HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 6-19-19 Work SessionJune 19, 2019, Work Session
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
June 19, 2019
12:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of June 19, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
12:00 p.m. EUGENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
1.WORK SESSION: Annual Report from Police Commission
2.WORK SESSION: Civilian Review Board and Police Auditor Annual Report
June 19, 2019, Work Session
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.
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Annual Report from Police Commission Meeting Date: June 19, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: Police Department Staff Contact: Jeremy Cleversey
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5852
ISSUE STATEMENT Biannually, the City Council meets with the Police Commission to review its past work and to discuss its upcoming work plan.
BACKGROUND The City Council approved the FY 2018/2019 Work Plan at its October 9, 2017, meeting. The Police Commissions efforts have been focused in four areas: to provide input on policies that reflect community values, identify police policy and resource issues related to preferred policing alternatives, increase communications between the community and the police, decrease misunderstandings regarding nature of adopted police policies, and assist City Council and the City Manager in balancing priorities and resources by advising on police resource issues.
RELATED CITY POLICIES Eugene Code 2.368(4) requires the Police Commission to submit its yearly work plan and proposed mission for review and approval by the City Council.
COUNCIL OPTIONS No council action or recommendations are suggested.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION This item is informational only.
SUGGESTED MOTION No council action or motions are suggested.
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
ATTACHMENTS A.Police Commission FY 2018/ 2019 Annual ReportB.Police Commission FY 2020/2021 Work Plan
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Jeremy Cleversey Telephone: 541-682-5852Staff E-Mail: jcleversey@eugene-or.gov
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
CITY OF EUGENE
POLICE COMMISSION
FY 2018-19 Work Plan Review
Police Commission Members
Bill Whalen, Chair Silverio Mogart
Scott Nowicki, Vice Chair Edward Goehring
Jennifer Yeh Terry Robertson
Alan Zelenka Will Davie
Steve McIntire Sean Shivers
Joel Iboa Vacancy
www.eugene-or.gov/policecommission
For more information on the Eugene Police Commission, please contact:
Jeremy Cleversey, Police Commission Analyst
Phone: (541) 682-5852
jeremy.d.cleversey@ci.eugene.or.us
ATTCHMENT A
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
Background
The Eugene Police Commission is a twelve-member volunteer body that acts in an advisory
capacity to the City Council, the Chief of Police and the City Manager on police policy and
resource issues. The Commission’s enabling ordinance, adopted in December of 1998, requires
that it develop a work plan for City Council review and approval. In 2013, the Commission
moved to a biannual work plan. Major accomplishments over the past five years include the
following highlights:
Reviewed and made recommendation for a downtown Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
pilot project and policy (FY 2015)
Responded to public concern and formed a policy for Citizen’s Filming Police (FY 2015)
Reviewed 21st Century Policing Report, and discussed incorporating concepts of Police
Legitimacy into Police Department (FY 2016)
Reviewed code of conduct policy (FY 2017)
Implemented plan to increase communications between community and police, created
a subcommittee to set goals for outreach, and created monitoring tools (FY2018)
Continued recommending 21st Century Policing concepts be incorporated into policy
including guardian mentality and de-escalation (FY 2018)
Completed a yearlong review of the Drone Pilot Program (FY 2019)
Started a review of homeless related policies believed to place blame on the Police
Department for things the Police Commission think are out of their control (FY 2019)
Reviewed the Department-Issued Cell Phone Procedure (FY 2019)
Police Commission Mission Statement
The Eugene Police Commission recommends to the City Council, the City Manager, the Eugene
Police Department, and the people, the resources, preferred policing alternatives, policies and
citizens' responsibilities needed to achieve a safe community. We strive to create a climate of
mutual respect and partnership between the community and the Eugene Police Department
that helps achieve safety, justice and freedom for all people in Eugene.
Police Commission Goals
As outlined in Ordinance 20398, the objectives of the Eugene Police Commission are to:
1)Increase communications between police and the community, leading to a greater
understanding of the preferred policing alternatives for this city;
2)Identify police policy and resource issues related to preferred policing alternatives;
3)Decrease misunderstandings regarding the nature of adopted police policies, practices
and approaches;
4)Provide input on police policies and procedures that reflect community values; and
5)Assist the City Council in balancing community priorities and resources by advising on
police resource issues.
Biannual Work Plan
Consistent with Eugene City Code 2.368(4), the Police Commission will continue to submit to
the City Council an annual report, drawn from the biannual report created every two years.
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
These focus areas are not in priority order. The below spreadsheet is an attempt to capture work
completed by the Police Commission in FY2018 and FY2019 from that plan.
Beige squares flag where additional work may be needed.
Date Work Performed
Complete Provide input on policies that reflect community values
12/14/2017 Policy review: De-Escalation (803)
1/11/2018 Policy review: De-Escalation (803)
4/12/2018 Presentation and discussion on de-escalation
12/14/2017 Policy review: Armed Barricaded Subjects (804)
1/11/2018 Policy review: Armed Barricaded Subjects (804)
3/18/2018 Presentation of Stops Program and discussion
10/11/2018 Stops Program Data Collection Update
12/14/2017 Policy review: Unmanned Aerial Device (908)
1/11/2017 Policy review: Unmanned Aerial Device (908)
2/8/2017 Policy review: Unmanned Aerial Device (908)
6/8/2017 Policy review: Standards, Duties, Conduct (1001)
7/13/2017 Policy review: Standards, Duties, Conduct (1001)
12/14/2017 Policy review: Unmanned Aeriel Device (1208)
1/11/2017 Policy review: Unmanned Aerial Device (1208)
2/8/2017 Policy review: Unmanned Aerial Device (1208)
10/11/2018 Guardian Trailers Presentation
4/11/2019 Prohibited Camping Enforcement (410)
11/9/2017 Policy review, Body Worn Camera (1203)
7/12/2018 Public Safety Camera System Policy (210)
12/13/2018 Audio Video Recordings (1202)
8. Parade permitting process 12/13/2018 Parade Permitting Procedure (6.9)
Complete Identify police policy and resource issues related to preferred policing alternatives
9.Change mentality to guardian from
warrior 10/12/2017 Reviewed materials from 21st Century Policing
Report
7/13/2017 Presentation and discussion
10/11/2018 Approaches to 21st Century Social Challenges
11/8/2018 Combatting Bicycle Theft
7/13/2017 Downtown Safety Update
10/11/2018 Guardian Trailers Presentation
11/9/2017 Eugene Police Strategic Plan Review
Police Department is currently reconstructing
13 Police legitimacy, procedural justice 2/8/2018 Presentation and discussion
4/11/2019 Prohibited Camping Enforcement (410)
Recommendations to come
12/13/2018 Parade Permitting Procedure (6.9)
1/10/2019
2/12/2019
3/14/2019
4/11/2019 HC: Prohibited Camping Enforcement (410)
N/A 16.Citation for no driver's license or
insurance N/A Not at the policy level: Falls Under ORS 807.010
and ORS 806.010
4.Drone policy (Unmanned Aerial
Device)
FY 2018-19 Police Commission Work Plan
1 Use of Force – de-escalation
2. Firearms training & de-escalation
Encourage policies and technology
that are “force multipliers” 6.
Downtown crime enforcement10.
7
Review video policy (1202) and
impact of video and phone recording
on police actions and policy
Downtown monitoring 11
Supervisor evaluation and training12.
14.
Societal issues affecting police15Homelessness Conversation (HC): How can
Police Commission contribute
Professional police stops policy and
biased based policing3
Code of Conduct5.
Review prohibited car camping
program and effectiveness
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
Beige squares flag where additional work may be needed.
Complete Increase communications between community and police
Attended 7 Neighborhood and Group Meetings
Public Comments brought to the Police
Commission regarding how Police are wanted to
interact with the homeless
4/26/2018 TRANS*ponder
Unknown First Friday Communities of Color Group
More outreach to come
9/14/2017 Municipal Justice System Review
11/9/2017 Strategic Plan Review
9/13/2018 Create Community Justice Talking Points
Attended 7 Neighborhood and Group Meetings
Complete Decrease misunderstandings regarding nature of adopted police policies
2/8/2018 Sgt. Julie Smith and Will Davie reviewed
Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy
4/11/2019
Discussion about public expectation regarding
the police responding to homelessness and the
reality of the Contract with Saint Vincent De Paul
and the limited tools available in the Prohibited
Camping Enforcement Policy (410)
Future recommendations to the City Manager
and Council regarding the gap between public
expectations and reality of Prohibited Camping
Enforcement are planned
Complete Assist City Council in balancing priorities and resources by advising on police resource issues
11/9/2017 Presentation and discussion, the Police
Department moved forward with cameras
N/A Recommendation to City Council not needed
9/14/2017 Municipal Justice presentation on how the
Criminal Justice system is taxed
11/9/2017 Eugene Police Strategic Plan Review
12/14/2017 Unfunded Needs Assessment, Presentation and
discussion
1/11/2018
Director James reviewed a draft of the Criminal
Justice Assessment, commissioners encouraged
the information be shared with the budget
committee and city council
2/8/2018 Procedural Justice, Presentation and discussion
4/12/2018 Investigations Presentation
9/13/2018 Community Justice Update
9/13/2018 Create Community Justice Talking Points
Attended 7 Neighborhood and Other Group
Meetings
9/14/2017 Communication with City
10/12/2017 Communication with City Manager
1/11/2018 Quarterly Meeting with City Manager Established
23
Develop method to increase
communication with city manager's
office and city council
20
Address or make recommendations
regarding gap between public
expectations and reality
Increase police staffing22.
19
Feedback to public for police
response and provide explanations
about response time, case status,
etc.
Review and recommend policy
regarding body worn cameras and
recommend to City Council the
resources to implement
21
18.Outreach to minority communities
Assess what public wants regarding
police services, including guardian
mentality
17
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
Additional Work Completed from the FY2018 and FY2019 work plan.
Beige squares flag where additional work may be needed.
Complete Additions to the work plan
1/10/2019 How can Police Commission contribute
2/12/2019 How can Police Commission contribute
3/14/2019 How can Police Commission contribute
4/11/2019 Prohibited Camping Enforcement (410)
Future recommendations to the City Manager
and Council regarding the gap between public
expectations and reality of Prohibited Camping
Enforcement are planned
3/14/2019 Procedure review (12.13)
4/11/2019 Procedure review (12.13)
1/10/2019 Procedure review (10.6)
2/12/2019 Procedure review (10.6)
D.Oleoresin Capsicum Aerosol Policy 9/13/2018 Policy review: (803)
E.Police Pursuit Policy 9/13/2018 Policy review: (804)
F.Restorative Rest Procedure 7/12/2018 Procedure review: (10.7)
G.Welfare Check 11/8/2018 Policy included in pakcet (307)
C.Post Traumatic (Critical) Incident
Procedure Review
A.Homeless Conversation
B.Department-Issued Cell Phones
Procedure
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
Work Completed in FY 2018
The Police Commission had 23 areas of focus to choose from on their FY 2018-19 work plan. At the
completion of FY 2018 or half way through the biannual plan, the commission completed 8 and
performed work on 14. The Police Commission completed review of the following policies: De-
escalation, Armed Barricaded Subjects, Unmanned Aerial Devices, and Body Worn Cameras.
De-escalation was one of the Police Commission’s first priorities. Some commissioners received
feedback from community members stating they believed De-escalation and bias training has been
successful and has gone a long way toward developing trust.
In addition to these EPD policy discussions, the Commission conducted the following work in FY 2018:
Received update on EPD staffing levels and relayed findings to the Budget Committee and City Council:
Interim Executive Director David James brought a presentation that showed the population growth from
2014 through 2017 and the corresponding increase in call volume for the same time period. Further
Police Commission discussion and questions revealed that staffing levels for the department did not
grow with the community. The commission learned that many calls go unanswered because there are
not enough officers to respond, and felt there should be further discussion about the length of
acceptable wait time for calls, after learning that the average response time per call had nearly doubled
in 2017 from where it was in 2014, from 22.5 to 41.8 minutes, on average. Discussion about modern day
policing methods, including de-escalation and 21st Century Policing, showed that employing these
methods require officers to spend more time on calls. This is impactful if this is the type of policing we
want as a community, because we will need to have appropriate resources and staffing levels to sustain
current policing criterions. The culmination of these discussions led the Police Commission to
recommend a more in-depth look at staffing.
Implemented an ambitious outreach strategy to encourage and invite public participation:
This work was in line with the Police Commission’s first goal to, “Increase communications between
police and the community, leading to greater understanding of the preferred policing alternatives for
the city.” In September of 2017 the Police Commission unanimously approved and appointed an
outreach subcommittee charged with identifying outreach needs and resources, with a plan to report
back to the Police Commission. A plan was developed that included an organized outreach to as many of
the 26 City neighborhoods, as well as 15 currently identified groups including: the Asian Council, NAACP,
League of Latin American Citizens, Trans*Ponder, and many more. This work continues.
Increased communication between the commission and the department:
The Commission added two non-voting department members to the table. They continued the invitation
to be a liaison and attend monthly meetings to the police union, the Eugene Police Employee’s
Association (EPEA), and invited the Policy Sergeant to the table, to provide more insight into current
police policy.
Developed stronger relationships between the Commission and the City Manager and the Council:
Through discussions with the City Manager, the Police Commission Chair and Vice Chair, the Commission
set up quarterly meetings to discuss current issues that the Commission is working on. An open
discussion with the two council liaisons clarified they are the primary contact with Council but the
commission could send information directly.
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
Work Completed in FY 2019
The Police Commission has completed 19 out of the 23 areas of focus on their FY 2018-19 work plan.
Although they have performed work in all 23 areas they believe that the four (4) areas listed below need
further attention before marking them complete:
Four areas to continue focus:
•An assessment of what the public wants regarding police services
•Providing feedback to the public for police response to provide explanations about response
time, case status, etc.
•To create future recommendations to the City Manager and Council regarding the gap between
public expectations and the reality of Prohibited Camping Enforcement.
•More outreach to the public regarding the need for increasing police staffing in Eugene.
The Police Commission completed review of the following policies and procedures:
•Code of Conduct •Post Traumatic Incident
•Drone Team •Parade Permitting
•Safety Camera System •Oleoresin Capsicum Aerosol (Pepper Spray)
•Audio and Video Recordings •Police Pursuit
•Taser •Restorative Rest
•Department-Issued Cell Phones
Revised the Standards, Duties, and Conduct Policy (103):
With great involvement from the Liaison to the Civilian Review Board, the Police Commission, and the
Police department, the Police Commission concluded a collaborative effort, over more than four
months, to redraft the Standards, Duties, and Conduct policy.
Completed a yearlong review of the Drone Pilot Program:
The Eugene Police Small Unmanned Aerial Systems Pilot Program has been operating for more than a
year. The Unmanned Aerial Device policy was created from scratch. The policy approved by the Police
Commission included a year end presentation detailing the program. To increase transparency the
Commission recommended changing the name of the policy from “Small Unmanned Aerial Systems” to
“Drone Team”. The Eugene Police Department changed the name to match the recommendation.
Began discussions on homelessness and how the Police Commission can contribute:
The Commission recognized that the topic of homelessness is broad and emphasized defining the goal,
so their conversation would not become diffused to non-police related issues. The conversation that has
spanned more than four months, has led to commencing a review of policies that is believed to place
blame on the Police Department, for factors the Police Commission deems are out of their control.
Continued staffing level updates and the efforts toward Community outreach:
Chief Skinner or his designee provided monthly updates on staffing levels at the Police Commission’s
invitation, and responded to questions. The Commissioners used this information in their outreach
involving the need for increased police staffing in Eugene.
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
FY 2020 & FY 2021 Police Commission Work Plan Priorities
The following items were identified and defined during the May 4, 2019 Police Commission Retreat as
areas of focus for the next two year work plan. The items are prioritized from top to bottom with intent
to remain flexible to support emerging issues. The Police Commission anticipates being there to support
new policy and process needs that the Community Safety Initiative may require. Additionally there is a
new focus to reach out to officers and to clarify their oversight role over policy and not accountability.
Order FY 2020 & 2021 Commission Community Issues and Priorities Weighted
Top 15
1 Outreach to police officers – Bringing officers to the meeting, working with
Deputy Chief and Chief to identify methods to reach out to the officers, and
to recognize officers.
11
2 Camping Policy & Litter – Continue to identify existing policy gaps and
consider fixit tickets.
9
3 Inter-Agency Deadly Force Investigation Team (IDFIT) protocol – To learn
about the process, identifying stakeholders, and send recommendations to
the Police Chief and City Manager.
8
4 Rotating Locations – Determining availability and scheduling meetings
throughout Eugene.
6
5 Outreach to Neighborhoods – Increasing awareness of the Police
Commission through appointing liaisons, Commission pictures, and creating
a pamphlet for Commission distribution.
6
6 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Presenter two (2) to four (4) times
annually – schedule availability
5
7 Policy Review: Arrest, Deadly force, Search and Seizure 5
8 Protocol for release of information – EPD specific policies in addition to the
inter-agency review.
5
9 Supervisor Accountability – How they are trained, evaluated, and make
recommendations.
5
10 Homeless Services – To put together a recommendation to City Council
regarding enforcement issues for public restrooms, needle drops, public
dumpsters, and the impacts to Eugene Police.
4
11 Community Safety Initiative – Review new programs and process
recommendations.
4
12 Spillover into neighborhoods – Discuss the creation of a report to help
identify what the community is getting for their money.
4
13 Citizen’s Police Academy – Conversation about the benefit to the city, what
happened before, and why did it go away? Discuss demographics to involve.
4
14 Temporary custody of juveniles – Identify the policy and complete a review. 4
15 Workplace Harassment – Identify the policy and complete a review. 4
ATTACHMENT B
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
Order FY 2020 & 2021 Commission Community Issues and Priorities Weighted
Parking Lot
16 Guardian Trailers – How they have done so far, and do we need to leverage
this resource more?
2
17 Citizen Safety Perception – What recommendations can be made? 2
18 Promotion and Special Assignment – Identify the process and complete a
review.
1
19 Drug enforcement and CORT – Identify the process and complete a review. 1
20 Interagency Cooperative Agreement Santa Clara – Identify and complete a
review.
1
June 19, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Civilian Review Board and Police Auditor Annual Report Meeting Date: June 19, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2 Department: Police Auditor Staff Contact: Leia Pitcher
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5028
ISSUE STATEMENT The leadership of the Civilian Review Board and the Police Auditor’s Office are scheduled to appear before the City Council at this work session to discuss the 2018 Annual Report of the Civilian Review Board and the Police Auditor’s Annual report.
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. 2018 Civilian Review Board Annual Report B. 2018 Police Auditor Annual Report
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Leia Pitcher Telephone: 541-682-5028 Staff E-Mail: lpitcher@eugene-or.gov
1
CITY OF EUGENE
Eugene Civilian Review Board
Annual Report
2018
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
ATTACHMENT A
2
EUGENE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD 2018 ANNUAL REPORT
Section Page
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 3
2018 Civilian Review Board …………………………………………..…………….…. 6
Mission and 2018 Overview ………………………………………………………........ 8
Training.…………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Case Review Summaries ………………..……………………………..…………...….. 10
June 19, 2019, 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 2018. As set forth in the ordinance, case reviews and assessment of the
police auditor and the auditor’s office are included 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 th e
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.
June 19, 2019, 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. The Auditor’s Office and EPD saw about
a 10% increase in complaints compared to 2017. We see no one variable that causes increases or
decreases to occur; however, an approximately ten-year span shows complaint trends of 330-390
annually. Many of the complaints are customer service oriented. We are hopeful that with proposed
increases in funding and staffing, EPD may be better able to address the customer service demands
of our community.
In the spring of 2018, the City welcomed new Police Chief Chris Skinner. Chief Skinner engaged
on several occasions with the CRB and we appreciate his energy, knowledge and abilities to move
the Eugene Police Department forward in reaching the goals and objectives for 21st century police
departments. We also appreciate the services of Interim Chief David James who served as Interim
Chief after the departure of Chief Pete Kerns in early 2018.
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 cautiously 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 BlueTeam 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. BlueTeam review and the accompanying report, plus the
body-worn cameras enhance 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.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
5
The Auditor’s office conducted outreach to the community through the work of staff. A
community public safety forum entirely in the Spanish language is being organized in North
Eugene for the Latinx community, for May 2019. In addition to members of the OPA staff, other
community groups will table and provide information. Bilingual officers will be available to
respond to questions and city officials from fire, emergency management and the Human Rights
Office will also participate. An effort will be made to provide radio and internet broadcast of the
event, so information can reach a broader audience. The CRB also invited a representative of the
Latino community to discuss issues directly with the board in one of our training sessions.
We had departures of Chris Wig, Heather Marek and James Hargreaves from the Board which
reduced the number of members to five. We expect to return to the seven-member board with the
next City of Eugene Boards and Commissions cycle in early 2019.
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,
Maurie Denner Steve McIntire, Esq.
2018 Board Chair 2018 Board Vice-Chair
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
6
Civilian Review Board Members Serving in 2018
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.
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, 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.
Lindsey Foltz is a Eugene native, returned after a few years in Central Oregon and 2 years of
Peace Corps service in Bulgaria. She has experience working as a Human Rights Analyst for the
City of Eugene, a small business owner and is currently a Graduate Employee at the University of
Oregon completing her PhD in anthropology.
Past Members:
Chris Wig served for several meetings in 2018 but then moved to Springfield, Oregon,
disqualifying him from membership on the CRB.
Heather Marek served for several meetings in 2018 but resigned to serve the Oregon Court of
Appeals as a Law Clerk.
James Hargreaves served for several meetings in 2018 but resigned for personal issues.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
7
June 19, 2019, 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.
2018 Overview
The CRB is required to meet four times a year. The CRB met eight times in 2018, 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 2018 our
representative to the Police Commission, Steven McIntire, worked vigorously in providing policy
recommendations to the Police Commission. Chairman Denner 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
CRB members were polled to determine what training they wished to receive in 2018.
The CRB was involved in seven training sessions, as depicted below:
Training topics:
• Discussion of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) organizational evaluation of
EPD.
• After action review of the first Public Safety Forum in Spanish organized by Beatriz
Hernandez of the Auditor’s Office held at Camino del Rio Elementary School in northwest
Eugene.
• Training on EPD’s new code of conduct policies and procedures.
• Requirements and policies on the State of Oregon’s community care taking laws and
statutes.
• Update on Oregon House Bill 2355 concerning all traffic and person stops to better identify
issues surrounding racial profiling in stops and contacts.
• Presentation from Ms. Toby Rates, Executive Director of the Autism Society of Eugene.
• Presentation of the annual reports of the CRB and the Auditor’s Office, respectively
• Oregon Public Records laws.
• Viewing and discussion of the film: “Under the Bridge: Criminalization of Homelessness.”
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. They are the community’s
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
9
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 2018, 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.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
10
Civilian Review Board Case Summaries 2018
FEBRUARY CASE REVIEW: ALLEGATION OF OFF-DUTY MISCONDUCT
Summary of Facts
• The Auditor’s office was contacted by a Reporting Party (RP), who complained that Officer A
had engaged in a “road-rage” incident with him while off-duty and out of uniform.
• The incident occurred in Springfield. According to the RP, Officer A had approached the vehicle
that RP was a passenger in, “pounded” on the window, and cursed and shouted at the driver,
identifying himself as an EPD officer.
• RP stated that RP then exited the vehicle, and Officer A verbally confronted him.
• At some point, Officer A returned to his vehicle, and RP claimed that Officer A struck RP with
his vehicle (at a slow rate of speed) as he left the scene.
• RP called 911 during the incident, and Officer A called the non -emergency line. Springfield
Police responded and took a report. They did not issue citations or take enforcement action related
to the incident.
• RP was evaluated at the scene by medics, but they did not transport him to the hospital. He visited
the ER later in the day; ER personnel determined that he had no visible injuries or broken bones
(though RP complained of pain and nausea).
Allegations
1) Unbecoming Conduct: Officer A was involved in an off-duty incident wherein he identified
himself as a Eugene Police Officer. During the incident, Officer A conducted himself in a manner
that reflected negatively, and brought discredit to, himself and the Eugene Police Department.
Recommended Adjudications
1) Unbecoming Conduct
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Sustained
• Chief: Sustained
Issues for the CRB:
1) Intake and Classification
• A member mentioned another possible allegation; lack of judgment.
• Another member mentioned unbecoming conduct was perceived as understated; and wished
there was a more serious allegation.
• Three members agreed with unbecoming conduct classification.
• Two board members objected to how the situation was reported to the chain of command.
Ms. Pitcher said policy required officers to report if they were arrested or indicted. Under
current EPD policy, it was not required for officers to report contact with other police
departments.
2) Investigation and Monitoring
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
11
• Most board members agreed the case was straightforward, thorough, and held all relevant
information needed. Officer A admitted to his offense
• A member wondered if there would be a different result had the Auditor’s Office followed
up with witnesses instead of EPD. Ms. Pitcher said ordinances allowed the auditor to
participate in the investigation and explained IA witness interviews were done a little
differently for each witness. A board member thought it was good to have a strong working
relationship with IA.
3) Relevant Department Policies and Practices
a. 1101.1.B.25 Unbecoming Conduct
• A member wished there was a policy where EPD officers had to report contact with outside
agencies to their supervisors. The importance of holding people in power to a higher standard
than civilians was also mentioned by another member.
• A question was asked about policy for officers out of uniform and whether they were
supposed to intervene in traffic violations when off duty. Ms. Pitcher stated that although not
equipped, they may take action if a crime is committed in their presence or in an emergency.
• A conversation was had about whether officers who were the subject in a case or investigation
should tell their boss, and whether the expectation went against the notion of inn ocent until
proven guilty.
• Ms. Pitcher added that officers must obey all laws and they must immediately notify their
supervisor if charged with a felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
4) Policy and/or Training Considerations
• The fact that Officer A felt he could not talk to his supervisor brought up a climate issue
within EPD for a board member.
• A board member felt there should be training for when, why, and how an officer should
intervene.
• A member recognized that reporting all involvement with law enforcement was a balancing
act. It’s important to manage officers and minimize risk, but they are also private citizens and
not perfect.
• Another board member still felt strongly about reporting, regardless of there being a charge.
Without a specific policy requiring officers to inform supervisors, incidents could go under
the radar for years.
5) Adjudication Recommendations
• CRB members agreed with the adjudication recommendations of sustained.
6) Additional Comments or Concerns
• The fact that Officer A admitted his mistake and expressed he learned from the situation was
appreciated by a board member.
• Officer A’s actions of stepping out of the car continued to be questioned, since most people
would simply honk. A comment was made that Officer A could not expect someone to believe
he was an officer simply because he stated he was.
• RP’s inaccuracies were also mentioned, as well as EPD’s neutral narrative on what happened.
• Mr. Gissiner mentioned that Officer A not receiving a citation might be perceived as
preferential treatment from SPD, though a board member wondered what he would be cited
for.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
12
• Members provided ideas for possible charges: such as disturbing the peace, or disorderly
conduct and menacing. Ultimately, they conjectured that the Springfield city prosecutor
would have trouble proving whether Officer A hit RP intentionally or pounded on his
window.
MARCH CASE REVIEW: ALLEGATION OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE
DURING A WELFARE CHECK
Summary of Facts
• Officer A was dispatched to a welfare check of a person living in a garage. The witness reported
that the person was not answering his phone. He also had previously expressed concerns about
the other residents at the location, and that the other residents had left the location when they
learned police were responding.
• Officer A looked through a pedestrian door leading to the garage. He saw a plastic swimming
pool wrapped with bindings on top of a hand truck. He did not examine the pool, and briefly
looked around the ground floor of the residence before clearing the scene.
• Three days later, EPD responded after a murder victim was found by a family member. The
victim was found wrapped in the swimming pool. The investigation showed that the victim had
been there during Officer A’s welfare check.
• This complaint was internally reported, and the investigation was suspended until the homicide
case was closed.
• Officer A stated in his interview that he felt he took necessary steps to conduct a welfare check
and that he had received no information that led him to believe there was a violent crime victim
at the scene.
Allegations
1) Unsatisfactory Performance: Officer A failed to take appropriate action when he was
dispatched to this welfare check.
Recommended Adjudications
1) Unsatisfactory Performance
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Sustained
• Interim Director: Sustained
Issues for the CRB:
1) Complaint Intake and Classification
a. Internally reported classification: Allegation of Misconduct
• Ms. Pitcher clarified that the complaint was submitted internally, and the matter was
discussed with the employee as soon as it was discovered (even though the internal
investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the related criminal investigation).
• Board members agreed with the classification.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
13
• A member asked why the internal investigation was put on hold pending the homicide
investigation. Ms. Pitcher explained that doing both investigations simultaneously and
repeatedly talking to witnesses could disrupt the criminal investigation.
• A few members questioned why the case was being reviewed by the CRB si nce it appeared
there was no threat to the public. Ms. Pitcher stated that this continued level of performance
would potentially affect the community and that the main question was what the purpose of
corrective action was, since the department could not impose any action without an
investigation and due process.
• A board member clarified that the supervising sergeant said the adjudication was not based
on the pool and the body. The sergeant took issue that Officer A did not follow procedures
they were taught with how to do a welfare check, including a walkthrough of the house.
• Overall, the discussion had a lot to do with hind sight. Looking back, there were a lot of red
flags; but when looking at the picture the officer took of the pool from where he saw it, the
pool did not look like a body.
2) Investigation and Monitoring
a. Investigation suspended during criminal investigation and prosecution.
• A member stated that in order to illustrate what Officer A did and did not know, an interview
with the person who made the telephone call would have been helpful to clarify those facts.
• The thoroughness, speed, and strong interview questions of the investigation despite having
a significant amount of time pass were commended by several members.
3) Relevant Department Policies and Practices
a. 1101.1.B.9 Unsatisfactory Performance
• A board member said thoroughness coaching was needed, but he was glad to hear there was
some debrief closer to the incident than the final adjudication.
• Another board member wondered if there was a welfare check policy or a command directive.
He was told there was not. He then wondered if it was included in a training. A Sgt. added
that welfare checks were just investigations, and officers were trained to investigate.
4) Policy and/or Training Considerations
• Lack of thoroughness (i.e. not checking upstairs and two other rooms on first floor) was a
primary concern due to poor judgement.
• A member asked whether Officer A would have been trained on welfare checks and
investigations at the Department of Public Safety Standards and Trainings (DPSST). The IA
Lt. confirmed it would take place at the regional academy and that they would also be
assigned a training officer who would be with the officer in training for four months at EPD.
5) Adjudication Recommendations
• CRB members were satisfied with the adjudication.
6) Additional Comments/Concerns
• A board member mentioned how in hind sight situations were always 20/20. He stated that
looking at the photos himself, he would not have known there was a body. He was glad there
was concern aside from just finding the body, since he understood how it could have
happened.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
14
APRIL CASE REVIEWS: INCIDENT REVIEWS AND INQUIRIES
(Comment: Service and Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews and Inquiries filed with the
Auditor’s Office or EPD are classified by the Auditor and reviewed by direct supervisors
and approved by command staff. The Auditor’s Office reviews the final supervisor memos
and notifies the complainant of the outcome. Annually, the CRB reviews a selection of
Service Complaints.)
Complaint #1: Incident Review
• Reporting Party contacted the Auditor’s Office after he was denied access to his grandson while
the child was at the hospital. The Reporting Party (RP) stated that an EPD officer denied him
access despite a valid power of attorney form that the RP has related to the grandson’s medical
care. The RP also complained that the child was released to foster care rather than to his care
following treatment.
• Internal Affairs reviewed the Body-Worn Video, related police reports, and the RP’s paperwork.
IA’s investigation showed that the child had been admitted and transported to a different hospital,
which was why the RP was unable to visit the child at the hospital.
• The involved officer investigated the incident as child neglect, and therefore DHS was contacted.
DHS was the decision maker regarding placement of the child following treatment, not EPD.
• The investigator attempted to contact the RP, but was unsuccessful, and the complaint was
closed.
Decision making:
Most board members agreed that the officer treated the grandfather in a respectful manner and
made a reasonable attempt to explain the situation. Ms. Pitcher noted that in child neglect cases,
officers are sometimes unsure of whose care the child should be in, so she could understand them
being hesitant to give out information when they could only rely on what people were telling
them. Members discussed the protocols for when incidents involve DHS and how the university
district hospital staff took the lead in the situation.
Complaint #2: Inquiry
• A supervisor observed an injury on a CAHOOTS employee; the supervisor learned that the
employee had been the victim of an assault (suspected to be a bias crime) and that the employee
had concerns about how the incident was handled by responding EPD employees.
• The supervisor entered the incident in BlueTeam; it was classified as an Inquiry and forwarded
to the EPD employees’ supervisor for follow up. That supervisor reviewed body camera footage
of the investigation, reviewed police reports, spoke to the involved employees, and then contacted
the RP with his findings.
• The supervisor found that the employees had not violated policy with their investigation, and that
their determination that the incident was mutual combat, rather than a bias crime, was not
inappropriate. However, the supervisor found that some of the employees had misled the RP
regarding the outcome of the investigation, which was “unnecessary and … counterproductive.”
The involved employees were coached on that point.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
15
Decision making:
There was a general consensus from board members of the miscommunication in this case,
despite not being in violation of policy. The ability to view body-worn camera video helped
members understand the incident and easily identify which statements were true or not true.
Mr. Gissiner pointed out there were four officers tied up in the case, which was an example of
where police departments could possibly be re-engineered and some members agreed. The
extremely well-written memo from a new sergeant was also commended by a member.
Complaint #3: Incident Review
• RP called the Auditor’s Office and stated that an EPD employee had shoved his son during a
walk out at his son’s school. RP was also upset at the EPD employee’s tone and language
towards his son (i.e., threatening arrest).
• The complaint was forwarded to a supervisor for follow up. The supervisor reviewed body-worn
video from the employees who were present, as well as the related dispatch records. The
supervisor also spoke with the principal of the school, who gave some background information
on the incident.
• The supervisor reviewed his findings with the Auditor, who agreed that there was no evidence
of a policy violation. The Auditor contacted the RP, and the complaint was closed.
Decision making:
The majority of board members thought the situation was handled well by the officer, considering
it could have escalated quickly. A discussion about school policies took place, and members
learned the officer was likely not involved in the decision to not let the student back in. School
protest policy states that doors can be locked, and children can return inside once they are calm
and ready to have a discussion, therefore, the officer was only following the school’s decision.
A board member mentioned the need for school resource officers and how he liked the separation
of forces.
Complaint #4: Inquiry
• RP contacted the Auditor’s Office with a complaint that EPD employees had taken her to the
hospital on a mental health hold. She felt that the way they treated her was abusive and that they
used excessive force during the contact.
• The preliminary investigation included review of body-worn video of the contact.
• The preliminary investigation showed that the officers had not violated policy and had acted
within their obligation under Oregon’s community caretaking statute to take RP to the hospital.
• The Auditor’s office contacted the RP with their findings, and the case was dismissed (no policy
violation) and closed.
Decision making:
A board member agreed that there was no policy violation. She expressed appreciations for how
Mr. Gissiner addressed the woman in his letter – he showed a lot of empathy and respect. Another
member echoed that body cameras were helpful since if someone were to only hear the audio,
they would have thought she was being hurt. The officers were doing a good job of keeping her
from hurting herself and them. While not a criticism of EPD, Mr. Gissiner stated that the call was
held for 16 minutes and took another 8 for officers to show up, which was a bit too long. A
member stated it didn’t seem right to involuntarily take RP to the hospital and leaving her with
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
16
the bill, while another member agreed but pointed out the situation could have turned potentially
dangerous. A member stated that EPD far exceeded national best practices in terms of handling
crisis situations and that he had a lot of empathy for the workers of CAHOOTS and the officers
in the scenario.
Complaint #5: Inquiry
• Two EPD employees arrested the RP on a warrant. The RP complained to a supervisor that one
of the employees poked a wound on his wrist with the handcuff point.
• The supervisor spoke with the the RP and the involved employee. He also looked at the wound
on the RP’s wrist.
• The employee stated that he had not noticed the wound until he moved a bracelet on the RP’s
wrist and that he had not intended to poke the wound. The supervisor observed that the scab on
the RP’s wrist was intact.
• The supervisor took photos of the RP and his wrist and entered the complaint into BlueTeam.
• Our office reviewed the complaint and closed it as handled by the supervisor.
Decision making:
Members thought the case was handled well and appreciated seeing what it looked like when
everyone did the right thing. The officers documented the wound, because if it had been poked,
the situation could be seen as use of force. The supervisor also took the extra step to be prepared
for review, which was appreciated. A board member commented it was helpful to sample service
cases and see how they are being handled by the chain of command. It was why the public
demanded an auditor and a review board years ago; it was good to see some day to day activities.
MAY CASE REVIEW: ALLEGATIONS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, DISCOURTESY,
AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARREST
Summary of Facts
• Officer A witnessed a man push a woman to the ground in a parking lot. Officer A contacted the
woman (Reporting Party 2) while other officers detained the man.
• Reporting Party 2 (RP 2) tried to walk away from Officer A and stated that she had fallen.
• Officer A ultimately informed her that he was investigating something, and she was not free to
go; he also instructed her to sit on a nearby curb.
• Officer A asked RP 2 for her name several times; he later switched to asking for her ID. RP 2
accused the officer of pushing her.
• Reporting Party 1 (RP 1) approached the scene and was stopped by Officer B.
• Eventually, Officer A told RP 2 to shut up. He then stated, “Give me your ID, or you’ll be arrested
for interfering.” He repeated this statement and then grabbed RP 2’s wrists and ultimately placed
her in handcuffs.
• Officer A continued to ask for RP 2’s name and reiterated that if she did not give him her name,
she would go to the jail and be arrested for interfering.
• Officer A placed RP 2 in the back of his patrol car. Someone on scene offered to help her with
her shoe, and Officer A stated “No, she didn’t have to take it off.”
• Officer A asked RP 2 about weapons or contraband, and then asked if she wasn’t going to answer
him. She stated that she did not understand English. Officer A responded: “Yes you do, you
answered tons of questions that I asked you in English.” RP 2 later asked Officer A if she could
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
17
ask him a question. Officer A replied: “You can’t ask me anything if you don’t understand
English, right?”
• RP 2 was eventually taken to the jail and lodged for interfering.
• Meanwhile, Officer B was interacting with RP 1. She was asking what was happening, and he
initially attempted to explain, but the conversation was not constructive. Officer B ordered RP 1
to walk away, and she replied that she wouldn’t.
• As RP 2 was being taken into custody, RP 1 began yelling and telling the officers to stop. Officer
B told her to stop and stated that she was interfering with the police.
• RP 1 moved towards Officer B’s right side. She stated: “Don’t touch me” and Officer B repeated
his order for her to walk away. Officer B then began to physically move her away from the
location of the arrest (which appeared to be approximately 5 feet behind him).
• Officer B and RP 1 moved together approximately 15 feet (with RP 1 moving backwards), at
which point Officer B pushed RP1 and she fell backwards.
• RP 1 was eventually cited for interfering.
• A supervisor was called to the scene to intake the Reporting Parties’ complaints.
• The interfering charge was dismissed within 24 hours.
• The woman also came to the Auditor’s Office, where we conducted another intake interview.
Allegations
Officer A:
1) Courtesy: that Officer A was discourteous to Reporting Party 2 during her detainment and arrest.
2) Search and Seizure – that Officer A violated Reporting Party 2’s constitutional rights when he
arrested her and lodged her at the jail.
Officer B:
1) Use of Force – that Officer B used excessive force when he pushed Reporting Party 1.
Recommended Adjudications
Officer A
1) Courtesy
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Within Policy
• Interim Director: Sustained
2) Search and Seizure (changed to Constitutional Rights)
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Within Policy
• Interim Director: Sustained
Officer B
1) Use of Force
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Within Policy
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Within Policy
• Interim Director: Within Policy
Issues for the CRB:
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
18
Officer A:
1) Intake and Classification
a. Classification: Allegation of Misconduct
• A board member did not have concerns about intake and classification; however, she was
curious about search and seizure policy and if it was adequate. Ms. Pitcher recalled search
and seizure policy discussed seizure of persons as well as things, but the policy focused a lot
on whether there was a search warrant and seizure of items. To her, the constitutional rights
policy seemed more applicable for seizure of people. Additionally, she thought wording
could be improved within the section around constitutional rights.
• A member had an issue with intake, and said the situation started as an event that should have
been entered into BlueTeam because there was report of an injury. The report was not taken
or not submitted by the supervisor; however, he believed the issue was dealt with. Then, the
summary dismissed allegations against both officers as unfounded and was approved by a
lieutenant and captain. Another said he didn’t know enough about internal processes, but he
agreed and was struck that the case made it all the way t o the acting chief before anyone
caught it.
• Clarification was asked on when to enter something into BlueTeam and Mr. Gissiner said use
of force and claimed racial profiling were automatically entered. The board member clarified
the reporting party complained about hitting her head.
• A board member said intake and classification did not occur at the supervisor level where he
believed it should have. Ms. Pitcher said there was discussion around whether the sergeant’s
actions should be addressed as a performance issue or misconduct.
• A member said the case was classified as a search and seizure, but it was an arrest case. He
thought the analysis concerning the search and seizure was unhelpful. Another member said
stops and arrests were technically search and seizure cases for seizure of a person and
clarified the constitution protected people from unreasonable arrest. The first board member
said to him search and seizure meant the ability to go look for and take something as evidence.
The other member agreed but clarified there were two different types of seizure. Mr. Gissiner
said the two areas were blended in the policy manual when they should have been bifurcated.
• Ms. Pitcher said there were multiple policies that could have been relevant. To her, a search
and seizure policy should include arrests. Current EPD search and seizure policy focused on
items and did not really address arrest. There was a separate arrest policy, but again, Ms.
Pitcher found wording problematic. Ms. Pitcher thought the blanket constitutional rights
provision seemed more applicable. A board member said for purposes related to the court,
search and seizure protected individuals from evidence wrongly seized.
• Several members agreed that it did not matter as much what the classification was, because
it was clear something was handled inappropriately and there was a gray area (possible
unlawful arrest).
2) Investigation and Monitoring
• Members mentioned how there were lots of reports from various people, and how the IA
Sergeant did a good job of organizing facts.
• The sergeant’s report was initially rejected from the Chief; within a week, Ms. Pitcher’s
memo was delivered and gave legal framework to the case. A board member did not have a
problem with what IA did, but thought it was enhanced with Ms. Pitcher’s analysis.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
19
• A board member thought the Auditor’s Office handled the case well. She liked the analysis
and shared that even after being a member on CRB for a while, she was still learning how
internal investigations worked.
3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures
a. 1101.1.B.7 Courtesy
b. 322 Search and Seizure
c. 1101.1.B.6 Constitutional Rights
• A board member said there was an accusation against Officer A of not being courteous. With
respect to search and seizure, the policy was fairly straightforward. Mr. Gissiner said he
thought there was an opportunity to tighten the search and seizure policy, and a member
suggested discussing the policy at Police Commission.
• A member thought policies and practices seemed inconsistent, when compared to the similar
April 2018 case. She noted in that case, the report said alcohol could heighten emotions, so
they removed a female from a potentially dangerous situation and she wondered why police
officers did not do same thing for RP2 in this case. She pointed out a memo from January 25,
2018, that said constitutional rights would have been a more relevant policy. Ms. Pitcher
explained it was up to the Chief whether they wanted to change the original policy violation
listed or not.
• Another member thought she understood the issue with the search and seizure policy, but she
also thought it fit with the case. Another member agreed with Ms. Pitcher and thought an
important distinction was that the situation started out as detaining a victim/witness to get
information and was not seizure at that point. The police had a right to temporarily detain
someone to get information, and that was different than seizing them. The member thought
Ms. Pitcher provided a proper constitutional analysis.
4) Policy and/or Training Considerations
• Ms. Pitcher’s memo recommended a training on legal developments around what constitutes
interference; something that a board member thought was a good idea. She was concerned
about the way Officer A spoke about the altercation between RP 2 and the man; he seemed
to have a mindset that as a victim of violence, RP 2 was a suspect of criminal activity simply
because she was involved in the incident. She added it was particularly important when
interacting with folks who may be immigrants and thought that competency training on
domestic violence and immigrants would be beneficial.
• Another member stated that after reviewing the case, he came away from the situation with
a sense that Officers A and B did not understand the law around interference or around
disorderly conduct. As Ms. Pitcher pointed out in her memo, the Oregon Supreme Court made
it clear that people cannot interfere by being resistive to officer’s inquiries. It took a physical
action to actually interfere with what an officer was doing. RP 2 clearly did not fall into the
category that Officer A was trying to put her into, and she also clearly did not fall into
disorderly conduct either. There were specific requirements, and her actions were not close
to statute. He thought both officers were completely off base, and that led him to question
whether EPD as a whole understood what the statutes required. He got the sense the policies
were catchalls when something happened. The laws were not catchalls – they had very
specific requirements, which RP2 did not meet. There was need for training around those
particular statutes.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
20
5) Adjudication Recommendations
• A board member thought the adjudications came out correct, but the way EPD reached them
was unfair to the citizens and the officer who made a mistake in the field.
• Another member said context was important; the case law was meant to protect defendants.
He disagreed with the use of the case law to indict police officers for the actions in the field,
when what they were doing in cases was trying to protect the defendant.
• He cited the State of Oregon v. McNally Case (2017) and said passive resistance was decided
by juries, not officers. He thought for the CRB to consider whether passive resistance should
be considered by police officers was an inappropriate use of the CRB powers. In addition, he
had issue with whether or not the CRB should talk to the city prosecutor about why she did
not file charges. What should be taken into consideration was what the officer knew at the
time, and what he thought happened that night. He added the Chief did not consider the case
in context; cases cited in the adjudication all regarded traffic stops. He vehemently disagreed
with the Chief’s adjudication, and respectfully disagreed with Ms. Pitcher’s analysis that
there was a violation.
• Ms. Pitcher had a similar concern around State of Oregon v. Mc Nally (2017) when writing
her analysis. Her central concern was she would not look at the case and see probable cause
for interfering. A board member pointed out she was not a reasonable police officer, and did
not think she could substitute her judgment.
• A member said the Police Auditor and the CRB had a role to look at conduct and help the
department do a job day to day. He asked the other board member what type of analysis they
should do and what would be helpful to the department. The other board member said
criticism of the police officer for what he thought was a reasonable arrest wasn’t helpful, as
it was a question that should be decided by a court. Another board member disagreed and
believed one thing officers were expected to do was to have substantial knowledge of law
and what constitutes various offenses while they were doing their job.
• A board member commented that juries decided facts, but what constituted reasonable
suspicion or probable cause was a question of law. She said what could constitute interfering
with a police officer was a question of law as well, not only the jury. She commented that
even though these kinds of cases came up in motion to suppress evidence, search and seizure
was only one way to vindicate evidence.
Officer B complaint:
There was a question on the use of force, because, as Officer B approached RP1, she put out her hand
and touched him on the vest. He swept her hand away, put his hands on her shoulders, and she fell
to the ground, which brought use of force into the case.
1) Intake and Classification
a. Classification: Allegation of Misconduct
• CRB members thought intake and classification was done appropriately
2) Investigation and Monitoring
• A board member thought investigation and monitoring was done well. She said RP1 went to
urgent care and had a concussion, so she thought good follow up was done.
3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
21
• 800 Use of Force
• Several members mentioned it being a close call. It did not look like Officer B intentionally
pushed RP to ground, but he wondered if it was necessary to push her so hard. Another
member said he was likely trying to create space for conflict.
4) Policy and/or Training Considerations
• It was reiterated that it appeared neither officer knew the statutes. Everyone on the board
thought it was a training issue.
5) Adjudication Recommendations
• A member concurred there was insufficient evidence, since it was not apparent in the video
that there was a safety risk by RP1. She wasn’t surprised the woman had a concussion because
she was pushed hard. She did not think the excuse of officers being hurt in the same parking
lot before was a valid excuse.
• Another member felt RP1 overstepped her bounds and may have given up some protections
she would have had if she had been compliant.
• The reiteration of Monday morning quarterbacking at several meetings was brought up by
another member. She added she had no qualms with Monday morning quarterbacking, as it
was part of the responsibility of CRB. She tried to understand the police perspective but did
not think CRB members were ultimately trying to put themselves in the officers’ shoes.
• A board member said that in the past, the CRB discussed the importance of immigrant
communities being comfortable with police. Prior in the meeting, she brought up a couple
issues around domestic violence and why someone may not want to approach police, but she
also thought it was important to think about other reasons why someone may not want to
cooperate, such as immigration status. For individuals with different citizenships, it could
have much different consequences. Rather than a criminal record, it could be deportation.
She thought those were important things to be mindful of when officers were interacting with
people in order for police to be most effective and for community members to vie w them as
a resource instead of a threat.
SEPTEMBER CASE REVIEW: ALLEGATIONS OF UNSATISFACTORY
PERFORMANCE AND UNTRUTHFULNESS
Summary of Facts
• Supervisor A was acting as watch commander when an incident occurred that was later
determined to be an out-of-policy pursuit. Supervisor A, listening to the incident over the
radio, believed as it was occurring that it was a failure to yield. As they did not believe it
to be outside of policy, they did not terminate the pursuit.
• Supervisor A informed Supervisor B (higher on the chain of command) of the incident as
soon as it was over. Supervisor B told Supervisor A to run the incident by the Emergency
Vehicle Operations Supervisor (EVOC), (Supervisor G). Supervisor B did not ask them to
enter the incident in BlueTeam.
• Supervisor A met with Supervisor G later that day; they looked at radio traffic and dispatch
records. ICV was not yet available.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
22
• Three weeks later, Supervisor B emailed Supervisor A and directed them to enter the
incident into BlueTeam as a pursuit. Supervisor A did so. Supervisor A stated in that
BlueTeam entry that they had not watched the ICV.
• Approximately six weeks after the BlueTeam entry, Supervisor B initiated this
investigation into Supervisor A.
Allegations:
1) Unsatisfactory Performance: that Supervisor A failed to recognize the involved incident as a
pursuit.
2) Unsatisfactory Performance: that Supervisor A misrepresented the purpose and scope of
Supervisor B’s request that Supervisor G review the incident, and further misrepresented
Supervisor G’s assessment when entering the incident into BlueTeam.
During the investigation, the following allegation was added:
3) Truthfulness: that Supervisor A was untruthful during the administrative interview when they
reported that they did not watch Officer H’s ICV recording prior to entering the incident into
BlueTeam.
Mr. Gissiner provided commentary on why CRB is involved in this case, noting that the case must be
classified if it is to be investigated. He also said that truthfulness is a very serious allegation.
Recommended Adjudications:
1) Unsatisfactory Performance: incident was an out of policy pursuit.
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Sustained.
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained, but not with wording of the allegation as is.
• Chief of Police: Sustained (but did not address language change).
2) Unsatisfactory Performance: communication with and regarding Supervisor G’s review.
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Sustained
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Unfounded
• Chief: Sustained
3) Truthfulness
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Insufficient Evidence
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Insufficient Evidence
• Interim Director: Insufficient Evidence
Issues for the CRB:
1) Intake and Classification
a. Internally reported and initiated by Supervisor B
b. Classification: Allegation of Misconduct
• A board member clarified the incident was internally reported. Mr. Gissiner stated the first
and second allegations were written by Supervisor B, but he can’t confirm they wrote the last
report.
• Several members expressed difficulty plugging the facts into the allegations. They
inquired as to whether there was a template or guidance on determining an allegation,
to which Mr. Gissiner responded that he had no involvement in writing the allegations
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
23
since it was an internally-reported complaint that caused no harm to the public
property/persons.
• Another member noted that there is not a policy that requires an officer to recognize a vehicle
pursuit. He said there is not enough evidence to sustain based on how the allegation was
written. Mr. Gissiner stated that the officer had provided cryptic information to the watch
commander, who made the decision to not name it a pursuit, at that time.
• Someone asked if a watch commander can see ICV in real time and Mr. Gissiner replied that
they cannot.
• A board member said that in listening to the audio for the first allegation, it seemed like a
reasonable decision, given the information at the time. He stated the first allegation could
have been failure to follow 814 Vehicle Pursuit Policy. The second allegation was a failure
to communicate. He explained that both Supervisors A and B left the initial meeting
misunderstanding each other completely that it did not seem like either attempted to clarify
what was expected.
2) Investigation and Monitoring
• Members commended the IA sergeant in putting the information together, despite the amount
of people involved and interviewed, especially given the delay in starting the process.
• A board member also agreed it was a very good investigation. He added that it seemed like
the investigator allowed Supervisor B to become too much of an advocate, which was
inappropriate.
• Another member said that it was good the Auditor’s Office got this case to the CRB quickly,
given the complexities.
3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures
a. 1101.1.B.9 Unsatisfactory Performance
b. 1101.1.B.29 Truthfulness
c. 407 Watch Commander
d. 814 Vehicle Pursuit Policy
• A board member said that there is an opportunity to clarify the chain of events on the training
of the Vehicle Pursuit Policy. He noted that an officer who has since retired was contacted as
part of the investigation and they supported Supervisor A on how the policy was interpreted.
He explained that since there was difference in the interpretation of the policy, there is
opportunity for clarity.
• The IA Lt. said that EPD doesn’t allow pursuit of property crimes for non-violent offenders.
She explained that Supervisor A did not get all the information from the officer and made an
initial decision based on that limited information. After that, Supervisors A and B had a
conversation and they disagreed on the policy.
• The IA Lt. shared that the in-car video is available when the car docks. She said it should
have been reviewed if Supervisor A had looked at video.
• A member asked if there is a policy to review ICV in this situation and the IA Lt. answered
that the policy is to review everything in BlueTeam. However, this incident wasn’t entered
in BlueTeam at the time.
• Another member said that it seemed like a failure to conduct the after-action event. He
explained that there is a purpose in a supervisor being able to call on or off a pursuit. He
stated that supervisors should recognize when coaching is required.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
24
4) Policy and/or Training Considerations
• Members agreed that this case provided an opportunity to look at how EPD prepares and
designates people into supervisory roles. A board member stated that someone familiar with
the watch commander role was interviewed and asked about what training was required, and
that they answered it was mainly based on experience, and very little training. He noted that
this was a case in which someone was underprepared for the role they were given.
• Trainings for both Supervisors were suggested, including trainings on leadership, watch
commander role, vehicle pursuits, and BlueTeam.
• A member asked who could make a request for EVOC to do a pursuit review when staff enter
something into BlueTeam. An IA Analyst replied that any supervisor can request an EVOC
supervisor to look at something and give an opinion. She added that it can be done informally
before it goes to BlueTeam and that informal discussions happen routinely.
• The analyst added that the pursuit policy does say that a supervisor should enter it and the
EVOC supervisor should review it through BlueTeam. She explained that the question here
was that it hadn’t been entered as a pursuit yet.
5) Adjudication Recommendations
• A board member felt the first allegation asked the wrong question and found it unfounded.
The second allegation was a communication breakdown and ambiguous instruction. He stated
that it did not rise to the level of misrepresentation; he found it unfounded. In the third
allegation, he found insufficient evidence. He explained that there was no concrete evidence,
just speculation.
• Another member agreed with the above-mentioned board member. He said there would have
been other allegations associated with the first one, but they were not stated. The use of
untruthfulness was also questioned, given how serious the allegation was.
• A member felt it was the responsibility of Supervisor A to know when to punish or coach and
that coaching may have led to a different attitude and outcome. He concluded that a higher
level of leadership is needed up the chain of command and that this case felt borderline
vindictive.
6) Additional Comments or Concerns
• A board member noted that this case went down a path that was unnecessary and another
member thanked the investigators for their professional analysis.
• Mr. Gissiner stated that he typically tries to keep a distance from internal investigations. He
asked the CRB their opinion on his involvement when allegations are poorly written.
OCTOBER CASE REVIEW: ALLEGATION OF DISPARATE TREATMENT, LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, AND UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE BY AN EPD
SUPERVISOR
Summary of Facts
• Supervisor A responded, along with several officers, to a call reporting a fight in the street.
Supervisor D (an employee from another agency) was first to arrive on the scene. He saw several
people pointing at Reporting Party and observed a second male nearby who was bleeding from
his head. Supervisor D detained RP in handcuffs before EPD employees arrived.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
25
• The investigation on scene established that the RP had been trespassing on private property when
he was confronted by Involved Party E, who was clearly intoxicated and visiting the location.
• Involved Party E and the RP exchanged words, and at some point RP threw trash on the ground
of the common area of the apartment complex. Involved Party E exited the apartment and chased
RP as RP attempted to flee on a bicycle.
• Involved Party E caught up to RP and assaulted him, a short distance from the initial location. E
also threw RP’s bicycle to the ground, damaging it.
• RP and E both sustained injuries from the incident.
• Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) treated E at the scene, but the RP
was not.
• RP repeatedly asked for medical attention, but Supervisor A denied it. The RP complained of
back, neck, and hand injuries. The RP was told to leave the area and walk to the hospital if he
needed treatment.
• Because the RP was trespassing at the time he encountered E, Supervisor A decided to release
both subjects without enforcement action. Supervisor A directed employees not to complete a
police report.
• The RP went to the Auditor’s Office to complain of his treatment from Supervisor A. The RP’s
medical records showed that he was treated for finger fracture, finger sprain, and a suspected
concussion.
Allegations
1) Unsatisfactory Performance: that Supervisor A refused to summon medical attention to an
involved party after a fight.
2) Professional Police Contacts: that Supervisor A failed to take law enforcement action based
on the homeless status of the victim.
3) Unsatisfactory Performance (Knowledge of the Law): that Supervisor A failed to accurately
interpret ORS 161.225 (Physical Force in Defense of Premises).
Adjudication Recommendations:
1) Unsatisfactory Performance:
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Sustained
• Chief of Police: Sustained
2) Professional Police Contacts
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Unfounded
• Chief: Unfounded
3) Unsatisfactory Performance (Knowledge of the Law)
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Sustained
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Unfounded
• Chief: Sustained
During the adjudication process, the Chief added (and sustained)
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
26
4) Unsatisfactory Performance – that Supervisor A failed to conform to the standards of his rank
in ensuring a thorough and fair investigation of the involved incident.
Issues for CRB
1) Complaint Intake and Classification
a. Classification: Allegation of Misconduct
• A board member expressed that he would like to see a lack of courteous behavior added as a
type of allegation.
• A second member voiced he had no problem with the allegations and the way they were
assigned. He noted that this case brought up a reoccurring question about what a supervisor
is supposed to do, and he thought the Police Chief reaffirmed that more was expected from a
supervisor.
• Someone noted that the fourth allegation cleared up things that were difficult to get into with
the second allegation and wondered if there was a protocol review being done by the Chief.
Mr. Gissiner stated that the Chief is still learning nuances to this system and felt as though
the second allegation was a strong indictment of Supervisor A’s behavior.
• A question was made about a formalized way to add a fourth allegation and Mr. Gissiner
replied that he did not know if it would be formalized. He added that there was no union to
challenge the addition of a fourth allegation in this case because it involved a supervisor.
• A board member asked if there had been an in-service on S.T.O.P.’s and the IA Lt. confirmed
that there had been.
2) Investigation and Monitoring
• A member mentioned he thought some of the questions in the investigation went beyond
objective fact-finding and put the supporting officer in an awkward position to answer
questions about a supervisor.
• There was also concern that there was not an effort to investigate where the conflict took
place, which person struck the first blow, and how much time had transpired. A member
suggested that a better investigation could have been done by the supervisor on the scene and
noted that there was no attempt to identify witnesses.
• Mr. Gissiner replied that there was no investigation, which is why no witnesses were
contacted. He added that once Supervisor A determined that Party E did not cause the cut on
RP’s face, Supervisor A made the decision not to investigate.
• A board member stated that UO Police should be required to have body-worn cameras, and
any police in the City of Eugene should have to go through an auditor’s process.
• A suggestion was made that instead of asking someone directly if they were biased, they be
asked open-ended questions. The board member explained that there was other evidence of
biased treatment, but the phrasing of the interview questions was not helpful. She highlighted
that S.T.O.P.’s policy does not include protections for homeless people because homelessness
is not a protected class.
• Mr. Gissiner was asked if it was protected in Eugene’s ordinance. A member replied that
socio-economic status and homelessness are not protected, but source of income is. She added
that bias against homeless people is something the city tracks, but that there are no additional
criminal charges added in such cases.
3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
27
• A suggested good practice would be for officers to tell CAHOOTS about all injured people
when they arrive.
• A member wondered how to contextualize the call volume referenced in the investigation
given that it was used as a rationale for how Supervisor A handled the situation. She asked if
the call volume was considered in the investigation and the IA sergeant replied that it was
considered.
4) Policy and/or Training Considerations
• A board member wondered if the RP was treated unequally because they were homeless or
because they had difficulty communicating and paying attention. He asked if there was a
policy about people who have trouble communicating and Mr. Gissiner replied he had not
seen a training specific to difficulty communicating, but he believed it was clear in this case
that there was a neurological disorder.
• A member agreed that it was clear there was a neurological disorder but felt as though the
different treatment became clear when Party E admitted to the assault and was then treated
differently.
• A statement was made about the amount of force available to both sides and how it changed
as time went on, which made it difficult to critique Supervisor A. Supervisor A made the
decision to clear everyone from the scene, which is why not everything is known about this
case. After reviewing the whole sequence in terms of credibility, Mr. Gissiner felt that RP
was very credible.
• Another member wondered what the minimum requirements of investigations were,
including the expectations of someone taking over a scene and filing a report. He questioned
whether there was confusion between the supervisor and officer about who would file a
report, and who had the authority to determine what constituted mutual combat. They then
referred to the fact that Supervisor A had said RP was not in custody even though RP was in
handcuffs.
• Mr. Gissiner stated that Chief Skinner recognized this as an issue as well, and that this
particular case showed a new supervisor put in during a busy time without proper training.
5) Adjudication Recommendations
• A board member appreciated the Police Chief adding a fourth allegation since she felt
dissatisfied that it was not determined RP was treated differently because of their homeless
status. She highlighted they were detained, not allowed to press charges, and the language
used by others that characterized unhoused people as dangerous. She would rather the second
allegation say there was insufficient evidence than unfounded.
• Another member thought saying that Supervisor A refused medical attention was not
accurate, and that it should instead say they failed to provide medical attention. He agreed
with the Auditor that the second allegation was not based on homeless status but was instead
based on RP’s inability to communicate. He noted that Supervisor A should have delegated
responsibility to other officers to investigate what happened.
• Yet another member sustained the first allegation. He agreed that the second allegation lacked
sufficient evidence and stated that Supervisor A was clearly discourteous.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
28
NOVEMBER CASE REVIEW: ALLEGATION OF EXCESSIVE FORCE RELATED TO USE
OF OC SPRAY
Summary of Facts:
• Officer A responded to a report of a suspect who had allegedly broken into a vehicle and stolen
a phone. The victim was following the suspect and had called it in.
• Officer A found the involved subjects – the suspect, followed by the victim and a witness – and
exited his patrol vehicle. Officer A stated that he ordered the suspect to stop walking and sit on
the ground. The suspect did not immediately do so, and Officer A pulled his OC spray from its
holder and sprayed the suspect.
• The incident was captured on body-worn video, but given how quickly the incident evolved, the
camera only captured video (no audio).
• Officer A’s sergeant and lieutenant reviewed the incident (per the use of force reporting policy)
and determined that it was within policy. The captain believed the use of force was possibly
outside of policy, and this investigation was opened into the incident.
Allegations:
1) 803 Oleoresin Capsicum Aerosol: that Officer A’s use of OC spray against the suspect was
outside of policy.
Recommended Adjudications:
1) OC Spray:
• EPD chain of command recommendation: Within Policy
• Auditor’s Office recommendation: Within Policy
• Chief of Police: Within Policy
Issues for CRB:
1) Intake and Classification
a. Internally reported
b. Classification: Allegation of Misconduct
• All board members thought the classification seemed appropriate.
• A member said the case was timely, in regard to the discussion at Police Commission. In the
case at hand, Officer A announced the intent to use pepper spray and the subject didn’t appear
responsive. He didn’t have trouble with the classification, but it raised the question of when
use of force began.
2) Investigation and Monitoring
• The use of body-worn cameras and how they simplified the oversight process was mentioned,
though members wished there was also audio. The angles of the camera, however, allowed
members to see everything the officer was doing, which seemed to line up with the officer’s
testimony.
• The IA Lt. added Officer A was late in activating the video; he should have hit the button as
he was pulling up.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
29
• The IA Lt. also said EPD was transitioning from an old in-car video system to a new system
which would activate all other cameras in the area (i.e. for other officers, in cars etc.).
Currently, about 70% of EPD’s fleet was upgraded.
• A board member asked for the rule regarding when activation was to be done. The IA Lt.
replied at any investigative contact.
3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures
• A board member saw some confusion in the wording of the policy. For her, the most
important part of the policy was that protesters weren’t being pepper sprayed when choosing
to exercise their first amendment right. She thought that was the intent behind the policy, and
that the case at hand was not in the same context. She suggested it would be good to
harmonize wording (“passive” versus “static” resistance), but the overall intent was clear.
• Another member didn’t have other issues with the policy, but he hoped policies around
protesting remained on Police Commission’s radar. Another board member thought the
policy provided a lot of protection to protestors.
• A member said that within the case interview, a sergeant stated he conside red the situation
“ominous” and wondered if the language was out of another policy. Ms. Pitcher said EPD
used to train on the use of force continuum. “Ominous” was one way of looking at a force
situation and officers were not trained on the same continuum anymore.
4) Policy and/or Training Considerations
• Several members mentioned de-escalation as a training consideration since the officer was
only on scene for 10 seconds before using the OC spray.
• Some members thought the use of OC spray was safer since the subject could have crossed
traffic. Others pointed out that without knowing the verbal exchange, it was hard to determine
since the subject appeared to be complying with orders.
• While hindsight is always 20/20, a member thought the officer’s overall performance was
okay.
5) Adjudication Recommendations
• All members agreed the adjudication was within policy and appreciated Ms. Pitcher’s
thorough memo and the Chief’s comments.
• Ms. Pitcher said de-escalation was discussed a lot during the case, specifically around the
tools available to the officer. Tackling and use of a Taser were actually much less safe than
the use of pepper spray. Although the video was jarring, out of everything available to the
officer, he chose the safest option. A board member noted there were bystanders very close
by who could have been affected by whatever option chosen.
• A board member commented that all the subject’s behaviors fell into a different context when
he saw the officer search the subject and meth was found; it created challenges for the officer
and for bystanders.
• Another member added that the case exemplified the value of the CRB and the Police
Auditor. At first, she thought the officer’s actions were totally unreasonable, but after review
and going through the process, they did appear within policy.
June 19, 2019, 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
2018 Annual Report
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
ATTACHMENT B
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 2
Published June 2019
Eugene Mayor and City Councilors
MAYOR: LUCY VINIS
Ward One: Emily Semple, Vice President
Ward Two: Betty Taylor, President
Ward Three: Alan Zelenka
Ward Four: Jennifer Yeh
Ward Five: Mike Clark
Ward Six: Greg Evans
Ward Seven: Claire Syrett
Ward Eight: Chris Pryor
City Manager: Jon Ruiz
Civilian Review Board (CRB) Members
Chris Wig, Chair (resigned April 2018)
Maurice A. Denner, Chair (May 2018 – present; previously Vice Chair)
Carolyn Williams, Vice Chair (May – October 2018)
Steven McIntire, Vice Chair (October 2018 – present)
Lindsey Foltz (appointed July 2018)
Jim Hargreaves (resigned October 2018)
Chris Hayes (appointed July 2018, resigned October 2018)
Heather Marek (term ended June 2018)
Rick Roseta
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.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 3
Table of Contents
Mission and Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 4
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 4
2018 Progress and Results ......................................................................................................................... 5
Successful Community Outreach Efforts ................................................................................................... 6
Looking Ahead ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Goals for 2019-2020 ............................................................................................................................... 9
Challenges for 2019-2020 .................................................................................................................... 10
Understanding the Complaint Process .................................................................................................... 11
2018 Complaint and Commendation Statistics ..................................................................................... 12
Classification and Number of Complaints ............................................................................................ 12
How Were Complaints Filed? ........................................................................................................... 12
Allegations ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Sustained Allegations and Discipline ............................................................................................ 13
Incident Reviews ............................................................................................................................... 14
Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints ...................................................................... 14
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A: 2018 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Appendix B: 2018 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, and Inquiries
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 4
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 service
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.
Overview
Our office serves as the intake point for all complaints about EPD employees. On average we review
370 complaints per year (average 2010-2018). We also review every reportable use of force, and we
have done so since mid-year 2013. This translates to review of slightly more than 200 uses of force
per year. We also serve as one of several avenues of intake for police commendations. Our staff
supports the Civilian Review Board, and we regularly attend Police Commission and Human Rights
Commission meetings to answer any questions those groups may have regarding our office. We have
emphasized community engagement efforts over the past several years; we sponsor an annual Public
Safety Forum and outreach to community events and neighborhood meetings to inform the
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 5
community about our services and answer questions. We provide our services in an efficient,
transparent, and accessible manner, and we are committed to our mission of transparency and
accountability for police services in Eugene.
2018 Progress and Results
Our office continued to focus efforts on community outreach in 2018; those efforts are described in
more detail below. In addition, our day-to-day work involving complaints increased significantly; our
office received 392 complaints (a 20% increase) and reviewed 201 reportable uses of force in 2018.
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, as we are now able to thoroughly review every reportable use 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 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. EPD is extremely responsive to our requests to view video. The agency
is the holder of the video records, but they grant us access to requested videos nearly
immediately. Both our office and the CRB have noted several instances where video has been
invaluable in discovering the facts of the incident; Overall, the implementation of these
cameras has substantially increased the efficiency and accuracy of the investigative process.
Deadly Force Investigation
− Our office reviewed one use of deadly force in 2018. 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). This particular IDFIT investigation
was complicated by a concurrent EPD criminal investigation (into the activity that led to EPD
being called and the ensuing deadly force situation). Our office reviews the IDFIT investigation
at its close and works with IA to determine what additional investigative steps may be
necessary. Following the close of the administrative investigation, our office participates in
EPD’s Deadly Force Review Board. In this instance, the Board found, and our office 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 eight times in 2018; all were public meetings. Those
meetings included seven training topics and review of 12 complaints (seven allegations of
misconduct and five incident reviews/inquiries). The CRB liaison to the Police Commission,
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 6
Steve McIntire, worked extensively with staff to bring policy concerns to the Commission and
to work to effect change in EPD policy. Our office is committed to providing excellent staff
support for the Board, and numerous staff hours are spent on meeting preparation.
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 New EPD Chief
− Finally, our office participated in the hiring process for new EPD Chief Chris Skinner and
established solid working relationships with both Chief Skinner and former Interim Chief David
James.
Successful Community Outreach Efforts
Our staff has continued with their outreach efforts to ensure the community is informed of the
services offered in our office, as well as to provide the community an opportunity to ask direct
questions and share concerns. Our office often collaborates with other City departments and local
organizations to share insight about best practices for providing services and sharing information to
specific community groups. Below are just some of the outreach events that took place in 2018 in
which our office participated:
Public Safety Forum
Our first public safety forum was a success, and we are now planning on having this event on a yearly
basis. Due to the growing interest from local community organizations to be involved, we are almost
doubling the number of participating organizations and have shifted our date from December to May,
in hopes that the nicer weather will allow for an even more festive and fun-filled family event.
Presentations, Collaborations, & Media Outreach
Despite our best efforts to inform the community that we are not part of the Eugene Police
Department, we often still get the perception that we are. We look forward to receiving presentation
requests and questions about our office from sectors of the community we have been unable to
reach, so please send them our way!
• Eugene City Club: Community Spotlight- A Conversation w/Mark Gissiner
• Lane Community College English as a Second Language Course Presentation
• University of Oregon Emerald Newspaper Interview
• Consult with City of Davis, CA on Civilian Oversight Systems and Implementation
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 7
• Language Access Initiative- Collaboration with Human Rights Office for COE website materials
in Spanish
Neighborhood Association meetings
We once again reached out to various neighborhood associations this year and shared information
about our office and the Civilian Review Board. We’d like to thank the following for allowing us to
share our work and for the great questions and discussions that took place:
• Northeast Neighbors Quarterly Meeting
• Whiteaker Community Council Picnic
• Santa Clara Community Organization Meeting
• Amazon Neighbors Neighborhood Association Meeting
• Cal Young Neighborhood Association Meeting
• Downtown Neighbors Association Meeting
• Harlow Neighbors Association Meeting
Trainings & Conferences
We strive for awareness on current topics affecting our community to ensure adequate services are
being provided. Staff have participated in various trainings and conferences, including:
• Police Sergeant's Training Academy
• Police Executive Research Forum Annual Conference, Nashville
• Ride-alongs and trainings for new EPD supervisors
• Implicit Bias Training w/ Dr. Erik Girvan
• IAPro Software Training, San Diego
Tabling at local events including:
We enjoy tabling because it allows us to have more intimate conversations with folks who may not
know about what we do. Below are just a handful of fun events we’ve been invited to. We look
forward to participating in many more!
• Lane Arts Council First Friday Fiesta Cultural
• International Human Rights Day
• Watermelon Social @ River Road Elementary
• 2018 Posada Navideña
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 8
Community Outreach at a Glance
Our outreach strategies are intended to reach the community as a whole. We have diversified our
outreach efforts over the past year and will continue to do so. 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.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 9
Looking Ahead
Goals for 2019-2020
Our goals for the next few years are ambitious, but attainable. We are continuing to expand our
community engagement opportunities and our input into refinement of practices internally and with
EPD. We are working to collaborate with the new EPD Chief to address the goals related to EPD
operational concerns, including training, staffing, and ensuring a respectful work environment.
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 anticipate a potential increase
in complaint volume over the coming years, as increased staffing at EPD will likely lead to more
complaints related to judgment and inexperience. However, a significant portion of our complaints in
2018 were related to response time, or lack of response altogether; we hope that the increased
staffing will ultimately result in a decrease of that type of complaint.
EPD is experiencing extensive personnel changes, starting with a new Chief of Police. We will
continue to work with Chief Skinner to improve connection and collaboration between our office and
IA and training staff. Between the new Chief, a new Deputy Chief, and a several large recruit classes,
the next few years offer a real opportunity to foster a culture of transparency and collaboration
between the police and civilian oversight. Our office has been invited by Chief Skinner to participate
in recruit training, and we look forward to speaking with them about the role of civilian oversight in
Eugene.
We will continue to expand our outreach efforts, as noted above. Our public safety forum was a great
success, and we will work to collaborate with community partners to implement similar events. We
plan to focus on further outreach with neighborhoods, as well as partners in the mental health
community.
With a substantial increase in complaints in 2018, and 2019 appearing to continue that trend, we will
continue to focus on providing excellent customer service to all reporting parties. We have
experienced a significant increase in walk-in complaints over the past two years, and between the
walk-ins and telephone calls, a substantial amount of staff time is devoted to complaint intake. We
provide bilingual services, though our only current bilingual employee is .8 FTE.
We work with EPD to create an environment where employees are comfortable with reporting
possible instances of misconduct. We continue to receive a good portion of internal complaints from
EPD employees, which appears to be evidence of organizational trust in our complaint system.
2019 will see many opportunities for our office to collaborate with other City organizations (such as
the Human Rights and Equity Office and EPD) and community stakeholders to improve knowledge
regarding our office’s role and to ensure that all avenues for complaint and commendation intakes
are accessible.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 10
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. Due to Board turnover, we will have a majority of new members on the
Board starting in June 2019. This is a great opportunity to have Board membership from different
parts of the community; staff will focus efforts in the second half of the year on training new
members.
Challenges for 2019-2020
We anticipate several challenges over the coming year. Building community trust in policing can
seem like a monumental task in the current national political environment. Our community
engagement efforts and sustained work to build the credibility of our office throughout the
community have helped to build trust; we will need to continue to focus our efforts in this area.
We continue to receive a large number of complaints related to lack of police response and response
times. Chief Skinner has prioritized staffing, and it is our hope that these types of complaints will
decrease. However, having a disproportionate number of police officers with less than five years of
experience may result in an increase in judgment-related complaints. Proper, extensive training will
help minimize those types of complaints, and we will continue to reach out to EPD training staff to
ensure recruit employees are getting the best training possible.
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 ten 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.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 11
Any complaint may be selected for possible mediation, which follows a different process.
The Civilian Review Board may review any closed case involving a sworn Eugene Police employee.
Community Impact Cases and complaints against the EPD Chief follow the processes set out in Eugene City
Code §2.244 and §2.454, respectively.
Understanding the Complaint Process
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 12
The most common method used by the community to file complaints with our office continues to be
the telephone (50%). The phone has consistently been the source of about half of our complaints.
Walk-in complaints continued to increase substantially (over 230% increase from 2016-2018), possibly
due to our additional building signage.
2018 Complaint and Commendation Statistics
Classification and Number of Complaints
How were complaints filed?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Auditor Complaint Form Internal Social Media Walk In
Allegations of
Misconduct(including
Criminal Conduct)
Days to close Supervisor
Actions (median)
) (
355
37
1
24
18
Misconduct
complaints
from community members
Internally generated
complaints
Officer involved
shootings
Our office received 392 complaints in 2018, which
was a 20% increase from 2017.
Classification 2016 2017 2018
Allegation of Misconduct 24 22 21
Allegation of Criminal
Conduct
5 4 3
Incident Review 22 22 18
Respectful Work
Environment
7 1 1
Inquiry 104 108 135
Policy Complaint 37 31 34
Service Complaint 171 137 181
Most categories of complaints remained steady;
however, inquiries increased by 25% and service
complaints increased by 32%. The total number of
complaints was above our 8-year average of 370.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 13
The 21 allegations of misconduct and 3 allegations of criminal conduct included 48 specific allegations that
were adjudicated against 23 EPD employees (one employee resigned before allegations could be adjudicated).
In addition, there were three allegations that were dismissed and not adjudicated (see Appendix A). The most
common allegations were unsatisfactory performance, truthfulness, and courtesy. The EPD code of conduct
changed in October 2018, changing some policy names; the below chart is compiled for clarity.
Abuse of Position, 2
Conduct, 2
Confidentiality, 2 Criminal Justice
Information, 1Insubordination, 2
Integrity, 2
Judgment, 2
Neglect of Duty, 1
Recording Police Activity, 1
Truthfulness, 5 Unbecoming
Conduct, 1Use of Intoxicants, 1
Conformance to Laws, 2Discrimination, 1Competency, 1
Courtesy, 4
Forcible Vehicle Stops, 1
Lack of Knowledge of Law,
1
Sleeping on Duty, 2
Unsatisfactory
Performance, 10
Vehicle Pursuit, 2
OC Spray, 1 Use of Taser, 1
56% of Specific Allegations
were Sustained
Sustained Allegations:
• 8 Unsatisfactory Performance
• 3 Courtesy
• 2 Integrity
• 2 Judgment
• 2 Sleeping on Duty
• 2 Vehicle Pursuits
• 1 Competency
• 1 Conduct
• 1 Confidentiality of
Information
• 1 Insubordination
• 1 Lack of Knowledge of Law
• 1 Truthfulness
• 1 Unbecoming Conduct
• 1 Use of Intoxicants
15 employees were found to have committed the 27 sustained
allegations. Seven 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. Two employees resigned during the process; one prior
to discipline, and one prior to adjudication.
Allegations
Sustained Allegations and Discipline
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 14
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 18 incident reviews were those that were not reclassified and were
handled via the Internal Affairs investigation.
Most incident reviews were related to conduct (9) or performance (6). Four complaints of uses of
force were addressed as incident reviews.
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.
Inquiries and service complaints increased from 2017 to 2018, with policy
complaints remaining steady. Most inquiries were handled by the
supervisor and closed (82 of 135); 53 were dismissed following our
preliminary investigation. Similarly, 33 of 34 policy complaints were
adequately addressed by the supervisor; only 1 was dismissed.
Service complaints were our most common type of complaint, as has been
the pattern over the last several years; 157 of 181 were handled and
closed by an EPD supervisor.
Conduct
3%
Courtesy
15%
Discrimination
1%Other
3%
Performance
60%
Service level
17%
Use of Force
1%
Service Complaints by Sub-Classification
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Independent Police Auditor’s Office -- 2018 Annual Report 15
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, EPD Chief Chris Skinner, 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.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 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.15
Insubordination
UF IE IE 1/5/2018 3/6/2018 7/2/2018 7/2/2018
1101.B.29
Truthfulness
IE S S
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
IE IE IE 1/5/2018 2/21/2018 3/21/2018 6/1/2018
1101.1.B.7
Courtesy
S S S
1101.1.B.7
Courtesy
S S S
1101.1.B.15
Insubordination
N/A S S
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation that an officer had
accessed the CJIS/NCIC data
system for a non law
enforcement purpose.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Conduct
205 Criminal Justice
Information System
WP WP WP 2/6/2018 2/22/2018 3/12/2018 3/13/2018
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication
CRB
Review?
Dates/QC CRB
Review?
CRB
Review?
Dates/QC
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
Summary of Complaint
Internal Allegation that a
nonsworn employee failed to
obey a verbal direction given
by a supervisor.
Internal Allegation that an
employee made disparaging
comments about other
employees and used rude and
profane language in the
workplace.
Employee resigned prior to
corrective action.
Allegations Adjudication
Appendix A Page 1 of 8 June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 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.24
Sleeping on Duty
S S S 2/17/2018 3/14/2018 3/30/2018 4/30/2018
1101.1.B.24
Sleeping on Duty
S S S
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Internal Allegation that an
officer violated the Vehicle
Pursuit Policy.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
814 Vehicle Pursuit
Policy
S S S 3/27/2018 4/25/2018 6/8/2018 8/9/2018
1302 Forcible
Vehicle Stop
Techniques
WP WP WP
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
A woman reported that her
mother who is a sex worker
had clients who were EPD
employees.
Allegation of
Criminal
Conduct:
Conformance to
Laws
UF UF 4/3/2018 4/25/2018 4/26/2018
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
Internal Allegation that an
officer was sleeping on duty
and failed to notify a
supervisor that they could not
stay awake.
Appendix A Page 2 of 8 June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 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.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S 4/5/2018 5/31/2018 6/29/2018 7/5/2018 9/11/2019
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S UF S
1101.1.B.29
Truthfulness
IE IE IE
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Internal allegation that an
employee misused Intoxicants.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Conduct
11401.1.B.27 Use
of Intoxicants and
Medications
S S S 4/13/2018 5/29/2018 6/29/2018 7/17/2018
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Conduct
1101.1.B.5
Conformance to
Laws
4/24/2018 7/3/2018 7/3/2018
1101.1.B.2 Abuse
of Position
1101.1.B.4
Confidentiality of
Information
1101.1.B.18
Neglect of Duty
1101.1.B.29
Truthfulness
1101.1.B.29
Truthfulness
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
RP alleged that an officer had
she had been dating sexual
relations with her while on
duty. Employee resigned
during investigation.
Internal allegation that an
employee failed to recognize a
incident was a Vehicle Pursuit
and did not follow a
supervisor's direction.
N/A - employee resigned
Appendix A Page 3 of 8 June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 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:
Discrimination
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S 5/7/2018 6/19/2018 8/16/2018 9/20/2018 10/9/2018
Discrimination 402
Police S.T.O.P.S
UF S UF
1101.B.9.b.(1) Lack
of knowledge of the
law
UF S S
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
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 6/6/2018 8/8/2018 8/27/2018 10/10/2018
1101.1.B.7 Courtesy S S S
1101.1.B.8
Competency
S S S
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S
Dates/QC CRB
Review?
RP alleged that when calling in
for an medical emergency
regarding her husband the call
taker was unprofessional.
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
RP reported an officer who
refused to take a report, failed
to arrest the perpetrator and
failed to treat him fairly during
an altercation with another
person.
Allegation added by
Chief
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication
Appendix A Page 4 of 8 June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
RP alleged that an officer
violated policy when RP was
cited for blocking the sidewalk
after filming a police action.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Conduct
415 Recording
Police Activities by
the Community
WP WP WP 6/29/2018 8/15/2018 8/29/2018 9/6/2018
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Internal Allegation that an
officer used inappropriate
conduct by recording a rant
which included profanity and
other inappropriate language.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Conduct
1101.1.B.25
Unbecoming
Conduct
S S S 7/10/2018 9/4/2018 10/1/2018 11/8/2018 1/8/2019
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Internal Allegation that
officers violated the Vehicle
Pursuit Policy.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
814 Vehicle Pursuit
Policy
S S S 7/10/2018 9/18/2018 10/22/2018 12/10/2018
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
IE IE IE
814 Vehicle Pursuit
Policy
S S S
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations
Appendix A Page 5 of 8 June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Internal Allegation of
Misconduct that a 911
operator failed to take
appropriate action and verify
an address for dispatch
leading to a delay in medics
arriving.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Performance
1101.1.B.9
Unsatisfactory
Performance
S S S 8/13/2018 10/2/2018 10/22/2018 12/19/2018
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Internal allegation that an
officer's use of OC Spray was
outside of policy.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Use of Force
803
Capsicum Aerosol
WP WP WP 9/11/2018 10/2/2018 10/22/2018 10/26/2018 11/13/2018
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation the an employee
was dishonest about work
hours.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Conduct
1101.1.B.16
Integrity
S IE S 9/20/2018 4/8/2019 3/8/2019 4/8/2019
103.5.1
Truthfulness
IE IE IE
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
RP alleged that 6 or 7 years ago
an EPD officer paid for sex with
her.
Dismissed: Employee no
longer employed
Allegation of
Criminal
Conduct:
Conformance to
Laws
10/2/2018 10/3/2018
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
Dismissed - employee no longer active
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Appendix A Page 6 of 8 June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 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.B.2 Abuse of
Position
IF IF IF 9/30/2018 11/19/2018 12/10/2018 1/22/2019
1101.1.B.17
Judgement
S S S
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Internal Allegation that an
officer had an altercation with
a citizen while off duty and
then drove his vehicle while
intoxicated.
Allegation of
Criminal
Conduct:
Conformance to
Laws
Conduct - 103.5.4
Adherence to Laws
and Dept. Policy
UF UF UF 10/27/2018 12/20/2018 1/10/2019 1/15/2019 2/12/2019
Conduct - 103.5.9
Conduct
UF UF UF
Performance -
103.5.14
Unsatisfactory
Performance
UF UF UF
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Internal Allegation that an
officer discharged his taser
against a handcuffed prisoner.
Allegation of
Misconduct Use
of Force
809 Taser Use WP S WP 11/17/2018 12/14/2019 2/18/2019 2/25/2019 3/12/2019
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Internal Allegation that an
employee used city computer
systems to gain information for
personal use.
Appendix A Page 7 of 8 June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation that an officer failed
to report to a supervisor his
modified duty doctor's orders
and reported his hours
inaccurately.
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Conduct
103.4.1 Judgement S S S 10/27/2019 1/22/2019 2/18/2019 3/28/2019
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Conduct
103.5.10
Confidentiality of
Information
S S S 11/14/2018 12/20/2019 11/10/2019 4/25/2019
103.4.3 Integrity S S S
103.5.9 Conduct S S S
Auditor's
Classification
POM Violations EPD Chain
of
Command
Auditor Chief Intake IA Report Adjud-
ication
Closed
Allegation of
Misconduct:
Conduct
103.5.19 Neglect of
Duty
S S S 11/16/2018 3/18/2019 4/9/2019 5/7/2019
103.5.17
Insubordination
IE IE S
Dates/QC CRB
Review?
CRB
Review?
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication Dates/QC CRB
Review?
Allegation that an employee
took a confidential report from
the office of another employee
without permission and shared
the report with at least 2
others.
Allegation that an officer failed
to respond to a dispatched call.
Allegation investigated and
adjudicated but dismissed
following EPEA grievance.
Summary of Complaint Allegations Adjudication
Appendix A Page 8 of 8 June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 1 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
1/5/18 2/14/18 39 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer refused
to take a report when the person he
bought the vehicle from took the vehicle
and his money.
Sgt. learned that RP did not have legal documentation to support
proof of ownership of the vehicle, so the officer was unable to
take a report. RP did not return calls to discuss the issue.
1/9/18 1/31/18 22 Inquiry RP was upset that he was given a 30 day
exclusion for illegal camping without any
warning.
Sgt. learned that two weeks prior, RP had been cited for illegal
camping and given a warning. The officer who towed the vehicle
and gave the 30 day exclusion reviewed records, and spoke with
the other officer before taking enforcement action. No policy
violation was found. RP did not return calls to Sgt.
1/8/18 1/17/18 9 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported an incident at a pharmacy
that was non-EPD related.
Dismissed: Other
1/10/18 2/7/18 27 Performance RP was unhappy about a that a call taker
told him his issue was civil.
Supervisor reviewed the call and agreed that that the issue was a
civil issue between RP and the other party.
1/11/18 2/15/18 34 Inquiry RP stated that she was interrogated for
over 25 minutes with the officer
checking over her car; the officer even
called another officer to the traffic stop.
RP feels she was profiled because of
being Muslim.
Sgt. reviewed body cam of the stop and found the officer to be
professional in manner; the stop was 9 minutes long and the
officer had to ask clarifying questions due to RP having a
protected registration that did not come up in DMV records. No
policy violations were noted, Sgt. spoke with RP about the
findings.
1/11/18 2/2/18 21 Service Level RP has been unable to get any
enforcement on a illegal bike path
camping issue.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the issue, providing feedback on the
illegal camping policy and about EPD's new parks police program.
1/12/18 2/20/18 38 Inquiry RP's inquired into a issue with an officer
who they believed was harassing a
homeless woman, continually towing her
trailer.
Sgt. reviewed the incidents in question and learned that at one
point the vehicle was towed due to it having been in an apparent
traffic crash and left blocking the road. The second incident
involved the trailer being towed because it had been tagged by
St. Vincent as a willful prohibited camping violator. The third
time the trailer was blocking a private drive and did not have a
cap on the septic pipe. The trailer was not registered to the
woman in question. Sgt. found no policy violations by the officer.
Sgt. spoke with the complainant.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 2 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
1/17/18 2/13/18 26 Incident Review:
Conduct
RP, while apparently suffering a mental
health crisis, accused an EPD officer
named Thor of raping her years ago.
Sgt. investigated and spoke with the RP, and was unable to
provide any evidence of a crime. No EPD employees have been
named Thor, or have gone by "Thor."
1/17/18 2/22/18 35 Incident Review:
Performance
RP reported an officer who watched
them being attacked at Kesey Square
and did nothing.
Sgt. reviewed bodycam and found that the officer noticed both
RP's boyfriend and another man being disorderly and made
contact with the boyfriend; the other party walked away. The
officer offered information on services to the young man and
spoke with him about getting off drugs. No policy violations
were found.
1/17/18 3/12/18 55 Inquiry RP questioned whether a assault/bias
crime was handled correctly by officers.
Sgt. reviewed police reports, body cams and spoke with officers
and found that the investigation, including talking with unbiased
witnesses of the incident, showed the incident was mutual
combat/disorderly conduct and did not appear to be assault/bias
crime. Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings.
1/17/18 1/22/18 5 Performance
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported law enforcement that had
him on camera.
Dismissed: Other
1/18/18 1/23/18 5 Conduct
Dismissed:
Employee no
longer
employed
RP claimed she was only arrested for DUI
by an officer because she wouldn't go on
a date with him.
Dismissed: Employee not longer employed
1/19/18 2/27/18 38 Incident Review:
Conduct
RP alleged that an officer shoved his son
during a walk out demonstration at his
high school.
Sgt. reviewed the incident, spoke with witnesses and reviewed
body cam, and learned that the student tried to push into the
school first and was pushed back by the officer after being given
an order by school staff and officers to not enter the buildings.
No policy violation were found.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 3 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
1/22/18 3/2/18 40 Incident Review:
Courtesy
RPs reported an officer who they felt
was harassing them and trying to get
them to leave the area.
Sgt. reviewed the contacts between RPs and the involved officer
and found that the officer had been working with RPs through
EPD's Community Outreach Response Team (CORT) and had
provided them with money to buy a vehicle part to enable them
to move back to CA, per their request. After the help was
provided, RPs did not leave the area and a have since come in
contact with officers for various city ordinance violations. No
policy violations were found. Sgt. spoke with RPs about her
findings.
1/22/18 2/13/18 21 Inquiry RP could not understand why he was
detained in handcuffs after officers
awoke him and his girlfriend in the
middle of the night by pounding on their
window.
Sgt. reviewed details of the incident and found that a hang up
call for help had come from a phone connected to RP's
apartment, when officers could not get through a security door
they pounded on the window to gain access. RP came out of the
apartment in an angry manner and, until officers were able to
discern whether or not someone was in danger, RP was placed in
handcuffs. RP was released as soon as it was determined that the
call had not come from the apartment. The officers' actions were
within policy in accordance with the community care taking laws.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the incident.
1/24/18 2/7/18 13 Policy RP feels unprotected because her car
has been broken into 3 times and wants
to know what type of patrols happen in
her parking garage.
Sgt. obtained a summary of the patrols in the area done by a
security firm and then advised RP of them, also provided crime
prevention tips.
1/25/18 2/13/18 18 Service Level RP wished to request EPD do a follow-up
report on an issue being looked into by
the DEA.
Sgt. learned that RP was concerned about mentally ill people
being taken advantage of by others in the homeless camps set up
by St. Vincent and others.
1/25/18 3/5/18 40 Courtesy RP felt officers were rude and belligerent
when they responded to a call about
trespassing.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and found that RP was actually also
trespassing and did not have the authority to trespass anyone
else from the property. Sgt. noted officers never raised their
voices nor yelled at RP about the situation but calmly explained
the issue. Sgt. was unable to contact RP.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 4 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
1/26/18 1/29/18 3 Service Level
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP was unhappy about a receipt he did
not receive for services at an
establishment.
Dismissed: Timeliness
1/23/18 2/23/18 30 Performance Internal review of a 911 call for service.
Call taker did not follow proper
procedure in triaging the call.
Review of the call by Supervisor found that the call did not follow
proper protocol, but it did not rise to the level of serious
misconduct. A remedial training plan was put in place with the
involved employee.
2/1/18 2/22/18 21 Inquiry RP inquired if EPD has the ability to
freeze emails, this happened to her after
using the online reporting link.
Supervisor contacted RP with the information that EPD does not
have this ability.
2/2/18 2/13/18 11 Incident Review:
Performance
RP felt a tasing that occurred during his
arrest was excessive.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and police reports of the arrest and
found that the force used to arrest was with in policy and
reasonable. Officers followed policies and procedures.
2/3/18 2/5/18 2 Conduct
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP reported an incident that happened
in the 1990's in which an officer was
rude.
Dismiss: Timeliness
2/5/18 3/15/18 40 Performance RP was upset that officers were
pounding on his door after he had called
911 about an officer not stopping to
speak with him after he observed them
making an arrest.
Sgt found that officer did a welfare check on RP because of
statements he made to the call taker. Body cam found no policy
violations in the welfare check. Sgt. spoke with RP.
2/5/18 3/15/18 40 Performance RP alleged his ex-girlfriend was only
cited for breaking into his house (not
arrested) because of her race (she's
white and he's black).
Sgt. found that the ex-girlfriend had been living at the residence
for the last 6 months and had paid rent; the citation in lieu of
arrest was appropriate for the incident. Body cam showed
nothing that indicated the decision was made due to race. RP did
not return phone calls from the Sgt.
2/5/18 2/22/18 17 Inquiry RP reported being arrested by EPD on a
23 year old warrant last time he was
stopped for a traffic issue, causing him to
pay money to get it cleared up.
Sgt. reviewed police records on contacts with RP and found that
the issue was with SPD and UOPD. The last contact RP had with
EPD was 15 years ago. RP did not return calls, Auditor's Office
notified him via letter.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 5 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
2/6/18 2/20/18 14 Inquiry RP was unhappy that after sitting at EPD
for over two hours the officer told her
nothing could be done about her
property managers' verbal harassment.
Sgt. reviewed the incident and found that the officer was correct
in stating that it was a civil issue. Sgt. spoke with RP and gave her
information and resources about the property owner to follow
up with.
2/7/18 3/2/18 25 Policy RP was unhappy that officers would not
respond when she and her daughter
called about finding drugs in her
grandson's room.
Sgt. found a police report documenting actions in this incident in
which an officer responded and collected the substance, and
wrote a report. RP did not respond to the Sergeant's calls.
2/10/18 2/22/18 12 Incident Review:
Conduct
Internal review of an employee's posting
on social media.
Supervisor spoke with employee with a reminder of appropriate
social media posts.
2/9/18 3/5/18 26 Inquiry RP requested a listing on the online call
log not identify the work place that
called in about gun shots but rather the
address the shots came from.
Supervisor reviewed the call and the listing and believes that a
data entry error was made and that the call log needed to be
corrected as per the request of RP. Supervisor made and
documented the change and contacted RP.
2/9/18 3/15/18 36 Inquiry RP reported that a school resource
officers trespassed him from the school
when he tried to find out about his son's
grades.
Sgt. found that RP is not the custodial parent of the children and
because of the disruption RP was causing on the school grounds
the officer was instructed by school personnel to trespass RP.
2/12/18 3/19/18 37 Performance RP complained of becoming over heated
in the back of a patrol car at the jail, and
felt the officer asked a bunch of stupid
questions before he rolled the window
down.
Sgt reviewed body cam of the officer and found that the officer
was at first outside of the vehicle when asked about the window,
within 2 minutes the officer entered the vehicle and rolled down
the window. It was 43 degrees. Sgt. spoke with RP about his
findings.
2/12/18 2/20/18 8 Inquiry RPs felt harassed by an officer who gave
them an exclusion from the city streets
with their camper.
Sgt. learned that the vehicle in question was an unlicensed trailer
that had been given 2 previous warnings as well as information
about community services.
2/12/18 2/13/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported an officer who he felt was
rude and used excessive force to detain
him.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 6 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
2/14/18 2/21/18 7 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP was upset that during a welfare check
excessive force was used.
Dismissed: Other Review of police reports and
body cam by the Auditor found no policy violations.
2/14/18 2/21/18 7 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported in incident with an officer in
which he felt he was being asked to do
things not quite kosher involving a traffic
incident with his ex-wife.
Dismissed: Other Review of police reports and
body cam by the Auditor found no policy violations.
2/15/18 4/4/18 49 Policy RP reported his vehicle towed without
warning.
Sgt. learned that the officer responded to the vehicle due to
numerous illegal camping complaints, and found it leaking fluids
onto the street. It was towed as a hazardous vehicle. All police
reports, bodycams, in-car video, impound forms showed no
policy violation.
2/15/18 3/6/18 21 Courtesy RP reported that when trying to report a
dead animal the call taker was rude.
Supervisor reviewed the call, and though the call taker handled
the call correctly more time should have been taken with the
caller, who had a language barrier. Supervisor spoke with the call
taker. RP was anonymous.
2/15/18 2/22/18 7 Incident Review:
Conduct
RP reported an issue with a civil
transaction he had conducted with an
EPD employee.
Supervisor reviewed: Civil issue
2/16/18 3/26/18 40 Service Level RP inquired into what information is
provided to outside agencies when
sharing stolen vehicle information.
RP did not return calls from the Sgt. to address his questions,
information was left on voicemail.
2/18/18 2/22/18 4 Inquiry RP alleged he was only given a trespass
citation because of his race.
Sgt. review found that RP did not appear to be racially profiled;
two others were also cited who were not African American. Sgt.
spoke with RP about the citation.
2/18/18 2/21/18 3 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP reported an incident from 2016 in
which he felt he was not treated fairly by
EPD.
Dismissed: Timeliness
2/20/18 2/28/18 8 Performance RP reported a patrol vehicle that did not
signal a turn.
Officer was advised of the importance of following all traffic laws.
2/20/18 2/28/18 8 Performance An anonymous RP reported an officer
who RP felt was distracted while driving.
Lt. notified the officer of the complaint.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 7 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
2/21/18 6/22/18 121 Incident Review Internal review of respectful work place
policy .
Involved employee resigned during review.
2/20/18 2/28/18 8 Policy RP was concerned about the use of an
attorney's personal home address in a
police report.
Sgt. sent a reminder to patrol to watch for auto-populate in the
data system and to not use criminal justice system employees'
home addresses. Sgt. spoke with RP.
2/22/18 4/2/18 40 Policy RP inquired into why no police report
was taken when he was hit by a car in
the Costco Parking lot.
Sgt. reviewed body cam of the incident and the incident report
and found that witnesses were spoken to and based on those
statements the incident was not a reportable accident. RP and
the other party involved exchanged insurance information.
2/22/18 3/26/18 34 Policy RP inquired into if he could contact
someone by registered mail, even
though he had a verbal warning by an
officer to not contact the person.
Sgt. contacted RP and answered questions he had about the
issue.
2/22/18 2/23/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP felt he was harassed by EPD because
they claimed to have a dropped call from
the address he was parking his trailer on.
Officers insisted on looking in his trailer
and other buildings on the property.
After review of bodycams by the Auditor's Officer of the incident
no policy violations were seen and complaint was Dismissed:
Other
2/23/18 3/28/18 35 Inquiry RP was upset that officers put him on his
back and officers should know not to put
hands on him.
Body cam showed that the officers were professional with RP in a
call for service in which he was being trespassed from a warming
center. RP was guided to his buttocks by officers, no force was
used and RP was never on his back.
2/25/18 3/14/18 19 Service Level RP was unhappy that when he detained
someone who had taken mail from a
neighbor's box, no one responded.
Supervisor found that at the time of the call, RP only knew where
the suspect lived, and did not have the person detained, he was
told to have the victims notify the police and to not try and
detain the suspect. Supervisor spoke with RP.
2/26/18 3/15/18 19 Policy RP was concerned about the flashing
lights on patrol cars and how they effect
people with epilepsy.
Sgt. spoke with RP about his concerns and provided resources for
contact.
2/28/18 4/23/18 53 Performance RP did not believe an officer took the
correct action with the violation of a
restraining order.
Sgt. reviewed CAD for the incident and spoke with the officer.
The Sgt. agreed that the officer did not have cause to take action.
Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 8 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
3/1/18 3/15/18 14 Performance RP reported an officer who cut him off
while he was trying to cross the bridge.
Sgt. reviewed ICV and found that the officer was heading to a call
at the time of the incident, the officer activated the rear lights
and motioned to the driver that a lane change was needed. No
policy violations were observed. RP did not want a return call.
3/2/18 3/5/18 3 Inquiry RP reported an officer who he felt
intentionally hit a wound on his wrist
when putting on handcuffs.
Sgt. spoke with officer who admitted he may have accidentally
hit the scab as it was under a bracelet worn by RP. Sgt. examined
the wound and found that the scab had not been broken and
photographed the wrist as he spoke with RP about the incident.
3/2/18 3/5/18 3 Inquiry The passenger in a hit and run accident
was transported for a stress related
seizure to the hospital. This person later
claimed that the seizure was caused by
the crash and demanded to know the
outcome of the incident.
Sgt. found that the driver of the car involved had declined to
press charges and no report was taken, since RP, a passenger,
now claimed an injury from the crash officers were directed to
file a report.
3/2/18 4/19/18 47 Performance RP felt that the records department was
unclear about how to obtain reports and
information about various incidents,
making it especially hard for victims of
domestic violence.
Supervisor spoke with RP about the policies in the records
department.
3/6/18 3/15/18 9 Inquiry RP inquired into why officers had come
to her door. RP is a non English speaker
and was concerned.
Sgt. found that officers were looking for what they learned was a
previous resident of the Apt. Sgt. spoke with RP about his
findings.
3/7/18 4/5/18 28 Performance RP felt an officer didn't seem to know
what his job task was in an incident in
which they were witnesses to a accident.
RP felt the officer did not seem to care.
Sgt. learned that the crash had been non-injury and no report
needed to be filed. RP did not return Sgt's calls to speak about
the incident.
3/7/18 4/9/18 32 Performance RP inquired into whether or not more
investigation was warranted into his
juvenile daughter's suicide.
Sgt. reviewed steps taken to date and forwarded the information
to the DA's office, which conclude that the investigation was
thorough and complete. The DA's office contacted RP to explain
their findings.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 9 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
3/11/18 4/4/18 23 Discrimination RP felt that an officer had not conducted
a thorough investigation due to her race.
Sgt. reviewed all body cam and reports about the matter and
learned that the issue RP was concerned about was a civil
landlord tenant dispute. No policy violations were committed by
the officer.
3/12/18 4/23/18 41 Performance RP's reported an incident in which and
officers required them to communicate
by writing instead of getting them an
interpreter. RPs are deaf.
Sgt. found that EPD has no one on its Language skills list that is
proficient in ASL. In the body cam, the officer had a successful
dialog with RP's using writing, RP's did not request a ASL
interpreter. Sgt. spoke with RP's about the incident and then
reached out to the Human Rights Office to see what needed to
be done to make EPD compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
3/12/18 3/28/18 16 Policy RP was unhappy his vehicle was towed
for prohibitive camping.
Sgt. reviewed body cam, impound reports and police reports and
found that the officer had probable cause to take the actions he
did. No policy violation.
3/13/18 3/15/18 2 Courtesy RP was upset that an officer addressed
her husband instead of her in an
interaction.
Supervisor spoke with RP who felt the officer had been sexist and
just wanted the supervisor to know.
3/13/18 4/25/18 42 Performance RP was concerned that during a death
investigation the body was not covered
quickly enough. And a wheel chair that
was not taken from the scene.
Sgt. found that the wheel chair had been left behind and an
officer was instructed to pick it up. Sgt. spoke with RP about the
issue.
3/13/18 3/30/18 17 Courtesy RP felt an officer was rude while citing
him for a moving violation on his bike.
Sgt. reviewed body cam of the stop and found the officer was
curt with RP. Sgt. coached the officer about the stop and spoke
with RP.
3/14/18 5/3/18 49 Performance RP was unhappy with how an officer
suddenly activated his lights, and when
RP pulled over, the officer kept on going.
ICV from the officer's vehicle did not depict the incident, but this
type of situation happens at times when an officer is dispatched
to a call and drivers think they are being pulled over. RP did not
respond to Sgt's calls.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 10 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
3/14/18 3/26/18 12 Incident Review:
Use of Force
RP alleged officers used excessive force
on her and her boyfriend without even
telling them why they were being
detained. They were beaten, hog tied
and taken to jail.
Sgt. reviewed police reports, body cams and found that Officers
had probable cause to arrest RP's boyfriend due to a dispute at a
local eatery. The boyfriend refused to stop for officers, RP
physically inserted herself between officers and at one point hit
an officer. Other then the initial take down no force was used,
feet restraints were applied due to the couple kicking officers.
No policy violations were found.
3/16/18 3/21/18 5 Courtesy
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported an officer who was snooty
with her and grabbed her behind when
she walked passed.
Dismissed: Other Auditor review of body cam of
RP's interaction found the allegations made to be false.
Dismissed by Auditor
3/20/18 5/11/18 51 Policy RP was concerned about the armed
robberies in the area and wanted to
know what police were doing to keep
people safe.
Lt. spoke with RP about his concerns and the noted the increased
patrols added to the area.
3/20/18 3/21/18 1 Courtesy
Dismissed:
Other
RP was upset to learn that community
court required officers to report contacts
with police to them.
Dismissed: Other No policy violation
3/20/18 4/23/18 33 Courtesy RP was unhappy with an interaction with
an officer at the Eugene Airport.
Sgt. reviewed body cam of the interaction and found that the
officer was requested to escort RP from the TSA area by agents,
and had to advise RP that if her behavior continued she could be
trespassed from the Eugene Airport. No policy violations were
noted.
3/21/18 4/5/18 14 Courtesy RP was unhappy with comments made
by and officer issuing him a citation. Rp
felt his character was assaulted.
Sgt. spoke with the officer involved who admitted he was a little
gruff with RP due to the considerable distance RP drove before
pulling over. He did not feel he had made any comments that
would have offended RP. Sgt. spoke with RP about the incident
and offered to talk with the officer about his perception of the
incident.
3/21/18 4/4/18 13 Courtesy RP reported an officer who was rude and
disrespectful, practically yelling at her
during a traffic stop.
Sgt. reviewed that body cam and found that the officer did not
violate any EPD policies. Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings
and with the officer about RP's perception of the stop.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 11 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
3/22/18 3/26/18 4 Policy RP report a serious issue of transients
camping under a bike path underpass.
RP has had to make his way past 20 to 30
people, many times being threatened.
Sgt. spoke with RP about his concerns and explained EPD's lack of
resources to respond to every homeless camping call. He also
provided information about what actions were being taken in the
area that RP called about.
3/22/18 5/2/18 40 Performance RP reported that an officer did not
adequately investigate an a child abuse
allegation he reported.
Sgt. reviewed body cam of the report taken by the officer. At no
time did RP make an allegation of abuse about a child. No policy
violation.
3/22/18 4/2/18 10 RP reported an incident in which he
believed an officer tried to use his status
to get a favor.
Sgt. spoke with RP and learned further details of the incident and
found that RP had unknowingly called the officers work line
which caused the confusion that the officer's status was
involved. RP no longer believed the officer tried to use their
position.
3/20/18 3/28/18 8 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Timeliness
An anonymous RP questioned an
officer's supervision skills.
Dismissed: Timeliness
3/23/18 5/7/18 44 Inquiry RP reported a use of force in which he
was suddenly pushed from behind,
handcuffed, maced and hooded.
Sgt. reviewed police reports, body cams and ICV's of in the
incident involving RP. A call for service about a disorderly male in
the middle of the street was made. Officer arrived and found RP
who appeared to under the influence. RP actively fought and spit
on officers and had to be restrained. RP was transported to the
hospital. All force used was within policy. Sgt. spoke with RP
about the incident.
3/24/18 5/4/18 40 Inquiry RP felt officers illegally entered her
home without a warrant upon the
request of Cahoots.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and reports and found that RP had
invited Cahoots into her home and it was determined that at the
time RP was a danger to herself. Officers entered the home
under the community care taking statute. Officers did not violate
policy. Sgt. spoke with RP about her concern.
3/26/18 3/27/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP was unhappy with a citation for
violation of park rules.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 12 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
4/14/18 4/21/18 7 Incident Review:
Performance
An outside agency reported that an EPD
officer refused to perform a DUII
investigation when asked by an officer in
that agency, in the Eugene city limits.
Body cam revealed when asked to perform the investigation the
officer replied that it had been sometime since he had done one.
The other officer conducted the investigation with the EPD
officer serving as back up. It appears that the officer provided
appropriate assistance and did not violate policy.
3/26/18 6/6/18 70 Incident Review:
Use of Force
RP reported an incident in which her
mentally disabled adult son was
accidentally tased by an officer who was
trying to tase her husband.
Body cam revealed a suspect that was fleeing into the home in a
darkened hallway, the officer mistook the son, who was also in
the hallway, for the suspect who had fled. Sgt. spoke with RP
about her concerns in the incident.
3/30/18 4/4/18 4 Courtesy
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP noted an officer's comments to him
were laced with profanity during a traffic
stop.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
4/2/18 5/7/18 35 Performance RP reported a patrol car that suddenly
switched on it's overhead lights and
pulled in to the lane almost hitting her
husband who was traveling behind her.
ICV showed that the officer only readjusted his vehicle in a lane
he had already partiall blocked, in order to further protect the
back of a CAHOOTS van that was in the lane. Officer was
reminded to use caution at all times, RP was happy with the
contact and the reminder to the officer.
4/2/18 4/9/18 7 Policy RP was unhappy with a tow and storage
bill when his car was recovered after
being stolen.
Sgt. found that all documents that inform citizens of the
possibility of a car being towed when recovered were received by
RP. RP was also called a the time of the discovery and notified
that it would be towed if he could not respond within 20
minutes. RP acknowledged that communication.
4/4/18 4/10/18 6 Performance RP was unhappy with the fact that a
burglary report listed her last name
incorrectly. And some items were not
listed.
Sgt. noted that the text of the report correctly noted RP's last
name and concluded that the system auto populated a previous
last name. Sgt. also delivered RP a citizens supplemental report
form to submit.
4/9/18 4/12/18 3 Inquiry RP reported that officers only stopped
him for trespassing because he is African
American.
Sgt. found that officer noticed RP sitting below a no trespass sign
on property that has a no trespass letter with the city. RP
originally gave a false name and was ultimately arrested for
trespass and warrants. Officers had probable cause for the stop,
and race did not appear to be a factor.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 13 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
4/10/18 5/17/18 37 Courtesy RP was upset that when she tried to
report a parking issue with her neighbor,
an officer was rude and failed to provide
her assistance.
Sgt. spoke with the employee and learned that the employee had
tried to explain to the angry RP the correct way to report her
issue and that it was handled by parking control and not EPD. RP
decided to file a complaint and she was directed to the Auditor's
Office. Sgt. left 4 voice messages for RP and did not receive a
return call.
4/11/18 5/23/18 42 Courtesy RP felt he was threatened with DHS by
an officer after they responded to a
possible physical dispute.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and reports and found that this incident
was the type that is forwarded to DHS. RP did not return voice
messages left by the Sgt.
4/12/18 5/3/18 21 Policy RP reported that he never gets follow up
when he reports crimes in his
neighborhood.
Sgt. spoke with RP who voiced that he was frustrated with the
service provided by EPD. The Sgt. agreed that he had every right
to feel frustrated and explained the staffing issues EPD is facing.
4/18/18 5/7/18 19 Courtesy RP reported an officer who refused to
allow one of his tow car drivers to take a
tow that had been called in by the cars
owner; RP also complained that the
officer went ballistic with the driver.
Sgt. reviewed the body cam and found that the officer was not
rude. Sgt. allowed RP to listen to the Audio of the body cam and
he agreed the officer was not rude or ballistic. RP requested that
the officer in the future inform tow drivers why they are not
being allowed to tow.
4/5/18 4/19/18 14 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported an issue with an officer who
is employed with another agency.
Dismissed: Outside jurisdiction
4/11/18 4/23/18 12 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported EPD electronically tracking
his vehicle.
Dismissed: Other
4/18/18 6/4/18 46 Performance RP raised concerns about how an
apparently unhoused person was
treated while being cited for trespass.
Review of body cam by the Sgt. found that officers had probable
cause to cite the person, and no policy violations were found.
4/19/18 4/23/18 4 Inquiry RP reported that he was only arrested
because he was Asian.
Sgt. spoke with RP, who admitted that he had paid someone to
break a window.
4/13/18 4/23/18 10 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP reported an incident in 2016 in which
he felt an officer lied on a police report.
Dismiss: Timeliness
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 14 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
4/2/18 6/1/18 59 Policy RP was unhappy with poor costumer
service about a burglary she
experienced.
Sgt. reviewed body cam, police reports and found that the case
was handled correctly, in that with no leads or evidence to
identify a suspect it was not turned over to a detective. A
supplemental report was also done after further information was
brought forth. Officer did a thorough investigation.
4/20/18 5/17/18 27 Courtesy RP was concerned about a call for
service in which her son was having a bi-
polar episode and officers used excessive
force, laughed and mocked her son.
Review of body cam show RP's son was unconscious on the floor,
and an officer used a knee to press into his back to keep him
prone only when the son came to and tried to get up before
medics were finished examining him. The force used was not
excessive. The conversation that RP believed was mocking her
son was not; the involved employee was speaking about an in-
service training and not talking or laughing about RP's son.
4/23/18 5/29/18 36 Performance RP was unhappy with an officer
threatening her teenage daughter with a
search, when she and friends were just
walking by where officers were making
an arrest.
Sgt. learned that it was a campus monitor who made the
comment to the girls, and not an EPD officer. Arrangements were
made for the officer and the monitor to speak with the girls.
4/18/18 6/1/18 43 Inquiry RP reported various conspiracy theories
related to officers involving landlord
trafficking and being abducted remotely.
Sgt. reviewed the police contact with RP and found that the
officer's report was factual, and he acted within the scope of his
authority. Sgt. spoke with RP about this report and provided
information on social services to RP.
4/26/18 4/30/18 4 Inquiry RP reported that EPD would not take his
report about how unhappy he was with
a tattoo and the skin reaction he had. RP
feels he was poisoned.
Lt. explained to RP that at this time there was no reportable
criminal activity that RP was describing. If in the future, more
information become available, such as blood tests showing a
probable cause for his symptoms he should re-contact EPD.
4/25/18 6/1/18 36 Policy RP was unhappy that an officer harassed
his employees selling things from his
booth that he had a permit for.
Cpt. reviewed the incident and found that RP had the wrong type
of permit for the type of booth. The interaction with the officer
and the employees was described by a witness as unremarkable,
with the officer being informative and professional. RP has since
obtained the correct permit.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 15 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
4/26/18 5/31/18 35 Performance RP reported an officer driving erratically.Sgt. reviewed body cam and ICV of the officer and found that
during the time of the complaint the officer was responding to
calls. Sgt. did not observe any behavior that was not within
policy. Sgt. spoke with RP about the incident.
4/30/18 5/3/18 3 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP was unhappy with being stopped by
EPD officers who searched his backpack
and then frisked him. RP felt he would
be going to jail if he didn't allow the
search.
Dismissed: Other Auditor's review of body cam of
the officers found no policy violations.
4/30/18 5/29/18 29 Performance RP inquired into what was happening in
a case in which he was assaulted.
Sgt. learned that the incident had been determined to be mutual
combat. Sgt. spoke with RP about the case.
4/30/18 6/5/18 35 Performance RP alleged that the reason she is not
getting help with a neighbor issue is that
an officer told her he is friends with the
neighbors.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and found no evidence of the officer
telling RP that he was friends with the neighbors. Sgt. spoke with
RP about his findings.
5/1/18 6/6/18 35 Inquiry Internally reported issue found during an
audit of improperly stored items.
Sgt. reviewed the issue and conducted re-training with
employee.
5/1/18 5/3/18 2 Policy RP inquired into the technology EPD
used to ping an electronic device. RP
feels that what they are using is not
accurate.
Sgt. spoke with RP who had an in-depth knowledge of the
technology available and talked about what EPD is using.
5/3/18 5/31/18 28 Policy RP was upset that when he reported an
incident no help was sent.
Supervisor reviewed the call and found that the call taker
handled the call correctly, processing it to dispatch while she was
still talking to RP. The suspect left the area, and RP told the call
taker no officer was needed. Supervisor spoke with RP about the
call and clarified with him that the call taker had started the
process behind the scene. RP felt that all involved would have
felt more assured if they had known that.
5/7/18 5/9/18 2 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP felt an investigation in to a daycare
was not handled appropriately.
Dismissed: Timeliness
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 16 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
5/3/18 5/31/18 28 Inquiry RP was concern about a disconnect
between his and his wife's calls about a
friend who needed Cahoots.
Supervisor reviewed the calls made by RP, and found the first
was disconnected by RP in order to take a call from his wife; the
call taker did not have enough information to dispatch. The
second call resulted in a dispatch to Cahoots, but was placed in
waiting as Cahoots had calls waiting. Supervisor spoke with RP
and addressed his concerns.
5/3/18 6/15/18 42 Performance RP was upset that an officer told the
person she had called about trespassing
that it was her that called.
Review of the body cam noted that the officer pointed at the
dumpster where the suspect had been trespassing, but at no
point did he say who had called. Sgt. spoke with RP about the
findings.
5/5/18 6/18/18 43 Inquiry RP observed an arrest of a woman in
which she felt officers used excessive
force.
Sgt. reviewed body cams of the incident and found in spite of the
resistance of the woman officers used only control holds to get
the woman into custody. Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings.
5/8/18 6/6/18 28 Performance RP reported an officer driving at a high
rate of speed with no lights and siren,
then followed him for 1/2 mile before
pulling him over.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and ICV of the stop and found that
officer had sped up and then moved close to RP to get the plate
number, then backed up to a safe distance. The officer then
made the stop when he had heard back from dispatch. No policy
violations were found in the stop.
5/8/18 6/5/18 27 Performance RP felt officers were dismissive of her
call for service about a dispute with her
roommate in which she was assaulted.
Sgt. reviewed police reports and body cams of officers and found
that the officer complete a thorough investigation and found a
mutually combative situation, which was explained to RP at the
scene. The officers acted respectfully and professionally with RP.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings.
5/8/18 6/13/18 35 Inquiry RP was unhappy with how the
investigation into a pedestrian accident
involving his son was handled by an
officer.
Sgt. spoke with RP about EPD policies in regard to traffic
accidents, noting that the officer followed policy.
5/8/18 6/22/18 44 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer did not
arrest the people RP had pointed out to
him who were shooting up in the alley.
Sgt. found that the officer observed the people in question and
showed no signs of drug use, hence he had no probable cause to
make an arrest. The officer explained that to RP at the time. RP
did not return calls.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 17 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
5/8/18 5/29/18 21 Performance RP was upset that an animal control
officer did not address a dog at large
issue in a city park.
Supervisor learned that the officer was in the middle of a contact
when RP approached him, when he finished the contacted and
went to address the issue the people involved had left the area.
RP did not return messages left by the Supervisor.
5/8/18 5/22/18 14 Performance RP was upset that he did not get a
response from EPD when he called to
report that his daughter's ex-boyfriend,
who had threatened RP's family, was
parked outside his home.
Supervisor reviewed calls made by RP's wife and found two calls
with her reporting the threats. A third call letting them know that
the suspect had left the area and no response was needed.
Supervisor spoke with RP about the calls and what EPD call takers
had done in the situation.
5/8/18 5/29/18 21 Performance RP was unhappy about how a officer
handled a call for service about stalking
by her ex.
Review of the body cam found that the officer did a complete
and professional investigation into the issue, finding no criminal
issue at this time. The officer spent time to provide RP with other
ideas on how to document the issue she was having. Sgt. spoke
with RP about his finding
5/9/18 5/14/18 5 Inquiry During the course of his arrest RP stated
that officers were racist and only
arrested him because he was black.
Lt. learned that RP was arrested with probable cause for stealing
a chainsaw from a construction site.
5/11/18 6/20/18 39 Service Level RP was unhappy that officer never
showed up about an issue with her
neighbors, even though she had
witnesses waiting to speak with them.
Sgt. found that because of call activity at the time an officer was
not dispatched until many hours later. After knocking three times
the officer left knowing that RP was probably sleeping. RP did
not return calls made by the Sgt.
5/11/18 6/13/18 32 Policy RP was unhappy that officers were
dispatched and not just Cahoots in
response for her call for service for help
with her son.
Supervisor reviewed the call and found that with in the
information provided in the call the call taker followed correct
procedure in dispatching officers. Supervisor spoke with RP and
explained how and why officers are dispatched vs. when only
Cahoots can be dispatched.
5/11/18 6/6/18 25 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer told his
employer medical information about RP
that RP did not authorize.
Review of body-worn cameras, police reports and the Civil Rights
HIPPA website found that the officer followed guidelines for
police personnel while speaking with the employer. Sgt. spoke
with RP about the findings.
5/15/18 6/20/18 35 Inquiry RP was unhappy with how an incident
with her husband and his employer was
handled.
Lt. found that no crime was committed against RP's husband and
that officers followed correct procedure in investigation the
situation. RP was unhappy with the findings.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 18 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
5/17/18 6/4/18 17 Courtesy RP alleged that an officer made a remark
about him being on meth, which is not
the case.
Review of body cam found RP to have been in the middle of a
mental health crisis and that the officer worked patiently with RP
to get him help. No such comment was noted on the body cam.
5/18/18 6/2/18 14 Inquiry RP reported an officer who stuck his foot
in his door so it could not be shut.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and found that the officer was
dispatched for a welfare check on RP's children and at one point
did place his foot in the threshold which a common tactic to
ensure a door is not forced closed during a contact. The officer
determined the children were safe and left the residence without
entering. No policy violation by the officer. Sgt. spoke with RP
about his findings.
5/18/18 6/4/18 16 Performance RP reported an officer using a cell phone
while driving.
Lt. attempted to contact RP to explain that police officers have
an exemption from the cell phone law, but did not receive a
return call.
5/18/18 6/22/18 34 Performance RP felt his burglary case was not
investigated properly.
Review of the case file by Sgt. found that the officer in question
did do follow-up into the burglary, and no policy violations were
found. RP was notified of the findings.
5/21/18 5/30/18 9 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP described an incident at the
Greyhound station where he was
questioned by officer for 4 hours.
Dismissed: Other
5/23/18 6/6/18 13 Performance RP was unhappy that a red light runner
was not cited even though they caused
an accident.
Sgt. found that in the non-injury accident officers followed policy,
and facilitated an information exchange. Sgt. spoke with RP
about EPD policy in traffic crashes.
5/23/18 7/2/18 39 Inquiry RP was unhappy that more charges were
not added to an acquaintance who came
into her home uninvited.
Review of the call by Supervisor found that the call did not follow
proper protocol, with new information not being relayed to
officers. The involved employee was coached and the Supervisor
spoke with RP about the incident.
5/27/18 6/7/18 10 Performance An officer missed briefing, without
making prior arrangements.
Sgt. handled as an internal performance issue.
5/29/18 5/30/18 1 Performance
Dismissed:
Other
RP didn't like a comment made by an
officer.
Dismissed: Other
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 19 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
5/29/18 7/10/18 41 Service Level RP was upset that an officer did not
make an arrest after a dispute with her
partner. RP felt it was a domestic
assault.
Review of the officer's report and body cam found that the
officer did not have enough probable cause to make an arrest at
the time of the incident. Sgt. spoke with RP and explained the
governing OR statute.
5/29/18 7/2/18 33 Performance RP reported that her son was told that
an inmate being released from jail had a
stolen gun in his belongings.
A review of ICV showed the arresting officer documenting the
contents of the bag belonging to the inmate, no gun was found.
Lt. contacted RP with the findings.
5/30/18 6/18/18 18 Service Level RP reported that a call taker would not
take a report about an incident in which
his son was threatened downtown.
Supervisor found that the caller should have been allowed to
give a phone report about the incident, even though an officer
would not have been sent out. The call taker a new employee
will be coached about the call. Supervisor spoke with RP about
her findings.
5/30/18 6/1/18 1 Other
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP was upset he got a park violation.Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
5/31/18 7/10/18 40 Performance RP was unhappy with how an officer
handled a situation in which he was
bitten by a pit bull in his neighborhood.
Sgt. found after reviewing body cam that the animal had not
bitten. RP was provided information about how to file a civil
action if he felt the need. The incident was documented and
forwarded to animal control.
5/31/18 6/4/18 4 Incident Review
Dismissed:
Other
RP alleged use of force by an officer. Review of body cam by Auditor's Office found no force used in
the incident. Dismissed: Other
5/31/18 6/18/18 18 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an off-duty officer
blocked her car in and threatened to give
her a citation for following to close.
Sgt. learned that the officer had been tailgated by RP and then
watched her tailgate another car in front of him which caused
her to have to drive into the median when the other driver
stopped quickly. Officers, even off-duty, have discretion on
whether to give citations, and the officer only intended to warn
RP about her driving. No policy violation found. Sgt. spoke with
RP.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 20 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
6/1/18 6/14/18 13 Conduct
Dismissed:
Outside
jurisdiction
RP was concerned about a silver
unmarked police vehicle that followed
her home.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
6/4/18 6/5/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP alleged an officer did not do his job
right in 2014.
Dismissed: Other
6/5/18 6/13/18 8 Performance RP alleged an officer was just trying to
show off to his friends when he hassled
RP for taking cans from a restaurant,
even though he had permission.
Sgt. learned that the officer had witnessed RP taking the cans
and was told by the waitress that he did not have permission;
later RP was released when another waitress came forward and
related that she had give RP permission. No policy violation by
the officer. Sgt. spoke with RP.
6/6/18 7/9/18 33 Performance RP alleged an officer dragged his
backpack with his vehicle.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and ICV and found that RP had left the
area on foot with the backpack before the officer got into his
vehicle.
6/7/18 6/20/18 13 Service Level RP was concerned that when he
reported a trespass situation at his
church, no one showed up for over 6
hours.
Supervisor reviewed the call logs and noted that for the day in
question, 332 law enforcement events were reported. At the
time of the RP's call no officer was available. Supervisor followed
up with RP about his concerns.
6/11/18 7/11/18 30 Performance RP reported an EPD vehicle that did not
stop to help a disabled vehicle in a busy
intersection.
Review of records found that the vehicle that was in the area at
the time was an animal control officer; dealing with a traffic issue
is outside of the scope of duties for this type of officer. CAD
details also mentioned the vehicle was in the break down lane
with its flashers on and not posing in immediate risk.
6/12/18 7/16/18 34 Performance RP reported an officer talking on a cell
phone while stopped at a light.
Sgt. tried to contact RP, with no call back. ORS811.507 provides
an exception for police employees using cell phones in the scope
of their employment.
6/15/18 7/23/18 38 Performance RP reported an incident in which her 19
year old daughter and friends were left
in an isolated area with a man who had
hit her car and had previously been
yelling at them.
Sgt. reviewed body cams of the officers involved and spoke with
RP about EPD policy concerning non injury accidents and steps
the officers had taken at the scene.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 21 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
6/18/18 8/2/18 44 Performance RP has been able to get in touch with an
officer in regards to a citation that was
issued to son under false information.
Sgt. learned that the officer had followed through with RP and
the situation had been resolved since she had been assigned the
complaint. Sgt. spoke with RP to verify.
6/18/18 7/5/18 17 Policy RP inquired into EPD's policy of releasing
a DUII driver after an accident in which
there had been a fatality.
Sgt. left a messaging with RP detailing situations where an
immediate arrest might not take place.
6/18/18 7/18/18
30
Inquiry RP felt he could not get anyone at EPD to
take seriously an issue he was having
with a juvenile on parole who had
previous assaulted him.
Supervisor reached out to RP and spoke with him about his
concerns.
6/15/18 6/26/18 11 Performance
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP alleged officers would not look into a
drug dealer who was threatening him
with a gun.
Dismissed: Timeliness
6/25/18 8/7/18 42 Performance RP felt an officer was trespassing her due
to her race.
Sgt. found that the officer had been dispatched to the location
because of a complaint with no knowledge of the race of the
person involved. The owner of the property had asked RP to
leave and RP refused. No policy violations by the officer. Sgt.
spoke with RP.
6/21/18 7/26/18 35 Performance RP reported an off duty officer at the
court house parking in a reserved space.
Sgt. spoke with the officer about the concern, and explained that
in future he needed to use a metered spot or a patrol vehicle
when attending court.
6/21/18 7/31/18 40 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer used her
business driveway to make a traffic stop.
Sgt. reviewed body cam of the stop and found that the vehicles
were off to one side of the driveway and not completely blocking
it. Sgt. spoke with RP about the stop and that the officer had not
violated policy, but would pass along her request that stops were
not conducted in her driveway if possible.
6/21/18 7/16/18 25 Courtesy RP was unhappy that an officer
threatened her with a citation for the
misuse of 911.
Sgt. reviewed bodycam and found that RP had called in two
separate false reports to 911, during the second contact RP was
informed of the misuse of 911 law and advised she could receive
a citation. No policy violations by the officer. RP did not return
calls by the Sgt.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 22 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
6/22/18 6/27/18 5 Performance
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP alleged an officer did not iron out his
issues with LTD.
Dismissed: Timeliness
6/26/18 7/16/18 20 Courtesy RP reported an officer who responsed
"Alligator Bite" to a question about what
was going on in his neighborhood
Sgt. spoke with the officer who admitted it was a bad attempt at
humor and apologized for upsetting RP with the comment. Sgt.
spoke with RP about the incident.
6/22/18 6/29/18 7 Courtesy RP felt an officer was rude and would
not listen to his side of the story when
he was being trespassed from a store.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and found that the officer took the time
to go into the store and review the security tape, and then (at
the request of the store manager) issued the trespass notice.
6/27/18 7/16/18 19 Performance RP was unhappy that when she has
called EPD about issues near her
Conestoga Hut she rarely gets service,
but when she had a slight altercation
with a woman near her home and that
person called officers showed right up.
RP wonders if it's because she is
homeless.
Sgt. spoke with RP about how calls are prioritized and that a call
about drug activity and smoking near her Conestoga hut would
be a lower priority than an active dispute call and that calls are
not prioritized by the status of the complainant.
6/28/18 8/13/18 45 Performance RP was unhappy with the length of time
it took for an officer to respond to his
tenants call for service regarding racial
and sexually biased language from a
roommate.
Sgt. reviewed the incident and found that an officer had
responded the next day and taken a report. In one of the
situations, the tenant had declined to press charges. Sgt.
contacted RP and spoke to him about the findings.
6/28/18 7/9/18 11 Courtesy RP reported officers were rude when she
questioned them about an incident she
was observing.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and found that officers were
professional but direct in requesting RP to move back from the
situation.
6/28/18 7/13/18 15 Inquiry RP was unhappy that her 15 year old son
was given a citation for crossing the
street against a light. RP noted that cars
can turn after checking for traffic.
Sgt. reviewed the body cam of the officer who issued the citation
which clearly showed RP's son cross a busy intersection against
the light. Sgt. spoke with RP about the safety issue to her son in
this incident and the law that allows citations for disregarding a
pedestrian cross signal.
7/2/18 8/1/18 29 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP emailed about a friend who had a bad
experience with EPD but provided no
date, time or details of the situation.
Dismissed: Other RP did not response to
an email to provide further detail.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 23 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
7/2/18 7/10/18 8 Performance RP was concerned about inaccuracies in
police report.
Lt. reviewed body cam, which contradicted RP's account of the
incident. Body cam confirmed the officer's account in the police
report. Lt. spoke with RP about the findings.
7/2/18 7/11/18 9 Service Level RP was unhappy that after being
instructed by call takers to not touch
anything after a burglary no officer
showed up for 9 hours.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the staffing shortage at EPD and that he
had every right to be frustrated with the time of service.
7/3/18 7/17/18 14 Service Level RP reported calling EPD in response to a
couple of people setting up camp in the
grass strip across from his house.
Officers eventually arrived 40 hours after
he called.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the staffing shortage at EPD and
understood RP's frustration.
7/5/18 8/6/18 31 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer did not
arrest her ex-husband.
Review of the body cams of officers found that the situation that
RP was reporting was civil. The officers involved provided that
explanation to RP. Sgt. had officers submit a report on the
findings.
6/30/18 7/6/18 6 Performance RP alleged an officer blew off an
investigation.
Review of body cams showed the officer conducting a thorough
investigation, but when told the outcome RP became
argumentative with the officer, who eventually walked away.
7/5/18 7/10/18 5 Performance RP was unhappy that officers only
confiscated illegal fireworks from
neighbors but did not cite them.
Lt. learned that officer did not witness the neighbors actually
setting off the fireworks so could not cite them. The officer did
gain compliance from the neighbors to give them up. Lt. spoke
with RP about the issue.
7/5/18 8/13/18 38 Courtesy RP reported an officer who was rude and
condescending when she tried to speak
with him about a citation.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the situation surrounding the citation
and why the officer had not waived it.
7/5/18 7/6/18 1 Inquiry RP inquired into how officers interpret
the park rules.
Auditor's Office provided RP with a print out of the City of
Eugene Park ordinances.
7/6/18 7/10/18 4 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP was unhappy about a citation given
for his puppy.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 24 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
7/5/18 9/11/18 66 Policy RP alleged that he had witnessed
selective enforcement by EPD.
RP did not return calls from the Cpt. to provide further
information and details about the allegation.
7/5/18 8/22/18 47 Performance RP reported her son being grabbed from
behind by an adult and claw marks being
left on his neck. RP felt officers were
unprofessional when they responded.
Review of body cam showed officers made the correct judgment
that no crime had been committed. RP did not respond to calls or
texts from the Sgt.
7/6/18 8/20/18 44 Inquiry RP was unhappy that EPD would not
release a police report.
Supervisor reviewed the situation and learned that ORS rules
exemption release of reports that have been forwarded to DHS.
RP was provided with contact information to DHS and informed
that the DA's office could ordered the report released.
7/7/18 8/20/18 43 Inquiry RP was upset that officers used his
parking lot with lights activated for
about 30 minutes.
Sgt. learned that the officer was part of a perimeter set up for a
hit and run incident. RP spoke with RP about the officer's reason
for being in the parking lot.
7/9/18 7/10/18 1 Performance
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP felt a police report from 2016
contained errors.
Dismissed: Timeliness
7/9/18 8/6/18 27 Performance RP reported an officer who had not
returned phone calls.
Sgt. spoke with officer about phone management and contact
RP.
7/10/18 7/1/18 -9 Inquiry
Dismiss: Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported an issue with an outside
agency.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
7/10/18 7/11/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP reported an officer following him in
2017.
Dismissed: Timeliness
7/10/18 7/12/18 2 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP provided a copy of a letter stating
various agencies had labeled him a
danger to himself and others, and then
stated he thought EPD had also.
Dismissed: Other
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 25 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
7/11/18 7/26/18 15 Service Level RP reported calling EPD about a man
sleeping in his yard and would not leave.
The next morning the guy was gone but
he never heard a word from EPD.
Sgt. found that an officer was dispatched and made contact with
the man, but was then dispatched to a high priority call he did
not make contact with RP. Sgt. spoke with RP about her findings.
7/12/18 7/13/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP called about ducks in the roadway on
Delta Hwy.
Dismissed: Other
7/12/18 8/28/18 46 Performance RP was unhappy that officers allowed a
man who was still high to drive off in his
vehicle.
Cpt. reviewed the incident, officers found no drugs at the scene,
the man did not want medical assistance and officers had no
legal right to detain him. The man was cautioned not to drive.
Cpt. spoke with RP about the findings and the reason officers
took the action they did.
7/12/18 8/16/18 34 Performance RP was unhappy that more people in the
chain of his stolen bicycle did not get
charged.
Lt. learned that the original person who stole the bike was
charged but the DA declined to press charges. St. spoke with RP
about the incident.
7/13/18 7/18/18 5 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP was upset that a woman was
escorted out of the Dead Concert and
that EPD would not send someone to
jump his vehicle after the concert.
Dismissed: Other
7/13/18 8/6/18 23 Inquiry RP watched a whole swarm of officers
show up for a incident in which a woman
reached into her bag for a water bottle.
It seemed a waste of resources for a
bottle.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and found that a lone officer confronted
a group of people trespassing, asked them to leave, a woman in
the group began reaching for an unknown object in her backpack
and continued after the officer requested she stop. The officer
requested emergency cover. No policy violations were noted. RP
did not return calls.
7/16/18 8/23/18 37 Courtesy RP had a interaction with an officer who
insinuated he had done something
wrong by throwing his dog's business in
a trash can in which the occupants had
recently moved.
Sgt. found that the officer had been dispatched to the area for a
trespass complaint by the owner. RP was upset that the officer
was being accusatory, but RP was on private property. A
performance issue with the giving of the officer's badge number
was noted and addressed with the officer. RP did not return
phone calls.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 26 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
7/17/18 8/13/18 26 Service Level RP inquired into why his employee's call
for service about a disturbance in their
parking lot took two hours for a
response by EPD.
Sgt. spoke with RP about the call log and officer staffing issues
that EPD is experiencing and the triage that takes place when
dispatching calls.
7/19/18 8/6/18 17 Inquiry RP was cited for parking her vehicle for
an extended amount of time at the
airport loading zone and felt the citation
was because of her race.
Sgt. reviewed records and video's of the incident and found that
RP had been parked at the terminal for over 40 min and when
asked to move by an employee, only moved farther up the lane.
The citation was given due to the infraction.
7/20/18 7/25/18 5 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported issues with a report from
2011.
Dismissed: Other
7/23/18 8/13/18 20 Inquiry RP was unhappy that she must leave a
place if a person who has a restraining
order against her comes to the
establishment even if she was there first.
Sgt. intended to give RP information on the retraining order
requirements but did not receive a return call from RP.
7/23/18 8/28/18 35 Service Level RP was unhappy with EPD's response to
illegal camping in her neighborhood.
Sgt. found that the two times RP had called, call load for officers
did not allow them to respond to a non emergency complaint.
Sgt. spoke with RP about EPD's call load and how calls are
prioritized. Sgt. offered an explanation to how the St. Vincent
program works in regard to illegal camping.
7/23/18 8/28/18 35 Inquiry RP was upset officers did not arrest
someone that harassed them for a hate
crime.
Lt. learned that RP had gotten in an altercation with a man, and
when another man stepped in to help, RP pepper sprayed him,
causing him to let out a string of expletives. RP was the
aggressor, and officers found no probable cause to cite the man.
RP did not return calls to discuss the situation.
7/24/18 7/25/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported being denied his medication
at the Lane County Jail.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 27 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
7/25/18 7/27/18 2 Courtesy
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported a Cahoots employee who
she felt was rude.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
7/25/18 8/1/18 6 Inquiry RP claimed he was held in the back of a
patrol car for an excessive amount of
time.
Sgt. reviewed body cam of RP in the patrol car and found that he
was in the vehicle less than 6 minutes, in the early morning hour,
with the vehicle parked in the shade. Temperature was 60
degrees. No policy violation. RP did not return calls.
7/11/18 8/30/18 49 Inquiry RP was unhappy with a conversation she
had with officers on a downtown street.
Supervisor was with officers at the time of the interaction and
found them to be cordial with RP while asking her to be aware of
the volume and tone of her songs and the effect it was having on
other citizens. No Policy violation.
7/24/18 8/9/18 15 Incident Review Internal complaint that an officer had
interfered in another officer's project.
Determined to be a performance issue and forwarded to
supervisor.
7/28/18 8/13/18 15 Inquiry RP reported that he was threatened with
retaliation if he pursued a case in which
the officer determined was non-criminal.
Body cam review showed the officer being professional and
respectful, spending more than two hours investigating RP's
complaint, making no threats of retaliation. Sgt. spoke with RP
about the findings.
7/26/18 8/1/18 5 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP spoke at length about issue that had
happened in 2009.
Dismissed: Timeliness
7/27/18 8/14/18 17 Inquiry RP reported finding an Oregon DOJ
website that listed her ex-husband's
date of death by a police shooting with a
4 day discrepancy.
Investigation of the website found that by Oregon law police
agencies must report the incident date of a police deadly use of
force, this date was erroneously listed as date of death. RP's ex
actually died a few days later in the hospital. The DOJ was
notified about the discrepancy. The Auditor's officer notified RP
about the findings.
7/30/18 8/30/18 30 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer in charge
of his theft case was not returning calls.
Sgt. reviewed the case and found that it had been investigated
thoroughly by the officer, who found no probable cause to arrest
the suspect. Sgt. also learned that the officer had been under
the impression that once he had been issued a cell phone he no
longer needed to maintain his voice line. Sgt. spoke with RP
about the confusion and about the outcome of his case.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 28 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
7/30/18 8/1/18 1 Performance
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported two officers who failed to
help a motorist in distress.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
7/25/18 8/1/18 6 Inquiry RP alleged that an officer who had been
questioning her about her mental health
state only did so because of her race.
Review of body cam showed that the officer did not appear to
make decisions about the incident because of RP's race. RP
declined to provide identifying information for follow up.
7/30/18 8/13/18 13 Service Level RP was unhappy that no officer was
dispatched in a rear end collision.
Sgt. spoke with RP about EPD policies in regard to traffic
accidents, with no response for non injury accidents.
7/31/18 9/6/18 36 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer showed
up at the hospital 3 hours after she was
assaulted and told her she would be
cited if she tried to press charges.
Body cam revealed that the officer followed policy in his
investigation and the conversation with RP was not as RP
explained. Sgt. attempted to speak with RP, who was unhappy
with EPD and hung up on the Sgt.
7/31/18 9/11/18 41 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer did not
cite another driver in which she felt was
a road rage issue.
Sgt. learned that the officer spoke with both drivers and
facilitated an information exchange, but could not cite either
driver without witnesses. No policy violations were found. RP
did not return voice messages.
8/1/18 9/10/18 39 Inquiry RP was upset with an officer who failed
to arrest the suspects who had jumped
her son, causing a broken jaw.
Sgt. reviewed police report and body cams of the incident and
found that the officer conducted a through investigation,
speaking with RP her son and other witnesses. Camera phone
video was found and reviewed. The issue was found to be mutual
combat and body cam refuted many of the statements RP made
in her allegation. Sgt. spoke with RP about the incident.
8/2/18 8/3/18 1 Performance
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP was unhappy that officer did not
allow him to retrieve items from his
vehicle that had been towed.
Dismissed: Timeliness
8/2/18 8/16/18 14 Inquiry RP inquired in to how a restraining order
was handled by an officer.
Review of body cam showed the officer handled the situation
correctly. Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings and provided
ideas that might help mitigate the issue she is having.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 29 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
8/6/18 11/29/18 113 Inquiry RP reported a concern about how her
elderly mother was treated after the
death of her father.
Lt. reviewed reports and body cams of the incident and found
that officers tried to contact someone to stay with RP's mother
and failing that make her as comfortable as possible before they
cleared the scene. Some of RP's concerns related to how the
Medical Examiner's office failed to follow up with RP. Lt. spoke
with officers to provide further training on what they might have
done to insure RP's mother was not left alone at the scene.
8/6/18 8/13/18 7 Service Level RP was unhappy that officers could not
have investigated more to find out who
was shooting off fireworks in his
neighborhood.
Sgt. spoke with RP about how officers had responded to the area
and seeing and hearing nothing had closed the call. RP explained
EPD's call load and how they do not have the man power to
investigate this type of issue by knocking on every door in the
area.
8/6/18 8/7/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported undercover officers
following him.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
8/6/18 9/14/18 38 Inquiry RP reported an officer who he feels is
racially profiling him, after RP was cited
for violation of park rules and the white
man RP was with was not cited.
Review of the body cam of the incident shows that RP when
approached was smoking in the park, as the officer began to
speak with him about it, RP became argumentative, a citation
was issued for the park violation. The other man was not
observed violating a park rule hence was not cited. Sgt. called RP
to discuss the issue.
8/6/18 9/27/18 51 Performance RP is frustrated with the response by
EPD into illegal camping issues.
Sgt. spoke with RP about how EPD prioritized calls for service.
8/8/18 8/23/18 15 Performance RP reported a motorcycle officer
speeding on Beltline.
Officer advised he may have been speeding in order to catch up
to a car in violation of a traffic law, but did not remember
specifics from that day. RP was anonymous and no further
information was available.
8/2/18 8/15/18 13 Inquiry RP alleged that officers punched him in
the face and that the contact with him
was due to his race.
Sgt. reviewed police report and body cam and found that officers
were dispatched to a motel with RP who was intimidating and
yelling racial slurs at the motel manager. RP was not punched by
any officer. Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 30 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
8/13/18 8/29/18 16 Inquiry RP alleged that he was arrested because
he was black.
Sgt. had also responded to the scene when RP had alleged he
was arrested because he was black. The officer had been
dispatched for a call for trespassing which was why RP was
arrested. No policy violations.
8/14/18 10/5/18 51 Performance RP was unhappy with an officer that did
not call him back with information about
his case and appears to have a voicemail
box that is full.
Sgt. reviewed information about the incident and found that the
officer had been able to recover RP's belongings but was waiting
for fingerprints to return before making an arrest. Once a
complaint was filed the officer was directed to not contact RP.
The Sgt. spoke with RP and updated him on the case.
8/14/18 8/20/18 6 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP alleged that officers used excessive
on the arrest of her son, because of his
African American/American Indian
heritage.
Dismissed: Other Review of police reports and
body cams by the Auditor's Office found no Policy Violations by
officers.
8/14/18 8/20/18 6 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP alleged that an officer awoke her by
rubbing his fist on her ribs, and then
excessive force was used to arrest her.
Dismissed: Other Preliminary review by
Auditor found allegations to be false.
8/13/18 9/18/18 35 Service Level RP was unhappy how officers addressed
an issue of an ex-boyfriend handling a
gun around her and how long it took for
officers to respond.
Review of the incident found that the call takers had triaged the
call correctly and that officers had made the correct call on not
citing or arresting RP's boyfriend.
8/15/18 8/15/18 0 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP was upset with an officer who
questioned him after he was assaulted in
2017.
Dismissed: Timeliness
8/11/18 8/28/18 17 Performance RP reported an officer who did not use
turn signals.
Sgt. spoke with the officer about being mindful of using signals.
Sgt. contacted RP about the issue.
8/16/18 9/27/18 41 Service Level RP is unhappy with the response to calls
about illegal camping in front of her
property.
Sgt. drove the area in question and noted no violation at the
time. Sgt. spoke with RP and learned that the campers had just
recently been contacted and had moved on. Sgt. suggested RP
continue to call in if the problem reoccurs.
8/18/18 8/20/18 2 Performance RP was unhappy that officer would not
take the enforcement action he wanted.
Review of body cams found that the officers were professional
and took the appropriate action for the situation. Sgt. spoke
with RP.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 31 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
8/17/18 9/26/18 39 Policy RP inquired into why EPD will not waive
the fee for body cam video.
Supervisor advised RP of the steps to appeal denial of the release
of the body cam.
8/17/18 9/6/18 19 Inquiry RP was unhappy he was stopped by
officers who were supposedly looking for
someone who had stolen a bike, he feels
like he was racially profiled because he is
brown.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and found that the officers were polite
and professional while speaking to RP who matched a description
of someone who had stolen a bait bike in the area. Once the
officers determined RP was not the suspect he was free to go.
8/20/18 9/17/18 27 Performance RP was unhappy that officer failed to cite
a man who was urinating in front of his
apartment building; the man got in an
argument with RP and RP's wife, and RP
was punched in the face.
Sgt. found that the officer did a through investigation and that
witnesses and the other party did not see a physical altercation
between the parties. Due to the officer not witnessing the
urinating no citation was issued. The officer explained this
situation to RP. The Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings.
8/16/18 8/22/18 6 Performance RP reported his client was missing
property after stealing the EPD bait car it
was not returned to him after he was
arrested.
Lt. found that the bag had turned up missing and that if probably
had been taken by the next suspect who had stolen the bait car.
RP was directed to Risk Services.
8/22/18 8/28/18 6 Performance RP was unhappy with an officer's
demeanor when speaking to him about
jaywalking.
Sgt. reviewed bodycam of the incident and spoke with the
officer. RP was anonymous so no follow up was conducted.
8/22/18 10/25/18 63 Performance RP felt officer did not take an incident in
which his roommate pulled a knife
seriously.
Sgt. reviewed body cam of the interaction with RP and found that
the officers made the correct call with the information available
at the time. RP did not return voice messages.
8/22/18 9/14/18 22 Policy RP is unhappy that he cannot get a
response to illegal camping and a bicycle
chop shop sprawled across the sidewalk
near his business.
Sgt. spoke with RP about EPD's call load and the prioritization of
calls. RP was notified that the campers had been contacted that
morning and had moved on for now.
8/22/18 8/23/18 1 Use of Force
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP alleged officer used excessive force
by not undoing his handcuffs during a
DUII arrest.
Dismissed: Timeliness
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 32 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
8/23/18 9/24/18 31 Inquiry RP was upset that when she was pulled
over for not having a light on her bike,
they discovered she had bought it from a
party that had stolen the bike. The bike
was confiscated and she was left to walk
home in the dark.
Review of body cam showed that the officers did confiscate the
bike once they learned it was stolen and RP did not ask for
assistance in transportation. Sgt. spoke with RP about the
incident.
8/24/18 9/25/18 31 Policy RP inquired in to EPD's policy concerning
trespass and who and who is not a
tenant.
Sgt. contacted RP and answered questions he had about the
issue.
8/24/18 8/27/18 3 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP was unhappy with being given a park
warning and said she witnessed officers
breaking the door of a motorhome.
Dismissed: Other Review by Auditor found
allegation about the door to be false, and other parties with RP
admitted to the park violation.
8/27/18 10/5/18 38 Performance RP was unhappy with an interaction with
an officer when she called about a
trespasser. The officer was unconcerned
about her safety and showed obvious
disrespect for his own department.
Supervisor spoke with the officer about the interaction and
advised of more responsive ways to interact with citizens.
8/27/18 9/26/18 29 Performance RP was unhappy that officers did not cite
her boyfriend's ex with assault when she
threw a beer bottle at RP
Sgt. reviewed body cam of the incident and found that officers
conducted a complete and through investigation and found that
no one actually saw the bottle hit RP and RP had no marks
indicating that she had been struck. Due to no probable cause
officers did not cite or arrest. RP did not return phone calls to
speak about the findings.
8/28/18 9/19/18 21 Inquiry RP alleged officer kicked him in the ankle
to wake him up.
Review of video showed the officer tapped RP on the shoe to
wake RP who was dozing off in the booking room. No policy
violation noted.
8/27/18 9/5/18 8 Courtesy
Dismissed:
Other
RP was unhappy that officers forced him
to do a sobriety test when he had not
been drinking and had only taken some
medication and treated him unkindly.
Dismissed: Other Review of Body cam and
police reports by the Auditor found no policy violations.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 33 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
8/29/18 10/3/18 34 Service Level RP reported that officers did not take a
report when she tried to speak to them
about a threat that was made against
her.
Supervisor found that the information provided by RP at the time
was very vague and a crime was not articulated by RP, so no
report was generated. Sgt. spoke with RP's mother, and left a
message for RP.
8/29/18 9/11/18 12 Conduct RP reported being intimidated by EPD
officers and that during his arrest he was
inappropriately touched.
Review by Internal Affairs and the Auditor's Office of police
reports, body cams and ICV's found no merit to RP's allegations.
8/30/18 9/4/18 4 Inquiry RP reported getting the run around
when he tried to get records involving a
citation he was issued.
Supervisor contacted RP and provide RP the information needed
to proceed with his records request.
8/24/18 9/4/18 10 Policy RP was unhappy that a prohibited
camping violation was given.
Sgt. reviewed the incident and found that the occupants of the
vehicle admitted to camping illegally in the city. No policy
violations were made by the officer. Sgt. spoke with RP about the
findings.
8/31/18 9/4/18 4 Other
Dismissed:
Other
RP asked for a supervisor to file a
complaint, but due to RP's disorderly
behavior, RP was taken directly to
segregation at the jail.
Dismissed: Other Per Auditor will be reopened
if RP makes contact.
9/4/18 10/5/18 31 Performance RP was unhappy that his ex-wife was not
arrested after trespassing on his
property.
Sgt. reviewed body cam of the officer's investigation and found
that they correctly identified probable cause for the trespassing
and cited RP's ex-wife in lieu of arrest. No policy violations were
found. Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings.
9/5/18 9/6/18 1 Conduct
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported an officer who he felt
pressured him to confess to stealing
from his landlord and then arrested him
without proof.
Dismissed: Other Review by Auditor of
police report and body cam found that the officer completed a
through investigation and developed probable cause to arrest RP
for theft.
9/4/18 9/6/18 2 Performance
Dismissed:
Other
RP complained about the level of service
he received from EPD because they
called him back from a blocked number
and did not handle a dispute he was in
the way he expected.
Dismissed: Other Auditor's review of police report
found that EPD officers had handled the incident appropriately.
No policy violations found.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 34 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
9/5/18 10/3/18 28 Inquiry RP reported an incident he observed
downtown in which officers were
interacting with a large African American
man, one officer called the man big boy.
Sgt. learned that officers made contact with the man due to him
menacing people with a large stick. The officer was able to talk
to the man calming him and officers did not have to use force to
arrest him. By using calm reassuring tones the officer de-
escalated the situation. The body cam showed that the officer
was using the language in regard to the man's size and not in an
intentionally derogatory way.
9/5/18 10/16/18 41 Policy RP felt that the motorcycle officers
posted downtown should be setting a
better example and no riding on the
sidewalk or blocking pedestrian
crossings. He also found them to be
condescending when he spoke with
them about it.
Sgt. reviewed the complaint and reached out to RP who did not
return voicemails. Sgt. noted that in carrying out their duties
officer at times do block crosswalks and even have their cycles on
the sidewalk.
9/6/18 9/11/18 5 Inquiry RP alleged a female officer dislocated
her shoulder.
Sgt. review of the incident found no female officer was on the
scene and that RP was highly intoxicated during the incident.
9/6/18 10/16/18 40 Policy RP was unhappy that officers awoke her
at 0600 and told her she had to move.
RP was not on private property.
Sgt. reviewed body cams and found the officers to be polite and
professional with RP, explained the reason for the contact and
educated RP on the court ruling that had been handed down, but
did not apply to her in this situation. Sgt. spoke with RP about
the contact.
9/10/18 10/1/18 21 Performance RP reported a suicidal female in the
street, with no response from EPD.
Call records reviewed by the supervisor found that the call takers
had in deed followed protocol and had dispatched Cahoots to
help the woman. The supervisor found that one call taker did not
inform RP that Cahoots was on scene when she called back.
9/11/18 9/14/18 3 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP alleged an officer tried to tell him he
couldn't text a friend who is a Sheriff's
Deputy.
Dismissed: Other Review by the Auditor
found no conversation in which the officer told RP he could not
text his friend.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 35 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
9/12/18 9/18/18 6 Performance RP is having trouble getting his property
released from property control.
Supervisor reviewed the records and found that employees
followed procedure in the release of the property, which includes
getting a release from involved officers. Supervisor spoke with
RP's father to relay the information and instructions for
proceeding.
9/13/18 9/14/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP requested a further look in to her
son's death.
Dismissed: Other Review of reports and body
cam by the Auditor found the medical examiner took over the
investigation at the scene and further review must be done
through that office.
9/13/18 9/21/18 8 Incident Review
Performance
RP was unhappy with an interaction with
police and dispatchers when she called
about a man sleeping in front of her
office doorway.
Sgt. learned that because of call load officers were not
dispatched for an hour after the initial call. Call takers were
professional and courteous with RP and attempted to explain the
issue to RP. Sgt. spoke with RP about her concerns and provided
advice on how to handle similar issues in the future.
9/6/18 9/17/18 11 Performance RP was upset how officers handled an
incident in the stands at a Duck game.
Lt. reviewed body cam and found that the officer had missed a
key detail about the situation which lead to RP becoming upset
with the officer. Lt. spoke with RP about his findings and went
over the situation with the officer.
9/14/18 10/11/18 27 Inquiry RP is unhappy that an officer will not
assist her in getting a LTD video of a man
who ran over her foot on the bus.
Sgt. learned that the officer had extensively investigated the
issue and found that is was a civil issue with no criminal element.
Sgt. explained the situation to RP and provided information
about filing a civil court claim.
9/14/18 10/19/18 35 Performance RP was unhappy that officers refused to
give her the contact information for the
other driver in an accident.
Sgt. reviewed the incident and found that the officer had
completed a police report. Body cam showed the officer spoke
with RP and explained how to get the report and were polite and
courteous with RP. Sgt. found that the officers in the name of
customer service should have also provided the information to
RP at the scene.
9/17/18 10/15/18 28 Performance RP were unhappy that an officer would
not verify insurance information after an
accident.
Sgt. spoke with RP about EPD policy of only facilitating
information exchange and not doing a report for non injury
accidents.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 36 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
9/18/18 10/16/18 28 Other RP was upset that EPD vehicles driving
down his street will turn on their sirens
and then turn them off for no apparent
reason. RP feels this is misconduct as it is
disturbing.
Sgt. found that RP lived on a main east/west thoroughfare in the
city and that the sirens were police, fire and medical emergency
vehicles using the road. Sgt. spoke with RP about his concern.
9/19/18 9/20/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP was upset that she was cited for
prohibited camping, even though she
was on public property.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
9/20/18 9/20/18 0 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported an officer who did not help
a member of the community with a
quick phone call.
Dismissed: Other Review by the
Auditor's office of body cam found officer was helping the man
on a civil stand by and went beyond what he needed to try and
help the citizen.
9/4/18 9/20/18 16 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP sent a video to EPD showing an
interaction with officers but did not
provide a complaint or context.
Dismissed: Other
9/20/18 10/25/18 35 Inquiry RP requested to talk to a supervisor
about EPD's new system to identify
marijuana impairment.
RP did not return voicemails to speak to a supervisor about the
policy.
9/21/18 11/27/18 66 Performance RP was unhappy that after an officer
helped call him a tow for his disabled
vehicle, the tow company would not
take his insurance.
Sgt. reviewed the issue and found that the way the officer called
in the tow RP should have been able to use his insurance and
that information has been provided to Risk Services. Sgt. spoke
with RP about his findings.
9/24/18 10/15/18 21 Policy RP was unhappy with the response time
to a situation at her daycare center.
Review by Supervisor found that the call takers triaged the call
correctly and dispatched officers as a quickly as they were
available. Supervisor contacted RP and walked her through the
steps that were taken.
9/26/18 10/15/18 19 Performance RP has not been able to get a return call
from an officer about her case.
Sgt. found that while the officer had tried to speak with RP, his
voicemail was not working correctly and had not received her
return calls. Sgt. spoke with RP and answered her questions
about the case.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 37 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
9/23/18 10/16/18 23 Inquiry RP reported an officer who watched him
training his dog for over an hour and
then finally told him it couldn't be off
leash. RP fells it's because he's Hispanic
looking.
Sgt. was unable to identify the officer involved and RP did not
return voicemails seeking further clarification.
9/27/18 10/1/18 4 Performance RP reported she could not get a call back
from an officer handling her case.
Sgt. learned that the officer had been out on vacation and when
he had returned and tried to contact RP various times the phone
rang and rang with no voicemail option.
9/14/18 9/28/18 14 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported an officer harassing his
family and showing up were they were
at.
Dismissed: Other
9/29/18 10/8/18 9 Policy RP a loss prevention specialist was upset
that they have not been able to
prosecute shop lifters as EPD is too busy
to come when they have apprehended a
suspect.
Sgt. spoke with RP about EPD's staffing issues and what solutions
that were in the pipeline, such as the new full time employee
hires that should begin to alleviate the situation.
10/4/18 10/8/18 4 Performance RP reported an officer who was rude and
dismissive when told about an elderly
vet that had fallen down a hill. The
officer said an ambulance would be
dispatched but one did not show up.
After review of Bodycam by the Auditor's Officer of the incident
no policy violations were seen as the officer called for medical
help and an ambulance arrived within 5 minutes and was unable
to find the injured man. It was learned that the man's family
arrived and transported him to the hospital.
10/4/18 10/8/18 4 Courtesy RP complained to a supervisor about a
rude comment an officer typed into his
in-car computer.
Sgt. spoke with RP and reviewed the communication in question
on the screen and found that it was not within EPD's courtesy
policy. Sgt. spoke with the officer as the RP had requested.
10/4/18 10/10/18 6 Policy RP was upset that EPD would not come
out and make a report about his traffic
accident.
Sgt. spoke with RP and outlined EPD's policy regarding response
to traffic accidents.
10/5/18 10/8/18 3 Policy RP reported a police vehicle blocking the
road without lights activated.
Review of time and location provided by RP found no patrol
vehicle checked out at the location. RP did not leave name or
contact info for a call back.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 38 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
10/4/18 10/23/18 19 Inquiry RP inquired if EPD could post more
notifications when using an old school
for training. It causes anxiety if people
are not aware it is a training exercise.
Capt. Reviewed the information provided by RP and noted that
signs are posted, but will make supervisors aware of the concern.
10/8/18 11/13/18 35 Performance RP was unhappy with the handling of a
case involving her car being vandalized
and getting no response from the officer.
Sgt. spoke with officer about RP's case and found the officer had
done some follow up but had been unable to view a security
video. The officer then followed up with this detail after speaking
with the Sgt. Sgt. spoke with RP.
10/10/18 11/7/18 27 Policy RP was upset that an officer threatened
him with eluding if he moved his
motorhome a short distance to a lot
nearby.
Sgt. reviewed the incident and found that the officer never
threatened such action, but did not allow RP to move the vehicle
due to no insurance and that he had be served a 24th hour
notice and had not complied, requiring the officer to take
enforcement action. RP did not return voicemails.
10/10/18 10/18/18 8 Inquiry RP was unhappy that EPD was unwilling
to look into a sexual assault of her
disabled non-verbal child.
Lt. found that the officer attempted to arrange an interview of
the child but was advised by trained forensic interviewers that
because of the nature of the type of information needed from
the child it could not be done. RP was provided access to
support services for her child.
10/12/18 10/17/18 5 Inquiry RP felt an officer was rude during a
traffic stop.
Sgt. reviewed body cam and found the stop made by the officer
to be professional and respectful even though RP was
argumentative and disrespectful to the officer. Sgt. spoke with
RP about his findings.
10/12/18 11/20/18 38 Service Level RP was upset that a call taker blew him
off when he reported a neighbor verbally
harassing him.
Supervisor reviewed the call and found that the call taker give RP
the correct information, that what he was describing was a free
speech issue and officers would not be dispatched. The call taker
was professional with RP. RP did not return calls.
10/15/18 11/27/18 42 Inquiry RP was unhappy that EPD would not
handle a noise complaint issue with her
neighbor.
Review of RP's calls to EPD found that by the time officers
responded due to high call volume the noise had ceased and the
calls were cleared. On the sixth call an officer made contact and
gave the occupants a warning. Lt. spoke with RP who was still
upset that no citation had been given, the Lt. offered to have a
video recording of the noise reviewed for possible citation
action.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 39 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
10/17/18 11/28/18 41 Courtesy RP felt an officer was rude and
unreasonable when he kept pedestrians
from crossing the street for 15 min after
a football game.
Sgt. learned that the officer had been given direction by a
supervisor to hold pedestrians while bus congestion was cleared.
RP became frustrated with the situation and addressed the
officer in the middle of the road when they were finally allowed
to cross. Sgt. spoke with RP about the incident, RP still felt that
the officer was rude and wanted him reprimanded.
10/17/18 11/30/18 43 Performance RP was upset that an officer threatened
to arrest him for having a hammock in
the park.
Sgt. learned that the type of hammock in question was one that
closed around the person and fits the definition of a structure for
park rules. Lt. spoke with RP about his findings.
10/18/18 10/18/18 0 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported an issue he had with a
warrant served on his home.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
10/17/18 10/19/18 2 Performance RP reported an EPD volunteer who was
not paying attention at a crosswalk and
almost hit her.
Supervisor spoke with RP and then with the volunteers and
provided coaching. Volunteers are also being enrolled in EPD's
Basic Vehicle Operation Course.
10/19/18 10/30/18 11 Courtesy RP reported an inappropriate comment
made by an officer in regard to human
trafficking.
Supervisor spoke with the officer about the interaction and
advised being careful of how words can be perceived. Supervisor
spoke with RP and listened to his concerns.
10/23/18 11/19/18 26 Performance RP reported an EPD vehicle driving at an
excessive speed on Patterson.
Supervisor spoke with the employee about following all traffic
laws and the need to be an example with driving. RP requested
no call back.
10/23/18 11/27/18 34 Performance RP was unhappy that a call taker would
not transfer him to a supervisor.
Supervisor reviewed the call and found that the call taker
handled the call with standard procedure and was professional
with the RP. Supervisor spoke with RP about the findings, but RP
continued to be unhappy about the call.
10/23/18 10/24/18 1 Inquiry RP reported that an interaction with
officers scared her son.
Lt. reviewed body cam of the contact in which officers had been
dispatched for possible child abuse. Officers were kind and
professional with RP as they investigated. One officer engaged
the child while the other spoke with the mother, about the call
that had come in. Once it was determine no crime was
committed the officers cleared as advised, no crime.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 40 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
10/24/18 11/27/18 33 Inquiry RP reported that an officer who came to
his home to present charges was
domineering and intimidating and
insisted that the door remain open
during their conversation.
Body cam of the interaction showed that the officer was
professional and at no time was verbally or physically forceful or
aggressive with RP. Calls to RP would not go through and no
voicemail was available.
10/25/18 10/29/18 4 Inquiry RP reported that while he waited 2 days
for officers to help with a civil standby,
the minutes the property manager called
5 officers showed up and refused to
allow him to gather his belongings.
Cpt. learned that during the incident RP had told the officers he
would not leave if allowed to enter the property. RP also did not
take officers up on the offer to gather some of his items for him.
The officers were patient and understanding with RP but could
not allow him to enter. Cpt. spoke with RP about the incident.
10/29/18 11/20/18 21 Service Level RP was unhappy that on officer was not
dispatched to deal with her drug addict
mother who was lurking outside her
apartment.
Review of the CAD and calls about the incident found that the
call was difficult to triage due to the mother continually coming
and going from the property. Due to the fact that no clear
emergency was articulated and the call loads at the time, the call
held on the screen until much later in the day. Supervisor spoke
with RP and explained what EPD could do, how Cahoots could be
utilized and policies that relate to her type of issue.
10/30/18 11/1/18 1 Performance
Dismissed:
Timeliness
RP reported an interaction with an
officer in May that he felt he was being
brushed off.
Dismissed: Timeliness
11/1/18 11/19/18 18 Service Level RP was upset that the illegal camping
issue in front of her business has not
been dealt with, even with repeated
calls.
Lt. reviewed the process involving the camping issue near RP's
business and noted where they were in that process; Lt. then
spoke with RP and sent an officer to attempt contact. A 72-hour
notice was given. Lt. has recently been assigned the camping
program and is reviewing to identify solutions for making the
program work more efficiently.
11/1/18 12/3/18 32 Courtesy RP was felt an officer's email exchange
was rude and unhelpful.
Review of the emails found them not to be rude, but they
redirected RP back to an online form without answering her
questions. Sgt. explained to the officer it may have been more
efficient to have called RP and answered her questions. Sgt.
spoke with RP.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 41 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
11/2/18 12/10/18 38 Service Level RP was unhappy with the length of time
it took to get help at EPD headquarters.
Supervisor reviewed the dates that RP noted and found that on
each date 25 or more calls were holding and that each time RP
waited an hour or more.
11/1/18 11/7/18 6 Inquiry RP reported being entrapped by officers.
The officer observed him in a park for
over an hour and then arrested him for
concealed carry even though his gun was
visible.
Lt. found that officers had been notified by park officials about
man who that thought was carry a concealed gun. Officers
observed the suspect and noted that at times the gun was
concealed. RP did not have a concealed gun permit. Lt. spoke
with RP about his concerns.
11/2/18 11/5/18 3 Inquiry RP alleged that an officer used an
offensive racial slur toward him during
his arrest.
Sgt. reviewed the entire body cam interaction with RP and the
officer and found no instance in which the officer used a racial
slur.
11/2/18 11/27/18 25 Service Level RP was concerned that when EPD
wanted to meet with her about a
burglary at her storage unit, no one
showed up.
Sgt. learned that due to call loads no officer was ever dispatched
due to call loads. Sgt. spoke with RP who had in the mean time
spoken with a CSO officer and given her report.
11/5/18 11/8/18 3 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP felt an officer acted unprofessionally
with her son and other students by
questioning them without their parents.
RP feels her son is being targeted.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Review of body
cam and reports by the Auditor's Office found no policy
violations.
11/5/18 11/6/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported that officers notified her
granddaughter she had called in an
incident when she had requested to
remain anonymous.
Dismissed: Other Auditor review of body cams
found no officer had reported RP's name to those involved in the
incident.
11/6/18 11/8/18 2 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP reported an officer whose actions
during a traffic stop were
unprofessional.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Review of body
cam and reports by the Auditor's Office found no policy
violations.
11/6/18 12/12/18 36 Performance RP was upset that he was given incorrect
information from EPD records and
believes this led to him losing his
housing.
Supervisor spoke with RP and explained it's always better to
come into records to request information. RP had also obtained
the records for the issue in question in August.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 42 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
11/8/18 11/29/18 21 Other RP reported EPD officers that parked
their vehicles on the sidewalk near the
downtown station.
Issue was forwarded to supervisor for review.
11/9/18 11/19/18 10 Performance RP had been unable to speak with an
officer who handled the death of his
daughter.
Sgt. learned that the officer had not received any messages from
RP but would be happy to contact him. The Sgt. also reached out
to RP and answered his questions.
11/2/18 11/14/18 12 Service Level RP was concerned about the lack of
response by EPD to transients
trespassing on the property he manages.
Lt. spoke with RP about his concerns and the noted the staffing
shortages EPD is experiencing. Lt. provided contact information
to RP for future issues.
11/8/18 12/20/18 42 Inquiry Auditor initiated Defensive Tactics
review of a Use of Force incident.
Review of the incident found that the use of force was within
policy and that a review of controlling handcuffed subjects was in
order for one of the officers involved.
11/13/18 12/18/18 35 Policy RP was upset that when he requested a
body cam video it was no longer
available.
Supervisor contacted RP to provide information about the
retention dates of Body Cams. RP requested the body cam be
kept a month past the retention date.
11/13/18 11/27/18 14 Performance RP alleged that an officer grabbed her
arm and pulled her from a room leaving
a bruise.
Review of body cam by Cpt. found that RP had been asked to
move out of the room by officers as the room was dark with no
working lights and another party in the room was partially
concealed by a blanket leading to a officer safety issue. When RP
wanted to stay, she was pulled through the doorway. No policy
violations were found in the interaction. Cpt. spoke with RP
about the findings.
11/15/18 11/19/18 4 Inquiry RP tried to convince officers that her
child had been kidnapped by her ex and
was unhappy when they didn't take the
child from her ex.
Lt. found that the officers followed protocol in determining if the
parent had custodial paper work and who was in charge of the
child.
11/14/18 11/28/18 14 Inquiry RP alleged he was assaulted by an officer
in the ambulance on the way to the
hospital.
Review by Sgt. found that no officers rode in the ambulance with
RP. Dismissed at Intake by the Auditor.
11/23/18 1/2/19 39 Performance RP was unhappy with a phone
interaction with an EPD Supervisor.
Review of the phone call did not reveal any violations of policy by
the Supervisor. Appropriate accommodations were taken for
RP's disability.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 43 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
11/24/18 12/24/18 30 Performance RP was upset that he did not receive
follow-up after leaving a message for
Animal Control.
Supervisor found that a miscommunication between the call
taker and RP had occurred: although information was
documented and forward to Animal Control, it was not noted
that RP was expecting a call back. Supervisor spoke with RP
about the miscommunication.
11/22/18 12/27/18 35 Inquiry RP was unhappy that he was detained by
officers in handcuffs when he responded
to EPD about a name mix-up on a
warrant.
Supervisor determined that the error was on the part of a
records clerk. RP was provided information on filing a risk claim.
11/27/18 12/27/18 30 Service Level RP was upset that he waited over 45
minutes for an officer to show up when
he had a suspect in sight after the
suspect broke into RP's roommates
vehicle. No one even contacted him to
take a report.
Supervisor found that a miscommunication between the call
taker and dispatch lead to the call being closed after 39 minutes
due to no officer available. No call back to RP was done.
Supervisor spoke to RP about her findings and steps take to
prevent this type of incident in the future.
11/26/18 12/4/18 8 Performance RP's believes he was reverse
discriminated against by officers after a
dispute with his partner.
Review of body cams found the officers had been trying to
provide information about the domestic violence laws to RP and
his partner. This led to RP feeling that he was being
discriminated against since he was the male.
11/28/18 1/2/19 34 Incident Review/
Performance
RP's reported a concern about the lack
of police response when a disorderly
man entered their business, threatened
employees and refused to leave.
Sgt. reviewed call records and spoke with RP about the incident,
acknowledging that they did not receive the type of help that
they should have. Sgt. provided strategies for communication
with call takers in the future that would ensure a more positive
result.
11/29/18 12/5/18 6 Inquiry RP felt he was treated poorly by officer
who came to his home about a woman
screaming. He was the only person in his
apartment.
No policy violations were found by the Sgt., but officers could
have explained the reason they had to search RP's apartment
more clearly (letting him know that they had to verify that no
one was hurt).
11/30/18 1/2/19 32 Performance RP was unhappy that officer have not
responded to his messages about a
report of a man who assaulted him.
Sgt. found that RP had been unable to provide enough
information about the man to identify him, so the case was
suspended. Sgt. left messages for RP to contact him.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 44 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
11/28/18 1/22/19 54 Inquiry RP was concerned that an officer did not
follow through with taking to jail a
suspect who had been found with
weapons, drugs, and evidence of
burglary, but instead released the
suspect within blocks of the arrest.
Sgt. found that the officer did take the suspect to jail on a
warrant, but had no probable cause for a current arrest. Once at
the jail it was found that the other agency asked for a cite and
release. The officer did then take the person back to the area,
which was officer discretion. Sgt. spoke with RP about his
findings.
12/1/18 1/2/19 31 Inquiry RP was unhappy that officers came to his
home very late at night looking for his
roommate and were unprofessional with
him.
Sgt. spoke with RP about staffing and call load issues that at
times have officers doing investigations at late hours, he also
reviewed his viewing of the body cam with RP and noted that
while the officers were pushy they were not unprofessional. Sgt.
spoke with officers about RP's perception of the incident.
12/3/18 1/2/19 29 Performance RP was unhappy with a process that
denied him his custody time with his
son.
Lt. reviewed Body Cams of the interaction with officers and RP
and found that due to the emotionally charged issues at the time
officers felt it was better for the minor to leave with his mother.
No policy violations were found, and Lt. spoke with RP about his
findings.
12/3/18 12/4/18 1 Performance
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP reported a traffic stop he felt was
odd.
Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
12/3/18 12/4/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP was confused that he had been
arrested for a minor incident that had
happened 9 months before.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
Review found EPD had an Attempt to Locate on RP, and when
they made contact the issue was still pending.
12/4/18 12/18/18 14 Performance RP reported that EPD is unwilling to help
him when he is harassed on the street.
Contact with RP was made and he declined to speak with a
supervisor about his complaint.
12/3/18 12/17/18 14 Performance RP reported an officer who sped through
a motel parking lot without lights or
sirens.
Supervisor reviewed body cam of the incident and understood
RP's concern. Sgt. spoke with the officer about his expectations,
of safe driving and courtesy to citizens.
12/5/18 1/10/19 35 Inquiry RP felt an officer was off base by telling
him he could not park his truck and
trailer across four parking spaces.
Lt. reviewed body and found the officer to be polite and
professional while telling RP he was violating park rules. Lt.
spoke with RP and explained the code.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 45 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
12/6/18 1/22/19 46 Performance RP alleged that an man with a gun and a
vicious dog threatened him and his dog
and police refused to arrest him.
Sgt. reviewed records and body cams of the incident and found
that officers conducted a through investigation, which included
speaking with witnesses, no crime was committed. RP's phone
had been disconnected so follow up was not done.
12/7/18 12/17/18 10 Service Level RP, an Assets Protection team leader for
a local business, reported frustration at
not have officers respond when he is
holding suspects in theft or fraudulent
prescription issues.
Sgt. spoke with RP and offered to forward his concerns to the
supervisors of the loss prevention program to see if priority
levels for in custody or in progress thefts can be adjusted to
speed response times.
12/8/18 12/11/18 3 Inquiry RP alleged that a situation in which he
was not allowed to stay at the airport
was racially motivated.
Sgt. spoke with RP at the scene and learned that he did not have
a boarding pass and only passengers with a boarding pass are
allowed to stay at the airport after hours. RP had a flight two
days in the future and wanted to stay at the airport. Bodycam
showed the officer was following policy and protocol in the
situation; there was no evidence of a racial bias.
12/10/18
12/26/18 16 Incident
Review/Conduct
Internal Review of a risk assessment
screening that was routed to EPD via
DHS.
Review of DHS report on a EPD employee found dispositions of
N/A.
12/10/18 12/11/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Outside
Jurisdiction
RP requested follow up on a theft report.Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction
12/11/18 1/2/19 21 Policy RP requested to speak with a supervisor
about how transients are allowed to
steal shopping carts.
Sgt. spoke with RP about his concerns and ideas around the
issue.
12/10/18 12/17/18 7 Service Level RP is concerned about a homeless camp
near the river that even though the
owner of the land has a no trespass
letter, people are always camping there.
RP feels unsafe using the bike paths.
Lt. reviewed the issue and found that the owner did have a letter
of trespass, the Lt. responded to the site and warned the
campers to vacate the property or they could be cited. Lt. spoke
with RP about what had been done and how EPD handles the
illegal camping issues in Eugene.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 46 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
12/11/18 12/12/18 1 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Alternate
Remedy
RP was unhappy about officers pulled
him over due to a false allegation by
another party.
Dismissed: Alternate Remedy
12/12/18 1/2/19 20 Service Level RP was unhappy when his call about a hit
and run went unheeded by EPD for over
a day.
Sgt. spoke with RP about EPD's staffing issues and what
emergency calls were in place at the time. Sgt. encouraged him
to contact the officer who took his report for updates.
12/13/18 12/27/18 14 Service Level RP reported he felt targeted by EPD
employees, because he has received
numerous citations and had been given a
downtown exclusion.
Sgt. reviewed the issue and found that RP is a repeat offender of
various city regulations, and has refused the help of the Shelter
Care Community Outreach that would have provided housing
and of the Community Court Program.
12/14/18 12/18/18 4 Inquiry RP alleged that an officer arrested him
for hit and run because of his race.
Sgt. reviewed the investigation by the officer and found that RP
admitted to having recently been driving the vehicle involved and
that the other party identified RP as the man driving the car that
hit her. No racial discrimination appeared to be involved. Sgt.
spoke with RP about the findings.
12/15/18 12/18/18 3 Inquiry RP was frustrated by associates being
required to constantly move or be
threatened with a citation for car
camping.
Lt. spoke with RP about how EPD's calls are prioritized with car
camping being a lower priority than criminal behavior.
12/14/18 1/24/19 40 Inquiry RP feels that a rape case concerning her
friend is not getting a complete follow-
up.
Sgt. found that the case was moving forward toward
prosecution. Due to the fact RP is not the victim, updates could
not be provided.
12/14/18 12/18/18 4 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP alleged excessive force by officer
during his arrest for trespass at a local
restaurant.
Dismissed: Other Review by Auditor found no
policy violation by officers.
12/18/18 1/9/19 21 Inquiry RP felt that the officers who gave a
friend a verbal trespass notice did not
have probable cause to tell her that.
Sgt. learned that RP's friend had previously been legally evicted
from the property and officers had legal authority to warm of the
trespass.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 47 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
12/19/18 1/2/19 13 Performance RP was unhappy with the investigation
of an incident in which a man
approached her daughter while she was
waiting for the bus.
St. learned that the officer followed up on the report and spoke
with a suspect who denied any knowledge of the incident. A
report was written and sent to the violent crimes unit. Sgt. spoke
with officer about following up with victims and with RP about
his findings.
12/14/18 1/3/19 19 Performance RP reported that Animal Control is
refusing to provide public protection
from a documented vicious dog.
Sgt. reviewed the reports and body cams of the issue in question.
No policy violations were noted, and the city prosecutor
concurred. Sgt. spoke with RP who is still unhappy with the
answers he has received from EPD.
12/15/18 12/20/18 5 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP submitted a disjointed complaint
about an issue in 2014 with another
agency's officers.
Dismissed: Other
12/19/18 12/26/18 7 Inquiry RP feels EPD is harassing his friends and
family because they think his home is a
drug house. Most recently a traffic stop
of his girlfriend.
Cpt. reviewed body cam of the stop and found that the driver
had no front license plate on the car. The officer was cordial and
professional, cited the driver for a suspended license, warned of
driving uninsured and did not tow the vehicle. RP did not
respond to phone messages to discuss the issue.
12/17/18 12/21/18 4 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP submitted documents concerning
issues with his bank.
Dismissed: Other
12/24/18 12/31/18
7 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported excessive force was used
against him during a incident with EPD
officers.
Dismissed: Other Review by Auditor found no
policy violation by officers.
12/27/18 1/22/19 25 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer
threatened to arrest her if she did not
return a friend's dog she had been caring
for due to a hospitalization, when she
had reported abuse to Animal Control
and was working with them about the
issue.
RP found that at the time the officer spoke with RP he had not
been given the information about RP working with Animal
Control, the officer was responding to a dispatch about the theft
of the dog. Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings and made a
recommendation to Animal Control to in the future enter a call
for service that can be seen by other officers.
12/28/18 1/2/19 4 Inquiry
Dismissed:
Other
RP reported excessive force was used by
EPD officers during his arrest for DUII.
Dismissed: Other Review by Auditor found no
policy violation by officers.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints
Appendix B Page 48 of 48
Received
Date
Closed
Date
Time
Open
(days)
Classification Summary Outcome
12/28/18 1/22/19 24 Performance RP reported officers who had not
returned her calls about her son and
money missing from his wallet.
Sgt. found that the officers did not return calls due to the fact
RP's son is an adult male and details of the investigation can not
be released to her. It was also found that the wallet was not
handled by EPD but was transported with her son in an
ambulance. Sgt. spoke with RP about the findings.
12/31/18 1/7/19 7 Policy RP was unhappy that when he was
protesting in front of a downtown
business he was approached by an EPD
employee inside the establishment,
almost as if they were a private security.
Sgt. found that the business had contacted police due to the
protesters blocking the doorway and requested they be
trespassed if any of them entered the business. The protestors
were allowed to continue outside. EPD has the duty to protect
both the business and the protesters.
June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2