CCMinutes - 07/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

not brought in unless there was reasonable suspicion. Chief Lehner added that the same criteria used to determine the need for an officer search was required to deploy the dog. Ms. Taylor asked if the dog could discern between cat urine and methamphetamine. Chief Lehner responded that a well-trained dog could, but he was uncertain whether the Belgian Malinois, Kyra, deployed by the Eugene Police Department (EPD) had been trained to that degree. He explained that each substance required a little bit different training and certification and he did not know what level Kyra had achieved. In response to another question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ortiz clarified that the difference between the Social Security Number collection before and after the task force had met was that now there was a policy, whereas before there had not been one. Mr. Brown added that the task force looked all over the United States for a policy to model the City's policy after and was unsuccessful. He reiterated that the City was now using a policy that clarified Social Security Numbers were voluntary information and a person stopped by the police was not required to provide that information to the detaining officer. In response to Mr. Meisner, Mr. Brown clarified that the uniform review had resulted from the inability to distinguish certain security company employees from EPD officers, particularly the University of Oregon campus police. He said the purpose of the review was to find a solution that made the EPD officers easily identifiable. He noted that there was not an ordinance in the community that prohibited other agencies from wearing similar uniforms. Mr. Meisner asked if the City had the authority to direct the University on its uniform policy. Mr. Brown responded that it was important to be sensitive to the issue and that discussions with the University were being held regarding such a policy. Mr. Pap~ thanked the Police Commission for its hard work. He related a story of being stopped by the police in Nevada and refusing to provide his Social Security Number on demand. As it could have resulted in an overnight stay in the town jail, he said he ultimately capitulated. He approved of having a policy that made such information voluntary. Mr. Pap~ asked Mr. Brown to elaborate on the downtown community policing project. Mr. Brown stated that the resource implications referred to on page 5 of the report correlated with the recommendation to restore funding for the second foot patrol officer for the downtown area. He reported that the discontinua- tion of the position had a profound and negative effect on policing in the downtown corridor. He said City contract requirements caused Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DE1) to reduce its deployed security by 60 percent and the City replaced DE1 security with a company that provided less coverage. He added that many of the recommendations in the plan were non-revenue related. Mr. Pap~ asked if people in the downtown area had been surveyed to determine if they felt more or less safe. Mr. Taylor replied that such a survey had not been conducted, but staff worked with DE1 and other stakeholders to improve the safety of the area. Ms. Ortiz stated that the commission intended to conduct some citizen outreach in the community to determine what the needs were. Mr. Brown added that the Saturday Market and the other representatives of the downtown community were unanimous that downtown safety was their primary issue. He related that another recommendation of the project had been to provide at least one officer in the downtown area with specialized training in mental health issues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 2 Work Session