Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

15 Decision making: There was a general consensus from board members of the miscommunication in this case, despite not being in violation of policy. The ability to view body-worn camera video helped members understand the incident and easily identify which statements were true or not true. Mr. Gissiner pointed out there were four officers tied up in the case, which was an example of where police departments could possibly be re-engineered and some members agreed. The extremely well-written memo from a new sergeant was also commended by a member. Complaint #3: Incident Review • RP called the Auditor’s Office and stated that an EPD employee had shoved his son during a walk out at his son’s school. RP was also upset at the EPD employee’s tone and language towards his son (i.e., threatening arrest). • The complaint was forwarded to a supervisor for follow up. The supervisor reviewed body-worn video from the employees who were present, as well as the related dispatch records. The supervisor also spoke with the principal of the school, who gave some background information on the incident. • The supervisor reviewed his findings with the Auditor, who agreed that there was no evidence of a policy violation. The Auditor contacted the RP, and the complaint was closed. Decision making: The majority of board members thought the situation was handled well by the officer, considering it could have escalated quickly. A discussion about school policies took place, and members learned the officer was likely not involved in the decision to not let the student back in. School protest policy states that doors can be locked, and children can return inside once they are calm and ready to have a discussion, therefore, the officer was only following the school’s decision. A board member mentioned the need for school resource officers and how he liked the separation of forces. Complaint #4: Inquiry • RP contacted the Auditor’s Office with a complaint that EPD employees had taken her to the hospital on a mental health hold. She felt that the way they treated her was abusive and that they used excessive force during the contact. • The preliminary investigation included review of body-worn video of the contact. • The preliminary investigation showed that the officers had not violated policy and had acted within their obligation under Oregon’s community caretaking statute to take RP to the hospital. • The Auditor’s office contacted the RP with their findings, and the case was dismissed (no policy violation) and closed. Decision making: A board member agreed that there was no policy violation. She expressed appreciations for how Mr. Gissiner addressed the woman in his letter – he showed a lot of empathy and respect. Another member echoed that body cameras were helpful since if someone were to only hear the audio, they would have thought she was being hurt. The officers were doing a good job of keeping her from hurting herself and them. While not a criticism of EPD, Mr. Gissiner stated that the call was held for 16 minutes and took another 8 for officers to show up, which was a bit too long. A member stated it didn’t seem right to involuntarily take RP to the hospital and leaving her with June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2