Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

20 5) Adjudication Recommendations • A board member thought the adjudications came out correct, but the way EPD reached them was unfair to the citizens and the officer who made a mistake in the field. • Another member said context was important; the case law was meant to protect defendants. He disagreed with the use of the case law to indict police officers for the actions in the field, when what they were doing in cases was trying to protect the defendant. • He cited the State of Oregon v. McNally Case (2017) and said passive resistance was decided by juries, not officers. He thought for the CRB to consider whether passive resistance should be considered by police officers was an inappropriate use of the CRB powers. In addition, he had issue with whether or not the CRB should talk to the city prosecutor about why she did not file charges. What should be taken into consideration was what the officer knew at the time, and what he thought happened that night. He added the Chief did not consider the case in context; cases cited in the adjudication all regarded traffic stops. He vehemently disagreed with the Chief’s adjudication, and respectfully disagreed with Ms. Pitcher’s analysis that there was a violation. • Ms. Pitcher had a similar concern around State of Oregon v. Mc Nally (2017) when writing her analysis. Her central concern was she would not look at the case and see probable cause for interfering. A board member pointed out she was not a reasonable police officer, and did not think she could substitute her judgment. • A member said the Police Auditor and the CRB had a role to look at conduct and help the department do a job day to day. He asked the other board member what type of analysis they should do and what would be helpful to the department. The other board member said criticism of the police officer for what he thought was a reasonable arrest wasn’t helpful, as it was a question that should be decided by a court. Another board member disagreed and believed one thing officers were expected to do was to have substantial knowledge of law and what constitutes various offenses while they were doing their job. • A board member commented that juries decided facts, but what constituted reasonable suspicion or probable cause was a question of law. She said what could constitute interfering with a police officer was a question of law as well, not only the jury. She commented that even though these kinds of cases came up in motion to suppress evidence, search and seizure was only one way to vindicate evidence. Officer B complaint: There was a question on the use of force, because, as Officer B approached RP1, she put out her hand and touched him on the vest. He swept her hand away, put his hands on her shoulders, and she fell to the ground, which brought use of force into the case. 1) Intake and Classification a. Classification: Allegation of Misconduct • CRB members thought intake and classification was done appropriately 2) Investigation and Monitoring • A board member thought investigation and monitoring was done well. She said RP1 went to urgent care and had a concussion, so she thought good follow up was done. 3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2