
PIIAC has noted that the term "distraction technique" is frequently used by
officers and supervisors to describe striking a suspect to gain compliance. The
Training Division has informed PIIAC that the "distraction technique" or
"distraction principal" is not an approved technique and that officers are
taught to strike a person only in response to a physical threat. However, there
is a clearly documented pattern involving the use of this technique by Portland
Police officers for at least the past five years. This term is immediately
identified and understood by officers, sergeants, command staff and is routinely
used in police reports and IAD interviews. It is a practice that has been
strongly questioned by at least two precinct commanders.
The "distraction technique" was first brought up as a concern in the First
Quarter 1996 PIIAC Monitoring Report:
"Both PPB command staff and the PIIAC Monitoring Subcommittee have noted
several situations where officers described having used force as a ‘distraction
technique.’ In several cases we monitored, the officer, in the police report and
IAD interview, explained that he had struck, kneed or kicked a combative or
resisting subject to distract the subject enough to get him under control. One
police report said that the ‘technique’ was used to ‘direct pain to another part
of the body’ to gain compliance. Another officer said he ‘applied a kick.’
Several officers said their awareness of distraction techniques came from their
defensive tactics instruction. Although PPB does not prohibit officers from
hitting, kicking or kneeing if essential, there are no Bureau-approved
‘distraction techniques.’
"We will be monitoring this closely. PPB Command Staff has already commented
on this issue, advising supervisors and complaint investigators to use good
judgment and commnon sense when assessing excessive use of force complaints and
not be swayed by the idea of ‘distraction techniques.’" (Page 6,
1996 First Quarter PIIAC Monitoring Report)
In a May 9, 1996, memorandum to PIIAC, a Senior Risk Specialist stated she
was currently investigating a tort claim "where ‘distraction blows’ were used by
one of the officers involved."
In IAD case #99-070, Commander Derrick Foxworth of Northeast Precinct wrote a
Letter of Finding in which he stated the following with regard to "the
distraction principle":
"I have raised this issue with you before in other IAD recommendations. I
have also had conversations with you (Captain [Bret] Smith), Training Division,
and the CHO [Chief’s Office] regarding the distraction principle. In this case,
Officer ____ punched the complainant twice in the torso while yelling for the
complainant to ‘show me your hands." This may not necessarily be the best tactic
available to officers to gain compliance. Under our current training this
practice is allowable [italics added]. I strongly feel that our tactics as
it relates to someone on the ground with their hands underneath them can be
improved. Merely punching someone and yelling to show me your hands does nothing
to control the situation or what the person may do when they finally show their
hands…. I strongly feel that we need to emphasize control techniques (pressure
points, wrist and arm bars) which may be more effective at controlling a
situation versus punching and yelling. I believe our officers and the public
would be better served."
In IAD case #99-193, Commander Larry Findling of Central Precinct wrote the
following:
"The attempt to take him into custody lasted for a short time (less than one
minute?) and a distraction blow was delivered to make the CO [complainant]
comply. Eventually complainant was handcuffed." On the next page, Commander
Findling continued: "…it should be noted that there was a distraction blow
delivered by one of the officers. The officer who delivered the blow named it as
such. He said in his police report that it did not work as anticipated. The blow
(though not fully described in the report) was a punch to CO’s ribs in an effort
to distract CO from his resistance long enough so the officers could get his
hands behind his back and get him handcuffed. The officer expected just a
momentary break in CO’s concentration to facilitate the handcuffing. What
happened was it made the CO more upset, an observation made by other officers
and the CO. The officer who delivered it admitted it did not work; in fact, it
backfired."
In IAD case #98-222, in the interview of one of the officers, the IAD
investigator, in asking about an alleged blow to the complainant’s head or jaw,
asked the officer, "Did one of you hit [the complainant] in the back of the head
or the jaw?… No distraction?" The officer replied, "No, it wasn’t needed."
In IAD case #98-170 the complainant alleged that an officer struck him in the
jaw with his fist and choked him while telling him to spit out what the officer
believed to be a controlled substance in his mouth. In his Letter of Finding,
Commander Foxworth again strongly questioned the appropriateness of this
technique, stating the following:
"I recommend that the Training Division study the cases in which the
distraction principle has been applied and develop some guidelines for the use
of the principle. The guidelines should be in close alignment with our current
use of force continuum, specifically addressing when it is appropriate to strike
someone in the head, which has the potential to result in serious physical
injury. Following the review of these guidelines they should be incorporated
into the Bureau’s defensive tactics training."
Captain Bret Smith of IAD wrote in the Disposition Letter for this case "that
a debriefing of the incident with Officer [X] would be done" and that "the
Training Division has also been advised of the incident and direction has been
given from the Chief’s Office to look into an officer’s use of force while
attempting to secure evidence."
We recommend that the practice of teaching and using force for the purpose
of "distraction" be thoroughly examined and, if found to be an unjustifiable and
inappropriate use of force, that the Bureau should order the discontinuation of
this practice.
Photographic Evidence in Use of Force Incidents
A serious drawback to evaluating excessive use of force allegations is the
frequent absence of any real-time photographic evidence of the use of force.
Jail booking photographs, when available, are often useful in assessing facial
injuries and determining if the allegation made by the complainant corresponds
with the photographic evidence. It is our understanding that it is current PPB
policy to issue a Polaroid camera to all officers. Whether or not there is a
visible sign of injury, it would be in everyone’s best interest if officers were
to take a photograph of the subject in incidents involving use of force and
attach this photograph to the use of force report.
Written Response of Chief to PIIAC Recommendations
It is specified in City Code 3.21.100 that "the Chief, after reviewing a
report provided by the Committee, shall respond promptly to the Committee in
writing, but in no event more than 60 days after receipt of the Committee
report."
Although the Chief responded in person to the City Council regarding the
recommendations of the Third and Fourth Quarters 2000 Monitoring Report, we have
not received a written response; nor have we received a written response to the
Council’s recommended change of findings on IAD Case #98-054.
V. UNRESOLVED ISSUES
To our knowledge, the following previous issues have not been resolved.
- Despite repeated assurances from Chief Kroeker since March 2000 that General Order 310.40 regarding profanity is being re-examined, to date we have seen no proposed amendment to this General Order.
- Although we continue to see a disproportionate number of citizen complaints from African Americans (22.6% in year 2000 and 21.8% in the first half of year 2001), we have yet to see any movement toward instituting a regular cycle of diversity training in Portland Police Bureau’s In-Service Training schedule.
- To our knowledge there has been no mechanism established for routine tracking and reporting on the timeliness of IAD investigations. If there is a mechanism, as stated by Chief Kroeker in his oral response to the last monitoring report, we request a copy of the tracking report so that we can evaluate timeliness of investigations.
- Although it has been several years since it was first recommended, we have not seen a training update addressing the problem of lifting and moving uncooperative and unwilling heavy persons who are taken into custody.
- We have seen no written protocol for unit and precinct commanders clearly stating how internal investigations should be conducted and by whom.
- We have seen no written protocol on who is assigned to investigate senior officers (captain and above) so as to remove any appearance of conflict of interest.
- We have not seen implementation of Chief Kroeker’s commitment to make public documents regarding the Police Bureau (for example, the General Orders) more accessible to the public by making them available on the Internet and at public libraries.
Attachment A
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
FIRST AND SECOND QUARTERS YEAR
2001
- We recommend that complainants and witnesses be given the option of a face-to-face interview or a telephone interview and that they be advised that interviews are tape recorded.
- We recommend that interview questions be prepared by investigators whenever practical and that the written questions be made part of the IAD file.
- We recommend that all Portland Police officers receive ongoing crisis response and communication skills training to defuse difficult situations involving persons with mental or emotional disabilities.
- We recommend that the Police Bureau provide a detailed briefing to the City Council and the City Auditor, with specific examples, on the effectiveness of the Early Warning System in identifying and improving the performance of officers who receive an excessive number of complaints.
- We recommend that all officers be provided standardized Bureau-issued business cards with the officer’s name, rank, and DPSST number and that officers be instructed to provide citizens with their business card whenever it is safe and practical to do so.
- We recommend that the practice of teaching and using force for the purpose of "distraction" be rigorously examined. If this technique as currently practiced and taught is found to be inappropriate, the Chief should order its discontinuation.
- Whether or not there is a visible sign of injury, it would be in everyone’s best interest if officers were to take a photograph of the subject in every incident involving use of force and attach it to the use of force report.
- We request a written response from the Chief to the previous Monitoring Report (Third and Fourth Quarters 2000) and to the City Council’s recommended change of findings on IAD Case #98-054.
Attachment B
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTERS YEAR
2000
- We continue to await revision of G.O. 310.40 making the guidelines for acceptable use of profanity more specific.
- We again request a commitment from the Police Bureau to regularly cycle a refresher course of diversity training during the In-Service training for all officers.
- We strongly urge the Police Bureau to act quickly to simplify public records accessibility and make the fee schedule equitable for all citizens. We look for implementation of the Chief’s commitment to make public documents such as the General Orders available via the Internet. We also repeat our request that the General Orders and other appropriate public documents be made available at public libraries.
- To reduce the number of complaints about officers refusing to provide their name and DPSST number, we recommend that the Chief specifically address this issue with the Training Division and commanding officers.
- We recommend that a mechanism be instituted whereby all IAD cases are
tracked based on how long they have been open and that the IAD Captain and the
Chief be provided with a list every month of cases that have been open for
over sixty days, ninety days, six months, and one year.
- We request an update on whether the problem of lifting and transporting uncooperative and unwilling heavy persons has been further addressed.
- We recommend a written protocol to deal with the issue of who is assigned to investigate a senior officer (captain or above) so as to remove any appearance of conflict of interest when this situation arises.
- We recommend a written protocol for precinct commanders clearly stating how investigations should be conducted and by whom.
- We request that the Chief address the reasons that mediation is no longer happening.
Attachment C
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PIIAC
MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE
1983-85
Addition of a complaint categories to include disparate treatment based on
race.
Discontinuation of the Bureau’s "File Pending Court" policy to suspend
complaint investigations
Use of internal investigations information as a management tool for
identifying "high complaint" officers.
Sending a written notice to the complainant to acknowledge receipt of an
inquiry.
Establishing criteria for inquiries and declinations.
Requiring that all investigations and inquiries be numbered.
Checking officers’ prior complaint history when investigating a complaint and
noting if a similar prior complaint has been filed.
Classification of all excessive use of force complaints as Internal
Investigations Division (IID) cases and not to consider these as inquiries or
declinations.
Including a Notice of Right to Appeal as part of the letter sent by the
Police Bureau as a result of an adverse decision.
1986-87
Maintaining and publishing declination statistics.
Requiring that inquiry investigative files be maintained at IID rather than
at the precincts or another department.
Retaining copies of all disposition letters to complainants in IID.
Retention of tape recordings of intake telephone calls.
Keeping of statistics regarding all declinations
Treating all allegations of misconduct as "complaints" (even those that are
declined or otherwise resolved)
Keeping documentation in IID of complaints filed with precincts.
Maintaining inquiry investigative files at IID rather than at the precinct or
responsible unit.
Maintaining records of all IID and inquiry investigations in the officers’
complaint files.
1988-92
No monitoring records available
1993-94
Sending complainants detailed letters to explain the findings.
Providing investigative guidelines for IID investigators.
Conducting a review of high risk stop procedure
Establishing and maintaining a central records system for all complaints.
Requiring that investigations that are diverted to the precincts or other
units be tracked and returned to IID.
Requiring that commanding officers making recommendations on findings also
provide the rationale for the recommended findings.
Requiring IID investigators to ask officers specific questions to elicit
facts about the allegations (as opposed to asking the officer if the alleged
behavior was "in compliance with Bureau guidelines."
Documenting reasons for missing taped interviews in IID files.
Revising the one year rotation policy for IID investigators so that they can
devolep experience in handling IID complaints.
Requiring that any member of the Police Bureau who receives a complaint of
misconduct or observes misconduct shall document and forward the complaint to
IIID.
Providing training for officers and supervisors on dealing with difficult
people in difficult situations and on responding to diverse groups, and
communication skills and tactics.
Requiring Command Review of officers with high numbers of IID complaints.
Implementing an investigative checklist/activity log in IID.
Providing a written letter to complainants acknowledging that their
complaints have been received and which detective has been assigned the case.
Including in the IID file a notation of any special circumstances that may
have led to a delay on completing the investigation within recommended
timelines.
Providing a course for PIIAC Citizen Advisors on PPB’s Use of force policies
and practices.
Incorporating information on inappropriate statements about complainants in
new investigator training.
PIIAC review of Risk Management records as an adjunct to IID monitoring.
Applying all appropriate categories to allegations contained in a
complaint.
Categorization of complaints to be made by the Internal Affairs
commander.
Not allowing a finding of "unsubstantiated" for allegations involving
excessive force. (The "unsubstantiated" finding category was subsequently
discontinued.)
Including the Bureau definitions and the rationale for findings in letters of
disposition to complainants.
Describing specific behaviors rather than labeling complainants as mentally
ill, "mental", 12-34," etc.
[In 1995 Internal Investigations Division’s name changed to Internal
Affairs Division (IAD)]
1995-96
Developing a tracking system for IAD declinations.
Providing letters of disposition and notice of right to PIIAC appeal to all
complainants, including cases that are given a finding category of declined,
miscellaneous, or suspended.
Following the same procedures in precinct investigations as are used in
IAD.
That precinct supervisors not investigate serious allegations, such as
Excessive Use of Force.
Providing for a fifth IAD investigator position.
Obtaining case management computer software for IAD.
Reporting findings for each allegation in Letters of Disposition.
Discontinuing the ability to decline any Use of Force cases.
Requiring that officers provide their BPSST identification numbers if asked
for a "badge number."
Handling minor procedural violations identified during investigation of a
complaint as performance issues, separate from the main complaint procedure.
Notifying PPB officers of their right to appeal to PIIAC.
Developing a mechanism by which supervisors may conduct a debriefing when
there is a non-sustained finding but the situation could have been handled
better .
1997-2000
Making complaint brochures available in various languages.
Increasing the number of IAD investigators.
Issuing a General Order directing officers to make every attempt to assist
persons whose vehicles are towed to reach a safe location.
Providing additional communication training to officers.
Providing ongoing refresher courses in diversity for all officers.
Reviewing the General Order on Courtesy with respect to use of profanity.
Examining the fee schedule for public records and lowering the charge to the
public for certain records (e.g., address query requests lowered from $50.00 to
$5.00).
Attachment D
IAD COMPLAINT CATEGORIES (Revised
1/12/00)
1. Force: An allegation of excessive or inappropriate
physical or deadly physical force. This includes, but is not limited to, all
instances where there is an actual injury or an impact weapon was used.
2. Control Techniques: An allegation that a "control
technique" was used unreasonably or improperly. This would include control
holds, hobble, "takedowns," and handcuffing. Temporary discomfort, skin
discoloration or marks, or temporary pain are considered normal consequences of
the use of a control technique.
3. Conduct: An allegation that tends to bring reproach or
discredit upon the Bureau or City of Portland. It involves behavior by a Bureau
member that is unprofessional, unjustified, beyond the scope of their authority,
or unsatisfactory work performance. Typically this would include violation of
the Bureau's Standard of Conduct, Conform to Laws, Unsatisfactory Performance,
Truthfulness, etc.
4. Disparate Treatment: Allegations of specific actions
or statements that indicate inappropriate treatment of an individual that is
different from the treatment of another, because of :
(a) Race.
(b) Other: sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation,
economic status, political or religious beliefs, appearance, handicap,
etc.
5. Courtesy: Allegations relating to attitude and rude or
discourteous conduct other than disparate treatment.
6. Procedure: Allegations that an administrative or
procedural requirement was not met. This normally would include G.O.s such as
the identification, report writing, notebook entries, and property/evidence
handling.
FINDING CATEGORIES
1. Unfounded: Claim is false. Based on the facts of the
investigation, there is no basis to the allegation.
2. Exonerated: Actions of the officer were within the
guidelines of Bureau policy and procedure.
3. Insufficient Evidence: There was not enough evidence
to prove or disprove the allegation(s).
4. Sustained: Officer found to be in violation of Bureau
policy or procedure.
5. Declined: Police Bureau declines to conduct full
investigation.
6. Suspended: Investigation is suspended, usually because
complainant fails to provide key information.
7. Inquiry: The investigation concerns an allegation of a
minor rule violation that, if substantiated, would not result in discipline.