Laserfiche WebLink
the sanctity of their homes and did not want those rights infringed upon. He said they needed to ensure <br />that EPD officers had a clear understanding of what their responsibilities were in these types of <br />circumstances. He felt the Chief had an appreciation of this. He stated that interactions with divergent <br />populations were very important to the Chief and the department would work to handle that better and to <br />reduce the possibility of a similar incident occurring in the future. He observed that police officers had <br />200,000 to 300,000 contacts in a year and said it would be unrealistic to think that all of the contacts <br />would go smoothly. Nonetheless, they could try to reduce the problems by improving training, policy, <br />procedures, and thought processes with regard to these kinds of issues. He noted that he had posted the <br />recommendations for changes to the policies and procedures on the Police Auditor web site. <br />Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Gissiner for the report. She asked if there was any advocacy from the volunteer <br />community on behalf of complainants. Mr. Gissiner replied that it was not the responsibility of the <br />auditor's office to advocate, it was their responsibility to monitor and evaluate the investigative process <br />and to make recommendations on training, policies, and procedures. <br />Ms. Ortiz said historically the Human Rights Commission (HRC) had a component of advocacy that <br />helped people process such incidents. She agreed that the Police Auditor should not serve in the role of an <br />advocate, but she felt the City needed to offer some kind of advocacy to help people through this type of <br />process. She recalled the program that the City used to have and noted that being an advocate only meant <br />that they provided help to the people and not that an advocate would have an opinion one way or another. <br />Mr. Gissiner stated that the auditor's office served as an advocate for a fair process and for insuring that <br />investigations were thorough and unbiased and that there were subsequent improvements to policies, <br />procedures, and community relations. <br />Mr. Clark noted that he and Mr. Brown served as the council liaisons to the Police Commission. He asked <br />if all of the systems were in place for them to bring pieces related to warrantless entry and language <br />competency to the commission to develop policy. Mr. Gissiner responded that the 9 Circuit Court had <br />issued a rapid policy directive regarding the use of Tasers. He was hopeful that warrantless entry to <br />homes would be done `expeditiously." He considered that to be very important and wanted the policies to <br />be crystal clear to the officers and in the training manuals. <br />Mr. Brown had been disturbed that the incident had not been reported more widely and that the HRC had <br />not been contacted. He was glad that the problems were being identified and steps were being taken to <br />remediate them. He agreed that the department needed a clear policy on warrantless entry. <br />Mr. Gissiner related that a different judge had ruled on a Taser case in Hawaii. He said the ruling was <br />very different from the previous ruling. He called it unfortunate because it sent different messages to the <br />officers. <br />Mr. Zelenka commended the auditor's handing of this case. He asked how the case would play out at this <br />point. Mr. Gissiner replied that the Civilian Review Board (CRB) was authorized to review and discuss <br />the chief's adjudication and whether or not they agreed with it. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked what happened with policy issues that were raised by a case. Mr. Gissiner responded <br />that he was not certain that this particular case would cause direct changes to policies, but the chief had <br />issued a policy directive after the 9 h Circuit Court ruling regarding Taser use. <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council February S, 2010 Page S <br />Work Session <br />