My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Public Meetings
>
CMO
>
2018
>
09-24-2018
>
Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2018 1:29:18 PM
Creation date
9/24/2018 1:23:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
21 <br /> <br /> <br />• Officer A responded, with several other employees, to a loud party call. Following <br /> the call, Officer A approached Sergeant C, pushed the mute button on the supervisor ’s <br /> ICV microphone, and indicated that he had deployed pepper spray into the <br /> windows of the back of the house. <br />• Supervisor C later confirmed with Officer A that he had sprayed his pepper spray. <br />In order to comply with EPD procedures surrounding allegations of misconduct, he did <br />not question Officer A further, but instead routed his concerns through Internal Affairs <br />and the Auditor ’s Office. <br />• The investigation showed that the occupants of the house shut all windows and <br />doors. Officer A did not have contact with any residents. <br /> • Officer B was with Officer A at the perimeter of the house. Officer B did not <br /> witness Officer A deploy pepper spray. <br />• Officer A stated in his interview that he sprayed pepper spray for approximately one <br />second into the bushes and mulch; he did not offer a reason why. He explained that his <br />later actions with Supervisor C were intended to be a joke. <br />• There was no evidence of pepper spray at the residence the next day. None of <br />the residents knew about or complained about any use of pepper spray by police. <br />• The internal investigation showed that none of the windows of the residence near <br />where Officer A was standing would be easily reached by pepper spray. <br /> <br />Allegations: <br /> <br />1. 803 OC Spray: That Officer A deployed OC (pepper) spray in or near a residence in <br />a manner that was unauthorized and outside the scope of the intended use. <br />2. 1202 Audio and video Recording: That Officer A turned off Supervisor C’s ICV <br />microphone without an authorized strategic or tactical purpose. <br />3. 1101.1.B.17 Judgement: That Officer A used poor judgment by deploying OC spray <br />and muting a supervisor’s ICV microphone. <br />Recommended Adjudications: <br /> <br />1. OC Spray <br />• EPD chain of command: Sustained <br />• Auditor ’s Office: Sustained <br />• Chief: Sustained <br /> <br />2. Audio and Video Recordings <br />• EPD chain of command: Sustained <br />• Auditor ’s Office: Sustained <br />• Chief: Sustained <br /> <br />3. Judgment <br />• EPD chain of command: Unfounded <br />• Auditor ’s Office: Unfounded <br />September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.