Laserfiche WebLink
25 <br /> <br />• The investigation on scene established that the RP had been trespassing on private property when <br />he was confronted by Involved Party E, who was clearly intoxicated and visiting the location. <br />• Involved Party E and the RP exchanged words, and at some point RP threw trash on the ground <br />of the common area of the apartment complex. Involved Party E exited the apartment and chased <br />RP as RP attempted to flee on a bicycle. <br />• Involved Party E caught up to RP and assaulted him, a short distance from the initial location. E <br />also threw RP’s bicycle to the ground, damaging it. <br />• RP and E both sustained injuries from the incident. <br />• Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) treated E at the scene, but the RP <br />was not. <br />• RP repeatedly asked for medical attention, but Supervisor A denied it. The RP complained of <br />back, neck, and hand injuries. The RP was told to leave the area and walk to the hospital if he <br />needed treatment. <br />• Because the RP was trespassing at the time he encountered E, Supervisor A decided to release <br />both subjects without enforcement action. Supervisor A directed employees not to complete a <br />police report. <br />• The RP went to the Auditor’s Office to complain of his treatment from Supervisor A. The RP’s <br />medical records showed that he was treated for finger fracture, finger sprain, and a suspected <br />concussion. <br /> <br />Allegations <br />1) Unsatisfactory Performance: that Supervisor A refused to summon medical attention to an <br />involved party after a fight. <br />2) Professional Police Contacts: that Supervisor A failed to take law enforcement action based <br />on the homeless status of the victim. <br />3) Unsatisfactory Performance (Knowledge of the Law): that Supervisor A failed to accurately <br />interpret ORS 161.225 (Physical Force in Defense of Premises). <br /> <br />Adjudication Recommendations: <br />1) Unsatisfactory Performance: <br />• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained <br />• EPD chain of command recommendation: Sustained <br />• Chief of Police: Sustained <br />2) Professional Police Contacts <br />• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained <br />• EPD chain of command recommendation: Unfounded <br />• Chief: Unfounded <br />3) Unsatisfactory Performance (Knowledge of the Law) <br />• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained <br />• EPD chain of command recommendation: Unfounded <br />• Chief: Sustained <br /> <br />During the adjudication process, the Chief added (and sustained) <br />June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2