Civilian Review Board

City of Eugene CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD 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 involving allegations of police misconduct, use of force and other matters. 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. Civilian Review Board Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 11, 2023 – 5:30pm Attend Via Webinar: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/82237566557 Passcode: AprilCRB23 Attend by Phone: 877-853-5257 (US Toll-free) 971-247-1195 Attend in Person: 101 East Broadway Suite 230 Eugene, OR 97401 Item Time (Starting) 1. Agenda and Materials Review 5 minutes (5:30pm) 2. Minutes Approval (Minutes from March meeting) 5 minutes (5:35pm) 3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons 5 minutes (5:40pm) 4. Public Comment 5 minutes (5:45pm) 5. Case Review: Respectful Workplace Policy Violations 30 minutes (5:50pm) 6. Break 5 minutes (6:20pm) 7. Case Review: POM Violations 30 minutes (6:25pm) 8. Election of Liaison to Human Rights Commissions 5 minutes (6:55pm) 101 E. Broadway Suite 230 • Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016 • Fax (541) 682-5599 www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor City of Eugene Civilian Review Board Page 2 of 2 9. Auditor Report 10 minutes (7:00pm) 10. Closing Comments 15 minutes (7:10pm) 11. Adjourn (7:25pm) Upcoming Meeting: May 9, 2023 101 E. Broadway Suite 230 • Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016 • Fax (541) 682-5599 www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor  MINUTES Civilian Review Board Zoom Webinar March 14, 2023 5:30 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: Carolyn Williams, Chair; Jose Cortez, Vice-Chair; Alan Leiman; Rick Roseta; Bernadette Conover; Lindsey Foltz; Rob Eller, Vicki Cox, Beatrice Otero-Hernandez; Leia Pitcher, Police Auditor’s Office; Cindy Coleman; Ryan Nelson; Chief Chris Skinner, Eugene Police Department. ABSENT: Monique Griffin and Clay Neal Williams convened the Civilian Review Board (CRB) at 5:33 p.m. Everyone who was present introduced themselves. There was a quorum present. 1. Agenda and Materials Review There were no immediate changes identified on the agenda. An executive session was added later in the meeting, after Item No. 5 – Auditor’s Report, to offer clarification to Members on maintaining confidentiality during tonight’s discussion of the Case Review. 2. Minutes Approval (Minutes from February meeting) MOTION: Conover moved, seconded by Cortez, to approve the February 14, 2023, CRB meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously – 5:0. 3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons a. Conover shared that the case under review tonight took a lot of time and asked for clarification on how to maintain during confidentiality during tonight’s discussion of the Case Review. b. Leiman shared that the Police Commission met last week and had a good discussion about Policy 807.2 – Use of Impact Weapons during protests, and training regarding pursuits. He expressed appreciation for Chief Skinner’s input during the meeting. c. Roseta did not have any comments to add this evening. Civilian Review Board March 14, 2023  d. Williams stated a general reminder about being mindful of confidentiality during the discussion tonight. e. Pitcher discussed maintaining transparency and fair representation, while being mindful of officer confidentiality. 4. Public Comment None. 5. Auditor Report Pitcher presented the Auditor’s Report. At the request of City Council, Pitcher presented to the Council the history and current structure of the oversight system. In addition, the Council asked the Auditor’s Office to report back on ideas for improvements. The focus areas were limited to areas that the Auditor’s Office had the authority to change. The four (4) main focus areas of improvement were identified as: • Renegotiating Protocols o Making Mediation More Effective and Efficient o Reviewing Classifications o Good Cause and Timeliness o Public Comment – CRB o Investigation Tools and Timelines • Improving the Administrative Investigative Response to Deadly Force Incidents o Current legislation will impact policy and investigations. • The Auditor Role in Use of Force Review Boards • Expanding the Auditor Role in Hiring/Firing Practices Member comments and questions included the impact of public comments on case reviews, whether subpoena power was necessary for uncooperative participants, robust investigations, and transparency or follow up with the CRB regarding the effectiveness of discipline or other recommendations. Nelson and Pitcher indicated that uncooperative participants during investigations was rare. Chief Skinner discussed his conversations with Pitcher about observing the hiring/firing practices in the department as a useful tool for transparency purposes. Pitcher discussed next steps, which will be multiple work sessions on protocols, deadly force, and possibly more to discuss expanding the auditor’s role and any upcoming reports. THERE WAS A CONSENSUS TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CLARIFY MAINTAINING OFFICER CONFIDENTIALITY DURING DISCUSSION OF TONIGHT’S CASE REVIEW. The Board recessed into executive session at 6:27 p.m. The Board reconvened into the regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. Civilian Review Board March 14, 2023  6. Case Review: Allegation of Performance, Constitutional Rights, Truthfulness: Intake, Classification, and Monitoring Eller pulled up the CRB Case Summary. Summary of Facts • Officer A and Officer B assisted City of Eugene Parks Staff by contacting, arresting, and transporting Involved Citizen from a City Park to the Lane County Jail. • While at the Lane County Jail, Officer A and Officer B observed a scratch on the patrol vehicle. Officer A called Lieutenant C and reported the damage. Lieutenant C instructed Officer A to document the damage in the vehicle log. • After Officer A and B cleared the jail, they obtained an $827.27 repair estimate from an automobile collision repair center. Lieutenant C had not requested an estimate. • Officer A and Officer B determined that the damage was caused by Involved Citizen while in their custody. Officer B authored a probable cause affidavit and charged Involved Citizen with Criminal Mischief II. • Lieutenant C reviewed the incident and questioned the validity of Officer B’s assertion that the damage to the vehicle was caused by the Involved Citizen. Lieutenant C reviewed Officer A and B’s Body Worn Camera footage and contact with Involved Citizen. Lieutenant C’s review determined that the Involved Citizen did not cause the damage to Officer A and B’s patrol vehicle. • Lieutenant C contacted City of Eugene Prosecutor and requested that the Criminal Mischief II charge be dismissed. Lieutenant C entered the incident information into the City of Eugene’s PD database, which initiated the IA Review. • During an IA interview, Officer B stated they did not review the Body Worn Camera footage after the Involved Citizen’s arrest. Officer B acknowledged that after reviewing the materials the scratch was on the vehicle prior to Involved Citizen’s arrest. • During their first IA interview, Officer A stated they remembered the Involved Citizen was wearing a necklace that rubbed against the vehicle and caused the damage to the vehicle. During the second IA interview, Officer A reviewed the Body Worn Camera footage and acknowledged the Involved Citizen did not cause the damage to the vehicle. Allegations Officer A and B: Civilian Review Board March 14, 2023  • 300.2 – Arrests: That Officer A and B assisted in the arrest of Involved Citizen for Criminal Mischief II without first establishing probable cause. • 405 – Preliminary Investigations: That Officer A and B failed to conduct an adequate preliminary investigation into Involved Citizen’s alleged criminal mischief. Officer A: • 103.4.1 – Judgment: That Officer A failed to use his “training, experience, and observations to make sound and reasonable decisions” when he/she reported to his/her supervisor that Involved Citizen had damaged the EPD vehicle. • 103.5.1.d. – Truthfulness: Officer A failed to provide an accurate account of his/her interaction with Involved Citizen when his/her (Officer A’s) Internal Affairs interview was conducted on May 17, 2022. Officer B: • 103.4.1 – Judgment: That Officer B failed to use his/her “training experience, and observations to make sound and reasonable decisions” when he/she made an incorrect statement in his police report. Adjudication Recommendations • Officer A o Allegation of Criminal Conduct / Conformance to Laws ▪ Disposition: Sustained (all) o Allegation of Misconduct / Constitutional Rights ▪ Disposition: Sustained 1 – 3; Insufficient Evidence 4 • Officer B o Allegation of Misconduct / Constitutional Rights ▪ Disposition: Sustained 1 – 2; Insufficient Evidence 3 o Allegation of Criminal Conduct / Conformance to Laws ▪ Disposition: Sustained 1, 2, 4, and 5; Insufficient Evidence 3 Issues for CRB Discussion • Complaint Intake, Classification, and Monitoring o Internally generated complaint o Classification: Allegation of Misconduct Member comments and questions included appreciation for the timeliness and quality of the investigation, resulting in a vast amount of information. Leiman appreciated that this incident was self-reported by Lieutenant C. Civilian Review Board March 14, 2023  Roseta felt the classification was troublesome because Officer B signed the probable cause affidavit based on Officer A’s allegation, the suspect was not harmed by the additional allegation as they were going to jail anyway for an outstanding warrant and lying to police about their identity. Williams appreciated Nelson giving the Officers’ multiple chances to be truthful and review the Body Worn Camera footage. Clarification was requested about the timeliness of the disciplinary hearing. Chief Skinner clarified the timeline for the disciplinary hearing (Loudermill Hearing) in this case. Pitcher confirmed the complaint about being outside the hearing timeline was to preserve the issue for appeal and that the appropriate process had been followed. The attorney of record in this case was unfamiliar with the internal process and that there had been extensions issued. 7. Case Review: Policy and Training Member comments and questions included clarification of the policy for inspecting the patrol vehicle, the lack of preparedness by the Officers for their interviews, and clarification of the review policy for Body Worn Camera footage. Conover expressed concerns about the disregard for the truth and asked whether Chief Skinner had concerns about this Officer in the future. Williams asked for clarification on whether there was a policy to require the Officers to review Body Worn Camera footage and expressed concern over the extreme lack of preparedness of the Officers. Roseta asked for clarification on whether the Officer’s Body Worn Camera footage was available for review before the interviews. Clarification was offered about the legal standard regarding truthfulness and questioned the language of the current policy, which doesn’t specify a “standard.” Leiman disagreed about the zero impact of the additional Criminal Mischief II charge, as it would have affected the pretrial release decision. Additional training for the Officers regarding probable cause affidavits would be helpful. Cortez discussed the ambiguity of the truthfulness policy language. Nelson provided clarification of the vehicle inspection process, the preparedness requirements for Officers that includes Body Worn Camera footage review. The Body Worn Camera footage was made available to the Officers during their interviews, as well as a chance to take a break to consult with their attorney. 8. Case Review: Presentation by Chief of Police Chief Skinner expressed his frustration with this case and the lack of preparedness by the Officers. Clarification was given regarding probable cause being transferable between the Officers. He didn’t get a sense of willfulness to deceive due to Officer A’s initial reporting to Lieutenant C. Chief Skinner felt that Civilian Review Board March 14, 2023  the sloppiness exhibited by the Officer could be corrected through additional training and reassured the Board that individuals exhibiting unprofessional behavior, or a bad attitude are required to spend time with him to correct these behaviors. 9. Case Review: Adjudication Discussion I. Adjudication Recommendations a. Chain of Command: Sustained b. Chief Final Adjudication: Insufficient Evidence c. Auditor: Sustained Leiman expressed concerns about the difficulty in sustaining a truthfulness allegation. He is comfortable trusting Chief Skinner to not keep an Officer that will continue to be a problem for the department. Roseta agreed with Chief Skinner on all adjudication recommendations and allowed for context that the Chief couldn’t elaborate on due to confidentiality. Williams expressed concerns that the Officers might think that they “got away with it.” Cortez asked for clarification about the policy on truthfulness and disagreed with Chief Skinner on accepting the Officer’s perception of the truth based on the current language of the policy. Neal’s comments were read into the record. He expressed concerns about the Officers’ judgment in this case and a policy to mandate review of Body Worn Camera footage. Conover expressed frustration about the untruthfulness in this case during the investigative process. 10. Election of Liaisons for Police and Human Rights Commissions Police Commission MOTION: Williams moved, seconded by Conover, to appoint Alan Leiman to the Police Commission. The motion passed unanimously – 5:0. Human Rights MOTION: Cortez moved, seconded by Conover, to continue this item to a future date. The motion passed unanimously – 5:0. 11. Closing Comments Civilian Review Board March 14, 2023  a. Cortez felt this was a great case to review and shows the citizens of Eugene the value of transparency through the work of the CRB. b. Conover shared the difficulty of trusting people that have done things that are career-ending, such as lack of truthfulness, and whether the CRB should be responsible for constantly reminding them to be truthful and prepared. c. Leiman was concerned about the additional misdemeanor charge unfairly added to the Involved Citizen and appreciative of the investigation. d. Roseta agreed that this case was difficult to watch. 12. Adjourn Williams adjourned the March 14, 2023, Civilian Review Board meeting at 7:54 p.m. (Minutes recorded by Grace Jelks) Civilian Review Board March 14, 2023  Office of the Police Auditor March 2023 Open Case Report Inquiries Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 9, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry RP complained officers unjustly cited him/her for a traffic violation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 10, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-o/s jurisdiction RP complained officers (not EPD officers) unjustly stopped him/her for a traffic violation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 13, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-o/s jurisdiction RP complained officers (not EPD officers) unnecessarily targeted and harassed him/her. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 14, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers wrongfully arrested him/her from a public sidewalk and failed to conduct a thorough investigation into an alleged assault. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 14, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers treated him/her unfairly and his/her (RP’s) property was improperly seized and destroyed. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 14, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP complained officers gave deficient service and improperly handled an investigation from six years ago. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 16, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained an officer treated him/her unfairly. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 20, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained officers refused to take a report on a stolen property because he/she would not let them search his/her property to verify the property was missing. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 20, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers improperly handled an investigation with his/her spouse. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 20, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained important documents were taken from him/her in Eugene Municipal Court in 2020 and not returned. RP complained officers failed to conduct a proper investigation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 20, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained officers improperly contacted him/her and gave improper instructions for cooking fire safety. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 22, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP complained officers did not follow up on a report of animal cruelty from 2021. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 23, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained EPD did not properly record citations for prohibited camping (which impacted public reporting on that crime). Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 29, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained his/her property was improperly seized by officers. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 30, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained the officer assigned to an investigation (which involved the RP) provided substandard service. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 30, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP alleged an investigation (from 2022) was biased due to his/her race. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 31, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP alleged officers improperly contacted him/her during his/her arrest. Service Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 6, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained officers failed to respond to a service request. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 7, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Courtesy Disposition: RP complained officers' actions were discourteous and complained a communications specialist provided substandard service. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 14, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Courtesy Disposition: RP complained officers improperly handled a call for service. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 17, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition:  RP complained officers improperly handled a couples’ dispute. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 20, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Categories: Insufficient Follow-Up Disposition: RP complained officers were slow to respond and investigate the theft of his/her cell phone. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 24, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Courtesy Disposition: RP complained an officer was discourteous. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 27, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Categories: Driving Disposition: RP complained an officer drove his marked unit improperly. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 30, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP complained officers mishandled a call for service in December 2022. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 30, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: RP complained his/her requests for EPD assistance with unhoused campers were ignored. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Mar 31, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: RP complained his/her requests for EPD assistance with drug trafficking in his/her neighborhood were ignored. Policy Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 23, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: Dismissed-o/s jurisdiction  RP complained about livestreaming law enforcement activity in another state. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Mar 27, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP complained a two-and-a-half-year-old complaint could not be investigated for misconduct. Incident Reviews Incident type: Incident Review Status: Active Received date: Mar 1, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: RP complained officers inappropriately handled a contact with him/her. Incident type: Incident Review Status: Completed Received date: Mar 1, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer improperly handled recovered property. Incident type: Incident Review Status: Completed Received date: Mar 3, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP complained officers improperly handled two investigations (from 2019 and 2020). Incident type: Incident Review Status: Completed Received date: Mar 6, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Conduct Disposition: Dismissed-o/s jurisdiction RP complained several Lane County Sheriff’s Deputies engaged in unprofessional conduct with a third person. Incident type: Incident Review Status: Completed Received date: Mar 28, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: Dismissed-Other (no policy violations occurred) RP complained an officer acted inappropriately. Incident type: Auditor Intake Status: Active Received date: Mar 13, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review/Conduct Disposition:  RP alleged an EPD officer’s conduct was below established standards. Allegations of Misconduct Incident type: IA Investigation Status: Active Received date: Mar 3, 2023 Class/sub-class: Allegation of Misconduct / Use of Force Disposition: 800 Use of Force: That Officer A used force in a manner inconsistent with EPD training during his arrest of Involved Citizen.  Eugene Police Department March 2023 Closed Case Report Incident type: IA Investigation Status: Completed Received date: Dec 27, 2022 Class/sub-class: Allegation of Misconduct / Performance Disposition: Sustained Allegation as to Officer A: 1. 103.5.14.c Unsatisfactory Performance – On November 16, 2022, Officer A failed to perform the required tasks associated with his/her official duties when he/she failed to generate a receipt for property, properly document the release of the property and left property with a third party. Allegation as to Officer B: 1. 103.5.14.c Unsatisfactory Performance – On November 16, 2022, Officer B failed to perform the required tasks associated with his/her official duties when he/she failed to generate a receipt for property, properly document the release of the property and left property with a third party.