Laserfiche WebLink
19 <br /> <br />• A board member thought the Auditor’s Office handled the case well. She liked the analysis <br />and shared that even after being a member on CRB for a while, she was still learning how <br />internal investigations worked. <br />3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures <br />a. 1101.1.B.7 Courtesy <br />b. 322 Search and Seizure <br />c. 1101.1.B.6 Constitutional Rights <br />• A board member said there was an accusation against Officer A of not being courteous. With <br />respect to search and seizure, the policy was fairly straightforward. Mr. Gissiner said he <br />thought there was an opportunity to tighten the search and seizure policy, and a member <br />suggested discussing the policy at Police Commission. <br />• A member thought policies and practices seemed inconsistent, when compared to the similar <br />April 2018 case. She noted in that case, the report said alcohol could heighten emotions, so <br />they removed a female from a potentially dangerous situation and she wondered why police <br />officers did not do same thing for RP2 in this case. She pointed out a memo from January 25, <br />2018, that said constitutional rights would have been a more relevant policy. Ms. Pitcher <br />explained it was up to the Chief whether they wanted to change the original policy violation <br />listed or not. <br />• Another member thought she understood the issue with the search and seizure policy, but she <br />also thought it fit with the case. Another member agreed with Ms. Pitcher and thought an <br />important distinction was that the situation started out as detaining a victim/witness to get <br />information and was not seizure at that point. The police had a right to temporarily detain <br />someone to get information, and that was different than seizing them. The member thought <br />Ms. Pitcher provided a proper constitutional analysis. <br />4) Policy and/or Training Considerations <br />• Ms. Pitcher’s memo recommended a training on legal developments around what constitutes <br />interference; something that a board member thought was a good idea. She was concerned <br />about the way Officer A spoke about the altercation between RP 2 and the man; he seemed <br />to have a mindset that as a victim of violence, RP 2 was a suspect of criminal activity simply <br />because she was involved in the incident. She added it was particularly important when <br />interacting with folks who may be immigrants and thought that competency training on <br />domestic violence and immigrants would be beneficial. <br />• Another member stated that after reviewing the case, he came away from the situation with <br />a sense that Officers A and B did not understand the law around interference or around <br />disorderly conduct. As Ms. Pitcher pointed out in her memo, the Oregon Supreme Court made <br />it clear that people cannot interfere by being resistive to officer’s inquiries. It took a physical <br />action to actually interfere with what an officer was doing. RP 2 clearly did not fall into the <br />category that Officer A was trying to put her into, and she also clearly did not fall into <br />disorderly conduct either. There were specific requirements, and her actions were not close <br />to statute. He thought both officers were completely off base, and that led him to question <br />whether EPD as a whole understood what the statutes required. He got the sense the policies <br />were catchalls when something happened. The laws were not catchalls – they had very <br />specific requirements, which RP2 did not meet. There was need for training around those <br />particular statutes. <br />June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2