HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 9-24-18 Work SessionSeptember 24, 2018, Work Session
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 24, 2018
5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of September 24, 2018;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Mike Clark, President Betty Taylor, Vice President Greg Evans Chris Pryor Emily Semple Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
1.Committee Reports and Items of Interest
2.WORK SESSION: Civilian Review Board and Police Auditor’s Office Annual
Reports
3.ACTION: An Ordinance Changing the Street Name of the Undeveloped
Portion of Suzanne Way to Tennyson Avenue, as it Extends North From
Crescent Avenue to Tennyson Avenue (City File SC 18-1)
September 24, 2018, Work Session
The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week.
El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010, or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Civilian Review Board and Police Auditor’s Office Annual Reports Meeting Date: September 24, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 2 Department: Police Auditor Staff Contact: Mark Gissiner
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5016
ISSUE STATEMENT The leadership of the Civilian Review Board and the Police Auditor’s Office are appearing before the City Council to discuss the 2017 Annual Report of the Civilian Review Board and the Annual Report of the Police Auditor’s Office.
BACKGROUND The Eugene City Council appoints members to the Civilian Review Board and is the hiring authority for the Police Auditor. On an annual basis the Civilian Review Board and the Police Auditor’s Office provide and discuss their annual reports.
RELATED CITY POLICIES Eugene Charter and Police Auditor Ordinances
COUNCIL OPTIONS Offer comments and questions
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS A. 2017 Civilian Review Board Annual Report B. 2017 Annual Report of the Police Auditor’s Office
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Mark Gissiner Telephone: 541-682-5016 Staff E-Mail: MGissiner@eugene-or.gov
1
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF EUGENE
Eugene Civilian Review Board
Annual Report
2017
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2
EUGENE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD 2017 ANNUAL REPORT
Section Page
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 3
2017 Civilian Review Board …………………………………………..………………. 6
Mission and 2017 Overview ………………………………………………………….. 8
Training .…………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Case Review Summaries ………………..……………………………..…………….. 10
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
3
Introduction
Ordinance 20374 which enables Eugene’s Civilian Review Board, requires the Board to
“…prepare and present an annual report to the city council that:
(a) Summarizes the civilian review board’s activities, findings and recommendations
during the preceding year;
(b) Assesses the performance of the police auditor…; and,
(c) Evaluates the work of the auditor’s office, including whether the office is
functioning as intended.” [ORD 20374; 2.246 (7)]
Eugene’s Civilian Review Board (CRB) is designed to provide transparency and help
ensure public confidence in the police complaint process. The Board evaluates the work of
the independent Police Auditor, and reviews complaints to provide a community
perspective about whether complaints are handled fairly and with due diligence.
This annual report contains a summary of the work that the Civilian Review Board (CRB)
undertook in the year 2017. As set forth in the ordinance case reviews and assessment of
the police auditor and the auditor’s office are set forth in the case summaries. As in years
past the bulk of this report centers around the cases reviewed by the CRB. While detailing
the allegation, setting forth the issues discussed and outlining (briefly our discussions and
findings) this report only touches on the work that we have put into our job.
Our meetings are open to the public and provide an opportunity to review the complaint
process and hear input from members of our community. Discussing complaints in public
allows the community to learn about the complaint intakes, classifications, investigations
and determinations as they are discussed openly and critically. We are committed to
maintaining the confidentiality of the involved parties. It also allows members of the public
that have filed complaints to ask the board for review of their case at a future meeting.
In our reviews full, open, and at times lively discussions have occurred. We hope that we
have reflected the tenor of all parts of the community when we have these
discussions. This means at times we have disagreed with findings, but we have attempted
to the best of our abilities to be cordial and respectful of varying points of view. However,
we must also be respectful of those who are not there whether it be the complainant or the
officer of the alleged police misconduct in question. This requires a balance to the
confidentiality to which we have all agreed to as a board member and the expectations of
transparency in order for there to be public confidence in the system. This balance is an
ongoing discussion of both procedure and performance. Our meetings are open to the
public, yet rarely attended. We have detailed minutes, but some members expressed a
preference for audio or video recordings.
We strive to balance the actions of an officer (performance) with the expectations of action
of the officer (written policy). We believe that we have, as in years past, found a way to
balance transparency with confidentiality. There was open discussion that remained
respectful of individual personnel matters.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
4
To this end the Office of the Police Auditor (OPA) was integral in examining the issues at
hand and in presenting the cases each month. As you will see in the case summaries and
reviews set forth in this report we, the CRB, could not do our job as well as we do if it were
not for the excellent work by Internal Affairs and the Police Auditor’s office.
Training and the use of Body Worn Cameras have improved the ability of Internal Affairs
and the Auditor’s office to more precisely see the events unfold in a situation where there is
a question about an officer’s conduct. Members of the CRB also watch the recordings and
listen to the audio. Our reviews are improved by this technology. However, we are
cautious to be aware that the cameras record from a limited perspective (that of the officer).
A person who believes that they were not treated properly is describing their experience
from the opposite or adjacent perspective of the officer’s camera.
This year we continued to see the benefits of the Blue Team software program which
allows for tracking of uses of force allowing both EPD and OPA the chance to know quickly
when a use of force has been used and can be reviewed without delay or the need for a
citizen complaint. This does require that the Auditor and Deputy Auditor review
approximately 180-200 more incidents in addition to the complaints received. Blue Team
review and the accompanying report, plus the Body Worn Cameras enhance the review
process and provide clarity to the review process.
In addition to service complaints and case reviews, the CRB engages in continuous
learning associated with police practices, civil rights, constitutional based policing practices,
and interactions with vulnerable communities. Just as each case brings forth a new issue
so too does the continuing learning by board members of community services that impact
the job of the EPD. The efforts in continuous learning prove beneficial to the Board’s
overall approach to its mission by ensuring a comprehensive understanding of relevant
processes and community factors influencing various decision makers and affected parties.
The Board also considers and discusses current policies and practices and whether
revisions seem appropriate. These policy concerns are sent to the Police Commission and
the Police Chief through the CRB’s appointed representative to the Police Commission.
We also welcome an observer from the Human Rights Commission, and as much as
possible have a member who attends their monthly meeting.
OPA staff conducted outreach to the community through the work of staff. A community
public safety meeting was organized by the OPA in North Eugene to the Latinx community,
entirely in the Spanish language. In addition to members of the OPS staff, other
community groups tabled and provided information. Several bi-lingual officers were
available to respond to questions. City officials from fire, emergency management and the
Human Rights Commission also participated. An effort was made to provide radio and
internet broadcast of the event. The CRB also invited a representative of the Latino
community to discuss issues directly with the board in one of our training sessions.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
5
We appreciate the support of the City Council, Mayor, the Office of the Police Auditor, the
Eugene Police Department, the Eugene Police Employees Association and other
community organizations over the past year. The members of the Board are proud to
participate in a process that continues to evolve and allows the community to glimpse into
the “whys” of police work and the officers present are able to hear comments from
community members in a thoughtful, and we hope, helpful forum.
Sincerely,
Chris Wig Maurie Denner
2017 Board Chair 2017 Board Vice-Chair
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
6
Civilian Review Board Members Serving in 2017
Current Members:
Steven McIntire is Vice President of Administration and General Counsel for SELCO
Community Credit Union. He earned his B.S. in business from Linfield College and his law
degree from the University of Oregon. He has served on numerous community boards;
Oregon Eye Clinic Independent Review Board, Oregon State Board of Bar Examiners, and
CASA among others.
Maurice A (Maurie) Denner lives in south Eugene and is a retired elementary
principal. He has a BA in English and an MA in Education from the University of
Oregon. Maurie is a graduate of the Eugene Citizen's Police Academy, served on the
Chief's Forum under Chief Cooke; and he was an original appointee to the Police
Commission. Maurie's interest in law enforcement grew out of work in Oakridge that
established a Police in the Schools cooperative arrangement. Maurie retired from 4J in
2004 and worked part time for Looking Glass Youth and Family Services until February
2014.
Heather Marek has lived in Eugene since 2007. She is a concurrent doctoral and law
student at the University of Oregon, where her research has focused on human rights
issues in the criminal justice system. Before returning to graduate school, Heather worked
for nonprofits advocating for civil liberties and democracy reform. Heather received a BA in
criminology from the University of Montana. Heather plans to use her background in social
science and law to conduct rigorous public interest research.
Jim Hargreaves is a lifelong resident of Eugene. He received his B.A. from the University
of Oregon and his law degree from the University of Oregon School of Law. After a few
years practicing law in Eugene, Jim served from 1975 to 1995 as a judge in Lane County,
first for two years on the then District Court, and then 18 additional years on the Circuit
Court. Since retiring from the courts in 1995, Jim has worked as a national and international
consultant in the fields of court management and the introduction of technology in courts.
His most recent work was serving as both a trial court judge and appellate court judge in
the country of Kosovo as a member pf a program sponsored by the European Union.
Rick Roseta has practiced as a trial lawyer in Eugene for over 40 years. Most of his
practice has included the defense of in malpractice cases brought against them. Early in his
career he handled matters involving State, County and City police conduct. He has tried
over 400 civil jury trials to conclusion. He has served as a Circuit Court Judge Pro
Tempore, primarily handling cases in Lane County Juvenile Court. He currently serves on
the Board of Volunteers in Medicine, a non-profit provider of health care for uninsured,
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
7
underinsured and underserved members of the Eugene-Springfield community. Rick
obtained his BS and JD degrees from the University of Oregon.
Carolyn Williams is a lifelong Eugene resident - aside from her service as a Peace Corps
Volunteer teaching English in Azerbaijan. She is an educator who received her BA in
English from Oregon State University and her MAT from Pacific University. Her focus and
passion as an educator is cultural competency, as well as literature and history.
Past Members Serving in 2017:
Eric Van Houten has a Masters in Social Work and is a senior level health care
administrator. His background includes working with individuals with a myriad of issues
including drug and alcohol abuse and addiction, mental health issues, violence, and
homelessness. Eric was raised in Eugene, OR and returned to the community in 1993.
Eric’s background includes a 3 year stint with the Peace Corps as a volunteer in Senegal,
West Africa. He is married with two children.
Chris Wig, CRB Vice Chair and Chair, serves as Chair of the Democratic Party of Lane
County and works as the Program Director for the Drug Court Program at Emergence
Addiction and Behavioral Therapies. Chris earned his MS in journalism from the University
of Oregon and his BA in cultural anthropology from the University of Toronto. He serves
the Eugene community as an advocate for housing affordability, alcohol and drug
treatment, and police-community relations. Chris also serves as a member of the Grupo
Latino de Accion Directa Executive Board, Intergovernmental Housing Policy Board Renter
Protection Workgroup and Democratic Party of Oregon Executive Committee. Mr. Wig
served as Chair for most of the year. He recently resigned because he is no longer a
resident of Eugene.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
8
Mission Statement
It is the mission of the Civilian Review Board to provide fair and impartial oversight and
review of internal investigations conducted by the City of Eugene Police Department into
allegations of police misconduct, use of force and other matters that have an impact on the
community. The Board will strive to build trust and confidence within the community and to
ensure that complaints are handled fairly, thoroughly and adjudicated reasonably. The
Board will encourage community involvement and transparency in order to promote the
principles of community policing in the City of Eugene.
2017 Overview
The CRB is required to meet four times a year. The CRB met nine times in 2017, all public
meetings.
The Board (with the help of the Office of the Police Auditor) identified policy concerns and
communicated such to the Police Commission and the Eugene Police Department. In 2017
our representative to the Police Commission, Steven McIntire, worked vigorously in
providing policy recommendations to the Police Commission. Heather Marek was our
representative to the Human Rights Commission, providing valuable insight to the CRB on
some of the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission related to policing
issues.
Training
The CRB members were polled to determine what training they wished to receive in 2017.
The CRB was involved in seven training sessions and held a joint meeting with the Police
Commission:
Training topics:
Update on Crisis Intervention Training (CIT)
Conversation with the Eugene Police Employees Association
Auditor’s Annual Report
EPD Recruitment and Hiring Process
Public Records and Public Meetings Laws
Community Engagement Strategy
Report from Mr. Denner on the National Association of Civilian Oversight
Conference held in Spokane, Washington
Objectives and Challenges of Implementation of Civilian Oversight of Law
Enforcement
Community Members from Minority and Underrepresented Communities
Chief Kerns Discussion of Corrective Action in Disciplinary Cases
We have an engaged and thoughtful civilian review board that invests considerable
personal time to participate in and evaluate the police oversight processes in Eugene.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
9
They are the community’s representatives who analyze the internal administrative
personnel processes of EPD and the external monitoring and complaint intake processes of
the Auditor’s office. The CRB continually strives to have open and transparent discussion
of cases brought before it and provide policy and training recommendations within the
confines of the Oregon Public Records Laws and the hundreds of exemptions that exist in
Oregon Public Record law. The CRB consistently meets more than the minimum
requirements of the ordinance. At most meetings, the entire board is present. The CRB
must evaluate difficult personnel and policy issues that impact community members and
sworn police personnel. They have been complimentary, critical, inquisitive and decisive. It
is an honor and privilege to serve the community of Eugene. In 2017 Eugene’s system of
civilian oversight continued to evolve and develop. We look forward to continuing our work
and we are committed to improving our processes in service of the community.
Case Review Summaries
In preparing for a case review, Board members have complete access to the Internal
Affairs investigative file. These materials include call logs, correspondence, Body Worn
Camera video, in-car videos and digitally recorded interviews of complainants, officers,
witnesses and others with potentially relevant information.
Board members review file materials, the fact-finding report prepared by the Internal Affairs
investigating officer, along with the Adjudication recommendations of the Auditor, the
Supervisors and the Chief of Police. During our reviews, the IA investigator is available to
answer questions about the complaint investigation. The Lieutenant who supervises
Internal Affairs is also available to answer questions regarding department practices,
policies and procedures.
The Board follows a case review process delineated in its Policies and Procedures Manual.
The Board reviews each case by evaluating and commenting on the complaint handling
through the following steps:
1. Auditor’s case presentation.
2. Complaint intake and classification.
3. Complaint investigation and monitoring.
4. Relevant department policies and procedures.
5. Policy and/or training considerations.
6. Adjudication recommendations.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
10
Civilian Review Board Case Summaries 2017
A. February Case Reviews – Case 1
During a performance review of Supervisor A, it was discovered that while out of town
at a training conference, he became intoxicated in the presence of subordinate
employees and members of other law enforcement agencies and interacted with a
female employee of another agency in a manner that made her and the others present
uncomfortable.
• The investigation indicated that at the end of the day of training, Supervisor A went
out for drinks with Supervisor B and Officer D (also EPD employees), as well as two
employees from outside agencies.
• All witnesses agreed that Supervisor A became very intoxicated during the
evening. Supervisor B and Officer D noticed “flirty” behavior from Supervisor A
directed at a female employee of an outside agency, which Supervisor B recalled as
including touching of her leg and neck/shoulder/hair.
• Supervisor B and Officer D tried to intervene, which resulted in Officer D sitting
between Supervisor A and the woman in the vehicle. Supervisor A reached around
Officer D and continued to touch the woman’s hair.
Summary of Facts: Case 1
At some point in the evening, Supervisor A became sick. His conduct toward the female
employee then stopped and the group returned to the hotel.
• The investigation indicated that Supervisor A apologized to members of the group
the next day.
• Supervisor A did not recall the evening clearly during his administrative interview,
but he admitted to becoming excessively intoxicated and engaging in conduct that was
unbecoming.
• The investigation (prior to the interview with Supervisor A) was reviewed by the
District Attorney in the county where the conduct occurred. The DA declined to
prosecute, citing insufficient evidence of sexual and/or general harassment.
• A related IA was initiated examining whether Supervisor B violated policy when he
failed to report Supervisor A’s conduct.
Allegations:
1. 1101.1.B.17 Judgment: That Supervisor A’s decisions and actions were not in line with
what a reasonable employee in similar circumstances would use or take, given the
information he knew or should have known at the time.
2. 1101.1.B.25 Unbecoming Conduct: That Supervisor A’s actions reflected negatively
on the Eugene Police Department and brought discredit upon himself and the Eugene
Police Department.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
11
3. 1101.1.B.27 Use of Intoxicants and Medications: That Supervisor A, while
representing EPD at a conference and off-duty, used intoxicants in a manner that was
unprofessional and brought discredit upon himself and the Eugene Police Department.
Recommended Adjudications:
1. Judgment
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
2. Unbecoming Conduct
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
3. Use of Intoxicants and Medications
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
Issues for the CRB:
Board members agreed that the case was in violation of the code of conduct policy and
concurred with the sustained findings. A discussion of the Code of Conduct Policy found
many members concerned with the vagueness of many portions of the policy and the policy
had in the past been referred to the Police Commission for review.
Case 2:
Summary of Facts:
• During the investigation of Supervisor A, it was noted that Supervisor B was
potentially in violation of policy when he failed to report Supervisor A’s conduct in a
timely manner.
• Supervisor B stated in his administrative investigation that he thought for a long
time about whether Supervisor A’s conduct was criminal conduct or misconduct; in his
determination, he did not believe that Supervisor A’s conduct rose to the level of
criminal conduct, but he had a difficult time deciding whether it rose to the level of an
EPD policy violation.
• In Supervisor B’s memory, he had investigated allegations under
similar circumstances that were not sustained as violations of EPD
policies.
• Supervisor B recalled discussing the incident with Officer D, and Officer D did not
see that the incident was reportable misconduct.
• Supervisor B also discussed the incident with Supervisor C, who encouraged him
to report it.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
12
• Supervisor B ultimately reported the incident when asked about Supervisor A during
a performance review.
Allegations:
1101.1.B.9 Unsatisfactory Performance: That Supervisor B failed to conform to the
standards established for his rank or position and failed to take appropriate action by
failing to timely report his observations of the off-duty conduct of Supervisor A, which he
knew, or should have known, violated EPD policies.
Recommended Adjudications:
Unsatisfactory Performance
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
Issues for the CRB:
Board members were disappointed that the Supervisor had not come forward right away
and then did not take the advice of a superior to report the issue. There was concern that
employees may not feel they can come forward about policy violations made by their peers.
Case 3:
Officer A was out with a woman who was staying at his home. She consumed
alcohol throughout the day, including while they were in his personal vehicle parked
in a City park.
• They went to dinner and to a club. While at the club, the woman informed Officer
A that she had been unsuccessful in an attempt to buy an illegal controlled
substance from someone who worked at the club. Officer A and the woman were
later asked to leave the club.
• They returned to his residence and began arguing about a text message the
woman had received, as well as about racially-charged comments the woman had
made earlier in the day.
• Officer A told the woman he would take her to the Eugene airport so that she could
leave town. They continued to argue while in the car. The woman asked Officer A to
pull over, so she could get out. Officer A did so, but was concerned for her
safety and asked her to get back in the car.
• When the woman returned to the car, Officer A placed his loaded firearm in her lap
and his badge on the center console in an attempt to belay any fears she may have
had about him.
Allegations:
1101.1.B Code of Conduct:
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
13
1. Judgment: That Officer A displayed poor judgment when he placed a loaded
firearm in a woman’s lap, when they were involved in a heated verbal argument at the
time and he knew her to be intoxicated.
2. Unbecoming Conduct: That Officer A took a series of actions that directly
contributed to a 911 call, which resulted in law enforcement agencies responding to
the scene, conducting a high-risk traffic stop, detaining Officer A in handcuffs, seizing
his firearm, and administering field sobriety tests; and that these actions reflected
negatively upon him as a Eugene police officer, as well as the department.
3. Integrity: That Officer A failed to scrupulously avoid conduct that may
compromise his integrity when he advanced a relationship with a woman after she
had attempted to purchase an illegal controlled substance.
4. Associations: That Officer A failed to avoid association with a person he
should have known “may have a reputation as a criminal” when he attempted to
advance a relationship with a woman after she attempted to purchase an illegal
controlled substance.
Recommended Adjudications:
1. Judgment
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
2. Unbecoming Conduct
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
3. Integrity
• EPD chain of command: Unfounded
• Auditor’s Office: Unfounded
• Chief: Unfounded
4. Associations
• EPD chain of command: Within Policy
• Auditor’s Office: Within Policy
• Chief: Within Policy
Issues for the CRB:
Members concurred with the adjudication of the case by the Auditor, Chain of Command
and the Chief. One member noted that the young inexperienced officer conducted himself
with clear and apparent integrity throughout the investigation, leading him to believe the
department had not given up on the officer. Going forward his choices would prove whether
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
14
the officer learned from the experience and would be able to fulfill the responsibilities of the
job.
B. March Case Review
Officers were dispatched to a report of a violation of a restraining order. Officer D
confirmed a valid restraining order and spoke with the petitioner, confirming that probable
cause existed to arrest Reporting Party 3 for violation of the RO.
• Officer D, Officer B, and Officer C went to the address where they believed RP3
was living. RP3 exited the house, Officer D informed him he was under arrest, and
RP3 returned inside the house.
• Officers, as well as a supervisor who arrived on scene to assist, used force to
effect the arrests of RP1 (for interfering with an officer and resisting arrest), RP2
(for interfering with an officer and resisting arrest), and RP3 (for violating a
restraining order, resisting arrest, and escape).
• Involved Party was also arrested (for interfering with an officer), but no
reportable force was used in her arrest.
• The force used included focused blows, control holds, Taser warning, and
Taser deployment.
• RP1, RP2, and RP3 filed complaints with the Auditor’s Office.
• In-car video captured audio, but not video, of the incident.
Allegations:
300 Use of Force
1. Use of Force: that Supervisor A used excessive force against RP1 during her
arrest.
2. Use of Force: that Officer B used excessive force against RP1 during her
arrest.
3. Use of Force: that Officer C used excessive force against RP1 during her
arrest.
402 Professional Police Contacts
4. Professional Police Contacts: that Officer D treated RP3 unfairly due to his
race during his arrest.
5. Professional Police Contacts: that Officer B treated RP3 unfairly due to his
race during his arrest.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
15
6. Professional Police Contacts: that Officer C treated RP3 unfairly due to his
race during his arrest.
Recommended Adjudications:
1. Use of Force – Supervisor A
• EPD chain of command: Within Policy
• Auditor’s Office: Within Policy
• Chief: Within Policy
2. Use of Force – Officer B
• EPD chain of command: Within Policy
• Auditor’s Office: Within Policy
• Chief: Within Policy
3. Use of Force – Officer C
• EPD chain of command: Within Policy
• Auditor’s Office: Within Policy
• Chief: Within Policy
4. Professional Police Contacts – Officer D
• EPD chain of command: Unfounded
• Auditor’s Office: Unfounded
• Chief: Unfounded
5. Professional Police Contacts – Officer B
• EPD chain of command: Unfounded
• Auditor’s Office: Unfounded
• Chief: Unfounded
6. Professional Police Contacts – Officer C
• EPD chain of command: Unfounded
• Auditor’s Office: Unfounded
• Chief: Unfounded
Issues for the CRB:
CRB members commented on how quickly the incident got messy and appreciated the
Internal Affairs Sergeant’s untangling of the facts. Discussion of policies noted that this
situation was a mandatory arrest issue due to the restraining order. One member
expressed concern that something as egregious as race-based policing would be alleged
when there was no apparent basis for it. Another member noted the officer’s teamwork as
they worked through the situation.
C. April Case Review
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
16
Officer A was dispatched to an assisted-living facility to investigate alleged sex abuse
involving residents. He contacted the director of the facility and later returned in order
to contact the involved residents.
• Officer A was approached by the Reporting Party when he entered the facility
(Reporting Party’s father was one of the involved residents). RP attempted to
give Officer A a note asserting that his father would be invoking his right to remain silent.
• Officer A informed RP that his father would have to assert his rights himself.
Officer A later contacted RP’s father and confirmed that he did not wish to
participate in the investigation.
• Officer A activated his ICV after his contact with RP was already in progress, and he
muted his mic at a series of different points during the contact.
• RP alleged that Officer A was belligerent and rude toward RP, RP’s family, and the
director of the facility. He also alleged that Officer A threatened RP and his family when
they attempted to assert their right to remain silent.
• An additional allegation was added related to Officer A’s operation of ICV.
Allegations:
1. 1101.1.B Constitutional Rights: That Officer A failed to “observe, respect, and
protect the constitutional rights” of RP and RP’s father when he attempted to coerce
them into speaking with him against their wishes to assert their right to remain silent.
2. 11.1.1.B Courtesy: That Officer A was discourteous towards RP, RP’s father,
and the facility director.
3. 446.4 In-Car Video: That Officer A improperly muted his ICV during this contact.
Recommended Adjudications:
1. Constitutional Rights
• EPD chain of command: Insufficient Evidence
• Auditor’s Office: Insufficient Evidence
• Chief: Insufficient Evidence
2. Courtesy
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
3. In-Car Video
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
Issues for the CRB:
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
17
CRB Members discussed whether or not the constitutional rights allegation was
appropriate. Ms. Pitcher explained that at the time of the investigation the allegation was
the officer had tried to coerce the father to speak, it wasn’t until the investigation was
started that the allegation was determined to not be true. Members also commented on the
excellent job done by the IA Sergeant interviewing and getting the facts of the situation. All
but one member agreed with the adjudication recommendations.
D. May Case Reviews – Service Complaints
[Comment: Service Complaints are reviewed by direct supervisors and approved by
command staff for thoroughness and appropriate classification. The OPA reviews
the Service Complaints. Annually, the CRB reviews a selection of Service
Complaints.]
Complaint 1:
• Officer A stopped a vehicle under suspicion of DUII. He learned the driver was
affected by a medical condition, and that the driver had recently met his passenger,
who had offered to help him get home. However, the vehicle was traveling in the
wrong direction to get to the driver’s home.
• Officer A began to suspect that the passenger may be taking advantage of the
driver and asked for his identification. RP complained at that point that he was
being harassed due to his race, and Officer A requested a supervisor respond.
• The supervisor explained the officer’s actions to the RP.
• Further investigation indicated that the officer’s instincts may have been correct,
as RP had a record of robbery.
• The supervisor recorded the complaint in BlueTeam and recommended that it be
closed. Our office concurred.
• Classification: Inquiry
Issues for the CRB:
Several CRB members felt that the passenger’s previous record was not relevant to his
complaint of harassment due to race. One member felt that the case was handled well and
appreciated the Blue Team function that allowed supervisors to document complaints. The
Auditor commented that a new law mandated a process for allegation of discrimination to
be reported to a supervisor and for EPD follow-up reporting to the State of Oregon Law
Enforcement Contacts Committee.
Complaint 2:
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
18
RP contacted the Auditor’s Office to complain about how Officer A handled a
situation related to ownership of a macaw.
• RP received the bird from friends when they became unable to care for the bird. At
some point after that, the friends wanted the bird back and called EPD to report that
RP had stolen the bird. Officer A contacted RP and told her to return the bird.
• Supervisor A contacted RP and discussed ownership of the bird and attempted to
explain that the matter was civil. The supervisor advised the employee that RP also
complained that he had not returned calls.
• Classification: Service Complaint/Performance
Issues for the CRB:
One member questioned why the officer had gotten involved and called RP to return the
bird in what was clearly a civil issue. Another member commented that this was the type of
situation officers had to deal with daily, one in which one party may not end up happy.
Complaint 3:
RP called the Auditor’s Office to complain about how officers handled a dispute between
her and her daughter.
• The assigned supervisor spoke with the involved employees and the RP. He found
that the officers had not found sufficient evidence to support probable cause for an
arrest and had instead remained at the location while the daughter moved her things
in an attempt to keep matters peaceful.
• The supervisor explained the officers’ actions to RP to her, there
was a better understanding. The complaint was closed.
• Classification: Service Complaint/Performance
Issues for the CRB:
One member questioned whether this case was one in which a mandatory arrest needed to
have been made due to the potential for domestic abuse. It was noted that due to no
evidence of injury one was not required. Another member appreciated the Supervisor
reviewing the complaint and taking the extra step of reviewing In-Car-Video.
Complaint 4:
RP called the Auditor’s Office to inquire as to why officers had entered his
residence the night before.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
19
• The assigned supervisor reviewed the dispatch records and related reports. He
found that there had been a 911 call from a woman who lived in the apartment next to
RP’s; she had complained that there was an ongoing and active dispute in that
apartment.
• Upon their arrival, officers noted a significant amount of blood in the entryway.
Repeated knocks and announcements were not answered. Officers then entered the
residence.
• The supervisor made several attempts to contact the RP but was unsuccessful.
• Classification: Policy Complaint
Issues for the CRB:
Most members could see the clear example of the Community Caretaking Act being used
effectively. One member would have liked to see the officer investigate further to ensure
the woman was safe, even though she denied any physical altercation.
Complaint 5:
RP called the Auditor’s Office to complain about how he was treated during a call to
his home. He stated that they laughed at him when he had a seizure and were
confrontational with him.
• The assigned supervisor reviewed in-car video and found that officers had not
acted in the way described and had not violated policy.
• The supervisor made several attempts to contact the reporting party but
was unsuccessful.
• Classification: Inquiry
Issues for the CRB:
Members commented on the value of In-Car-Video in this case as the supervisor was able
to see that the officer’s actions were not as described by RP. Another member noted the
mental health aspect of the situation and how the RP did not realize what officers and
medics had done to help him.
E. June Case Review
RP called 911 and complained that someone was remaining on her property after
she had asked him to leave. The call-taker stayed on the line until the person had
reportedly left. RP stated that she would call back if he returned.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
20
• Approximately 3 hours later, officers were dispatched to the address and advised
that the call involved a dispute between RP and a person who was no longer on
scene.
• Officers A and B were allowed inside by RP; she informed them that the other
party had returned and was asleep in the back room. Officers asked RP for his
name, and she stated that she did not feel that it was her place to provide his
name.
• Officers stated that they needed to check on all parties involved in the
dispute, and Officers A and B went to the back room to wake the ex-boyfriend.
• RP followed them to the room and stated that she was concerned about what they
were going to do to the other party. Officer B asked RP to wait outside of the bedroom
and she stated “No.” RP stated that an officer grabbed her wrist hard and moved her
arm up, which resulted in bruising and a sore shoulder.
• Officer B stated that he used an open hand to stop RP from approaching A and
that he did not grab her wrist. Officer A recalled placing his open hand on RP’s
back to prevent her from turning but could not recall grabbing a wrist.
• Due to officers’ location inside the home, the ICV recorded audio but not video of
the interaction.
• Following the incident, RP came to the Auditor’s Office to file this excessive force
complaint.
Allegations:
1. 800 Use of Force: That Officer A used excessive force when he grabbed RP by
her wrists, resulting in bruising.
Recommended Adjudications:
Use of Force
• EPD chain of command: Within Policy
• Auditor’s Office: Within Policy
• Chief: Within Policy
Issues for the CRB:
CRB members were concerned about officers not knowing about the 3-hour time lapse
from when RP originally called dispatch and when officers responded. Another member felt
that once RP withdrew permission to go farther into her home officers should have stopped,
but other members noted that the officers had an obligation due to the Community
Caretaking Act to assure the other party was not injured. Members agreed that the use of
force was lawful, but some members would have preferred an Insufficient Evidence
determination.
F. August Case Review
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
21
• Officer A responded, with several other employees, to a loud party call. Following
the call, Officer A approached Sergeant C, pushed the mute button on the supervisor ’s
ICV microphone, and indicated that he had deployed pepper spray into the
windows of the back of the house.
• Supervisor C later confirmed with Officer A that he had sprayed his pepper spray.
In order to comply with EPD procedures surrounding allegations of misconduct, he did
not question Officer A further, but instead routed his concerns through Internal Affairs
and the Auditor ’s Office.
• The investigation showed that the occupants of the house shut all windows and
doors. Officer A did not have contact with any residents.
• Officer B was with Officer A at the perimeter of the house. Officer B did not
witness Officer A deploy pepper spray.
• Officer A stated in his interview that he sprayed pepper spray for approximately one
second into the bushes and mulch; he did not offer a reason why. He explained that his
later actions with Supervisor C were intended to be a joke.
• There was no evidence of pepper spray at the residence the next day. None of
the residents knew about or complained about any use of pepper spray by police.
• The internal investigation showed that none of the windows of the residence near
where Officer A was standing would be easily reached by pepper spray.
Allegations:
1. 803 OC Spray: That Officer A deployed OC (pepper) spray in or near a residence in
a manner that was unauthorized and outside the scope of the intended use.
2. 1202 Audio and video Recording: That Officer A turned off Supervisor C’s ICV
microphone without an authorized strategic or tactical purpose.
3. 1101.1.B.17 Judgement: That Officer A used poor judgment by deploying OC spray
and muting a supervisor’s ICV microphone.
Recommended Adjudications:
1. OC Spray
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor ’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
2. Audio and Video Recordings
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor ’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
3. Judgment
• EPD chain of command: Unfounded
• Auditor ’s Office: Unfounded
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
22
• Chief: Unfounded
Issues for the CRB:
CRB Members questioned why the officer would have thought that using the pepper spray
was funny, as it is considered a weapon. One member wondered how seriously officers
took pepper spray and felt more training was in order. Most members felt that the
Judgement allegation should have been sustained.
Inquiry Review:
Auditor’s Office received a third-party complaint related to uses of force during arrests.
The assigned supervisor reviewed the related police reports and recordings of the incidents
in question; nothing in his review indicated that the involved employees had violated policy.
The supervisor contacted the reporting party and explained his review of the incidents and
the reasons for the officers’ actions.
Classification: Inquiry
Issues for the CRB:
CRB members appreciated the follow up with the Reporting Party to explain specifics of the
incidents in question.
Incident Review:
Reporting Party complained that his girlfriend was involved in a vehicle crash with an EPD
vehicle and that medics were not called.
• The crash was also internally reported, per policy.
• The assigned supervisor reviewed related police reports and in-car video of the
incident. That review indicated that, following the crash, a responding officer
determined that RP’s girlfriend (the driver of the car) was likely impaired.
• A DUII investigation followed, during which the driver indicated that she had no
injuries.
• The investigation showed that the involved employees followed policy during and after
the crash. After conferring with the Auditor, the complaint was closed.
• Classification: Incident Review
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
23
Issues for the CRB:
CRB members were satisfied with the gathering of evidence by officers and that the
situation was handled within policy, but some felt that the concerns of the Reporting Party
were not completely addressed.
G. September Case Review – Case 1
Officer A was dispatched to a recovered stolen vehicle. Reporting Party was with the
vehicle and had been for several hours.
• Officer A contacted the RP, who had hooked the vehicle up to a tow truck. Officer
A engaged in conversation with RP while he investigated the status of the vehicle.
• Officer A verified that the vehicle was stolen, and informed RP that the vehicle
would have to be unhitched, per EPD policy. RP unhitched the vehicle and left.
• RP contacted dispatch and asked for a supervisor to contact her. When the
supervisor returned the call, she complained about the length of time for the
dispatch, as well as the tone and content of Officer A’s conversation with her.
• The supervisor entered the complaint into BlueTeam, where our office reviewed it
and classified it as an allegation of misconduct.
Allegations:
1101.1.B.25 Unbecoming Conduct: That, during a contact with the reporting party, Officer
A made comments that reflected negatively on the Eugene Police Department and brought
discredit upon himself and EPD.
Recommended Adjudications:
1101.1.B.25 Unbecoming Conduct
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
Issues for the CRB:
One CRB member felt that the Unbecoming Conduct Policy was a dumping ground for
allegations that didn’t fit elsewhere. Another member commented that it could be used that
way but also served a purpose, in this case the entire conversation with RP seemed to be
too familiar and unprofessional. Members felt a look at how EPD handles tows and how tow
companies are utilized was in order. Members also agreed with the adjudication.
Case Review 2:
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
24
• Officers A, B, and C were dispatched to a disorderly subject described as “violent and
aggressive.” Officer C was the primary officer. Officer B contacted the suspect and the
Reporting Party (RP).
• Officer B later stated he was having trouble communicating with RP. Officer A
arrived and also contacted RP.
• RP later complained to the Auditor’s Office that Officer A repeatedly told him to
“shut the f*** up” and that Officer A flipped him off when he left the scene.
• The investigation showed that Officer A used profanity repeatedly during his
conversation with the RP.
• Officer A denied that he flipped off RP when leaving; in-car video (ICV) of the incident
appeared to show him waving to a different group (but video quality was somewhat poor).
Allegations:
1. 1101.1.B.7 Courtesy: That Officer A spoke to the RP in a discourteous and
unprofessional manner, using profane and insolent language.
2. 1101.1.B.7 Courtesy: That Officer A used a profane and insolent gesture directed
toward RP as he drove away from the scene of their contact.
Recommended Adjudications:
1. Courtesy
• EPD chain of command: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
2. Courtesy
• EPD chain of command: Unfounded
• Auditor’s Office: Unfounded
• Chief: Unfounded
Issues for the CRB:
CRB members agreed with the classification of the case as the officer had used profanity
repeatedly with RP. A discussion of language as use of force ensued with some members
believing it could be a useful tool and others feeling that its use at all was unprofessional.
H. October Case Review
Officer A and Officer B were dispatched to a call of a suspicious subject who had
frightened the caller. Officer B contacted the person and was concerned by his
responses to her questions. Officer B knew that Officer A was some distance away and
did not try to detain the person.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
25
• Officer A arrived and asked Officer B if she was comfortable standing by with the
person; she stated that she was not. Officer A believed the person to be under the
influence of a stimulant and was concerned by his behavior.
• Officer A directed the person to sit down, and the person refused. Officer A stated
that he would be pepper sprayed if he did not sit down. The person responded by
saying, “If you pepper spray me, I will kick your ass.”
• Officer A put his pepper spray away and transitioned to a Taser. He pointed the
Taser at the person and warned that if he did not sit down, he would be tased.
The person still did not sit down, and Officer A deployed the Taser, with the probes
striking the person in the lower abdomen. 38 seconds passed between Officer A
verbally contacting the subject and Taser deployment.
Allegations:
809.4.1 Use of the Taser: That Officer A’s use of the Taser against this person was not
reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.
Recommended Adjudications:
Use of Taser
• EPD chain of command: Within Policy
• Auditor’s Office: Within Policy
• Chief: Within Policy
Issues for the CRB:
CRB members were concerned at some of the inconsistences of the Taser Policy that
enabled the adjudication of the incident to be Within Policy. Members felt that more
communication between the officers would have been helpful in letting the second
officer understand the situation before he escalated from pepper spray to using a taser
in less than 38 seconds. Members struggled with whether the officer’s action was
reasonable.
I. November Case Review
Our office received an anonymous complaint in March 2016 alleging that inappropriate
conduct had occurred between Supervisor A and Lower-level Supervisor B, and that the
investigation and treatment of the conduct by the City and EPD had been inadequate.
• Our office conducted an intake interview with Lower-level Supervisor B, who
stated that Supervisor A (who is of a higher rank) had taken a picture of her chest
without her consent and despite her objection.
• Lower-level Supervisor B had mentioned the incident to her immediate supervisor,
who reported it to Human Resources. HR met with Lower-level Supervisor B and
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
26
Supervisor A separately and discussed their recollections of the incident. Those
recollections were the basis of an HR report that was submitted to EPD in
December 2015.
• Our office’s preliminary investigation (conducted upon receipt of the complaint) included
review of the HR investigative report. Finding that report to be inadequate, the complaint
was classified as an allegation of misconduct; specifically, a violation of the City’s
Respectful Work Environment policy.
An outside investigator was retained to perform the investigation, which included
recorded interviews with each of the involved parties and witnesses with whom they
discussed the incident. The investigation was submitted to the City in October 2016.
• Our office reviewed the investigation and found it to be unbiased and complete.
Our recommendation to Chief Kerns, submitted later in October 2016, was that the
allegation be sustained.
• Chief Kerns issued his initial adjudication in January 2017; at that time, he stated that
the evidence did not meet the threshold for violation of the City’s RWE policy.
• Our office received new information related to this investigation in March 2017. At that
time, the investigation was re-opened and re-assigned to the outside investigator for follow
up.
• At the conclusion of the re-opened investigation, our office found no need to submit an
additional adjudication recommendation, as our recommendation had not changed. Chief
Kerns re-adjudicated the case in July 2017.
Allegations:
APM 1.4 Respectful Work Environment: That Supervisor A’s actions violated the City’s
policy promoting a respectful workplace.
Recommended Adjudications:
APM 1.4 Respectful Work Environment
• Auditor’s Office: Sustained
• Chief (initially): Did Not Meet Threshold
• Chief (final): Sustained
Issues for the CRB:
Many members expressed concern that the issue had come to the Auditor’s Office. Had it
been handled adequately or professionally by the Human Resource’s Office it would not
have been handled by the Auditor’s Office. Many felt the Human Resource report should
not have been accepted by the Chief of Police. The members also found it troubling that
training on respectful work place and sexual harassment was only required at an
employee’s initial hiring. Member’s agreed with the adjudication of the case, as the officer
was clearly in violation of the policy.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Mark Gissiner
Police Auditor
Leia K. Pitcher
Deputy Auditor
Office of the Police Auditor
Eugene, OR
Independent Police Auditor’s Office
2017 Annual Report
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 2
Published June 2018
Eugene Mayor and City Councilors
MAYOR: LUCY VINIS
CITY MANAGER: JON RUIZ
Ward One: Emily Semple
Ward Two: Betty Taylor
Ward Three: Alan Zelenka
Ward Four: George Poling/Jennifer Yeh
Ward Five: Mike Clark
Ward Six: Greg Evans
Ward Seven: Claire Syrett
Ward Eight: Chris Pryor
Civilian Review Board (CRB) Members
Chris Wig, Chair
Maurice A Denner, Vice Chair
Carolyn Williams
Heather Marek
Rick Roseta
Steven McIntire
Jim Hargreaves
Eric Van Houten
Police Auditor’s Office
Mark Gissiner, Independent Police Auditor
Leia K. Pitcher, Deputy Police Auditor
Vicki Cox, Senior Program Coordinator
Beatriz Hernandez, Community Engagement Coordinator & Translation Specialist
Address: 800 Olive St. Eugene, OR 97401
Tel: 541-682-5016
Fax: 541-682-5599
Email: policeauditor@ci.eugene.or.us
Website: https://www.eugene-or.gov/1039/Police-Auditor
Facebook: www.facebook.com/EugenePoliceAuditor
Twitter: www.twitter.com/Eugene_IPA
Our mission: To provide an accessible, safe, impartial and responsive intake system for complaints against the Eugene
Police Department employees and to ensure accountability, fairness, transparency, and trust in the complaint system.
The Office of the Police Auditor and the Civilian Review Board operate independently. We report directly to, and are
funded by, the Eugene City Council. We are an independent, civilian entity performing oversight of the Eugene Police
Department (EPD); neither our funding nor management overlap with EPD. No employee of the Auditor’s office is an
employee of the EPD.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 3
Table of Contents
A Look Back ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Highlights from 2017 ................................................................................................................................. 1
Progress and Results .............................................................................................................................. 1
Successful Community Outreach Efforts ................................................................................................ 6
Looking Ahead ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Goals for 2018-2019 ............................................................................................................................... 8
Challenges for 2018-2019 ...................................................................................................................... 9
How does the civilian oversight system work? ..................................................................................... 10
Mission and Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 10
Understanding the Complaint Process ................................................................................................. 10
2017 Complaint and Commendation Statistics ..................................................................................... 11
Classification and Number of Complaints ............................................................................................ 11
How Were Complaints Filed? ........................................................................................................... 11
Allegations ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Sustained Allegations and Discipline ............................................................................................ 12
Incident Reviews ............................................................................................................................... 13
Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints ...................................................................... 13
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix A: 2017 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Appendix B: 2017 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, and Inquiries
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 4
A Look Back
Since 2009, our office received 3,254 complaints, including 48 allegations of criminal misconduct, 128
vehicle pursuits, 316 allegations of serious misconduct, and 1,537 service complaints. From mid-2013
through 2017, we reviewed 939 reportable uses of force. We generally extend higher scrutiny to uses
of force involving people experiencing mental health crisis.
Highlights from 2017
Progress and Results
Our office greatly expanded our community outreach efforts in 2017; those efforts are described in
more detail below. In addition, our day-to-day work progressed in many different areas; our office
reviewed 325 complaints and 230 reportable uses of force in 2017.
Body Worn Camera Evidence
Body-worn cameras (BWC) were issued to all EPD officers in June 2017. The effect on our work
was nearly immediate; in addition to the 325 complaints we reviewed last year, we also review
every reportable use of force. In 2017, there were 230 reportable uses of force. BWC’s are a
significant improvement over in-car video both technologically and as far as portraying a more
thorough and accurate version of the police contact. Evidence generated by BWC’s can be
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 5
viewed by both Internal Affairs (IA) and our office. Our preliminary investigations almost
always include review of the BWC video, and we have been able to both identify suspected
misconduct (triggering a full IA investigation) and identify situations where no policy violation
has occurred. Overall, the implementation of these cameras has significantly increased the
efficiency of the investigative process.
Deadly Force Investigation
Our office reviewed one use of deadly force in 2017. We were promptly notified of the use of
force and participated in the pursuant internal affairs investigation; however, in Lane County,
use of deadly force by law enforcement is primarily investigated by the Lane County
Interagency Deadly Use of Force Investigation Team (IDFIT). Our office reviews that
investigation at its close and works with IA to determine what additional investigative steps
may be necessary. We then are invited to participate in EPD’s Deadly Force Review Board. The
Board found, and we concurred, that the use of deadly force by EPD employees was well within
policy.
Successfully Provided Staff Support for Civilian Review Board
The Civilian Review Board (CRB) met nine times in 2017. Those meetings included a joint
meeting with the Police Commission, seven training topics, and review of 18 complaints (11
allegations of misconduct, five service complaints, one incident review, and one inquiry). Our
office is committed to providing excellent staff support for the Board, and numerous staff
hours are spent on meeting preparation.
Attended Trainings on Sexual Assault Investigations
Our office participated in two trainings offered by the Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual
Assault Task Force. The trainings were instrumental in learning best practices for sexual assault
and domestic violence investigations; we continue to work with EPD to ensure that best
practices are trained and followed.
Participated in Oregon Law Enforcement Contacts Committee (LECC) meetings
Our office participates in quarterly meetings of the LECC. The Committee receives and analyzes
demographic data to ensure that law enforcement agencies perform their missions without
discrimination.
Participated in Selection of Recruiter for New EPD Chief
Finally, our office participated in a panel interviewing three recruitment agencies that the City
was considering to engage to assist in the hiring process of a new Police Chief.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 6
Latinx community members gather as City of Eugene departments
answer questions and share information about the services they provide
during our first Public Safety Forum.
Successful Community Outreach Efforts
We continued with our efforts to reach marginalized sectors in our community by actively
participating in community events and meetings. Below are just some of the outreach efforts that
took place in 2017 which our office participated in:
Implementation of Anonymous Survey
Community Satisfaction of Local Law Enforcement survey was dispersed online throughout
several platforms. We received over 300 responses from community members.
Public Safety Forum
In partnership with the 4J School District, our office held a Spanish forum with participation
from 5 City of Eugene departments and over 15 local nonprofits. We provided community
members an opportunity to share their experiences, voice any concerns, and learn about
several services the City of Eugene provides.
Police Chief Outreach to Latinx community
Held discussions regarding the most important qualities the Latinx community wishes to see in
the next police chief. This was a unique opportunity to hear from a growing sector in our
community
Public Participation in Diverse Communities panel member
Shared insight to University of Oregon students about working in city government while
addressing specific sectors of the community
Neighborhood Association meetings
Continued our efforts of reaching out to multiple associations and providing insight about our
office practices, procedures, and limitations
Presentations to local non-profits
Continued reaching out to local agencies in both Eugene and Springfield to provide staff the
necessary information about our office’s duties and limitations to forward to the clients they
directly serve
Tabling at local events including:
2017 Posada Latina
Noche Cultural
SHS Latino Family Night
Mobile Mexican Consulate
River Road Elementary Social
MECHA graduation
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 7
Community Outreach at a Glance
Although our outreach strategies were intended for the community as a whole, most of the key
events were primarily geared towards the growing Latinx/Spanish-speaking community in the area. In
the coming year, we hope to broaden our outreach efforts to include the African American and
mental health communities. By sharing information about our office, as well as educating and hearing
from the broader community about their thoughts on local law enforcement, we will strive to build an
informed community who understands and trusts the civilian oversight process.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 8
Looking Ahead
Goals for 2018-2019
Our goals for the next few years may be our most ambitious yet. With the addition of Beatriz
Hernandez (our community engagement coordinator) and the ability to evaluate police encounters i n
a more timely manner (due to body-worn cameras), we should be able to expand our opportunities
for engagement and refinement of practices internally and with EPD. We are confident that many of
these goals and issues that are intertwined with EPD operational concerns will get resolved through
collaboration with new EPD Chief Chris Skinner.
We will continue to focus on maintenance of our core competencies: intake and classification of
complaints, monitoring and participating in investigations, making recommendations with regard to
adjudication of complaints, and review of reportable uses of force.
We will also continue to work on connectivity to our community partners. Ms. Hernandez’ survey
illustrated that there are still sectors in the community with whom we need improved outreach. We
are embarking on an ambitious effort to reach out to organizations that offer support to individuals
with neurological disorders (including autism spectrum disorder, developmental disorders, and some
learning disorders).
We also continue to focus on providing excellent customer service to all reporting parties. We
continue to receive a significant portion of complaints from within EPD, which seems indicative of an
organizational shift towards trust in our system. Furthermore, we have been able to provide
dramatically improved service to the community through the addition of a bilingual, bicultural staff
member.
We are continuing our work with City staff from the Human Rights and Equity Office, EPD, and other
City Departments and community stakeholders to improve knowledge regarding our office and to
ensure that all avenues for complaint and commendation intakes are open and available.
In this time of extensive personnel changes at EPD, we continue to work with their professional
standards staff to ensure that training and policies reflect community values and best practices in
policing. One area of focus will be issues with Communications with regard to customer service and
prioritization of calls. We will also focus on assisting Chief Skinner to understand Eugene’s civilian
oversight process and role in the community.
We will continue to work with EPD to ensure communication, compassion, and empathy with crime
victims; we also will focus on ensuring that incidents are reported in full compliance with policy. In
addition, we hope to reduce the apparent reliance by EPD employees on the oversight system to
address issues that are more properly handled by Human Resources. While some workplace
environment issues are legitimately serious misconduct, other departments may be better suited for
those types of issues and investigations.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 9
We have also noticed a trend of EPD supervisors and officers seeking out our office for strategic
consultations. While we appreciate their trust and confidence in our abilities, it would be optimal if
such consultations were addressed by command staff in an environment of mutual trust and respect.
One final focus of our office is our staffing obligations to the Civilian Review Board. Our Board is
made up of enthused, involved volunteers, and we prioritize our continued provision of excellent
staffing to meet their needs.
Challenges for 2018-2019
In the coming year, we anticipate several challenges. The current national political environment is not
one that encourages underserved communities to seek out government entities for assistance; our
community engagement efforts and increased trust in our office from the community as a whole wil l
hopefully help offset this challenge.
The paradigm of the complaint process has shifted in recent years. We reviewed at least three major
incidents in which dispatch and/or response times were inconsistent with the critical need for a
timely response. It appears that there may be an over-reliance on CAHOOTS, or insufficient resources
to meet the demand for calls for service. It is a continued concern that there are no sworn EPD
personnel staffed at the Communications Center to assist with triaging police-related issues.
We have also observed an upward trend in complaints from crime victims. The frequency of such
complaints can be difficult to track, as they almost always require a citizen complaint (i.e., they are
not generally reported internally). There currently is no internal system at EPD to track dissatisfaction
or indifference to victims. We reviewed one case where a crime victim was ultimately arrested.
Another anticipated challenge arises from low staffing levels at EPD. We are seeing the impact of the
uptick in retirements by veteran employees and the emergence of new supervisors on patrol. The
influx of new supervisors and new officers requires a collaborative effort between our office and EPD
to ensure that the community’s standards for policing and for resolution of complaints are met.
On a positive note, it appears that officers are making increased efforts to de-escalate situations,
particularly those involving a mental health event. There also appears to be less emphasis on a rush
to force and a greater emphasis on problem-solving skills.
It is also worth noting that our office performs all its duties without going over budget; we have been
able to return money to the General Fund each of the nine years that Mr. Gissiner has been Auditor.
We are optimistic about meeting these and any other challenges that arise in the next year; our office
is experienced, engaged, and committed to providing excellent service to the community.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 10
Any complaint may be selected for possible mediation, which follows a different process.
Community Impact Cases and complaints against the EPD Chief follow the processes set out in Eugene City Code
§2.244 and §2.454, respectively.
How does the civilian oversight system work?
Mission and Purpose
Our office was established by charter amendment in 2005 to provide an external mechanism for the
independent receipt, classification, and routing of complaints against sworn and non-sworn EPD
employees; contract for outside investigations when necessary; and provide monitoring of EPD
internal investigations of allegations of misconduct and supervisors’ investigations of serv ice
complaints. The charter amendment also authorizes the auditor to: make recommendations
regarding adjudications, policies and training to the Police Chief; prepare reports concerning
complaint trends and police practices; and act as a liaison and staff support for a civilian review
board.
Understanding the Complaint Process
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 11
The most common method used by the community to file complaints with our office continues to be
the telephone (52%). The phone has consistently been the source of about half of our complaints.
Walk-in complaints increased substantially, possibly due to our additional signage.
2017 Complaint and Commendation Statistics
Classification and Number of Complaints
How were complaints filed?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Auditor Complaint Form Internal Social Media Walk In
Allegations of
Misconduct(includin
g Criminal Conduct)
(Crimn
Days to close Supervisor
Actions (median)
) (
275
49
1
26
24
Misconduct
complaints
from community members
Internally generated
complaints
Officer involved
shootings
Our office received 325 complaints in 2017, which
was an 11% decrease from 2016.
Classification 2017 2016
Allegation of
Misconduct
22 24
Allegation of
Criminal Conduct
4 5
Incident Review 22 22
Respectful Work
Environment
1 7
Inquiry 108 104
Policy Complaint 31 37
Service Complaint 137 171
Service complaints decreased most sharply (almost
20%). Respectful Work Environment complaints also
decreased significantly, from 7 in 2016 to only 1 in
2017.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 12
The 22 allegations of misconduct and 4 allegations of criminal conduct included 41 specific allegations
against 28 EPD employees. The most common allegations were related to performance, courtesy, and
unbecoming conduct.
Absent from Duty, 1 Audio/Video
Recordings, 1
Constitutional Rights, 3
Courtesy, 4
Forcible Vehicle Stops, 2
Judgment, 2
OC Spray, 2
Sleeping on Duty, 3Truthfulness, 1
Unbecoming Conduct, 4
Unsatisfactory
Performance, 9
Use of Force, 1
Use of Intoxicants, 1 Use of Taser, 1
44% of Specific
Allegations were Sustained.
Sustained Allegations:
7 Unsatisfactory
Performance
3 Courtesy
2 Unbecoming
Conduct
1 Conformance to
Laws
1 Constitutional
Rights
1 Judgment
1 OC Spray
1 Use of Intoxicants
12 employees were found to have committed the 18 sustained
allegations. Half of those employees were not sworn law
enforcement officers, which means they are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Auditor’s Office but not the Civilian Review
Board. All investigations that resulted in sustained allegations
against sworn employees were reviewed by the Civilian Review
Board. Two employees resigned prior to discipline.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Documented
Counseling
Oral Reprimand Written
Reprimand
Resigned Prior
to Discipline
2017 Discipline for Specific Sustained Allegations
Allegations
Sustained Allegations and Discipline
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 13
Incident Reviews were created in 2016 as an intermediate category between allegations of
minor misconduct (“Supervisor Actions”, see below) and allegations of serious misconduct.
Our office participates in Internal Affairs’ investigations into incident reviews, and prior to
interviewing the involved employee, our office consults with Internal Affairs to determine if
the complaint should be reclassified (for instance, if it appears serious misconduct occurred)
or if the investigation to date is thorough, fair, and complete. The 22 incident reviews were
those that were not reclassified and were handled via the Internal Affairs investigation
Most incident reviews were related to performance (9) or conduct (7). Three complaints of
uses of force were addressed as incident reviews.
21 Incident Reviews were closed out after the Internal Affairs investigation with out any policy
violation indicated. One additional Incident Review was determined to be unfounded.
Policy Complaint
A complaint is classified as
a policy complaint when
the reporting party is
concerned about a specific
EPD policy.
Inquiry
A complaint is classified as
an inquiry when it appears
that the reporting party has
generalized concerns or
confusion about an
incident.
Service Complaint
A service complaint is a
complaint of minor
misconduct.
Incident Reviews
Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Inquiries, policy complaints, and service complaints are all forwarded to
EPD supervisors for follow-up with the reporting party; all three are
therefore categorized as “supervisor action”. Our office reviews the
complaint before it is closed and contacts the reporting party with a
closing letter and a survey.
Inquiry and policy complaint numbers remained steady from 2016 into
2017. The majority of inquiries were handled by the supervisor and closed;
24 of the 108 were dismissed before that step. Similarly, 27 of the 31
policy complaints were adequately addressed by the supervisor; an
additional 3 were dismissed.
Service complaints were our most common type of complaint, as has been
the pattern over the last several years.
Conduct
3%
Courtesy
11%
Discrimination
1%Performance
76%
Service
level
8%
Use of Force
1%
Service Complaints by Sub-Classification
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2017 Annual Report 14
Conclusion
We wish to thank the outstanding volunteers on the Civilian Review Board, past and present, as well as the
members of the Police Commission and Human Rights Commission. We truly appreciate the tremendous
support to our office provided by the Central Services Division for assistance with finances, information
technology, budgets, human resources, payroll, and other functions. The City Manager’s Officer, the City
Attorney’s Office, and the Eugene Police Department have all been helpful in aiding our office to accomplish
its core function and goals. Specifically, former Chief Pete Kerns, Interim Director of Public Safety David
James, and the staff at EPD Internal Affairs, through their collaborative efforts, significantly contribute to the
smooth functioning of our office. Finally, we wish to thank the Mayor and City Councilors for having patience
and taking the time and energy to be effectively involved in the evolution of the civilian oversight process in
Eugene.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Criminal Misconduct:
Conformance to
Laws
1101.1.B.5
Conformance to
Laws
Dismissed/
Unfounded
1/7/17 2/28/17
Allegation of
Criminal Misconduct:
Conformance to
Laws
1101.1.B.5
Conformance to
Laws
Dismissed/
Unfounded
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Internal: Self-reported incident in which a
call taker did not complete a call and did
not realize the mistake until almost an
hour later, causing a delay in dispatch.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S 1/21/17 2/21/17 3/13/17 4/21/17
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
Performance
306 Social
Security Numbers
S S S 1/25/17 5/8/17RP reported being threatened with arrest
if he did not provide a SSN when being
cited for riding his bike on the wrong side
of the road. **Employees admitted
wrongdoing; complaint was closed
through facilitated conversation.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
CRB
Review?
RP alleged that money was missing from
his belongings after an arrest for DUII.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
CRB
Review?
Appendix A Page 1 of 6 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct: Conduct
1101.1.B.25
Unbecoming
Conduct
S S S 1/23/17 2/24/17 3/20/17 5/8/17 Sep-17
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct: Conduct
1101.1.B.7
Courtesy
S S S 2/14/17 4/7/17 8/8/17 8/8/17 Sep-17
1101.1.B.7
Courtesy
UF UF UF
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct: Conduct
803 Use of Force S S S 3/11/17 4/25/17 5/17/17 6/19/17 Aug-17
1101.1.B.17
Judgment
UF UF UF
1202 Audio Video
Recordings
S S S
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S 3/15/17 4/26/17 6/23/17 9/22/17
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
RP reported an officer who was
unprofessional while waiting for a tow,
making negative comments about other
employees and his former spouse. RP
also complained that the officer was
frequently cursing.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Allegation that an officer used profane and
insolent language and a profane gesture
during an interaction with a citizen.
Internal reported allegation related to an
officer's possible misuse of OC spray
(pepper spray), possible misuse of Audio
Recording equipment, and related poor
judgment.
Summary of Complaint
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Internal allegation that a non-sworn
employee did not handle property in jail
lockers properly.
Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Appendix A Page 2 of 6 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
1101.1.1.B.24
Sleeping on Duty
3/16/17 4/7/17
APM 12.1
Absence from
duty without
Authorization
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct: Use of
Force
1302 Forcible
Vehicle Stop
Techniques
WP WP WP 3/22/17 5/10/17 7/11/17 7/11/17
1302 Forcible
Vehicle Stop
Techniques
IF IF IF
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct
1101.1.1.B.24
Sleeping on Duty
3/26/17 4/7/17
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct
1101.1.1.B.24
Sleeping on Duty
4/14/17 4/28/17N/A - Employee Resigned
Internal Allegation that an employee was
sleeping on duty. Employee resigned
during investigation.
Internal allegation that two employees
conducted a box-in/forcible vehicle stop
maneuver that was not authorized by
policy.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Internal Allegation that an employee was
sleeping on duty and absent from duty
without authorization. Employee
resigned during investigation.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
Internal Allegation that an employee was
sleeping on duty. Employee resigned
during investigation.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
CRB
Review?
N/A - Employee Resigned
N/A - Employee Resigned
Appendix A Page 3 of 6 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
1101.1.B.7 Courtesy S S S S 4/22/17 6/12/17 6/23/17 8/8/17
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Criminal Conduct:
1101.1.B.5
Conformance to
Laws
UN UN UN 4/28/17 9/22/17
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct: Conduct
5/1/17 7/3/17
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Use of Force
809 Use of Taser WP WP WP 5/25/17 7/14/17 8/9/17 8/31/17 Oct-17
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S 7/10/17 9/8/17 8/29/17 9/22/17
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S
Internal Allegation that an employee
destroyed evidence in violation of policy.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Internal allegation that an officer used his
taser in a manner that was not reasonable
based on the totality of the circumstances.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Anonymous Allegation that an officer was
sexually harassed by a supervisor while at
an off duty party. Dismissed:
Timeliness
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Internal self-reported incident into an
officers off-duty contact with his children.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Allegation that an officer used profane and
insolent language in an interaction with
citizens.
Appendix A Page 4 of 6 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Use of Force
803 Oleoresin
Capsicum Aerosol
WP WP WP 7/27/17 9/22/17 8/11/17 10/19/17
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct: Conduct
1101.1.1.B.25
Unbecoming
Conduct
S S S 9/11/17 10/16/17 11/6/17 12/11/17 Feb-18
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct: Conduct
800 Use of Force WP WP WP 9/17/18 11/22/17 1/31/18 3/23/18 May-18
1101.1.B.7
Courtesy
S S S
1101.1.B.6
Constitutional
Rights
S S S
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Criminal Conduct
1101.1.B.5
Conformance to
Laws
S S S 5/30/17 8/8/17 8/21/17 10/30/17
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
WP WP WP 3/21/17 9/15/17 10/19/17 11/15/17
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Internal Allegation that an officer's actions
toward his assigned canine during a call
for service were abusive.
Two reporting parties reported an incident
in which one reporting party was detained
and arrested after she had been pushed
by another person; the other RP was
pushed by an officer as she approached.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Internal allegation that a non-sworn
employee was arrested for DUII while off-
duty.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
RP reported an incident in which an off
duty officer engaged him and his family in
a road rage incident.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Internal Allegation that employee's use of
OC spray (pepper spray) was outside
policy.
Appendix A Page 5 of 6 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S 10/10/17 11/27/18 1/2/18 1/29/18
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
UF UF UF
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
UF UF IE
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S 10/17/18 11/27/17 12/22/17 1/22/18
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Criminal Conduct:
Conformance to
Laws
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S 8/18/17 2/13/18
1101.1.B.17
Judgment
S S
An allegation that an EPD volunteer
responded inappropriately when informed
of a possible crime. Volunteer resigned.
Allegation that a call taker failed to take
appropriate action when processing a call
for service resulting in a delay in dispatch.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
RP reported that when she and coworkers
reported a man who had come in to their
workplace and requested CAHOOTS,
EPD did not respond in a timely manner.
The man became upset with the delay
and then threatened to shoot up the place
if EPD did not respond.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Appendix A Page 6 of 6 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
1/4/2017 2/3/2017 29 Performance RP was unhappy for with having to pay a tow fee
for a vehicle that she didn't even know was
stolen.
Lt. found that the car was recovered before RP knew it was stolen
and attempts to contact the RP were not successful. The case was
forwarded to Risk Services for reimbursement to RP.
1/5/2017 1/17/2017 12 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer falsely accused
him of lighting fires when he had only burned off
a kerosene rag.
Sgt. found that the officer responded to a call of a man burning
particle board and pallets. The officer observed a stack of pallets in
the median strip. RP admitted to burning several items. The officer
gave RP a warning about reckless burning and did not cite him. No
policy violation was found.
1/3/2017 1/27/2017 24 Performance RP alleged that at the end of an investigative
contact, an officer directed the RP into a room
and told the RP that his reactions were
concerning to the officer. The RP stated that the
officer made him feel scolded, intimidated and
uncomfortable.
Sgt. investigated and spoke with several witnesses; it was
determined that the officer's conduct did not violate policy.
1/8/2017 2/6/2017 28 Policy RP was unhappy that officers did not provide a
ride home after arresting their friend for DUII.
Sgt. explained to RP that EPD did not have the staffing abilities to
take an officer off patrol to drive someone home; he also pointed
out that the officer had volunteered to call a taxi, but the offer was
declined.
1/10/2017 1/10/2017 0 Performance
Dismissed:
Previously
reviewed
RP reported an incident from Feb 2016 that was
reviewed at the time of the incident.
Dismissed: Previously Reviewed
1/11/2017 1/25/2017 14 Performance RP reported a patrol vehicle that proceeded
through a pedestrian crossing when its lights
were flashing.
Sgt. reviewed the laws pertaining to the crossing light and notified
RP that it is legal for vehicles to cross when a pedstrian is not
within 6 feet of the lane of travel. RP appreciated the information.
1/11/2017 2/21/2017 40 Courtesy RP felt and officer had a resentful and hostile
attitude about taking her call for service.
Sgt. found that the officer had not felt that he was rude but was
only trying to clarify the situation and make sure that RP
understood what officer could and could not do for her. Sgt. spoke
with RP about his findings.
1/16/2017 1/18/2017 2 Performance RP alleged that an officer only stopped him
because of his race.
Sgt. found that the description of the suspect matched RP. When
the Sgt. spoke with RP, RP stated that he had been upset and was
experiencing some mental health issues. No policy violations.
1/18/2017 3/9/2017 51 Inquiry RP was upset that an officer was calling him on
his friend's phone and continued after he was
asked to stop.
Sgt. learned that the contact was to notify RP that he could be
arrested for telephonic harassment if he did not stop making
contact with a person with a restraining order. Sgt.'s attempts to
contact RP were unsuccessful.
Appendix B Page 1 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
1/23/2017 2/21/2017 28 Performance RP was unhappy that a hit and run driver was
not cited by officers and that officers did not
return calls.
Sgt. found that there was insufficient evidence of a hit and run at
the time of the incident; further witness interviews also did not
indicate a hit and run had occurred. Sgt. spoke with RP about the
incident and his findings.
1/23/2017 3/20/2017 57 Performance RP reported a patrol car driving dangerously in
heavy traffic.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the incident and then with the officers
about driving with care.
1/24/2017 1/27/2017 3 Inquiry Anonymous letter alleged a crime might have
been committed by an EPD officer.
Dismiss: Other. Arrested suspect admitted to the crime.
1/27/2017 1/31/2017 4 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP was unhappy that an officer had him
transported to Lane County by another
jurisdiction over telephonic harassment, when he
had also filed a complaint against the other
person.
Dismiss: Alternate Remedy
2/1/2017 2/6/2017 5 Policy RP complained that EPD was not helping after
numerous reports of illegal camping and drug
dealing.
Sgt. spoke with RP about EPD's staffing issues and call priority
parameters; Sgt. understood that RP was upset. RP expressed
that the city needed to staff more officers.
1/31/2017 2/1/2017 1 Conduct
Dismissed:
Other
RP was upset that three officers just showed up
and entered her home without permission.
Dismissed: Other. Preliminary investigation found the issue was
permissible under community caretaking.
2/1/2017 2/21/2017 20 Inquiry RP was upset that an officer released his name
to a drug dealer, and he now has the cartel
looking for him.
After reviewing police reports and ICV, Sgt. found that the officer
never mentioned RP's name to the alleged drug dealer during his
investigation. The officer also denied doing so as he felt that it
would jeopardize his developing street information in the future. RP
has not returned messages to talk about the issue.
2/1/2017 3/13/2017 42 Policy RP was unhappy that he was placed in the
CORT program against his wishes.
Lt. found that RP was not placed in the program, and was unable
to speak with RP as RP left Eugene without contact information.
2/2/2017 2/6/2017 4 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP alleged that an officer took his cell phone
without permission and has been contacting his
friends.
Dismissed: Other Preliminary investigation found RP voluntarily
gave his phone to officers during an investigation and that RP was
provided paperwork to retrieve the device.
2/2/2017 3/6/2017 34 Performance RP was unhappy that officers took over an hour
to contact her about the violation of a restraining
order by her neighbor and then didn't do
anything.
Sgt. learned that the officers conducted a proper investigation of
the incident, and that they did not find probable cause to make an
arrest. Sgt. has been so far unable to speak with RP about the
incident.
2/2/2017 2/21/2017 19 Inquiry RP inquired into why officer did not arrest
protesters who slashed the tires of a man flying a
Trump flag on his car.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the incident and the officers' decisions at
the time. He explained that after further investigation arrests could
still possibly be made.
Appendix B Page 2 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
2/3/2017 3/10/2017 37 Inquiry RP was unhappy that officers did not listen to his
side of an incident, just to the Red Caps' version.
Sgt. reviewed ICV and BWV of the incident. RP appeared to be in
a mental health crisis during the incident and resisted any help
officers tried to provide. Officers acted professionally and within
policy as they assessed the situation. Sgt. spoke with RP about
the incident.
2/3/2017 3/17/2017 44 Courtesy RP reported an incident in which officers
approached him at Putters demanding to know
what he was doing, instead of a more caring
approach.
Supervisor was unable to identify the involved officer, but he did
speak with RP about his concerns.
2/3/2017 2/24/2017 21 Performance RP was unhappy that the owner of a
continuously barking dog was not being cited.
Lt. researched the issue and spoke with the involved employees
and various neighbors; she found that the owner was working to
stop the disturbance. Because of the owner working with Animal
Control and the neighbors, it was within the employees' discretion
not to issue citations. Lt. spoke with RP about her findings.
2/3/2017 2/21/2017 18 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer cited him for not
having a rear bike light when he later found out
he only needs a reflector.
Sgt. found that the statute requires a reflector that is visible from
six hundred feet. The citation was issued because the reflector
was not visible to the officer, and he was concerned about the
man's safety in the dark as the officer had not seen him when
approaching from the rear. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
2/7/2017 2/17/2017 10 Performance RP was concerned about how a domestic
violence call was handled; specifically, that
officers did not separate the victim from the
suspect during questioning.
Sgt. contacted the victim and was able talk with her without the
alleged suspect being present. The same information provided to
the officers was provided to the Sgt. The Sgt. was also able to
determine that the victim had been able to speak with officers
away from the suspect during the initial contact.
2/9/2017 3/16/2017 37 Inquiry RP was unhappy when she learned that an item
she thought was being tested for DNA was
ordered destroyed by a supervisor.
Supervisor spoke with RP and informed her that the State crime
lab does not do DNA testing on misdemeanor charges due to
resource issues.
2/10/2017 3/10/2017 30 Performance RP was unhappy with the response by call takers
when he reported a mentally disturbed man on
his property.
Supervisor reviewed the calls and found that the call takers
followed policy in dispatching the calls but could have done a
better job clarifying what RP wanted EPD to do. Supervisor spoke
with RP and the call takers about the call.
2/13/2017 3/23/2017 40 Inquiry RP felt that an officer was extremely
disrespectful while speaking with him about an
assault and that the officer did not follow up with
the investigation.
Sgt. reviewed the incident and found that the officer performed all
expected follow up, finding video footage and attempting to contact
witnesses. RP did not return calls from the Sgt. to discuss the
incident.
Appendix B Page 3 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
2/13/2017 3/23/2017 40 Inquiry RP internally reported an incident in which an
employee approached another city employee
over a personnel issue, which the RP felt was
inappropriate.
Sgt. spoke with both employees involved about the situation and
resolved it.
2/13/2017 3/23/2017 40 Service Level RP was unhappy that while trying to report an
issue about things that have been happening to
him he was left waiting at headquarters for over
an hour while another person was seen in 10
minutes.
Supervisor researched the issue and found that EPD had 90 calls
for service during the 3 hour period when RP was at headquarters.
The goal is to have an officer take a report within 30 minutes, but
call volume prevented it that day. Supervisor spoke with RP about
his concern.
2/14/2017 3/17/2017 33 Service Level RP was unhappy with the level of service he
received from call takers when reporting an issue
with his vehicle.
Review of the non-emergency calls by the supervisor found no
policy violations. Messages have been left with RP to discuss the
issue.
2/15/2017 4/14/2017 59 Conduct RP alleged that an officer in the downtown area
continues to harass him, walking up behind him
and watching him when he is in the area.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the officer's contacts with RP and court
records pertaining to the complaint. No policy violations were
found. Sgt. spoke with RP about his complaint.
2/15/2017 2/17/2017 2 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP said a man who was refusing to pay him for
services rendered was an officer.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
2/15/2017 3/28/2017 43 Inquiry RP felt EPD was ignoring his report of a child
molester who lived in his apartment complex.
Supervisor discussed the matter with the employee and found no
indication of a policy violation. The supervisor made several
attempts to contact the RP but was unsuccessful.
2/16/2017 2/24/2017 8 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officers searched her
private property, seized a key ring, and were
requiring proof of ownership for every vehicle to
match the keys.
Sgt. reviewed the stop and found that the search was incident to
arrest. The Sgt. also spoke with the DA's office to clarify and found
that the inventory of the vehicle was justified and lawful. RP did
not return calls to discuss the incident.
2/17/2017 4/3/2017 46 Inquiry RP was concerned that his daughter was told
that nothing could be done about her ex-
husband's verbal threats to harm her.
Supervisors review of the call found that the call taker should have
asked some further clarifying questions to determine if any
telephonic or electronic harassment had taken place. Supervisor
coached the employee and spoke with RP about the findings.
2/23/2017 3/27/2017 34 Performance RP alleged that an officer pushed her when
helping out during a traffic accident.
Sgt. reviewed BWV and found that RP had pushed herself past the
officer to take a picture of the other driver after being asked to
move back, and that the officer actually had probable cause to
arrest RP for interfering but did not do so. RP did not return calls
and messages left by the Sgt.
2/28/2017 3/1/2017 1 Inquiry RP complained about a traffic stop and arrest; he
disputed the cause for the arrest.
Dismissed - alternate remedy.
Appendix B Page 4 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
2/28/2017 3/3/2017 3 Inquiry RP complained about difficulty in trying to get his
property back from ECU.
Sgt. found that after RP requested his belongings, the clerk started
the process for retrieval. The involved employees took all
appropriate steps. RP was informed to make an appointment to
retrieve his belongings.
3/7/2017 3/9/2017 2 Policy RP, an employee at UDH, was concerned that
EPD did not notify the hospital during in incident
in which a man was firing a gun in the area. RP
felt security should have been told.
RP's concern and request was forwarded to the Watch
Commanders.
3/7/2017 3/10/2017 3 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP reported an officer who cited him for
trespassing while he was protesting in front of
the Chase Bank.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Preliminary review by the
Auditor's Office found no policy violation.
3/7/2017 3/30/2017 23 Performance RP complained via email to the Chief that an
officer who she believed was harassing and
behaving inappropriately refused to provide his
name and badge number.
Sgt. was unable to locate the incident in dispatch records, and RP
did not respond to an email requesting further details.
3/9/2017 4/3/2017 24 Inquiry RP was unhappy with how a domestic violence
call concerning her daughter was handled by
officers.
Sgt. reviewed ICV and found the officers acted appropriately and
professionally, and well within department policy and training
expectations. The situation involved mutual harassment and
neither wished to pursue charges. No physical injuries were
present, so no mandatory arrest was required. Sgt. spoke with RP
about the call and how it was handled.
3/10/2017 4/4/2017 24 Inquiry RP was upset at what he felt was harassment by
an officer who directed him away from a property
where he believed he could be; RP was also
upset that his dog was impounded.
Sgt. found that the officer had in fact been contacted by Animal
Control to assist in the seizure of the dog, and that officers typically
require proof of permission for a person to be on a property that
has a letter of no trespass. Sgt. spoke with RP about his complaint
and learned that RP had recently obtained a letter of permission.
3/13/2017 4/17/2017 34 Inquiry RP was upset that an officer pulled his daughter
out of class to question her about RP's
whereabouts.
Lt. learned that an out of state agency had provided information
that RP might be in the area and seeking to contact with family,
causing a safety concern. The officer followed policy regarding
speak with the minor. Lt. spoke with RP about his concern.
3/13/2017 3/14/2017 1 Performance RP was unhappy that an EPD employee had
taken his dog to the pound.
Supervisor spoke with RP about his concerns.
Appendix B Page 5 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
3/14/2017 4/17/2017 33 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer who was
arresting him for disorderly contact told him his
vehicle would be given a courtesy tow, and now
has to pay over $300.00 to a tow company.
Sgt. found that the vehicle was found parked in an alley and was
towed for safekeeping, as it was a hazard. RP was never told it
was a free tow. RP did not return messages to speak about the
complaint.
3/15/2017 4/28/2017 43 Incident Review:
Conduct
Internal: An officer was alleged to have been
using his taser at parties and that a friend was in
photos posing with his firearm.
Sgt. found that officer had not yet been issued an EPD taser and
that the picture with a firearm was not EPD issued. No policy
violations were found.
3/15/2017 4/6/2017 21 Inquiry RP alleged that an EPD officer accompanied his
wife to court to intimidate and collect anything
that could be used against him at his criminal
trial.
Lt found that the officer had accompanied RP's wife to court but
did not go into the court room.
3/17/2017 3/24/2017 7 Policy RP is concerned about the illegal camping and
activity in his neighborhood.
Sgt. reached out to RP about the issues in his neighborhood and
discussed EPD's policy concerning illegal camping.
3/20/2017 5/31/2017 71 Inquiry RP inquired into the use of force used on his
daughter when she was handcuffed during a
stop.
Sgt. reviewed the stop and found that the officer had taken a hold
of RP's daughter in order to detain her for the citation. No policy
violations were found. Sgt. spoke with RP about the incident.
3/20/2017 4/21/2017 31 Incident Review:
Performance
RP was concerned at the response time for a
call for service for a robbery that she heard
about. RP suspected discrimination on the part
of EPD.
Sgt. reviewed the call for service and found that at the time of the
call 4 other higher priority calls were holding, and that the victim's
daughter had called back to 911 to let them know they would be at
the hospital and could be contacted there for a report.
3/20/2017 4/20/2017 30 Performance RP was unhappy with how a call taker handled
his call for a welfare check on a family member.
Supervisor reviewed the call and found that the call taker did not
get across that a call for a welfare check had been put through.
Supervisor left messages to speak with RP about her findings.
3/19/2017 3/31/2017 12 Performance Internal Review of a call taker not completing a
medic call.
Supervisor provided training and coaching on the proper procedure
forwarding out of area calls.
3/21/2017 4/17/2017 26 Policy RP was unhappy that an officer made her and 4
other vehicles that were camping in the park
leave.
Sgt. learned that St. Vincent's had requested EPD assistance in
contacting over 20 campers/vehicles in violation of the overnight
parking camping ordinance. ICV showed that officer was
professional in explaining the issue and provided contact
information to those in violation while giving warnings.
3/22/2017 4/25/2017 33 Performance RP was upset that officers did not talk with her
after her roommate called police.
Sgt. reviewed records of the incident and found that officer spoke
with the calling party, no crime had been committed. No policy
violation.
Appendix B Page 6 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
3/23/2017 4/24/2017 31 Inquiry RP felt an officer did not have probable cause to
stop him for a traffic stop, in which his vehicle
was ultimately impounded.
Review of the officer's ICV found that the officer had made the stop
due to the inability to ready the unlit license plate. During the stop
it was revealed that RP did not have a valid license and that the
vehicle was not insured. No policy violation were noted by the
officer. Sgt. spoke with RP at length about the stop.
3/26/2017 3/28/2017 2 Performance
Dismissed:
Employee not
identified
RP reported an officer who ran a red light with no
lights or sirens.
Dismissed: unable to identify employee
3/27/2017 4/21/2017 24 Incident Review:
Conduct
Internal Review of a payroll overtime practice A review of the issue found the officer's supervisor had approved
the overtime. No policies were violated.
3/20/2017 5/18/2017 58 Inquiry RP complained that an officer saw him unlock
his bike, and a few days later his bike was
stolen.
Supervisor reviewed BWV and found that the officer was not
standing near RP when he unlocked his bike.
4/11/2017 4/14/2017 3 Performance RP was upset that the party in a dispute was not
arrested.
Lt. found that no probable caused existed for an arrest. Lt. spoke
with RP about the issue.
4/3/2017 4/28/2017 25 Performance RP did not feel officers correctly handled a
dispute between her and her neighbor.
Sgt. reviewed the steps officers took to handle the dispute and
found no policy violations. Sgt. spoke with RP and advised that
even though the neighbors' behavior may be unsettling to her it is
not illegal.
4/7/2017 4/17/2017 10 Inquiry RP reported an EPD vehicle speeding in a non-
emergency situation.
Dispatch records showed officers were being dispatched to
burglary in progress. Omitted lights and sirens were within policy.
RP was anonymous, so no follow up was attempted.
4/12/2017 5/22/2017 40 Inquiry RP, a non custodial parent, was upset with
officers explaining emancipation to his 15 year
old daughter and not allowing him to take her
home.
Sgt. found that officers had been alerted to a loud argument in the
downtown area and responded to find the father and daughter
arguing. The officers determined that no laws were being broken
and the RP was not the custodial parent. There was no probable
cause to detain the youth at the time.
4/16/2017 6/5/2017 49 Inquiry RP alleged that officers failed to deal with a
neighbor who was harassing him with racial slurs
and threatening his dog, telling him it was free
speech. He was also upset that he was then
arrested for strangulation.
Sgt. found that the officers were unable to identify the person or
person making the derogatory statements; the related incidents
were forwarded to a detective for further investigation. Review of
surveillance video from the strangulation incident clearly showed
RP had an opportunity to remove himself from the situation but did
not. Sgt. agreed with the officers' enforcement actions taken at the
time.
Appendix B Page 7 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
4/12/2017 4/17/2017 5 Service Level RP complained that even with continuous calls
illegal camping is still taking place in front of his
business.
Previous to the complaint being assigned, EPD had reached out to
RP and begun to help him with the issue.
4/12/2017 5/15/2017 33 Performance RP was upset that it took over 40 minutes for
officers to arrive when she reported a woman
trying to break into her apartment.
Sgt. found that the call was dispatched 23 minutes after the call
was received due to call load. After dispatch, officers arrived within
6 minutes. Sgt. spoke with RP about how the call was dispatched
and officers' handling of the call.
4/12/2017 4/14/2017 2 Policy
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP was unhappy with the fees paid in a diversion
program
Dismissed: Outside jurisdiction
4/15/2017 4/19/2017 4 Conduct RP was unhappy with how she was treated by
officer during a dispute call.
Sgt. reviewed ICV and found that officers acted within policy and
used de-escalation to calm the dispute when the parties involved
became angry with the officers.
4/17/2017 5/12/2017 25 Performance RP reported an officer who turned against traffic
at a divider to go and speak with another officer,
which did not set a good example.
Sgt. spoke with RP about when it can be more efficient to move a
motorcycle in the manner she witnessed. The Sgt. also spoke with
the officer about setting a good example.
4/18/2017 5/19/2017 31 Inquiry RP was upset that he could not make a report to
EPD about the theft of his motor boat without a
computer.
Sgt. spoke with RP and listened to his concern that there was no
phone option to ask for a person to report issues. The Sgt.
explained EPD's staffing issues and how they did not have 24/7
availability to staff report phones. An officer was directed to call RP
and take a report.
4/18/2017 5/10/2017 22 Inquiry RP inquired into how she should have responded
to an officer using lights and sirens in a way she
was unfamiliar.
Sgt. made contact with RP and explained what the officer was
doing in the situation and answered RP's questions.
4/18/2017 5/2/2017 14 Performance RP was unhappy with how reports for his stolen
truck were handled.
Sgt. found that at the time of the initial report RP did not have proof
of ownership as he had recently bought the car. RP then waited 15
days before making the report with the documentation needed.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the issue.
4/15/2017 6/1/2017 46 Inquiry RP alleged that his arrest for a pedestrian
violation was driven by race.
The Sgt. found that RP had run in front of the patrol car at night;
the officer had been unable to tell the race of the individual.
4/21/2017 5/5/2017 14 Performance RP was upset that officers would did not return
her calls about a stolen car issue with an ex-
boyfriend.
Lt. spoke with RP about her concern and directed the officer to
follow up with RP.
4/24/2017 5/11/2017 17 Performance RP alleged that an officer gave him a criminal
citation just because he did not want to talk with
him without a lawyer.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Preliminary review by the
Auditor's Office found no policy violation.
Appendix B Page 8 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
4/25/2017 4/28/2017 3 Incident Review:
Use of Force
RP alleged that officers used excessive force in
arresting her daughter.
ICV review showed that the officer's use of force was within policy.
4/24/2017 5/3/2017 9 Inquiry RP was upset that his 12 year old was served a
subpoena at school.
Supervisor found that the subpoena was served at the school in
the principal's office after a message was left with the mother.
Supervisor also looked into best practices and made a change that
would entail securing permission from parents. Supervisor spoke
with RP.
4/28/2017 5/9/2017 11 Performance RP was upset at the amount of time it took for
EPD to respond to a robbery in his store.
Lt. spoke with RP about the concern and apologized for the poor
customer service in this situation.
5/1/2017 5/2/2017 1 Inquiry RP alleged that officers arrested him and forced
him to go to the hospital with no probable cause.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Preliminary review by the
Auditor's Office found no policy violation.
5/1/2017 6/1/2017 30 Performance RP was upset that a bad check for over
$6,000.00 was considered a civil issue by EPD.
Sgt. reviewed the process that the officer and a detective took in
the matter and found that the issue was civil in nature. Sgt. spoke
with RP to explain the process taken and how to move forward.
4/19/2017 5/8/2017 19 Inquiry An officer self-reported a situation with another
agency.
Sgt. spoke with the agency and was able to determine the situation
had been resolved, with no policy violations by the officer.
5/1/2017 8/8/2017 97 Incident Review RP alleged that officers failed to allow his wife,
who had been involved in a traffic accident, to
leave with their child in the ambulance. RP felt
his wife's race had something to do with it.
A review of ICV, dispatch records and Medic notes found no
medical treatment was delayed and that the ambulance was
underway within 12 minutes with RP's wife. RP failed to cooperate
with further investigation.
5/1/2017 5/30/2017 29 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer told him he could
not take his service animal into an ice cream
store.
Sgt. reviewed BWV and found that RP was stopped for various
violations involving his animal. The officer patiently explained the
issues and and asked RP questions allowed under the ADA. RP's
animal did not meet any of the descriptors or service animal. RP
was warned, with no policy violation by the officer. RP did not
return voice messages left by the Sgt.
5/2/2017 6/26/2017 54 Courtesy RP was unhappy with an officer's demeanor
when he spoke with him at the park blocks,
accusing him of camping when he was only
hanging out until an appointment.
Sgt. reviewed bodycam of the officer's interaction with RP and
found that RP was sleeping under a blanket on top of a sleeping
bag at the time of the interaction. Sgt. noted that the officer was
patient and professional with RP as he explained the park rules
and gave RP a warning. (no citation). Sgt. spoke with RP about his
findings.
Appendix B Page 9 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
5/2/2017 5/11/2017 9 Performance RP was upset that he was told he could not have
his service dog downtown.
Lt. reviewed BWV and spoke with officers involved and found that
they were not up to date on the new dog ban. Training was
provided, and Lt. spoke with RP.
5/3/2017 6/17/2017 44 Performance RP was frustrated that officers did not allow him
to retrieve his own bicycle from a friend's porch.
Lt. found that officers were called by a neighbor who believed that
bicycle was being stolen. At the time of contact RP did not have
proof of ownership. The Lt. found during his investigation that the
bicycle did in fact belong to RP. No policy violation by officers at
the time of the incident. RP did not provide contact information for
the Lt. to speak with him.
5/4/2017 5/8/2017 4 Inquiry RP alleged officers took 20 dollars from him.ICV noted the officer counting RP's money on the hood of the
patrol car, no 20 was included. Supervisor spoke with RP who
admitted he was drunk and high at the time and he may have
spent the money.
5/5/2017 6/5/2017 30 Courtesy RP alleged an officer was rude and responded
with curse words when he flagged him down to
report a man playing matador in traffic.
Sgt. reviewed ICV which showed the officer was working on
another call and traffic was heavy. The officer and RP seemed to
have trouble hearing each other, but no curse words were spoken.
The Sgt. spoke with RP explaining that the officer was dealing with
a person in custody and could not respond to the other issue.
5/5/2017 5/23/2017 18 Performance RP reported an officer who was arrogant with
him and a delivery person, and didn't seem to
know the parking laws downtown.
Sgt. reviewed the situation and found that RP had been correct.
Sgt. spoke with RP and then brought the officer up to speed about
how the law applied in the situation.
5/5/2017 5/10/2017 5 Inquiry RP inquired about evidence that she believed
had not been properly forwarded to Marion
County.
Supervisor was able to determine that all requested evidence had
been sent to Marion County. Supervisor spoke with RP about her
findings.
5/7/2017 6/15/2017 38 Inquiry RP was unhappy that officers did not cite a
neighbor who assaulted her dog and her
husband.
Lt. found that the officers had investigated the neighbor dispute
and found no crime other than a dog at large issue. When officer
tried to explain the issue at the time, one of the complainants
walked away and the other refused to discuss the situation. Lt.
spoke with RP about the findings and explained the reasons
officers came to the conclusions they did.
5/8/2017 6/23/2017 45 Performance RP was unhappy that follow through was not
done when she reported her preschool child
being bullied and assaulted by other children in
his class.
Supervisor spoke with RP and assigned an officer to contact RP to
take a full report.
Appendix B Page 10 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
5/8/2017 6/15/2017 37 Performance RP was unhappy with an officer who pulled her
away from her husband who was having a
altercation with a motel clerk.
Sgt. reviewed the incident and found that RP was moved away
from the situation so officers could focus on the situation and not
on a third person. Sgt. spoke with RP about the applicable policies
and practices.
5/8/2017 6/6/2017 28 Policy RP reported an officer who he felt was hiding in a
parking lot in order to catch speeders and that it
was not legal for him to do so.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the difference between entrapment and
the officer hiding, and explained that the officer was not in violation
of the law.
5/8/2017 5/15/2017 7 Performance RP was unhappy with the hearing process with
her dog, stating it took over 5 months to have the
issue resolved.
Lt. found that the main issue of concern by RP was actually with
another agency. Referral was made to the correct agency.
5/10/2017 6/22/2017 42 Performance RP felt his son had not been treated well by
officers during a mental hold.
Sgt reviewed ICV and reports from the situation and found that
officers went beyond required policy to protect the privacy of RP
during the situation. RP did not return calls to discuss the findings.
5/6/2017 5/16/2017 10 Inquiry RP was upset that an officer demanded that she
return a vehicle; she believed she was the proper
owner.
Sgt. learned that the officer had spoken with the executor who did
not have proof of any transfer of the ownership of the vehicle. The
officer had the vehicle towed at on behalf of the executor. No
policy violations noted. Sgt. spoke with RP about the matter.
5/15/2017 6/22/2017 37 Inquiry RP alleged that an animal control officer struck
the curb going 40 miles an hour with in feet of
RP.
Supervisor found that the officer involved had moved over in the
lane to pass a car turning left but had no memory of striking a curb.
Supervisor spoke with RP about her findings.
5/15/2017 5/22/2017 7 Performance RP was upset that an officer failed to return his
license after citing him.
Sgt. reviewed ICV of the stop and found that the officer did indeed
return RP's license. The Sgt. notified RP of his findings.
5/15/2017 7/5/2017 50 Performance RP was unhappy that officers did not force a
homeless man with obvious mental issues into
treatment.
Sgt. reviewed the call for service pertaining to the complaint and
found that officers acted within policy. Sgt. spoke with RP about
the probable cause that must be in place before officers can force
a person to be seen for treatment.
5/15/2017 6/12/2017 27 Conduct Internal review of an issue with a grant program
that reversed its decision about providing EPD
with a drug dog.
Sgt. spoke with those involved and found no policy violations by
any EPD employee.
5/17/2017 7/5/2017 48 Inquiry RP inquired into whether or not it was ok for
officers to interview her children about a fight
between her and her husband without her
present.
Sgt. reviewed the details of the call and found that officers acted
within policy when speaking with RP's children. Sgt. spoke with RP
about the call and explained that officers are legally allowed to
speak with and interview the children.
Appendix B Page 11 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
5/18/2017 6/27/2017 39 Inquiry RP alleged that officer entered her home with
without probable cause and looked through RP's
phone without a warrant.
Sgt. reviewed the incident and found officers had contacted RP in
relation to a investigation into a family member. RP had given
permission for the phone to be seized and a search warrant was
obtained. Sgt. spoke with RP about her concerns.
5/19/2017 6/1/2017 12 Policy RP was upset that officers were threatening to
tow his motorhome that was his place of
business.
Sgt. spoke with RP who admitted that he was also living in his
motorhome and had not moved it in over a week. No policy
violations were found by officers.
5/16/2017 7/5/2017 49 Inquiry RP was upset with what she perceived as a very
public show of force while arresting two black
men on separate days.
Lt. reviewed the reports from both incidents that RP mentioned and
found that the no policy violations were found in either incident. Lt.
spoke with RP, describing some of the background leading up to
what she observed. RP was happy with the conversation and had
a better understanding of what had transpired.
5/22/2017 6/15/2017 23 Courtesy RP was unhappy with the service she received
when trying to report a man making loud noises
near her home in the middle of the night. The
officer was discourteous and blamed her for the
situation.
Sgt. reviewed ICV and found the officer to be kind and patient with
RP. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
5/22/2017 5/25/2017 3 Performance RP alleged that when an officer T-boned his
girlfriend in a parking lot, officers did not even
ask if she need medical help and seemed to be
very secretive about the investigation.
Sgt. reviewed ICV of various officers who responded to the scene
and found that medical help was offered and refused. Standard
procedures for accident scenes were followed. Sgt. spoke with RP
about the incident.
5/24/2017 6/15/2017 21 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer accused her
daughter of theft and cited her. RP also claimed
the officer continued to ask questions even after
he was asked to stop.
Sgt. found that the officer had probable cause to arrest RP's
daughter for theft and opted to cite her in lieu of arrest. The
questions asked after RP asked him to stop were questions
required to fill out the citation and were within policy. Sgt. spoke
with RP about his findings.
5/24/2017 7/13/2017 49 Inquiry RP complained that a traffic stop by an officer
was in retaliation to incident RP had had in a
laundromat with a woman who claimed to be a
police officer's wife.
Sgt. reviewed ICV of the stop and found that the officer followed
policy and was professional with RP; it was also determined that
the officer's wife had never been to the laundromat in question and
did not drive the type of vehicle alleged by RP. Sgt. spoke with RP
about his findings.
5/24/2017 6/6/2017 12 Service Level RP was unhappy with the response time of
officers when he reported a road rage situation.
Sgt. spoke with the call center and found that due to call load no
officers were available to respond to RP, who at the time of his call
was no longer in danger. Sgt. contacted RP and spoke with him
about the situation.
Appendix B Page 12 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
5/25/2017 6/27/2017 32 Inquiry RP was unhappy that he was told he could not
be present at the same location with his wife and
children when they were questioned about an
investigation in which he was the suspect.
Sgt. reviewed the reports of the incident and found that the officer
followed policy in regard to RP not being able to be at the location.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the situation.
5/24/2017 9/22/2017 118 Incident Review
Performance
An allegation that an officer did not take the
basic investigative steps in a rape allegation.
Review of the investigation found that the officer followed policy
and no steps were left out of the process.
5/26/2017 6/21/2017 25 Inquiry Internal: A nonsworn employee was alleged to
have mishandled property.
After review the employee was coached on the importance of
proper evidence handling.
5/26/2017 8/9/2017 73 Performance RP was unhappy that officers did not arrest a
man who was trespassing and making threats to
harm him.
Supervisor found that the man in question had mental health
issues and at the time of the call officers mediated the outcome by
having him leave the business, the officers had not gotten the
impression that RP was unhappy with the outcome at the time.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the incident.
5/30/2017 6/5/2017 5 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP was upset that detectives contact her about
things she has no knowledge of.
Dismissed: Other
6/2/2017 6/19/2017 17 Incident Review:
Conduct
RP alleged that when an officer frisked her prior
to arrest her private parts were touched
intentionally.
Sgt. reviewed ICV footage of the contact and arrest and found the
allegation unfounded.
6/2/2017 6/6/2017 4 Inquiry RP inquired into best tactics to deal with
someone who is harassing and threatening his
daughter.
Sgt. corresponded with RP and answered his questions.
6/5/2017 7/5/2017 30 Inquiry Internal review of an man who was arrested for
harassment and assault of his girlfriend; the man
stated during his arrest that officers only stopped
him because of his race.
Sgt. reviewed this mandatory reporting incident and found that
officers had probable cause to locate and arrest RP for the crimes
against his girlfriend and that he was not stopped due to his race.
6/5/2017 6/15/2017 10 Inquiry RP was unhappy with a supervisor who
contacted her about a complaint, feeling the
officer was disrespectful.
Lt. spoke with RP about the call and her concerns.
6/6/2017 6/15/2017 9 Performance RP reported poor parking by an animal control
officer on Facebook.
Supervisor spoke with the involved employee about better parking
practices.
6/2/2017 6/16/2017 14 Policy RP reported officers tagging speeders on the
shoulder of the Beltline, causing motorist to
swerve to get into the far lane.
Sgt. listened to RP's concerns and agreed to speak with his
officers about RP's perspective of the issue.
Appendix B Page 13 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
6/6/2017 7/13/2017 37 Courtesy RP reported that when her husband called about
an issue with their neighbor the call taker called
her crazy.
Supervisor was unable to identify the call to review, contact with
RP did not bring further clarification to be able to identify when the
call was place.
6/7/2017 6/12/2017 5 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP inquired into help about an issue in which an
officer cited her, the registered owner of the car,
instead of the person she had sold the car to, for
traffic violations.
Dismissed: Timeliness
6/7/2017 6/12/2017 5 Inquiry RP complained that he was tackled and
handcuffed by an officer when he was only trying
to get a friend out of the officers way.
Dismissed: Other Auditor's ICV review
found no policy violations.
6/8/2017 7/11/2017 33 Inquiry RP was unhappy that his cell phone had not
been released and an officer was trying to
download his information.
Sgt. found that the officer had been in almost daily contact with RP
and that he currently had a warrant to search the phone, with that
was completed the phone would be returned. RP did not return
calls.
6/9/2017 7/20/2017 41 Inquiry RP felt an officer's request that he speak to him
and only him was wrong.
Supervisor sreviewed the incident and found no policy violations.
Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
6/13/2017 7/20/2017 37 Inquiry RP complained about a traffic stop in which he
believed he did not commit the infractions, and
that the stop took an long time to complete.
Review of ICV by the Sgt. found that the infractions happened as
the officer had observed and that the total time of the stop was
under 14 minutes. Sgt. spoke with RP about the stop and various
policies concerning traffic stops.
6/14/2017 6/16/2017 2 Service Level
Dismissed:
Claimant
Dropped
RP felt like a harassment case was not being
taken seriously.
Dismissed: Claimant Dropped
6/14/2017 7/31/2017 47 Policy Complaint RP complained that EPD was ignoring the
damage done to public property by illegal
camping and dog owners.
Supervisor contacted RP and explained issues around
enforcement of illegal camping.
6/15/2017 8/9/2017 54 Discrimination RP was upset at what he felt was profiling of him
because he was pulling a drift boat. RP believed
officers were seeking out DUII's, as they stated
that people on the river are usually drinking. RP
was also concerned that his ethnicity contributed
to the stop.
Sgt. reviewed ICV and BWV and found the contact to have been
polite, cooperative and professional; no policy violations were
noted. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
6/15/2017 6/16/2017 1 Courtesy
Dismissed:
Other Auditor
Review
RP felt an officer was rude when he asked why
he was at his apartment complex.
Dismissed: Other Auditor's Office Reviewed
Appendix B Page 14 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
6/15/2017 6/22/2017 7 Incident Review:
Conduct
Dismissed:
Complainant
withdrew
complaint
RP reported a officer she had known in the past
was harassing her on Facebook.
Dismissed: Complainant withdrew complaint.
6/16/2017 6/21/2017 5 Performance RP alleged an officer did not use turn signals on
various occasions while RP was following him.
Dismissed: Employee not identified
6/19/2017 7/11/2017 22 Performance RP was unhappy that he has been unable to get
an officer to return his calls concerning a case
with a theft by his neighbor.
Supervisor spoke with RP and found that PR has since spoken
with the officer and is happy with how the case is moving forward.
6/19/2017 6/26/2017 7 Inquiry RP was unhappy that her case had still not made
it to the DA's office after being told numerous
times it was being sent.
Sgt. found that a miscommunication had occurred over who sent
the cases over, the records department or the officers. The officer
did not understand it was his responsibility to get it to the DA's
office. A correction was made and the case sent over. Sgt spoke
with RP.
6/20/2017 7/20/2017 30 Courtesy RP complained that he was stopped and cited
for having his dog in the park and that the officer
was rude and disrespectful and that a later date
the officer saw him at the diner and made a rude
comment about his dog.
Sgt. reviewed BWV and found the officer to be courteous and
within policy while issuing the citation. It was also found that the
officer was on duty as a School Resource officer that day of the
alleged 2nd incident (and did not contact RP). RP did not return
phone calls to discuss the complaint.
6/20/2017 6/21/2017 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported he did not have all of his knives
returned after his arrest, and that the ICV
supports his claim.
Dismissed: Other After Auditor's review of ICV.
6/19/2017 6/29/2017 10 Inquiry RP was unhappy that a bike she bought from a
EPD auction was taken from her and given to a
man that claimed it had been stolen from him 2
years prior.
Sgt. reviewed the issue and found that the original owner had
provided proof of ownership and the officer rightfully returned the
bike to the owner. At the time of the burglary the owner did not
have the serial number to report, once he reported that number
significant time had passed and the number was not linked to the
report, hence it had been recovered but not linked up to the report.
Reporting Party was directed to file a Risk claim with the city and
received reimbursement for the amount she paid for the bike.
Appendix B Page 15 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
6/26/2017 6/27/2017 1 Inquiry RP was unhappy that he could not obtain
information about a case from 2015 in which his
daughter died.
Sgt. found that RP had been estranged from the family and that
communication about the case had been through with the mother
of the victim. Sgt. contacted RP and explained the status of the
case.
6/28/2017 8/14/2017 46 Inquiry RP was concerned that EPD was not treating the
prohibited camping issue the same in all
neighborhoods.
Lt. attempted to contact RP about the issue of prohibited camping,
messages were not returned.
6/29/2017 6/30/2017 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP was unhappy with how a call for service
concerning the bullying of her preschool child
was handled by an officer.
Dismissed: Other after Auditor review of BWV.
7/2/2017 7/6/2017 4 Inquiry RP was upset that officers harassed him
because he was homeless.
Sgt. found officers were in the area, dispatched to a suspicious
subject called in by a citizen. RP was trespassing directly
underneath a sign that said no trespassing. After the Sgt explained
to RP why officers were in the area and that they happened to
notice him trespassing, RP understood it was not because he was
homeless.
7/5/2017 8/10/2017 35 Performance RP was frustrated that he had been unable to get
illegal campers out of his neighborhood after
repeated calls to EPD.
Sgt. contacted RP and explained EPD's processes for illegal
camping versus abandon vehicles, and the time it takes for
enforcement and towing.
7/5/2017 8/14/2017 39 Inquiry RPs were unhappy that officers stopped them
and said that their service animals could not be
in the park unless they were licensed, and
receiving a public service. RPs believe using the
park is a public service.
Sgt. reviewed BWV and noted that the offices informed RP's of
local municipal laws and provided social service information
including where they could get their dogs licensed. Sgt. also
reviewed relevant ADA requirements and found that the officers
gave correct information to the RPs. Sgt. spoke with RPs about the
findings.
7/5/2017 8/3/2017 28 Inquiry RP was upset that an officer did not contact her
about the status of her criminal complaint.
Sgt. reviewed reports and BWV and found officer made numerous
attempts to speak with RP about the case and when that
happened the report was filed in a timely manner. Sgt. spoke with
RP about his findings.
7/6/2017 8/7/2017 31 Inquiry RP was unhappy with having her motorhome
towed, claiming that she was not given notice of
the tow.
Lt. was able to find complete documentation of notices and
citations given to RP concerning the motorhome. Sgt. spoke with
RP about his findings. Sgt. followed up with St. Vincent's and
found complete paperwork on both St. Vincent's and EPD's part for
the tow.
7/6/2017 8/23/2017 47 Courtesy RP was surprised at the demeanor of a CSO
when she accidentally got on to a race course.
Sgt. found that the CSO had yelled at RP in an effort to get her
attention, in urgency so that no one would be hurt. Sgt. spoke with
RP about his findings.
Appendix B Page 16 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
7/10/2017 7/27/2017 17 Performance RP requested to speak to an supervisor as an
officer he had contact with did not know the
current laws pertaining to pedestrians in the
crosswalk and when vehicle could proceed.
Lieutenant spoke with Officer and confirmed that he had not been
updated on the new law; training was provided, and Lt. spoke with
RP.
7/10/2017 8/25/2017 45 Policy RP felt he got the run around when trying to
report aggressive dogs in a city park.
Sgt. contacted RP and explained EPD procedures for dealing with
dog at large issues.
7/10/2017 7/27/2017 17 Service Level RP was unhappy with response time for loud
noise coming from her neighbors.
Supervisor reviewed calls and found that call takers processed the
calls professionally and within policy. Supervisor contacted RP
who felt that the call takers should have recognized that she was in
distress and having a medical emergency and at least sent
Cahoots. Supervisor explained that RP would have to make that
clear to call takers as her call that night had been a patrol call for
the noise only.
7/12/2017 9/1/2017 49 Courtesy RP felt an officer was rude and abrupt during a
traffic stop, right after she had experienced a
tragic event.
Sgt. reviewed the officer's BWV and found the officer to have been
professional in the contact. Sgt. spoke with RP who agreed that
her perception could have been off because of the situation she
was dealing with. RP was happy with the follow up.
7/2/2017 8/25/2017 53 Incident Review
Conduct
RP claimed that an INET officer who was
undercover for EPD sexually assaulted her.
Investigation found that the man identified was not a police officer.
Springfield PD followed up with RP to file a report.
7/13/2017 8/16/2017 33 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer advised his wife
to carry a gun at all times when traveling bike
paths without knowing her level of gun expertize.
Sgt. spoke with RP and his wife concerning the interaction with the
officer.
7/14/2017 7/25/2017 11 Incident Review
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP alleged that EPD would not help her with
filing charges against her ex for attempting to kill
her in 2013.
Sgt. reviewed reports taken at the time and verified that officers
had come to the proper conclusion, finding no probable cause to
arrest RP's ex. Auditor Dismissed: Timeliness
7/14/2017 7/20/2017 6 Inquiry RP alleged that a rape that was reported 3 days
previously was not taken seriously.
Sgt. found that no incident had been reported by RP in the last
week. Reports from earlier in the year had been reported and the
cases were open and in progress.
7/14/2017 7/18/2017 4 Performance RP was unhappy because he had to pay a fee to
retrieve his dog from the shelter after being
arrested.
Sgt. learned that the officer in question did not have the correct
information about the fee that would be charged, and he was
provided the correct information.
7/17/2017 7/20/2017 3 Performance
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP was unhappy with how an officer handled an
issue between him and a customer and money
from a job not yet completed.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
Appendix B Page 17 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
7/18/2017 7/19/2017 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported numerous incidents of officers
harassing his mother and himself by racing up
and down her street.
Dismissed: Other
7/23/2017 8/22/2017 29 Courtesy RP felt an officer had been rude to him during a
call for service, making an inappropriate
comment as he walked away.
Sgt. reviewed the officer's BWV and found that the contact had not
gone well, with RP upset that officers had been called. The officer
did make a remark and then apologized to RP as he explained his
thoughts further. Sgt. spoke with RP about the contact; RP agreed
he had been upset and probably could have handled the situation
better. Sgt. spoke with officerand reminded him to act in a
professional manner.
7/21/2017 8/28/2017 37 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer has not
communicated with her about a case.
Sgt. spoke with RP about her concern that she had to call officers
to get information, the Sgt. also explained the work load of officers,
and gave RP an update of her case.
7/24/2017 8/25/2017 31 Performance RP was unhappy with how a supervisor
interacted with her while trying to get a better
understanding of how the hospital staff and EPD
could better work together.
Supervisor spoke with RP about her concerns.
7/24/2017 7/25/2017 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP alleged that an officer's demeanor toward
him during a traffic stop was unprofessional.
Auditor review of ICV and BWV found no policy violations.
Dismissed: Other
7/25/2017 7/27/2017 2 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP alleged that officer handcuffed him and
placed him in a hot car for 45 minutes, and that
he was taken on a wild ride to jail, with the officer
and a training cadet swerving and running lights
during the drive.
Auditor review of ICV and BWV found no policy violations.
Dismissed: Other
7/25/2017 7/27/2017 2 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP alleged that officers entered her home and
arrested her son without permission and without
a warrant.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
7/25/2017 8/3/2017 8 Performance RP was unhappy that a call taker told him they
could not help him get surveillance video from a
store in regard to his damage car.
Supervisor reviewed that call and provided RP the policy
surrounding retrieving surveillance video.
7/25/2017 8/31/2017 36 Performance RP is unhappy with how EPD is handling her
complaints of vandalism and needles left on her
business property.
Sgt. spoke with RP and explained the difference between
response for calls in progress versus not-in-progress calls and
EPD's available resources to handle those type of calls.
Appendix B Page 18 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
7/26/2017 8/28/2017 32 Performance RP was unhappy that EPD misplaced his
property. The locker number he was given was
empty.
Sgt. learned that RP's property had been found in a different locker
and returned. Sgt. spoke with officer involved with a reminder to
pay attention to details.
7/27/2017 9/8/2017 41 Performance RP felt officer ignored her report of a neighbor
who leaves children home alone.
Lt. found no policy violation by officers and spoke with RP about
what probable cause officers need to file a report.
7/27/2017 7/29/2017 2 Policy
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP alleged that CAHOOTS employees
discussed his medical information with people he
did not authorize.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction RP was provided contact
information for White Bird (who employs CAHOOTS workers).
7/27/2017 8/28/2017 31 Inquiry RP was upset with an officer who accused him of
driving the wrong way on a street when he did
not, he believes it was an excuse to see if he
was intoxicated.
ICV of the stop did not capture the street where wrong way driving
was alleged, but it did confirm various traffic violations that lead up
to the stop. After confirming that the driver was not intoxicated he
was given a warning. The supervisor spoke with RP about his
findings.
8/2/2017 9/18/2017 46 Inquiry RP reported her motorhome being towed without
warning and that officers did not allow her time to
look for her cat.
Sgt. found that RP was given a 24 hour notice by the St. Vincent
camping program and that at the time of the tow officers gave RP
over and hour and a half to remove her belongings and retrieve her
cats. RP did not return calls made by the Sgt. to discuss his
findings.
8/2/2017 8/30/2017 28 Performance RP reported a motorcycle officer who was
swerving in and out of the traffic lane from the
sidewalk.
Review of the BWV showed the officer pulling into traffic from the
side of the road to go after a violator; no careless or unsafe
maneuvers were seen.
8/2/2017 9/18/2017 46 Performance RP alleged EPD officers have been following him
around demanding he move his vehicle.
Sgt. learned that the officers involved are on assignment with the
prohibited camping program and as such often contact those in
violation of the ordinance. Sgt. left a message with RP's contact
number to provide him with information about available services.
8/2/2017 9/5/2017 33 Inquiry RP was unhappy how officers handled a call for
service when he was assaulted.
Lt. reviewed BWV from the incident and found that RP did not
accurately relay what had happened to officers or to the Auditor's
Office. No report was warranted (though a record of the incident
was noted in dispatch records). Lt. agreed with the officers'
handling of the incident.
8/2/2017 9/5/2017 33 Inquiry RP complained that he was robbed and that
officers did not listen to him or take a report.
Supervisor reviewed video and dispatch records and found that the
involved employees acted appropriately. The supervisor contacted
RP with his findings.
8/2/2017 9/19/2017 47 Policy RP was unhappy that officers towed his
commercially marked vehicle and did not allow
him to take his equipment from the motorhome.
Lt. learned that officers had verified with St. Vincent's employees
that RP was a willful violator of the city ordinance. RP was allowed
by officers to remove equipment and property from the motorhome
before it was towed.
Appendix B Page 19 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
8/6/2017 8/14/2017 8 Inquiry RP reported what he thought was an EPD officer
pull up to a parking lot get out of his vehicle with
a female passenger and have what he believed
to be a nefarious conversation.
Sgt. was unable to locate any officer in the vicinity at the time and
place identified by RP.
8/7/2017 8/9/2017 2 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported an officer who slammed his head
down leaving him with scrapes and a goose egg.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
8/7/2017 9/14/2017 37 Performance RP was unhappy with an officer who stopped
him on his bicycle for not obeying a traffic control
device. The officer did not tell him why he was
stopped and then threw his backpack on the
hood of his patrol car. He also listed him as a
transient.
Sgt. reviewed BWV, and found that because RP was not
cooperative with the officer he was asked to sit on the curb. The
officer informed RP why he was stopped and why he was being
cited. The backpack being placed on the hood did not appear
outrageous or outside of policy. RP was listed as a transient as he
did not have a permanent address. RP did not return phone calls
made by the Sgt.
8/7/2017 8/9/2017 2 Performance RP was unhappy call takers and a supervisor
would not make contact with an out of state
agency to verify his identity in a welfare check
issue with his child.
Lt. found that RP had a restraining order and was not allowed to
make contact with his child. Lt. spoke with RP and explained why
EPD could not help him.
8/9/2017 9/22/2017 43 Performance RP reported an EPD vehicle that failed to stop at
the scene of an accident.
Lt. reviewed records to determined the officer involved; that officer
did not remember driving around an accident. Lt. left a voice
message for RP to return his call.
8/10/2017 9/5/2017 25 Courtesy RP was unhappy that an officer cited him on his
bicycle for being on the wrong side of the road,
when he had only moved over to let the vehicle
pass.
Sgt.'s review of BWV showed no policy violations. RP did not
return calls to speak with Sgt.
8/15/2017 9/1/2017 16 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer did not correctly
right the amount of her husband's citation on the
copy given to him, at court he found the citation
was more.
Sgt. spoke with RP about her concerns and with the officer. The
officer was asked to ensure that his citation books were updated
with the current fine information.
8/3/2017 8/18/2017 15 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate Remedy
RP was concerned about how her son was
treated during a traffic stop for DUII.
After preliminary review of ICV and BWV by the Auditor.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
8/16/2017 8/17/2017 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP reported an officer putting a boot on her back
and being taken by Cahoots to the hospital
sometime in 2016.
Dismissed: Timeliness
Appendix B Page 20 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
8/16/2017 9/25/2017 39 Policy RP reported a crosswalk entrapment in which the
person on the curb made eye contact and
abruptly stepped off the curb. RP noted that part
of the ordinance states a pedestrian does not
have the right away when a vehicle is close
enough to create an immediate hazard.
Sgt. spoke with RP about why EPD conducts these types of
operations.
8/18/2017 9/14/2017 26 Service Level RP was unhappy with the response time when
he called about a verbal altercation concerning
another man's lack of attention to his child in a
pool.
Supervisor reviewed BWV from the officer and concurred that
there was not probable cause to charge the other party in the
altercation. Supervisor spoke with RP regarding his findings.
8/18/2017 9/22/2017 34 Inquiry RP was unhappy with two encounters he'd had
with EPD officers: a stop for which he disputed
the justification, and an incident where officers
made him sit then yanked him up.
Sgt. reviewed ICV and BWV of the stop which noted multiple
driving infractions that gave officers a legal reason to conduct a
stop. In the second encounter, BWV showed RP sitting in a chair
and an officer assisting him non-forcefully to move to anther
location. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
8/23/2017 10/6/2017 43 Inquiry RP wanted officers to understand that people
with Tourette's Syndrome do not have the same
filters for controlling speech as others do.
Lt. reviewed the information RP provided.
8/23/2017 9/22/2017 29 Inquiry RP was unhappy with how an officer handled a
incident in which RP was struck in the face by a
another man for playing his flute in the park. RP
was given a park exclusion.
Review of police reports and BWV showed a 3rd party witness who
saw RP being the aggressor in the incident; officers had no
probable cause to cite the other person. No policy violation was
found. RP did not return phone calls.
8/24/2017 8/31/2017 7 Performance Internal complaint that a call was not dispatched
correctly.
Supervisors reviewed the call with involved employee.
8/23/2017 9/28/2017 35 Performance RP reported an EPD vehicle speeding and
cutting people off.
Sgt. learned that officers were attempting to find a wrong way
driver at the time of the incident. The officer was reminded to
always drive safely and use emergency lights when possible. Sgt.
spoke with RP about the situation.
8/28/2017 10/2/2017 34 Use of Force RP felt that an officer should not have disarmed
him during a stop.
Lt. found that the officer had a justifiable reason to stop RP, and
that when the officer learned RP had a gun readily accessible, the
officer removed the weapon for the duration of the stop. The
officer did not violate policy in doing so. RP did not return the Lt.'s
calls.
Appendix B Page 21 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
8/25/2017 9/25/2017 30 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer contacted him
over the phone to request he return to Eugene to
answer questions about an assault investigation.
Sgt. learned that RP is a suspect in the case and that the officer
was initiating an investigation. No policy violations. Sgt. spoke with
RP about the situation.
8/28/2017 9/25/2017 27 Inquiry RP alleged that an officer did not file a report
about incident she reported about theft and
vandalism by an ex.
Sgt. reviewed BWV and found that the officer had no credible
information to proceed with a report. No policy violation.
8/28/2017 9/22/2017 24 Inquiry RP was upset that officers broke down the wrong
door during an incident at his home.
Sgt. found that officers were given permission by the room's owner
to breach the door to search for an intruder. No policy violation.
Sgt. spoke with RP.
8/28/2017 9/28/2017 30 Policy RP had a couple of concerns about EPD
procedures.
Sgt. spoke with RP giving information about how and why each
concern was addressed by EPD.
8/30/2017 9/11/2017 11 Performance RP reported she was almost hit in a crosswalk by
an EPD vehicle.
Preliminary investigation of the time frame, description of officer,
and location did not match an EPD officer on duty at the time.
8/31/2017 10/5/2017 35 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer made her sit on
the curb during an interaction with officers about
her parked vehicle.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the officer and found that during the call for
service, RP was directed to sit on the curb for officer safety
reasons, and that the officer was polite and respectful. No policy
violations were noted. RP did not return calls to speak with the Sgt.
8/21/2017 9/22/2017 31 Policy RP was upset she was given notice to move her
motorhome out of the city without previous
warning.
Lt. reviewed ICV of the officer's interaction with RP. The officer
provided RP with 24-hr notice and community resource
information, which was within policy.
9/1/2017 10/6/2017 35 Inquiry RP reported that he was cited for no proof of
insurance when that was not the reason he was
told he was stopped.
Lt reviewed BWV of the officer and found the stop to be
professional, RP was given a warning for the traffic infractions
noted by the officer but was cited when RP could not find his auto
insurance card. Lt. spoke with RP about his findings.
9/5/2017 10/17/2017 42 Performance RP complained that an EPD patrol car did not
stop for him as he stepped off the curb nor did
they cite the car in front of them for doing the
same thing.
Sgt. spoke with RP about his concerns and with his team about the
importance of paying attention while driving and of EPD's public
image.
9/5/2017 9/6/2017 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP inquired into whether a person who helped
facilitate an information exchange following a car
accident was an off duty officer.
Dismissed: Other
Appendix B Page 22 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
9/6/2017 9/18/2017 12 Performance RP has been unable to get a return call from the
officer investigating his car theft.
Sgt. learned the RP had left calls on the officer's days off and that
the officer had returned calls when he returned to duty. The officer
had also looked into a possible security video that showed no
usable video of the incident. Sgt. also left messages with RP.
9/6/2017 9/7/2017 1 Courtesy RP alleged two officers made derogatory
remarks to him as they were booking him into jail
8 months ago.
Review of reports, ICV and interviews with officers found no
evidence that officers made rude remarks to RP.
9/6/2017 9/11/2017 5 Policy RP inquired into whether a police report should
have also been submitted to the DA and not just
to the court.
Sgt. learned that because the report was pertaining to an official
court issue, the officer did need to route it only to the court. Sgt.
spoke with RP about his inquiry.
9/6/2017 9/14/2017 8 Policy RP was concerned that she now has a police
contact on her record after an officer spoke with
her about smoking in a non-smoking area.
Sgt. learned that RP was given a warning and the officer
completed an FI card to document his contact with RP. The
warning is not eligible to be removed from records. RP did not
answer calls to speak about the incident.
9/6/2017 9/18/2017 12 Performance RP was unhappy with a call taker who took a
long time to ask questions about his bike being
taken.
Supervisor found that the call taker entered the call for dispatch
within a minute and a half of RP's call, then continued to ask
questions about the bike. As the call taker was in training, a failure
to communicate that to RP was noted. The Supervisor spoke with
the call taker and with RP about the findings.
9/6/2017 9/14/2017 8 Discrimination RP was upset that an EPD officer called the
Springfield PD to report a man in his yard, a
possible burglary in progress. RP was concerned
that the call was due to his race.
Sgt. found that the call for service was made by an EPD officer
who reported a suspicious white male (not a suspicious black
male) at the address. The Sgt. noted to RP that many times
someone casing the home may go to the front door knock and
then go around back once they believe no one is home. RP
understood the circumstances of the call after speaking with the
Sgt.
9/8/2017 10/27/2017 49 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer questioned her
son about the cars, and things in their garage,
after her son had allowed the officer access to
their property while looking for a suspect. RP's
son is Latino and RP felt that was what prompted
the questions.
Sgt. spoke with the officer involved who thought that he had built a
rapport with RP's son, and felt bad when he realized it had not
been taken that way. The officer requested to apologize to the son.
9/11/2017 11/14/2017 63 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer had not returned
his calls about a stolen wallet.
Sgt. learned that the officer had taken the report on desk duty and
did not know follow-up had been requested. Officer checked in
with RP.
Appendix B Page 23 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
9/11/2017 10/6/2017 25 Inquiry RP was concerned that on officer opened the
door of his son's car during a traffic stop.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the stop and found that the driver indicated
to the officer his window was broken and that is when the officer
opened the door to facilitate the stop. The officer was polite and
professional. Sgt. spoke with RP about the stop and officered to let
RP come down and review the body cam.
9/12/2017 10/6/2017 24 Policy RP was concern about the service his sister was
receiving from EPD when she called about
trespassing on her property by the same man.
Sgt. found that at each call RP's sister declined to prosecute, and
each call was handled within policy. Sgt. spoke with RP and his
sister about the calls, EPD policy in each case and encouraged
her to continue to call and that in an emergency officers would be
dispatched.
9/14/2017 10/12/2017 28 Policy RP made a Facebook post about being unhappy
that an officer did not arrest a man who was
impeding traffic and being a public nuisance,
screaming and yelling at women and children in
the area.
Sgt. could not identify any officer working in the area described by
RP. RP did not respond to a request about more information.
9/13/2017 10/24/2017 41 Performance RP was concerned that her case had not yet
been sent to the DA's office.
Sgt. spoke with RP and updated her on the grand jury findings in
the case.
9/13/2017 10/19/2017 36 Performance RP was upset that after 3 days she had not
heard from anyone to take a report on a
fraudulent credit card issue.
Sgt. found that the officer had left a message about how to report
the issue on-line and RP's husband had submitted a report. Sgt.
spoke with RP about the miscommunication.
9/14/2017 11/2/2017 48 Performance RP was upset that officers filed breaking and
entering charges against her ex-husband. RP
feels police are not helping her in a situation
where her ex needs mental help.
Lt. assigned to complaint spoke with RP at length about what
police could do to help in the situation and providing information to
help with any future contacts with police concerning her ex.
9/15/2017 10/26/2017 41 Inquiry RP reported an officer was rude and threatening
with him when RP served a subpoena at the
officer's home.
Sgt. spoke with officer and found that he had returned home on a
day off and was startled by the person who served the subpoena;
in that startled state, the officer told the man to leave or he would
have him arrested for trespass. Sgt. noted to RP that he shouldn't
have been treated disrespectfully, but in the future subpoenas
should be served to officers at work. RP was happy with the
discussion.
9/15/2017 9/25/2017 10 Performance RP reported an officer that jumped the light, and
cut off a pedestrian.
Employee was unable to be identified by time and place reported
by RP.
9/15/2017 9/22/2017 7 Performance RP was concerned that officers informed the
recipient of a welfare check that RP had been
the one to call it in, despite RP's request for
anonymity.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the interaction and found that the officer did
not reveal RP's name. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
Appendix B Page 24 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
9/15/2017 10/30/2017 45 Inquiry RP inquired into why a situation that is not true
can become a public record just because the
police say so.
RP did not return calls to discuss the situation made by the
supervisor.
9/7/2017 9/21/2017 14 Inquiry RP was unhappy that no charges were brought
against a suspect in an incident that she had
been involved in.
Sgt. reviewed police reports of the situation and found that officers
had assessed the situation correctly and that no behavior was
discovered that was a sufficient basis for a criminal charge. Sgt.
spoke with RP about her concerns.
9/15/2017 11/17/2017 62 Policy RP was concerned that EPD would not taken a
report form a 83 year old woman due to short-
term memory issues.
Sgt. learned that the issue was documented in a police report on
the same day, and assigned to a detective for follow up.
Investigation found that the alleged crimes were committed out of
state in another jurisdiction. Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings.
9/21/2017 10/9/2017 18 Performance RP reported an EPD officer driving dangerously
close to a car in front of him.
Sgt. was able to determine the officer was en-route to a physical
dispute call. Sgt. spoke with the officer about the complaint; RP did
not return calls.
9/21/2017 10/30/2017 39 Performance RP reported an officer who was texting while
driving.
Sgt. found that the car number given by RP was not an EPD
vehicle, but he spoke with his team about only texting in a work
emergency.
9/25/2017 9/27/2017 2 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported an incident that happened in
another city.
Dismissed: Outside jurisdiction
9/27/2017 11/14/2017 47 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer questioned her
son, who was only sitting on the riverbank.
RP did not return supervisor's calls to discuss the situation.
9/27/2017 10/6/2017 9 Policy RP reported an officer using his cell phone while
driving, the length of time seemed excessive for
it being a work related call.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the cell phone law and what officers are
allowed to do. Sgt. told RP he would let the officer know of the
complaint.
9/27/2017 10/10/2017 13 Policy RP reported she felt humiliated by officers who
responded with lights and sirens when she had
only asked to speak to CAHOOTS.
Supervisor reviewed the call and found that the call taker handled
the call appropriately; officers are sometimes dispatched to
CAHOOTS calls to ensure the safety of CAHOOTS employees.
Supervisor spoke with RP about the situation.
9/28/2017 10/23/2017 25 Policy RP was unhappy that officers have not contacted
her when responding to a continuing noise
disturbance issue.
Sgt. spoke with RP about her concerns and agreed to meet with
her to identify the apartment the noise is coming from so that
future calls can be handled in a more efficient manner.
Appendix B Page 25 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
9/28/2017 10/17/2017 19 Performance RP was unhappy with a police response in which
several EPD vehicles raced down her street. The
final vehicle, a black unmarked SUV, did not
have its lights and sirens activated. RP felt this
was dangerous.
Sgt. reviewed ICV's of the involved vehicles and noted that all were
responding to a call and all were driving with in a manner
described in policy. The final vehicle did not appear to belong to
EPD. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
10/1/2017 10/30/2017 29 Inquiry RP was concerned that officers ignored requests
for officers to slow down their speech when
investigating a traffic stop, as RP is hard of
hearing.
Dismissed: at request of RP.
10/6/2017 11/30/2017 54 Performance RP reported that his belongings were not in the
jail locker EPD indicated.
Sgt. found that RP had been provided the correct locker number at
the jail and had retrieved his belongings. Sgt. spoke with officer
about being exact in filling out paperwork.
10/9/2017 11/27/2017 48 Policy RP reported an officer who was mean and
threatened to check for warrants for RP if he
didn't move his vehicle.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the interaction and found that the officer
was stern with RP but was not mean or threatening. RP did not
return phone calls made by the Sgt.
10/9/2017 10/19/2017 10 Inquiry RP alleged an officer was racist toward him.Sgt. spoke with RP who did not offer any examples of the officer
saying or doing anything that indicated bias.
10/12/2017 11/20/2017 38 Policy RP reported an incident in which a patrol vehicle
was shining a light into cars as they were
traveling on the Beltline in the dark. The light
caused momentary blinding.
Sgt. was unable to identify an EPD officer who might have been
involved. Sgt. spoke with RP to clarify if he was sure it was an
EPD vehicle, which he was not. Sgt. shared RP's concerns with his
officers.
10/12/2017 11/14/2017 32 Policy RP was unhappy with the service his mother
received after a burglary at her home.
Sgt. learned that the officer had taken a report and performed
follow-up in the case. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
10/14/2017 11/30/2017 46 Performance RP was unhappy with how an officer handled a
call in which a neighbor barged into her home
yelling at her to turn off her music. Later her
window was pelted with BBs, and the officer did
not do anything to the neighbor.
Sgt. reviewed the police report and BWV and found that the officer
handled the call appropriately, as there was no probable cause to
cite or arrest the neighbor. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
10/16/2017 11/14/2017 28 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer was not helping
him retrieve his stolen vehicle.
Sgt. found that the issue was actually a civil issue and RP had
been notified of that by the officer. Sgt. spoke with RP about the
issue.
Appendix B Page 26 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
10/16/2017 10/27/2017 11 Performance RP felt an officer treated her rudely and keep her
outside in the cold too long during an
investigation.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the incident and found that when the officer
asked RP clarifying questions, the RP yelled at the officer. Video
showed the officer was professional and polite while trying to get
all the information he needed. The officer did not require RP to
stay outside during the investigation. Sgt. spoke with RP regarding
his findings.
10/17/2017 11/2/2017 15 Inquiry RP inquired into some misinformation she was
given when her son was taken to the hospital by
EPD.
Sgt. learned that the son had been cited in lieu of arrest, which
should have been communicated to RP. Sgt. spoke with RP about
the situation.
10/17/2017 11/30/2017 43 Performance RP was unhappy with the service he received
from officers who took a report about a caretaker
stealing from him.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the interaction and found that officers only
asked questions necessary to file the report for RP. The response
was delayed due to higher priority calls. No policy violations were
noted.
10/17/2017 11/20/2017 33 Performance RP complained about the service received
during several calls to 911.
Review of calls made by the address in question noted that each
was resolved during the call or within a hour of the call being place.
No policy violations were noted.
10/23/2017 11/1/2017 8 Performance RP reported an EPD volunteer who did not stop
at the stop line at an intersection.
Supervisor spoke with RP about the concern.
10/24/2017 11/30/2017 36 Performance An anonymous caller reported a motorcycle
officer impeding the flow of traffic by being
stopped on the side of the road on 18th Avenue
during the morning rush hour.
Sgt. reviewed the complaint and found that the motor officer was
having the desired effect of slowing traffic in the area that has
received numerous complaints of speeding.
10/24/2017 10/25/2017 1 Performance
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP alleged that on officer violated his rights by
asking for identification when he was not
violating any laws.
Preliminary review by Auditor's Office found officer had probable
cause to cite RP. Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
10/25/2017 11/17/2017 22 Performance RP was unhappy with the service she received
from the Animal Control Division.
RP was unhappy with the length of time for a response; Lt. found
that each time RP contacted Animal Control, she received a return
contact in 24 hours or less. Lt. spoke with RP at length about the
situtation she was experiencing in her neighborhood.
10/30/2017 11/20/2017 20 Performance RP expressed concerned that he was unable to
get an officer to call him back regarding an
incident in which his son was hit by a car.
Sgt. spoke with RP about his concerns and counseled the officer
about checking his voicemail and returning calls.
10/31/2017 11/22/2017 22 Incident Review
Performance
RP was concerned about the level of service his
daughter and her roommates received after a
break in.
Sgt. reviewed the calls made to the non-emergency line by RP's
daughter and roommates and found at the time of the call
absolutely no officers were available. The call takers followed
policy by giving instructions for next steps, but could not give a
time frame for a response.
Appendix B Page 27 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
11/2/2017 11/13/2017 11 Performance RP was unhappy with how a traffic accident
involving his wife was handled and felt she was
treated dismissively.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the incident and found that officers did not
arrive on the scene until after medics had examined and released
RP's wife, and that she appeared to be ok. An officer provided her
a ride from the scene at her request. Sgt. spoke with RP about the
incident and explained EPD policy involving accident scenes.
11/1/2017 11/15/2017 14 Inquiry RP contacted an officer about an incident that he
had witnessed.
Lt. contacted the RP, who was happy with their discussion.
11/3/2017 12/13/2017 40 Policy RP was unhappy that officers told her she could
not be a witness in an incident involving her
boyfriend.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the investigation by the officer and learned
that he did take a statement from RP, but noted to her and her
boyfriend that he would need to seek video surveillance to
substantiate the allegation, as RP was not a impartial witness. No
policy violations were noted. Sgt. spoke with RP.
11/3/2017 11/20/2017 17 Performance RP asked that an officer who cited her be
informed that the citation she received was not
eligible for the program he told her about.
Sgt. spoke with RP and then updated the officer on the issue.
11/6/2017 11/11/2017 5 Inquiry RP was unhappy that his son was stopped by an
officers while walking home from school on two
separate occasions.
Lt. learned that RP's son was with a subject who was thought to
have been involved in an incident of vandalism. RP's son was not
a suspect and was treated respectfully by the officer. Sgt. spoke
with RP about the incident.
11/8/2017 12/1/2017 23 Performance RP was upset that an officer stopped in the
middle of the road with no lights and sirens and
blamed him when an elderly driver hit the side of
this mirror as they were merging from 2 lanes to
one.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the incident, found a couple of coaching
issues and spoke with the officer and with RP about the incident.
11/9/2017 11/20/2017 11 Policy RP was concerned at how often EPD vehicles
speed down his street on calls. RP lives near a
school and even though the officers use lights
and sirens he feels it is too fast.
Sgt. spoke with RP and offered to forward his concerns to the
Professional Standards and Training Lieutenant.
11/5/2017 11/20/2017 15 Inquiry RP alleged that an officer did not take action
because she was a minority woman.
Sgt. reviewed BWV and found that the officer had made his
decisions based on the information discovered in the investigation.
Nothing indicated the officer made any decisions based on RP's
race or gender. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
Appendix B Page 28 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
11/6/2017 11/22/2017 16 Incident Review:
Use of Force
RP felt that an officer's contact with a juvenile
was a little harsh.
Sgt. reviewed BWV of the incident and found that the juvenile was
physically trying to hurt the officer and CAHOOTS employee. The
interaction was calm and controlled as the officer explained that he
could hurt the juvenile if he needed to keep himself and the others
in the room safe. The officers involved were professional and
maintained composure throughout the incident.
11/11/2017 12/22/2017 41 Performance RP got conflicting information about trying to
report a hit and run with no suspects.
Supervisor reviewed the call and spoke with RP to clarify any
misunderstandings about RP's situation.
11/13/2017 12/28/2017 45 Performance RP feels he was not taken seriously when he
reported an assault.
Review of the contact between RP and the officers taking his
report found no policy violations by the officers; in fact, they could
have charged RP as well but did not. RP did not return calls from
the Sgt
11/15/2017 12/1/2017 16 Performance RP was upset that an officer did not double lock
his hand cuffs, that he used a patch on RP's
jacket to justify drawing his service weapon, that
the officer did not have his body cam on, and
that the officer hit RP's head on the car door
when removing him from the vehicle.
Sgt. reviewed BWV, which was turned on, and found that at initial
handcuff placement, they were not double locked, but that the
officer soon checked on the RP and noticed the cuffs and
completed that action. The employee did not remove the gun from
the holster.
11/17/2017 12/21/2017 34 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer would not tell
him the details of an investigation into a noise
complaint he called in.
Sgt. reviewed BWV and concluded that the officer handled the call
correctly. When the officer tried to tell RP the information he
asked for, RP became upset and would not listen. RP did not
return calls from Sgt.
11/22/2017 1/26/2018 64 Incident Review RP reported an incident in 2014 in which she
was frisked by an officer and was touched in her
crotch area.
Review by Sgt. of police reports and interviews of officers at the
scene of RP arrest found no evidence that an improper frisk
happened. Auditor dismissed due to timeliness.
11/25/2017 12/20/2017 25 Inquiry RP was unhappy that officer did not allow medics
to examine her because she was too disorderly,
and that they threw a hood over her head.
BWV showed that RP was highly intoxicated and was rude and
resistive to medics and law enforcement officers. RP refused
medical treatment. RP did not return calls to speak about the
incident.
11/27/2017 1/16/2018 49 Performance RP was unhappy with an officer's response to his
call about a vehicle parked illegally on his street.
Sgt. reviewed the officer's ICV which documented the car's
location and showed that the violation was not one that allowed the
officer to tow the vehicle. Sgt. spoke with RP and gave him
information about the contact and how to reach parking control for
such issues in the future.
11/27/2017 12/28/2017 31 Performance RP reported a EPD vehicle driving without
headlights.
Sgt. was unable to identify employee involved. RP had requested
no call back.
Appendix B Page 29 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
11/28/2017 11/29/2017 1 Performance RP was upset at the amount of time it took for
EPD to respond to a trespass call, and wondered
if it was because of bias.
Lt. spoke with RP about his call for service noting that it was within
the time frame that most calls for trespass are handled. Lt. gave
RP information on speaking with the downtown supervisor to
provide the picture he had of the trespasser and to work out a
safety plan for his business.
11/29/2017 12/26/2017 27 Service Level RP complained that EPD said it was not theft,
but a civil issue, when an eBay buyer did not
return an item he claimed was defective after
receiving a refund.
Sgt. reviewed the issue and concurred that the issue was civil and
had actually occurred out of state. Sgt. was familiar with eBay's
procedures and provided RP with an incident number, allowing RP
to work with EBay and have his money refunded.
11/29/2017 12/11/2017 12 Service Level RP was unhappy that he could not get animal
control to cite his neighbor for a barking dog.
Supervisor found that only two previous calls had come in
regarding the dog and each was handled promptly. On the day of
the third complaint, RP called the Auditor's office within 15 minutes
of calling in the original issue. RP has not returned phone calls
from the supervisor.
12/2/2017 12/15/2017 13 Performance A report of an unattended child in a car came in
through a citizen, regarding the child of an
officer.
A welfare check was conducted and found that the child was safe
and not endangered. The child was also within an age that being
left alone for a short while was appropriate.
12/1/2017 12/18/2017 17 Performance RP has been unable to get a return call from the
officer investigating his car theft.
Sgt. found out officer had not recently checked voicemail, and
directed him to follow up with RP. RP advised Sgt. at a later date
that she had been able to follow up with the officer.
11/25/2017 12/15/2017 20 Incident Review Internal review of a call for service concerning a
person in crisis.
Supervisor review found that clarifying questions should have been
asked. Training was provided.
12/8/2017 12/14/2017 6 Inquiry RP questioned whether her arrest was due to her
race.
Sgt. reviewed the arrest reports and found it was due to a
mandatory ORS issue, and appeared to be unrelated to race.
12/8/2017 12/14/2017 6 Inquiry RP felt he was arrested due to his race.Sgt. reviewed the arrest reports and found the arrest was based on
RP filing a false police report, and appeared to be unrelated to
race.
12/8/2017 1/23/2018 45 Performance RP was unhappy with what he felt was a
misstatement by an officer that resulted in an
investigation by Senior and Disabled Services.
Sgt. reviewed the police report and BWV of the interaction, which
showed that the officer did not convey any misinformation. Sgt.
spoke with RP about his findings.
12/11/2017 1/8/2018 27 Performance RP inquired into why an officer had not filed
charges against a woman who had assaulted her
at her mobile home park.
Sgt. learned that the call was cleared without a report because the
suspect was an 86 year old with dementia. Sgt. spoke with RP
about the situation and what things were happening to help the
suspect and what RP could expect.
Appendix B Page 30 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
12/11/2017 12/14/2017 3 Performance RP reported an officer texting while driving.RP left no contact information to enable supervisor to gain further
detail or identify officer involved.
12/11/2017 12/18/2017 7 Performance RP was upset that officers came to his home to
talk to him about some text messages he had
sent.
Sgt. found that RP gave a false name to the Auditor's Office and
that he had an active Attempt to Locate to speak to him about
harassment. No policy violations were noted by the officers.
12/11/2017 12/26/2017 15 Courtesy RP was unhappy with the tone an officer took
with his wife who had been in a traffic accident.
Sgt. reviewed BWV and found that RP's wife was disoriented due
to the air bag deploying and had trouble following the officers
questions, but that at no time was the officer rude or disrespectful
to RP's wife. Sgt. spoke with RP and offered to let him view the
video.
12/13/2017 1/16/2018 33 Inquiry RP inquired into an incident in which her
mentally ill son was arrested. RP asked about
CIT training and the use of force used.
Sgt. reviewed police reports and BWV of the arrest and spoke with
RP about how each officer had CIT training and the reasons force
had been used on her son during the incident. The Sgt. found no
force that was outside of EPD policy.
12/14/2017 12/26/2017 12 Performance RP reported that a call taker would not take a
report about a man who had menaced him.
Supervisor reviewed the call and found that a third party came on
the line and said that RP could no longer use the phone. The call
was then disconnected before the call taker could get more details.
RP did not call back.
12/14/2017 1/19/2018 35 Performance RP was concerned that an officer would not take
a report about an acquaintance who had sold his
vehicle without his permission, claiming it was a
civil issue.
Sgt. reviewed officer's report and concurred that it was a civil
issue. RP did not return calls to Sgt.
12/16/2017 12/29/2017 13 Policy RP was unhappy that officer did not take a report
or cite the person involved in a accident.
Sgt. reviewed the incident and spoke with RP about EPD's policy
in traffic accidents.
12/19/2017 1/22/2018 33 Performance RP was concerned about EPD vehicles speeding
on a road leading to the firing range, and the
large SWAT trucks using the road even though it
is signed No Thru Trucks.
Sgt. spoke with RP about his concerns and asked SWAT and
Patrol to encourage officers to use Hwy 99 when possible.
12/19/2017 1/24/2018 35 Inquiry RP was unhappy that EPD would not conduct a
welfare check on her daughter.
Cpt. learned that RP had called numerous agencies and that a
complete check had been done on RP's daughter by another
agency, which EPD had access to review. No policy violations
were found.
Appendix B Page 31 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Received
Date
Closed Date Time Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
12/20/2017 1/23/2018 33 Performance RP reported that a officer arrested him for having
a concealed weapon after he was assaulted by
two men.
Sgt. reviewed police reports and found that the officer had
developed probable cause to arrest RP after speaking with
witnesses at the time. RP was intoxicated and a concealed knife
was found on RP. RP did not return calls to Sgt. to discuss the
incident.
12/23/2017 12/29/2017 6 Use of Force RP alleged that an officer punched him in the
face when putting him in a squad car.
Review of BWV by the Sgt. found no such use of force was used
on RP, who was intoxicated at the time of his arrest.
12/26/2017 2/7/2018 41 Inquiry RP was unhappy with how a search warrant was
executed at her home.
A supervisor reviewed the warrant and found it to be valid and
issued by a judge. No irregularities were noted. Sgt. spoke with RP
about the issue.
12/20/2017 2/20/2018 60 Performance RP was unhappy that a report was not taken
when he was assaulted and that there was
insufficient follow-up.
Sgt. learned that the officer did interview the suspect in the
incident and cited him in lieu of custody; the officer also spoke with
RP and explained what actions had been taken.
12/27/2017 12/28/2017 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported an officer that pulled up next to her
on the roadway and then pulled in to a business.
Dismissed: Other
12/28/2017 2/7/2018 39 Inquiry RP reported that during an arrest in July his
shoulder was hurt, and the handcuffs applied too
tightly.
Sgt. reviewed police reports and BWV. RP was arrested and
placed in handcuffs properly. At the jail they were checked again.
When asked if he had any illnesses or injuries, RP made no
mention of any. Sgt. spoke with RP and was told the shoulder
didn't start hurting until five months after the arrest, and that RP
just wanted to change the handcuff policy. RP was directed to the
Police Commission to discuss policy.
12/28/2017 2/17/2018 49 Courtesy RP complained that an employee accused him of
placing a gun in a wreath at the EPD substation.
Sgt. found that RP was suffering from mental health issues, and
that EPD has had various interactions with RP; RP has been
provided with direction to services that may be of assistance.
12/28/2017 1/12/2018 14 Performance RP reported a patrol vehicle that did not stop for
her in an intersection.
Sgt. was unable to locate an EPD vehicle that was in the area at
the time described by RP. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings,
RP also requested more traffic enforcement in the area.
Appendix B Page 32 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Action: An Ordinance Changing the Street Name of the Undeveloped Portion of Suzanne Way to Tennyson Avenue, as it Extends North From Crescent Avenue to Tennyson Avenue (City File SC 18-1) Meeting Date: September 24, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Nicholas R. Gioello
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5453
ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council is scheduled to take action on a street name change for the portion of Suzanne Way which extends north of Crescent Drive to Tennyson Avenue. The request was submitted by Living Strong, LLC. A vicinity map is provided as Attachment A.
BACKGROUND On September 10, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the applicant’s request for the street name change of Suzanne Way north of Crescent Drive. Suzanne Way, on the north of side of Crescent Avenue, is an approximately 236-foot-long unimproved public street. At its northernmost point, Suzanne Way curves 90 degrees to the east and connects to the westernmost portion of Tennyson Avenue. Both described portions of Suzanne Way and Tennyson Avenue are unimproved and there is currently no development along either section of these roadways. Both portions of Suzanne Way and Tennyson Avenue are scheduled to be improved by the applicant as a local public street concurrent with the development of Crescent Place Apartments.
Applicable Criteria This request for street name change is being considered in accordance with section 9.8485 of the Eugene Code. The relevant approval criterion from EC 9.8485 for the proposed street name change is listed below:
The planning commission shall recommend, and the city council shall approve an
application for a street name change upon determining that a proposed
renaming is in the best interest of the city. Consistent with the required process, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 10, 2018, and unanimously recommended approval of the street name change. The findings provided with the draft ordinance (see Attachment B) demonstrate that changing the street name of Suzanne Way north of Crescent Avenue to Tennyson Avenue is in the best interest of the City. This determination is based on the conclusion that this street name change will
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
eliminate confusion with the short segment of Suzanne Way as it merges with Tennyson Avenue, will improve emergency response, and will provide better visibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists accessing Tennyson Avenue.
City Council Process The September 10, 2018 City Council public hearing was conducted consistent with quasi-judicial procedures in State law and as set forth in EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. The record was closed immediately following the public hearing. At the public hearing, Teresa Bishow, on behalf of the applicant, testified in favor of the proposed street name change, and no other testimony was received. The applicant provided written testimony in support of the street name change from the Northeast Neighbors prior to the public hearing. No opposition to the street name change has been received. All written testimony is included in the application file, a copy of which is contained in a binder that has been placed in the Council Office for reference. Staff recommends City Council conclude that approval of the street name change is found to be in the best interest of the City, consistent with the approval criteria. Detailed findings to support these conclusions are provided within the ordinance, included as Attachment B. An alternative draft resolution that denies the street name change, is included as Attachment C. The Map of Street Name Change presented to City Council on September 10, 2018, has been revised to remove an incorrect street label. The corrected map is included as Attachment A of this Agenda Item Summary and as Exhibit C of the Resolution.
RELATED CITY POLICIES The approval criteria for this street name change (the full text is included above) is located at EC 9.8485, which requires the council to find that approval of a street name change is in the best interest of the City.
COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may: 1. Approve the street name change and adopt the ordinance as attached. 2. Approve the street name change with conditions. 3. Deny the street name change application by adopting the attached resolution.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the street name change and adopt the ordinance provided in Attachment B.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt an ordinance changing the street name of the undeveloped portion of Suzanne Way to Tennyson Avenue, as it extends north from Crescent Avenue to Tennyson Avenue.
ATTACHMENTS A. Aerial Map of Street Name Change Request B. Ordinance Approving the Street Name Change Exhibit A – Map of Street Name Change Request Exhibit B – Findings C. Resolution Denying the Street Name Change Request Exhibit A – Map of Street Name Change Request
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner Telephone: 541-682-5453 Staff E-Mail: ngioello@eugene-or.gov
Caution:This map is based on imprecisesource data, subject to change,and for general reference only.
Living Strong, LLC (SC 18-1)Street Name ChangeA
r
e
a
o
f
A
r
e
a
o
f
CHAD DR
CO
B
U
R
G
R
D
CRESCENT AVE
M
A
T
T
D
R
KINNEY LP
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
LO
R
D
B
Y
R
O
N
P
L
LAKEVIEW DR
PARK VIEW DR
SU
Z
A
N
N
E
W
A
Y
CO
U
N
T
Y
F
A
R
M
R
D
ME
L
V
I
L
L
E
W
A
Y
GR
A
N
D
C
A
Y
M
A
N
D
R
SH
A
D
O
W
V
I
E
W
D
R
LONGFELLOW PL
BELLE TERRA DR
WILLONA DR
MOUNTAIN TER
E
R
I
N
W
A
Y
SP
E
C
T
R
U
M
A
V
E
WI
N
G
A
T
E
S
T
DAYNA LN S
H
A
D
O
W
V
I
E
W
D
R
¯August 2018
0 5000025000Ft
EUGENE
^_Subject Street NameChange
SubjectStreet NameChange
UGB
TENNYSON AVE
Subject Street Name Change
Taxlots September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
Ordinance - Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE STREET NAME OF THE
UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF SUZANNE WAY TO TENNYSON
AVENUE, AS IT EXTENDS NORTH FROM CRESCENT AVENUE TO
TENNYSON AVENUE (CITY FILE SC 18-1)
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. On April 24, 2018, Living Strong LLC submitted a street name change application
to rename as Tennyson Avenue the approximately 236 foot unimproved section of Suzanne Way
located north of Crescent Avenue, and connecting Crescent Avenue to the existing Tennyson
Avenue. The section of Suzanne Way proposed to be renamed is depicted on the map attached as
Exhibit A to this Ordinance.
B. ORS 227.120 and Eugene Code, 1971 (EC) Sections 9.8475 through 9.8490 set
forth the procedures for considering a street name change, which includes a Type IV review
process requiring the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing according to the quasi-judicial
procedures of state law and those set out in EC 9.7065 through 9.7095, and to make a
recommendation to the City Council to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the
application.
C. On June 8, 2018, notice of a Eugene Planning Commission public hearing was
mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of property located within 300 feet of the perimeter
of the unimproved portion of Suzanne Way, the Northeast Neighbors (affected Eugene
neighborhood association), and to persons who requested notice. Notice was also posted in at least
three locations within 300 feet of the perimeter of the subject property and freestanding signs were
installed pursuant to EC 9.7415.
D. On July 10, 2018, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed street name change and, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended that the City Council rename the unimproved section of Suzanne Way
to Tennyson Avenue.
E. Pursuant to EC 9.7435, the City Council public hearing is to be conducted within
60 days of the Planning Commission’s recommendation unless a longer time frame is agreed to by
the applicant. The applicant agreed to hold the public hearing on September 10, 2018, 62 days
after the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
F. On August 24, 2018, notice of the September 10, 2018 City Council public hearing
on the proposed Ordinance was mailed to the applicant, owner of the subject property, all parties
who submitted written or oral testimony and to parties who requested notice of the Planning
Commission decision pursuant to EC 9.7440.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
Ordinance - Page 2 of 2
G. On September 5, 2018, notice of the September 10, 2018 City Council public
hearing on the proposed Ordinance was published in the Register Guard, as required by EC
9.7440(3).
H. On August 23, 2018, notice of the September 10, 2018 City Council public hearing
was published in the Register Guard as required by Section 28 of the Eugene Charter of 2002.
I. On September 10, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed
street name change.
J. Evidence exists within the record, and within the findings attached as Exhibit B,
establishing that the proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and
the requirements of applicable state and local law.
NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. In accordance with the Eugene Planning Commission recommendation, the
street name of the approximately 236 foot unimproved section of Suzanne Way located north of
Crescent Avenue within the City of Eugene, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A to this
Ordinance, is renamed to Tennyson Avenue.
Section 2. The above findings and the findings set forth in Exhibit B attached to this
Ordinance are adopted in support of this street name change.
Section 3. The City Manager is directed to cause appropriate signage to be installed
indicating that the section of Suzanne Way described in Section 1 above and depicted on the map
attached as Exhibit A, is now Tennyson Avenue.
Section 4. Certified copies of this Ordinance shall be filed with the Lane County Recorder,
the Lane County Assessor, and the Lane County Surveyor.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
_____ day of September, 2018 _____ day of September, 2018
_______________________________ _______________________________
City Recorder Mayor
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
Caution:This map is based on imprecisesource data, subject to change,and for general reference only.
Living Strong, LLC (SC 18-1)Street Name ChangeA
r
e
a
o
f
A
r
e
a
o
f
CHAD DR
CO
B
U
R
G
R
D
CRESCENT AVE
M
A
T
T
D
R
KINNEY LP
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
LO
R
D
B
Y
R
O
N
P
L
LAKEVIEW DR
PARK VIEW DR
SU
Z
A
N
N
E
W
A
Y
CO
U
N
T
Y
F
A
R
M
R
D
ME
L
V
I
L
L
E
W
A
Y
GR
A
N
D
C
A
Y
M
A
N
D
R
SH
A
D
O
W
V
I
E
W
D
R
LONGFELLOW PL
BELLE TERRA DR
WILLONA DR
MOUNTAIN TER
E
R
I
N
W
A
Y
SP
E
C
T
R
U
M
A
V
E
WI
N
G
A
T
E
S
T
DAYNA LN S
H
A
D
O
W
V
I
E
W
D
R
¯August 2018
0 5000025000Ft
EUGENE
^_Subject Street NameChange
SubjectStreet NameChange
UGB
TENNYSON AVE
Subject Street Name Change
Taxlots September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
Exhibit B
Findings of Consistency with
Street Name Change Criteria
Section 9.8485 of the Eugene Code (EC) provides the sole criterion for evaluating a proposed
street name change, stating:
EC 9.8485 Street Name Change Approval Criteria. The planning commission shall
recommend, and the city council shall approve an application for a street name
change upon determining that a proposed renaming is in the best interest of the city.
Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, the records of the public hearings
before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds that it is in the
best interest of the City to change the name of the approximately 236‐foot unimproved section
of Suzanne Way located north of Crescent Avenue within the City of Eugene.
The City Council finds that the proposed name change will minimize inconvenience and
confusion and improve the ability of motorists, bicyclists, and transit users to easily identify
Tennyson Avenue, and emergency response will be improved for future residents, businesses,
and the general public located on Tennyson Avenue.
The City Council further finds that based on street name changes that have occurred in the
past, service providers like 9‐1‐1 Emergency Communications Center and the U.S. Post Office
can make the necessary changes in their database systems with 30 days prior notice. Since no
addresses are assigned to this portion of Suzanne Way, no adverse impacts are anticipated with
the proposed street name change.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
Resolution - Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION REJECTING THE EUGENE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE STREET
NAME OF THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF SUZANNE WAY TO
TENNYSON AVENUE, AS IT EXTENDS NORTH FROM CRESCENT
AVENUE TO TENNYSON AVENUE (CITY FILE SC 18-1)
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. On April 24, 2018, Living Strong LLC submitted a street name change
application to rename as Tennyson Avenue the approximately 236 foot unimproved section of
Suzanne Way located north of Crescent Avenue, and connecting Crescent Avenue to the existing
Tennyson Avenue. The section of Suzanne Way proposed to be renamed is depicted on the map
attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance.
B. ORS 227.120 and Eugene Code, 1971 (EC) Sections 9.8475 through 9.8490 set
forth the procedures for considering a street name change, which includes a Type IV review
process requiring the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing according to the quasi-
judicial procedures of state law and those set out in EC 9.7065 through 9.7095, and to make a
recommendation to the City Council to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the
application.
C. On June 8, 2018, notice of a Eugene Planning Commission public hearing was
mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of property located within 300 feet of the
perimeter of the unimproved portion of Suzanne Way, the Northeast Neighbors (affected Eugene
neighborhood association), and to persons who requested notice. Notice was also posted in at
least three locations within 300 feet of the perimeter of the subject property and freestanding
signs were installed pursuant to EC 9.7415.
D. On July 10, 2018, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed street name change and, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended that the City Council rename the unimproved section of Suzanne
Way to Tennyson Avenue.
E. Pursuant to EC 9.7435, the City Council public hearing is to be conducted within
60 days of the Planning Commission’s recommendation unless a longer time frame is agreed to
by the applicant. The applicant agreed to hold the public hearing on September 10, 2018, 62
days after the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
F. On August 24, 2018, notice of the September 10, 2018 City Council public
hearing on the proposed Ordinance was mailed to the applicant, owner of the subject property,
all parties who submitted written or oral testimony and to parties who requested notice of the
Planning Commission decision pursuant to EC 9.7440.
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
Resolution - Page 2 of 2
G. On September 5, 2018, notice of the September 10, 2018 City Council public
hearing on the proposed Ordinance was published in the Register Guard, as required by EC
9.7440(3).
H. On August 23, 2018, notice of the September 10, 2018 City Council public
hearing was published in the Register Guard as required by Section 28 of the Eugene Charter of
2002.
I. On September 10, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed street
name change.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. Based on the above findings, and the testimony presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council, the City Council rejects the Eugene Planning Commission’s
recommendation to rename the unimproved section of Suzanne Way located north of Crescent
Avenue, to Tennyson Avenue.
Section 2. The City Recorder is requested to forward a copy of this Resolution to the
Eugene Planning Commission, to those persons who have requested notice, and to persons who
presented oral and written testimony at the public hearings before the Planning commission and
City Council.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption
The foregoing Resolution adopted the ____ day of September, 2018.
________________________
City Recorder
September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3
Caution:This map is based on imprecisesource data, subject to change,and for general reference only.
Living Strong, LLC (SC 18-1)Street Name ChangeA
r
e
a
o
f
A
r
e
a
o
f
CHAD DR
CO
B
U
R
G
R
D
CRESCENT AVE
M
A
T
T
D
R
KINNEY LP
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
LO
R
D
B
Y
R
O
N
P
L
LAKEVIEW DR
PARK VIEW DR
SU
Z
A
N
N
E
W
A
Y
CO
U
N
T
Y
F
A
R
M
R
D
ME
L
V
I
L
L
E
W
A
Y
GR
A
N
D
C
A
Y
M
A
N
D
R
SH
A
D
O
W
V
I
E
W
D
R
LONGFELLOW PL
BELLE TERRA DR
WILLONA DR
MOUNTAIN TER
E
R
I
N
W
A
Y
SP
E
C
T
R
U
M
A
V
E
WI
N
G
A
T
E
S
T
DAYNA LN S
H
A
D
O
W
V
I
E
W
D
R
¯August 2018
0 5000025000Ft
EUGENE
^_Subject Street NameChange
SubjectStreet NameChange
UGB
TENNYSON AVE
Subject Street Name Change
Taxlots September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 3