Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

delay in investigations, which is a major stressor for involved officers (often times more than the incident itself). Additionally, DOJ does not have investigatory expertise when it comes to investigating such incidents - a major advantage of the current system where experienced investigators from different agencies, coordinated by OSP, conduct the investigation. DOJ also does not have forensic capabilities. All of these issues will significantly reduce the quality and timeliness of these critical investigations. Removes local control provided by SB111 and turns it over to the state in the form of DOJ. Section 8 of this bill (appropriately numbered) mandates that DPSST establish a periodic psychological exam as a condition of employment as a police officer. This is a major departure from existing industry standards. Psychological testing is not an exact science, and often reach conclusions only if they are supported by observable behaviors, relying on a background during a hiring process. Standards do not exist for retention decisions. Mandating such a periodic test would undoubtedly result in litigation of cases where an officer was deemed not to have passed. Current law allows for agencies to address psychological issues and mandating tests would be costly and fraught with legal problems. HB 2993 Relating Clause: Relating to obtaining conversations. Title: Creates exception to prohibition on obtaining conversations by means of device, contrivance, machine or apparatus for person who records public official or law enforcement officer acting in official capacity. Sponsored by: By Representative RICHARDSOM URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2900.dir/hb2993.intro.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Jerry Lidz CS-CMO-ATTY 2/8/2011 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: Current law prohibits people from recording conversations if not all participants to the conversation are informed that it is being recorded. This bill would provide an exception for someone who records a public official or law enforcement officer acting in his/her official capacity. I think the intent here is openness in government, but I don't see why public officials shouldn't be entitled to the same notice as other people, and I worry the secret recordings would be subject to manipulation and abuse. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Chuck Tilby EPD-ADM 2/8/2011 -- -- Comments: This law simplifies some language in that it takes out method of recording replacing it simply with recording. This is a reasonable thing to do. The second piece of this bill is to allow people to record law enforcement or officials while they are doing their duty. What makes this different than most is that when law enforcement is allowed to record, they are visible (wearing uniform, etc) and in a public place conducting business. This exemption allows the recording anywhere and is not limited to non-verbal awareness that recording could take place. So, a citizen could record a conversation with someone who they think is an undercover officer in a situation where no recording is allowed EXCEPT for the 4