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, June 13, 2023 – 5:30pm Attend Via Webinar: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/81551613157 Meeting ID: 815 5161 3157 Passcode: 23JuneCRB 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 May 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. Intake Review: Dismissed After Preliminary Investigation 20 minutes (5:50pm) 6. Break 5 minutes (6:10pm) 7. Case Review: Vehicle Pursuit, Foot Pursuit, Taser Policy 30 minutes (6:15pm) 8. Auditor Annual Report 30 minutes (6:45pm) 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. Closing Comments 15 minutes (7:15pm) 10. Adjourn (7:30pm) Upcoming Meeting: July 11, 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 May 09, 2023 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Carolyn Williams, Chair; Bernadette Conover; Monique Griffin; Rick Roseta; Clay Neal; Rob Eller; Lindsey Foltz; Leia Pitcher; Sargent Ryan Nelson; Beatrice Otero-Hernandez; Vicki Cox; Jose Cortez. ABSENT: Vice Chair; Alan Leiman; Cindy Coleman. Chair Williams convened the Civilian Review Board (CRB) at 5:38 p.m. The Land Acknowledgement was read, and a quorum was established. 1. Agenda and Materials Review There were no changes made to the agenda. 2. Minutes Approval (Minutes from April 11, 2023, Meeting) Conover noted that gender identifying titles, such as Mr. and Ms., should not be included in the minutes. They requested last names only going forward. All board members agreed. MOTION: Conover moved, seconded by Griffin, to approve the April 11, 2023, CRB meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously – 6:0. 3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons Neal stated that they will be attending the Human Rights Commission meetings going forward. The next meeting was scheduled for May 16, 2023, so they would have a report from that at the next CRB meeting. There were no other comments. 4. Public Comment No members of the public were present. 5. Intake Review: Dismissed for Timelines Pitcher spoke about the intake review process within the auditor's office and how classification impacts time limits for complaints. The core functions of the auditor's office were as follows: • Intake Point for Internal / External Complaints Made Against the Eugene Police Department (EPD) • Classification of Complaints • Monitor and Take Part in Internal Affairs (IA) Investigations • Assess IA Investigations for Thoroughness, Fairness, and Completion • Make Recommendations on Adjudications • Make Recommendations on Policy and Training • Report to the Community Civilian Review Board May 09, 2023 0  • Support the CRB The most common type of complaints was regarding EPD service and policy. Those types of complaints would be classified as minor misconduct per the city code if the complaints were deemed to be true. The auditor's office processed incoming complaints, which sometimes required educating people on EPD policy, to explain why the EPD responded to an incident in a certain way. Other times, complaints may sound like EPD misconduct. When that occurred, the auditor's office would initiate an incident review. Once evidence was gathered, i.e., police video was reviewed, and conversations with witnesses were had, the auditor's office would process the allegations of misconduct, or close the complaints because no evidence was found to support the allegations. Service complaints, policy complaints, and inquiries needed to be received by the auditor's office within 60 days of the incident for the auditor's office to process them, unless good cause existed. For allegations of serious misconduct, per the city code, 160 days were allowed to file a complaint, unless good cause existed. Historically, the good cause exception had been strictly construed and not generous. If protocols become open for discussion and amendments could be made regarding that, Pitcher would like to help reform that exception. Sometimes complaints came in, and the complainant believed serious misconduct occurred. A preliminary investigation would take place to determine if it were minor or serious misconduct and the allotted period for making complaints would be taken into consideration. Preliminary investigations involve talking with the complainant, reviewing dispatch records, body-worn video, patrol car video, and police reports. Regarding the public comment that was made during the April 11, 2023, meeting, and the complaint they were referring to, that complaint was not deemed to be a case of serious misconduct after an incident review took place, and it was submitted to the auditor's office after the 60-day time limit. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed for timeliness. Pitcher asked the board if they had any issues with the way that case was managed. Cortez asked what compelled the EPD to hand over evidence for complaints made against them. Pitcher said in 2009, the police auditor's code was amended, and a section was added that addressed access to materials. It guaranteed that the auditor's office had access to all materials that the EPD had in their possession related to each incident and the complaints that stemmed from them. Conover asked if the public comments / complaint brought to the April 11, 2023, meeting was a service complaint. Pitcher confirmed it was and asked the board if they thought it was classified properly. Conover said based on what they read in the report, there was nothing to indicate that it should have been more than a service complaint. Even if the complaint came in within 60 days, a supervisor would have talked with the officer about it. Quite often, what the complainant said happened was different than what was found to be true when the auditor reviewed police videos. They did not see anything wrong with the classification regarding the public comments / complaint from the April 11, 2023, meeting. They noted that based on what was stated in the report they read, it was hard to know what happened. One thing that peaked their interest when the person making public comments spoke about the 60-day time limit and what was considered good cause was that they made it sound as if the case involved a juvenile. However, the case did not pertain to a juvenile. Therefore, they were satisfied with what the auditor's office did with this case. Neal said they watched the body-worn video pertaining to this case, and, from their non-professional perspective, they would have classified it as a service complaint, so they agreed with how the auditor's Civilian Review Board May 09, 2023 1 office managed it. He noted it was difficult to watch the person going through stress and anguish, but that officers responded appropriately. Roseta said they agreed with Neal. They did not see a problem with the way the case was classified. Obviously, the person was under stress. Chair Williams agreed. They asked about the person's request to eat their food, which was denied by the officer. Sergeant Nelson said it was dependent on each incident. There was nothing in EPD policy that required allowing food to be eaten. If there were numerous witnesses and lengthy interviews taking place, they may offer food, but it was not policy to do that. Chair Williams clarified that it was up to each individual officer. They then asked if people expressed hunger or other basic human needs often. Sergeant Nelson said not in his experience. Sometimes restroom breaks were needed, but it was not common for people to ask for food. Chair Williams said they agreed that it was difficult to watch the video and it was an unfortunate situation but agreed with the way the auditor's office managed the case. They wished there were a broader definition for good cause. Cortez said they wished there were a way to talk about this in a way that maintained dignity for everyone involved. He thought the auditor's office acted appropriately. Griffin said they thought the auditor's office acted appropriately in this case. Pitcher expressed their appreciation for the boards acknowledgement of how difficult it was to watch the video. They noted the countless hours of watching police video that depicted use of force in their line of work, and how difficult it was for them and their staff. They said the auditor's office watched video related to complaints, use of force, shows of force, and vehicle pursuits. Chair Williams said they appreciated the auditor's office willingness to talk about this case and share it with the CRB. Conover said public comments at CRB meetings were rare, so when a member of the community brought this case to the board's attention, it was important that they take the time to review it in good faith. There were no other comments or questions. 6. Break The CRB took a break from 6:05 p.m. to 6:10 p.m. 7. Case Review: Adherence to Laws, Conduct and Truthfulness Eller stated there were allegations of failed adherence to laws, improper conduct, and deficient integrity. Summary of Facts: Civilian Review Board May 09, 2023 2 Officer A was off duty at the Eugene Airport and was parked in their personal vehicle along the front airport entrance curb, a designated drop-off / pick-up zone. A City of Eugene Department Services officer contacted Officer A to notify them about the no parking rule. They then contacted other drivers who were parked in the drop-off / pick-up zone. The city services officer returned to officer A's car and was standing on the passenger side of their vehicle. A citation was issued. During an IA interview, the city services officer stated officer A was told they were not allowed to wait in the drop-off / pick-up zone of the airport, and that they needed to move the vehicle. They then told officer A to move their vehicle or receive a citation. The city services officer stated that officer A said they would not move their vehicle. The city services officer printed a citation and stated that they asked officer A if they preferred the citation by hand delivery or under the vehicle's windshield wiper. The city services officer stated that officer A refused to accept the citation. The city services officer stated that officer A's behavior was hostile. The city services officer then walked toward the front of officer A's vehicle and officer A drove away. The city services officer stated that officer A's vehicle nearly struck them. The city services officer attempted to slip the citation through the partially open window on the passenger side of Officer A's vehicle but was unsuccessful. The IA investigation involved Oregon State Police and the District Attorney's Office (DA). The DA reviewed the incident and declined to pursue criminal prosecution of officer A for reckless driving. During an IA interview, the Airport Security and Emergency Manager said signs stating no parking were posted in the drop-off / pick-up zone at the airport and they had been in place since 2011. Curb-side parking had never been allowed and a cell phone waiting lot was established in 2017. In their IA interview, officer A stated that they were unaware of the cell phone waiting lot, did not know that they could not park in the drop-off / pick-up zone, and had no idea what the city services officer's job was at the airport. Officer A stated the first time they became aware of any wrongdoing was when the city services officer attempted to hand them a parking citation. Allegations: Adherence to Laws • Driving While in the Vicinity of a City Services Officer / Did Not Comply with All Laws and Statutes – City, State, and Federal • Parked in the Drop-off / Pick-up Zone at the Airport Despite Repeated Advice to Leave the Area / Did Not Comply with All Laws and Statutes – City, State, and Federal Conduct: • Officer A's behavior with the city services officer brought the EPD into disrepute and / or significantly impaired the efficiency of the EPD. Integrity: • While being interviewed by Officer B, Officer A conducted themselves in a manner that compromised their honesty, including, but not limited to, saying that they did not know what the city services officer was doing when they contacted officer A, stating that they did not know that they could not park in the drop-off / pick-up zone at the airport, and stating that their vehicle window was closed and they could not hear the city cervices officer when that was not true. Civilian Review Board May 09, 2023 3 The auditor, chain of command, and Eugene Police Chief sustained all allegations. This was an externally generated complaint made by the city services officer. Conover said obviously, the city services officer recognized Officer A was a EPD officer. They then asked if the city services officers' unform was bright green and the same as parking enforcement officers in the city. Sergeant Nelson said no, their uniforms were not the same. Conover noted that they realized IA asked questions to gain a full understanding of cases, not to incriminate people. Intake and classification were well done, and the reason monitoring took a long time from the date of the incident was because the Oregon State Police were involved. Neal asked if there were other classifications that were considered for this case and noted that they thought this case was classified appropriately. Pitcher said it came in as criminal misconduct. After the Oregon State Police investigation, it was classified as allegation of misconduct. Chair Williams asked Neal if they had a recommendation for the classification. Neal said he did not have any suggestions or recommendations of how to classify it. Sustaining the allegation was important. He wondered what level of allegations the auditor's office was considering. Pitcher said when this case came to their office, it was a matter of what they were concerned about regarding the allegations, but it was the auditor's decision. They chose failed adherence to laws because the allegations felt like serious violations of the law. Improper conduct felt appropriate. Deficient integrity felt best for the overall lack of integrity during the exchange between the city services officer and officer A. Neal agreed with the classification and said the intake seemed appropriate and well done. Roseta agreed with the classification. These types of investigations were not to prove whether someone was guilty or not guilty. It was more about taking what took place into consideration. It would be difficult, if not impossible to determine the truthfulness because there was no cross examination. The structure of the situation was not set up to determine truthfulness. The classification of integrity, as opposed to truthfulness was correct. He did not agree that officer A was recklessly driving. Chair Williams agreed that the intake was done well, and that integrity was a more appropriate classification than truthfulness. She asked if officer A was still employed. Sergeant Nelson confirmed that they were. Cortez said they agreed with the classification of deficient integrity. Integrity was its own category, but it was also the grounds of the truthfulness policy. It could also be categorized as untruthful. It was not reckless untruthfulness, but careless untruthfulness. The untruthful aspect came out during the investigation. He said the classifications seemed appropriate. Griffin said they felt it was reckless and dangerous to drive the car when the parking officer stepped off the sidewalk. They thought the IA interview was good. Civilian Review Board May 09, 2023 4 Conover said they were not in agreeance with Roseta's comments regarding officer A not recklessly driving. The city services officer left the sidewalk before officer A started driving, and that was reckless and dangerous. They appreciated the auditor's decision regarding failed adherence to law. They appreciated how thorough the auditor always was, and said the interview was good. Conover said they believed the difference between reckless and careless driving was there had to be two or more things done wrong for it to be reckless driving or one really bad thing done wrong. Sergeant Nelson said when you present a case to a prosecuting attorney, they could say reckless driving does not fit but careless driving would be a better fit for that. They did not know if that discussion took place with this case because they were not the investigator for the Oregon State Police. They noted the parking officer did not want to pursue charges. Neal said they did not think there needed to be training for officer A to help them understand they should not park in the drop-off / pick-up zone at the airport, or that when the city services officer tried to hand them a ticket, they should take it. Based on their interview, they understood there may had been stress in the moment, but it was a case of bad decision making. Officer A may had been looking over their shoulder when they pulled out and may not have seen the city services officer step off the curb. Nevertheless, they should not have tried to drive away when they were being served a ticket. He did not think additional training would solve this problem. Roseta said they did not think additional training would solve this problem. He said it was reasonable for someone to look over their shoulder when they pulled out into the roadway. In fact, it was required. Officer A would have been guilty of negligent conduct if they did not look over their shoulder. They could not have anticipated that the city services officer was going to step off the curb at that moment. Chair Williams said they did not fly often but they know you cannot park in the drop-off / pick-up zone at the airport. That rule was clear and consistent with all airports, and they have seen the no parking signs at the Eugene Airport. They noted there were also announcements made on the outdoor public announcement speakers about the no parking rule. They had seen EPD vehicles parked at the far end of the terminal in the past. Officer A had been on assignment at the airport before, so they may have forgotten they could not park there. On the other hand, since they worked at the airport before, they should have a clear understanding of the airport rules. Overall, regarding practices, EPD officers should practice the laws better than anyone else because they know they law better than anyone else. Even when they were off duty, they were representing their profession. Public officials must follow rules even when they were off duty. This officer was not doing that. They broke rules and cultural agreements. There was not training that could address that. Cortez said trust and accountability were two sides of the same coin. If you want public trust, you need accountability and vice versa. This case was embarrassing and could have been prevented. It was at the threshold of integrity and truthfulness. Regardless, it was a good example of where trust and accountability met in the middle. Griffin asked Sergeant Nelson if there was talk inside the EPD that stated a public employee should be held accountable when off duty because people were paying attention. Sergeant Nelson said not really but it was a well-known fact, and everyone recognized that the standard EPD officers were held accountable for was higher. Cortez said it was explicit because the policy stated language about bringing the department into a state of disrepute. It was a written expectation. Civilian Review Board May 09, 2023 5 Pitcher said the conduct policy referenced behavior while on duty and off duty, but there was an issue about how to enforce poor behavior that occurred off duty. In a criminal investigation you had the right to not self-incriminate. When officer A was under the criminal investigation, they did not have the right to remain silent. They had to answer the questions. Cortez asked if silence was okay. Pitcher said no. If they did not answer and were not truthful, there would be consequences. In previous situations where an officer refused to answer questions, they were held in subordination. They do have to answer, and they do have to be truthful. Griffin appreciated the Chiefs' letter, and said it showed the EPD took this case seriously. Conover said the reason there was no need for training was because it took place while the officer was off duty. It was interesting that officer A noticed the city services officer walking from car to car but did not know why that officer was approaching their car. The officer clearly did not want to get in trouble and was saying whatever they could to get out of trouble. They continued to go down that same path during their interview. Chair Williams asked board members if they agreed with the auditor, chain of command, and the chief' in that all allegations were sustained in this case. Roseta agreed with the chain of command. It was clear during the interview of officer A, there was too much advocacy and not enough answering the questions. They were defensive and it was clearly an integrity issue. It seemed to be that they looked over their shoulder to see if it was clear to pull out, and the city services officer stepped out in front of their car. Chair Williams agreed with all allegations being sustained. Griffin agreed with all adjudications. Conover agreed with all allegations being sustained. Not answering the questions, and then getting argumentative sealed the deal for them. They could be held accountable for reckless driving because while you should look over your shoulder before pulling out, you should not drive forward until you make sure the path in front of your car was clear. A child could have been walking across the crosswalk, or someone on their cell phone. Neal agreed with all adjudications. Pitcher said this was an older case that came to them when they were working alone so they appreciated everyone's support in how it was managed. 8. Auditor Report Pitcher said there had been 113 complaints as of the end of April 2023, which was the same at this time last year. The auditor's office had reviewed 36 uses of force. There had already been nine vehicle pursuits and the auditor's office would be analyzing those. There was an increase in questionable injuries and seizures of property. The auditor's office would also be analyzing those. In November 2022, the process began to make Eller and Foltz permanent employees. Their offer letters would be submitted to them this week. The Eugene Police Auditor's Office Annual Report was completed this week, and the CRB Annual Civilian Review Board May 09, 2023 6 Report was complete, which included a letter to the CRB Chair and Vice Chair, and a summary of all the cases reviewed by the CRB. They would be presented to city council on May 17, 2023. It would be shared with the CRB Board after the presentation to council was made. City council met on May 8, 2023, to finalize the auditor's salary. Video of that meeting was on the City of Eugene YouTube channel. The Public Safety Forum happened on May 2, 2023, and it was a success. Otero-Hernandez said a combination of different households, and organizations attended the Public Safety Forum. Good EPD and school safety questions were asked and relationship building occurred. It was posted on Facebook Live. Griffin asked Pitcher to expand a bit on the city council meeting that occurred on May 8, 2023. Pitcher said council had a discussion and a vote regarding their new salary and contract, and that they would provide more information when the final contract was complete and presented to them. 9. Closing Comments Chair Williams expressed their appreciation for the auditor's office. The Eugene Independent Auditor's Office was unique in that it had a high number of allegations. They acknowledged that the work of the CRB added to the auditor's workload. While they valued the work of the CRB, they were thoroughly appreciative of the auditor's office and the supporting staff. The oversight system in Eugene was fantastic and the best auditor in the country was sitting at the table. Cortez said these days, there was shame that was justified with civic institutions among communities. Despite that, he was proud of the work that the CRB does, and they believed in it. Institutions were as good as the people that make them, and the CRB had good people. Griffin said they hoped council would demonstrate an investment in the auditor process. They had pride in the CRB and were confident in this institution and were proud to be part of it. Conover agreed with Griffin. They began on this board when the auditor system was new and dysfunctional. The office grew because of Pitcher who had grown exponentially in their role without help. The auditor's office had a good system, and they would hate to see it get derailed because the City of Eugene did not value it. Neal said they appreciated the work of the auditor's office. They acknowledged it was tedious work to review hours of cases. Roseta said they appreciated the work of the auditor's office and the growth of the office. Pitcher was capable of their role as the auditor. The Eugene Police Auditor's Office was a great system. Without a doubt, there were great people running it. Chair Williams said the next CBR meeting would be June 13, 2023. There were no other comments or questions. 10. Adjourn Chair Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m. (Minutes recorded by Diana Pamir Tisdale) Civilian Review Board May 09, 2023 7  Office of the Police Auditor May 2023 Open Case Report Inquiries Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 3, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-outside jurisdiction RP made a general complaint regarding qualified immunity. Dismiss - Outside Jurisdiction Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 8, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained a communications specialist acted unprofessionally, and his/her (RP) request for service was ignored. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 10, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained police response to a service request for theft was substandard. Dismiss: Complainant withdrew allegations. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 11, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer mishandled an investigation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 15, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Categories: Driving Disposition: RP complained an officer operated his/her vehicle in an unsafe manner. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 24, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-outside jurisdiction RP complained he/she was unjustly arrested. Dismiss - arrest made by Lane County SO. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 24, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained officers used unnecessary force during his/her arrest. Dismiss - no policy violations occurred. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 26, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers used unnecessary force during an arrest. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 30, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained a detective mishandled an investigation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 30, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers provided improper service. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 31, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers provided improper service. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 31, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained traffic officers rode their motorcycles improperly. Service Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 1, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Categories: Insufficient Follow-Up Disposition: RP complained the police response to a road rage incident was substandard. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 1, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained officers’ service response was improper. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 2, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained officers mishandled the towing of his/her vehicle. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 3, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: RP alleged an officer conducted a substandard investigation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 5, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Categories: Insufficient Follow-Up Disposition: RP complained an officer's service was substandard. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 8, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Disputed Facts Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained an officer handled an investigation deficiently. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 10, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Disputed Facts Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP claimed officers improperly detained him/her. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 11, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Dismissed-Employee Not Identifiable RP complained officers acted unprofessionally. Dismissed - no identifiable employees. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 11, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an EPD vehicle was driven unsafely. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 16, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: RP complained an officer failed to follow-up with him/her in a timely manner. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 16, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Conduct Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained officers improperly handled an incident. Dismiss - no policy violations occurred. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 22, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained a sergeant acted inappropriately. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 26, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: RP complained officers mishandled an investigation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 30, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP complained officers failed to conduct a proper investigation. Dismiss - Timeliness (incident from 2015) Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 31, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Conduct Disposition: RP complained an officer mishandled a traffic accident. Policy Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 1, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: RP complained police actions to protect pedestrians from automobile drivers was substandard. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 1, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP questioned the police utilization of body cameras. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: May 8, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP asked for a policy review for police response to traffic accidents. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: May 19, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: RP complained police sirens were improperly utilized. Incident Reviews Incident type: Incident Review Status: Completed Received date: May 10, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP inquired if an officer's response to a call for service was within policy. Incident type: Incident Review Status: Completed Received date: May 15, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: Dismissed-previously reviewed RP complained officers made improper arrests. Dismiss - previously reviewed. Incident type: Incident Review Status: Completed Received date: May 18, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Conduct Disposition: Dismissed-o/s jurisdiction RP complained an officer engaged in criminal activity. Dismiss- officer was not an EPD employee. Allegations of Criminal Conduct Incident type: IA Investigation Status: Suspended Received date: May 16, 2023 Class/sub-class: Allegation of Criminal Conduct / Use of Force Disposition: RP complained an officer used unnecessary force during an arrest. [Suspended for criminal  review.] Incident type: IA Investigation Status: Completed Received date: May 19, 2023 Class/sub-class: Allegation of Criminal Conduct / Conformance to Laws Disposition: Administratively Closed RP alleged officers engaged in criminal activity 15-20 years ago. RP discontinued contact with investigators. [Administratively closed – investigation will be reopened for review pending new information.]  Eugene Police Department May 2023 Closed Case Report Incident type: IA Investigation Status: Completed Received date: Dec 21, 2022 Class/sub-class: Allegation of Misconduct / Use of Force Disposition: Within Policy Allegation: Use of Force 800: That Officer A used force in excess of that which was reasonable under the circumstances when he/she used his/her flashlight as an impact weapon to strike a suspect detained in handcuffs.  Independent Police Auditor’s Report – June 2023 Auditor’s Letter Civilian Review Board: May was a full month – we received 33 complaints, reviewed 15 uses of force, and • The Civilian Review Board has one vehicle pursuit (bringing the YTD total selected to review a case of vehicle pursuits up to 10). involving a vehicle pursuit, foot Office Updates: pursuit, and taser policy allegations at its June 13 • We completed our 2022 Annual meeting. They will also review a Report and presented it to City complaint that our office Council. Our complaints increased dismissed. marginally from 2021, but the total • CRB leadership completed the number of specific allegations 2022 CRB Annual Report (with investigated decreased slightly. We staff support) and presented it will be presenting the Auditor’s to City Council at their May 17 Annual Report to the CRB at its June work session. 13 meeting • Our 2022 Public Safety Forum was a Leia Pitcher success! This important event Independent Police Auditor returned after a few years off due to the pandemic, and we had excellent turnout and support. Beatriz Year to Date Complaint Volume created a report summarizing the 145148 event, which is attached to the CRB’s June Agenda Packet. • Rob Eller and Lindsey Foltz were directly appointed to their positions as Associate Auditors; I also signed my contract with the City of Eugene 39 37 38 32 33 26 25 21 and am officially serving as the 23 19 Police Auditor. • I will be presenting to Council June January February March April May YTD Total 14 on possible improvements to the oversight system, with a focus on 2022 2023 potential changes to the Civilian Oversight Protocols. The Protocols are negotiated between the City, the Auditor, and the Eugene Police Employees’ Association, and they 101 E. Broadway, Suite 230 • Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016 • Fax (541) 682-5599 have not been updated since they www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor were originally negotiated in 2007. SPANISH PUBLIC SAFETY FORUM A SUMMARY OF THE MAY 2023 EVENT COMPLETED BY: BEATRIZ OTERO HERNÁNDEZ SPP ECIAL THANKS ASTEL DECO & CO. MAYOR LUCY VINIS BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT ALEX REYNA MANNY VELAZQUEZ PASTELERÍA COLIN ALL OF OUR PANELISTS AND PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS OFFICE OF EQUITY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EUGENE POLICE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW PASTEL DECO & CO. ABOUT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY FORUMS After postponing planning in February of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Independent Police Auditor and Office of Equity and Community Engagement staff reconvened in early 2023 for the return of our fourth Spanish Public Safety Forum. Our first forum was held in December of 2017 in the 4J school district. Since then, we've alternated between the Bethel and 4J school districts to offer two additional events, all well attended. For the first time this year, we were able to offer live streaming of the Q&A portion of our forum. Manny Velazquez from Eugene/Springfield Fire was key to making this happen, dedicating time to obtain the equipment needed to capture everything in real time. The continued collaboration between the school districts, IPA, OECE and EPD staff allow for a dedicated team of planners bringing forward great ideas and working together to create a safe and fun space for all to enjoy.  PARTICIPANTS PANELISTS City of Eugene Rental Housing Navigator, Amy Cameron Molina Law Group, Immigration Attorney Abigail Molina Eugene Police Department, Chief Chris Skinner & Officer Perez Diaz Bethel School District Superintendent, Kraig Sproles TABLING ORGANIZATIONS Bethel School District City of Eugene Housing/ Fair Housing Council of Oregon City of Eugene Climate Friendly & Equitable Communities City of Eugene Independent Police Auditor City of Eugene Office of Equity & Community Engagement City of Eugene Transportation City of Eugene Waste Prevention Community Doula Program Connected Lane County Early Dual Language Development Lab (UO) Easterseals EPD – Community Engagement Team Eugene Center for Anxiety and Stress Eugene/Springfield Fire Department Grupo Latino de Accion Directa HEAD Start of Lane County Hope & Safety Alliance Innovation Law Lab - Equity Corps KEPW Kids’ FIRST Lane Community College Lane County Victim Services Molina Law Group Oregon Department of Human Services SAFE Routes to School SELCO Sexual Assault Support Services Trauma Healing Project  ATTENDANCE Approximately 35 different families attended our forum, consisting of over 150 household members benefitting from the information shared. The 28 community organizations tabling consisted of an additional 60 staff also in attendance. In addition, the live streaming of the Question and Answer portion has been viewed over 350 times to date and is available online indefinitely for those who still wish to view. 28 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THE A complete list of all participating organizations can be found on the previous page. This number is consistent NUMBERS with our last event and will likely continue to be our maximum, as we are often limited by space. $2,700 BUDGET MAXIMIZED We are grateful for the continued support from OECE, EPD and the school districts (which contribute their spaces and extra staff time, free of charge). We expect costs to continue rising and we will continue being mindful of this to maximize attendance and overall event success. This number does not account for staff time of all involved in the planning process. PUBLIC SAFETY FORUM IN SPANISH  OUTREACH EFFORTS LA E-KISS MULTIMEDIA OUTREACH As in years past, outreach through the local multimedia station La E-Kiss continued to be vital to our online outreach efforts. The founder, Alex Reyna, is a trusted figure amongst the local Latinx community, and he has been our event moderator since the implementation of our forums. Facebook event - Shared widely amongst social media groups and pages regularly, Invitation from Chief Skinner - A direct invitation from the Chief for the local Spanish-speaking community, Invitational videos from Alex and IPA staff, Weekly mentions in Aquí en la Ciudad - A weekly City of Eugene broadcast that shares community news and events in Spanish, Facebook flyer contest - incentive for community members to share event information online to be entered into a gift card drawing. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS Latinx Outreach Network Integration Network of Lane County Facebook event promotion La Que Buena 97.7 FM ads and on air interview Flyers throughout Latino businesses/ organizations and the community COMMUNITY QUESTIONS LAW ENFORCEMENT QUESTIONS: Does the Eugene Police Department train officers on racial profiling? How often do they retrain them? Should I call the police on my neighbor who continues to have parties late into the night? It’s affecting my child’s ability to sleep, and she is having to go to school exhausted. Can a police officer in Eugene stop and ask someone if they are documented if they are only stopped for something minor, such as a broken taillight? What can I do if they placed a breathalyzer in my car but it has been malfunctioning? ·When law enforcement responds to an incident involving non-English-speakers, what is the protocol or steps they take to involve any interpreter that is not a family, friend, neighbor, etc.? What can an adolescent do if the police closed their case due to lack of proof because they did not speak up in time and their aggressor manipulated the story? How does EPD handle a police officer who racial profiles an individual? What type of training do you have in your organization on trauma-informed care and cultural competency? SCHOOL SAFETY QUESTIONS: Superintendent: what plan do you have for students who currently don’t feel safe, to feel safe in their schools? Here at Willamette, there have been numerous incidents and as far as I know, these problematic students are only suspended for a few days only to return to cause serious issues again. If someone were to bring a weapon to school, whether it’s a student or an outsider, what are the actions and protocols the school would implement? COMMUNITY QUESTIONS CONTINUED SCHOOL SAFETY QUESTIONS CONT. Are there services for young adults that have serious mental disability and don’t have a social worker advocating for them? How do schools respond to sexual assault reports? Can you talk about the equal/fair treatment and rights of boys. There are girls harassing boys in schools. A girl told a boy they would pay money to be their girlfriend, on some occasions, they believe girls more than boys. Do teachers receive training in the event of a school shooting? Can you teach or practice with children too? Are school districts still required to keep track of racial incidents or harassment? Is it available to the public? IMMIGRATION QUESTIONS: Can you help with T-Visa? What do you do when an individual or family needs your services but can’t afford your rates? Three families have told me they have gone to the courthouse and upon exiting, ICE is present and takes them (for DUII or other things). How does ICE know that person has a court hearing that day? RENTER PROTECTIONS QUESTIONS: My house burned down and I did not have insurance. I received help from family, friends, and teachers, but I was unaware of a place to receive additional help. Can you share some resources so others are aware? What can I do if I was evicted out of my home? COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Anonymous surveys were distributed to both the public and participating agencies to ensure we received honest feedback and suggestions on how to improve everyone's experience at future forums. We appreciate everyone taking the time to let us know how we are doing. 9.4/10 top three EVENT PROMOTION SCORE STRATEGIES We received an average score of 9.4/10 When community members were asked from community members regarding the how they heard about the event, their top overall experience of attending our safety responses were the following: forums. This was a slight increase from 1. My child's school / school district years before. Comments provided in our 2. Facebook (including other online anonymous survey include (translated platforms) from Spanish): 3. Family/Friend The information was great! 4. Email Great program! Loved it! Very 5. La Que Buena radio advertisement informative! 6. Flyers throughout the community Everything was great. Thank you. Would love for these to be held more often or consecutively. feedback FROM COMMUNITY 100% OF ATTENDEES PARTNERS 91% of tabling organizations rated the JOINED US FOR event as "Excellent/Very Good". THE FIRST TIME Likes: Bingo card to increase engagement, in-person gathering. the This number varies substantially from our time for folks to visit community partners past forum survey results where 43% of sharing great information, food & space attendees stated they had attended a set up. previous forum. This drastic change may Potential improvements: "Too many be due to folks not realizing this is a armed police officers (may still be continuation of previous forums due to intimidating for some folks.)", the amount of time past since our last "Professional interpretation for the Chief event, the difference in location, or rather than an officer." "Persistence is simply new folks learning about our event. important - please keep doing it. Need for social reconnection is needed."  MOVING FORWARD Once again, we'd like to thank everyone who had a part in making our fourth public safety forum a success. We look forward to continuing to hold this yearly event in partnership with the Eugene Police Department and the Office of Equity and Community Engagement. We continue to learn about key topics of interest to our local Latinx community and hope that these forums serve as a mechanism to an ongoing conversation which results in a relationship of trust between our local agencies and the community as a whole. Beatriz Otero Hernández Independent Police Auditor Community Engagement Coordinator & Translation Specialist boterohernandez@eugene-or.gov, 541-682-5048  Police Commendations The Eugene Police Department Commendations from citizens for May 2023 maybe found at the link below. https://www.eugene-or.gov/2763/Commendations