Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Police Auditor Mark Gissiner commented that valuable lessons had been learned from this incident. He recapped the events of that night. He had been contacted by Captain Rich Stronach regarding the incident and Mayor Piercy and Mr. Brown had been contacted as well. He did not expect to receive a complaint from the individual who had been Tased. Mr. Gissiner stated that the interviews with the officer and the landlord of the apartment complex involved in the incident had been conducted in his presence. He had participated in the interviews with the Chinese students, which were somewhat hampered by the language barrier. He had also reviewed the Taser video of the incident and the recording of the 911 call that had been made. Seven of the Eugene Police Department (EPD) policies and procedures were most appropriate for this case, and they fell into the following policy categories: The use of force policy ? The Taser policy ? The search and seizure policy ? The policy related to probable cause to detain ? The language competency policy ? He added that he had gone to the apartment since the Tasing incident on two occasions to understand the scene of the incident. Mr. Gissiner stated that with regard to the entry of the apartment, his assessment had been made more difficult because policy on warrantless entry to homes was lacking in the current EPD policies and procedures. His experience in such policies was that the more specificity they contained, the better the officers understood their obligations and responsibilities. He said there were some constitutional issues involved in such cases and there were eight to ten Supreme Court cases that spoke to them. He had referred to the Illinois v. Rodriguez case for this case because it discussed who had authority over a property and how to enter that property. He had used this assessment to determine whether the officers had appropriately entered the property based on a reasonable belief that there were authority figures backed by other evidence that would cause a reasonable officer to believe that these authority figures had control over the property. He said this circumstance segued into the belief that anyone on that property would be there unlawfully. Continuing, Mr. Gissiner spoke regarding the use of force and the use of the Taser. He referred to the Graham v. Connor case which established a reasonable standard to evaluate an officer’s use of force. He explained that it was based on a reasonable officer standard which evaluated the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, or if the suspect actively resisted or attempted to evade the police by flight. He said the EPD policy also elaborated on these basic standards. He considered it to be coincidental that a particular officer was involved; the evaluation was to be made without deference to a particular individual. He underscored that the incident was supposed to be evaluated from the standpoint of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than 20-20 hindsight, and the totality of circumstances that they needed to consider. He said they needed to recognize that officers were forced to make split second decisions in circumstances that were tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. He thought this incident would be a great case to use as a use of force case and this was under consideration as the Police Commission considers the use of force policy. Mr. Gissiner had assessed both the officer’s report on the incident and that of the Chinese student. He said they now knew that the Chinese students had spent nearly 24 hours traveling to Eugene and were exhausted. He had reviewed the Taser tape and considered it a good tool for the Taser, though not a panacea. Based on MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 7 Work Session