Item B: Meeting w/Police Comm. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Re: Civilian Review June 7, 2005 Page 7 not participate in the criminal investigatiOn or sit in on interviews conducted as part of the criminal investigation, because it is considered coercive. In cases where the CRB is participating prior to adjudication, the following must be considered: 1. Public records issues Oregon's public records law conditionally exempts some personnel records from disclosure, but the employee's privacy interests are weighed against the public's right to know. ORS 192.501 (12) conditionally exempts "a personnel discipline action, or materials or documents supporting that action." Only completed disciplinary actions when a sanction is imposed, and materials or documents that support that particular disciplinary action, fall within the scope of the exemption. City of Portland v. Rice, 308 Or 118, 775 P2d 1371 (1989). Consistent with this policy, there are situations where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the employee's interest in confidentiality, despite the imposition of a disciplinary sanction. For example, the Oregon Court of Appeals has held that the public interest required disclosure of records pertaining to an investigation and disciplinary action against a police captain who allegedly had engaged in sexual conduct through an escort service that might have served as a front for prostitution. City of Portland v. Anderson, 163 Or App 550, 988 P2d 402 (1999). The court reasoned that the public has a legitimate interest in confirming the police captain's integrity and ability to enforce the law evenhandedly. It is the high profile cases involving the Eugene Police Department and the community that are most likely to draw the attention of the CRB. As recently as last week, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a decision ordering the City of Portland to produce certain documents relevant to the investigation and discipline of a police officer who killed a civilian during a traffic stop. City of Portland v. Oregonian Publishing Co., 2005 WL 1283302. The court reasoned that the public's need to have complete confidence in a thorough and unbiased inquiry is most urgent and compelling in high profile cases where a police officer has killed a citizen in the line of duty. Id. at *3. The court rejected the City's argument that the need for confidentiality was weightier than normal in such cases in order to prevent the chilling of self-critical investigation and analysis. The court said that the confidence in an unbiased inquiry comes from transparency, "and its value is not outweighed by the speculation that transparency will quell candor at some future date." Id.