Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF EUGENE <br /> INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM <br /> CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br /> <br /> To: Police Commission Date: July 8, 2005 <br /> <br />Subject: Opinion of City Attorney Regarding Civilian Review Model <br /> <br /> CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION - NOT <br /> SUBJECT TO RELEASE UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT <br /> <br /> You have asked us to provide our opinion regarding the legal and contractual implications <br />of revising the model currently being considered to allow the board to reopen, with articulated <br />reasons, a closed "community impact" case investigation. <br /> <br /> I. INTRODUCTION <br /> <br /> Under the Commission's prior iteration of the review board model, the CRB would be <br />involved in investigations at the pre-adjudication stage when those cases meet predetermined <br />criteria ("community impact" cases). All other cases would be reviewed by the CRB only after <br />the investigation was complete and the adjudication decisions made ("closed case" review). See <br />legal opinion dated June 7, 2005, which outlines that model. <br /> <br /> As we understand it, the Commission is now considering a different model of review of <br />community impact cases. Rather than reviewing those cases while they are open and prior to <br />adjudication, the CRB would review them after they were adjudicated by the police department <br />("closed case" review). The CRB would have the ability to request or require that the case be <br />reopened for further investigation if certain objective "cause" criteria were met, or perhaps if a <br />super majority of the board agreed. <br /> <br /> Generally, the legal and contractual implications for allowing the CRB to reopen closed <br />investigations are the same as those for allowing the board to review cases prior to adjudication. <br />Those issues include public records considerations, open meetings issues, confidentiality <br />considerations and bargaining issues, all of which were described in detail in our June 7 legal <br />opinion but which are covered briefly below in the context of your specific questions. <br /> <br /> II. ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS <br /> <br /> A. Would the ability to reopen an investigation cause enough of an impact on case <br /> resolution timelines to become a bargaining issue? <br /> <br /> Answer: Potentially, yes. Reopening an investigation clearly could extend the length of <br /> the investigation, which would require the City to bargain those time lines. Oregon Public <br /> <br /> <br />