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, October 10, 2023 – 5:30pm Attend Via Webinar: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/84939039572 Passcode: October23 Attend by Phone: 833 548 0276 (US Toll Free) 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 September 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. Training Topic: Office of Professional Standards Annual Report 20 minutes (6:05pm) 6. Break 5 minutes (6:10pm) 7. Case Review: Constitutional Rights, Body Worn Video 45 minutes (6:15pm) 8. Auditor Report 10 minutes (7:00pm) 9. Closing Comments 15 minutes (7:10pm) 10. Adjourn (7:25pm) Upcoming Meeting: December 12, 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 September 12, 2023 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Carolyn Williams, Chair; Jose Cortez, Vice Chair; Bernadette Conover; Rick Roseta; Alan Leiman; Monique Griffin; Rob Eller; Lindsey Foltz; Leia Pitcher; Cindy Coleman. Deputy Chief Shawn Adams; Beatrice Otero-Hernandez. ABSENT: Clay Neal. Chair Williams convened the Civilian Review Board (CRB) at 5:30 p.m. The Land Acknowledgement was read, and a quorum was established. 1. Agenda and Materials Review Foltz noted that EPD party patrol procedures were the training topic indicated on the agenda. 2. Minutes Approval (Minutes from June 2023, Meeting) MOTION: Conover moved, seconded by Vice Chair Cortez, to approve the June 2023, CRB meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously – 6:0. 3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons Leiman said the Police Commission did not meet last month and noted that the auditor would present an auditor's report on September 14, 2023. Conover said they appreciated that the EPD gave the CRB the opportunity to learn about the physical restraint process during their use of force training last month. Griffin attended Eugene Pride and the black cultural celebration in Eugene with Beatrice Otero- Hernandez, who did a great job setting up the booths. 4. Public Comment A member of the public brought the following two topics to the attention of the CRB: • Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) services were now being rendered through the Eugene Fire Department (EFD), and it had become an issue that EPD officers no longer had access to CAHOOTS dispatch calls, leaving them in the dark about when and where crisis intervention was taking place. • A complaint ending with QDRJ7MDZ was recently filed with the auditor's office. They hoped CRB members would review each topic and suggested that the auditor's office should have a 24-hour call service to allow real-time mitigation of violent or inappropriate interactions with EPD officer's and members of the public, which was even more necessary now that CAHOOTS services were being rendered through the EFD. Civilian Review Board September 12, 2023 0 5. Training Topic – Party Patrol Deputy Chief Adams spoke about party patrol procedures within the EPD. A party with roughly 100 – 150 people, near the University of Oregon (UO), spilled into the street in the early part of spring 2022. The crowd turned violent against EPD officers, and some officers obtained injuries. Chief Deputy Adams noted that the EPD had engaged the UO, and canvassed UO neighborhoods prior to this party, to make people aware of the Social Host Ordinance in Eugene. The EPD Party Patrol was put into effect shortly after the violence at the large street party occurred. A group of six to eight officers were designated to respond to parties, to lessen the burden on the entirety of the Eugene police force. Their responsibility was to respond to loud, disruptive parties and shut them down if violations were witnessed. Chief Deputy Adams noted that Arizona State had experienced similar occurrences with disruptive parties and a zero- tolerance policy was enacted by their police force. The EDP Party Patrol ran for five weeks before the UO Student Association engaged the EPD about it. Chief Skinner met with them, and it was decided that the UO Student Association would police themselves, to which the EPD gladly obliged. The outcome has been successful since that agreement was made. EDP recently spoke to the UO Student Association and canvassed UO neighborhoods to, once again, bring awareness to the Social Host Ordinance in Eugene. This time it was different because of the party registration agreement that recently went into effect at the UO. Complaints regarding disruptive parties would be received by the EPD, who would verify that the party was registered and forward the call to the UO Police Department (UOPD). If the party was not registered, an EPD officer would be dispatched. If the party was not registered, and it was at a UO fraternity or sorority house, the EPD would call the UOPD to come and assist them. 6. Break The CRB took a break from 6:00 p.m. to 6:05 p.m. 7. Case Review: Constitutional Rights, Conduct, Performance, Courtesy Allegations 1. 103.5.5.2 Retaliation in the Community – Supervisor A engaged in retaliatory behavior when they directed officers to arrest all residents of the house after certain residents asserted their constitutional right to refuse entry, when several residents had already received citations in lieu of custody. 2. 322 Improper Search and Seizure – Supervisor A prevented the residents from denying them entry to the house without a warrant, or a valid exception to the warrant requirement, by preventing them from closing their front door. 3. 103.4.1 Poor Judgement – Supervisor A did not demonstrate good judgement in their handling of the situation, including their failure to consider questions from multiple officers regarding their decision to jail complaint residents. 4. 103.5.8.d Lack of Courtesy – Supervisor A failed to "use tact in their interactions, control their temper, exercise patience and discretion, and not allow themselves to be provoked by the actions of others" when they threatened that exercise of constitutional rights, i.e., a right to a trial, would result in negative consequences. Summary of Facts October 29, 2022, EPD officers assigned to EPD Party Patrol responded to a fraternity house in Eugene, Oregon. (The residents threw a Halloween party on the evening of October 28, 2022, and the party continued into the morning hours of October 29, 2022.) A neighbor of the house called the EPD to complain that the party was a disturbance. Civilian Review Board September 12, 2023 1 Officer D was the first to arrive. Supervisor A and other officers arrived moments later. Supervisor A contacted residents and non-residents outside near the entry of the house. Supervisor A requested that all residents exit the house to address officers. Supervisor A knocked on the door. When the door began to open, Supervisor A utilized their flashlight to hold the door open. While Supervisor A spoke to individuals in the doorway area, they grabbed one adult, who declined the request to voluntarily come outside, pulled them out of the entryway and arrested them. Three residents voluntarily exited the residence and spoke with officers. Initially, these residents were slated to receive citations. After Supervisor A became dissatisfied with the cooperation of the other residents, they obtained a search warrant for the house and arrested all the residents, including the three who cooperated. Officer C authored and received approval for the search warrant, which resulted in the arrest and lodging of 23 of the residents in the Lane County jail. In the Internal Affairs interview, Supervisor A defended their actions regarding the four allegations in the investigation. This was an externally generated complaint. Adjudication Recommendations • 103.5.5.2 Retaliation in the Community – Sustained by the Auditor and Eugene Chief of Police, Unfounded by EPD Chain of Command • 322 Improper Search and Seizure – Sustained by the Auditor, Eugene Chief of Police, and EDP Chain of Command • 103.4.1 Poor Judgement – Sustained by the Auditor and Eugene Chief of Police, Insufficient Evidence by EPD Chain of Command • 103.5.8.d Lack of Courtesy – Sustained by the Auditor, Eugene Chief of Police, and EDP Chain of Command Chief Deputy Adams clarified that they sustained all four allegations and noted that it was the captain who made the unfounded and insufficient evidence adjudication recommendations. Chair Williams disclosed that they had a professional relationship with the reporting parties' family and stated they would be speaking about this case without bias. Conover disclosed they had a connection to one of the officers who was dispatched on the scene during the incident. Regarding their opinion on the investigation, classification, and monitoring of this case, they said the amount of time spent on this investigation was overwhelming to them. They stated the intake was appropriate, and the monitoring was handled well. They noted it would have been helpful if a clearer timeline was presented in the narrative regarding when the situation escalated from citations to arrests. If there were monitors at this party, they hoped EPD officers knew who the monitors were, had contact with them upon arrival, and knew whether or not the monitors had control of the premises. It did not seem like those things were asked during the incident or during the investigation. They acknowledged that there was a lot of people being questioned and a lot of content to review. Therefore, it was likely they missed that if it actually occurred. They said it would have been helpful to know if the three residents who willingly came outside did so because they were asked to by officers, or if they just happened to come outside out of curiosity. Civilian Review Board September 12, 2023 2 Roseta said they did not think the auditor's office should be involved with the allegations of poor judgement or lack of courtesy. Those were subjective determinations that should be reserved for the supervisors of the police department. Griffin said each allegation was appropriately classified. Chair Williams agreed with the classification of each allegation. They said the investigation was handled well. Vice Chair Cortez said they did not have any recommendations about the investigation, classification, or monitoring process. Leiman said a lack of courtesy was not exhibited by Supervisor A when they told people the penalty would be stiffer if they exercised their right to a trial, it was disinformation. Regarding relevant policies, practices, and policy training, Roseta said most of the people at this party were intoxicated and seemed unable to control themselves. Therefore, it would be difficult for them to say there should have been policy or training regarding the way this situation was handled. Griffin said they were not sure what, if any, additional training was needed. However, it was good to learn about the party patrol and how the EPD has collaborated with the UO to find the best solution to deal with disruptive parties. Chair Williams asked what type of training the party patrol received to deal with disruptive parties and young partygoers. They noted that because of student's age group, it would seem that special considerations would need to be made in dealing with them appropriately. It seemed like a lot of minors were not penalized in this case. Williams asked what the parameters were for under-age drinkers. Chief Deputy Adams said the expectations was that if officers encountered a minor in possession (MIP), a citation would be issued. They admitted that did not happen. Regarding specialized training in dealing with intoxicated students, basic EPD training covered that. A good portion, if not all of the members of the party patrol were also on the EPD's Mobile Response Team. This team received additional training in dealing with crowd environments. Vice Chair Cortez said it was difficult to determine what would be good for the community in this scenario, without a collective understanding of what good was. Many of their initial questions were already asked by Chair Williams and answered by Chief Deputy Adams. Leiman said it was important to understand the warrant process involved in these situations. Warrants were typically issued for parties if there was a noise violation, and the furnishing of alcohol was taking place. An officer would not seize the stereo and empty cups to prove there was noise and drinking. In reviewing this case, it seemed like the lieutenant primed the officers before they were dispatched to the scene of the party because at least two of the officers had warrant templates in their possession, which made it seem like the officers went into this situation with a retaliatory mindset. Taking 23 people to jail for being at a fraternity party should never have happened. Therefore, there should be a policy and training consideration for whoever approved the warrant for this party. If there was a threat to safety or a riot was taking place, that would be different, but clearly, neither of those were a factor. If the party was basically over, and the door was closed, EPD should have walked away. Conover said with regard to the party patrol, it would have been helpful if EPD officers knew who was in charge of the party and if that person was sober enough to be helpful in this situation. It seemed like a few Civilian Review Board September 12, 2023 3 of the people who were cited were more cognoscente than others. It also wasn't clear which member of the EPD was supposed to be in charge, or if supervisor A just took charge because they were the supervisor on shift. After reviewing the content of this case, it seemed like there would have been a much different outcome if another member of the EPD was in charge. It also seemed like there was little questioning among officers as to why arrests were being made, as opposed to citations being distributed. Especially because the citations had already been written. Conover recommended that part of the training should include establishing who was in charge and who would be making the decisions in these situations. They wondered why a warrant was needed if the door was being kept open. It was also unclear if the people in the house knew they were supposed to come outside. Therefore, it was not clear if they were truly being uncooperative. Supervisor A should have slowed down and exhibited de-escalation skills to ensure that effective communication was taking place. Regarding adjudication recommendations, Griffin said they agreed with all the allegations being sustained by the auditor and the chief. Chair Williams also agreed with the allegations being sustained. Vice Chair Cortez also agreed with the auditor and the chief's decision to sustain all allegations. Leiman said their will always be parties and their will always be responses. He agreed with all the allegations being sustained by the auditor and the chief. Conover said regarding the allegation of retaliation in the community, if it were limited to the three people who were cited, they would agree with sustaining that allegation. However, the claim of retaliation was unfounded for anyone else taken into custody because they had not asserted any rights. Conover did not think there was enough evidence to indicate that there was a failure to consider questions by other officers, and therefore agreed with the finding of insufficient evidence by the EPD Chain of Command. They agreed that the allegation of lack of courtesy should be sustained. Roseta said the sustained adjudication recommendations for search and seizure and retaliation was unfounded because supervisor A never searched the house or seized anything from the house, and the people were arrested for failing to come outside of the house after numerous requests for them to do so were made. 8. Auditor Report Pitcher said the auditor's office had been busy, and that the workload had increased compared to last year. The uptick in pursuits was being analyzed closely. The office would report on that when more data was collected. Conover asked about CAHOOTS being handled by the EFD. Deputy Chief Adams said as part of the budgeting process, CAHOOTS was moved to the fire department. Aside from the budgeting aspect, the EPD felt it would be beneficial because the medical component of their work would be better aligned with the fire department. It was a city decision to move the program to the EFD. Regarding the public comment earlier tonight, it was not entirely accurate because CAHOOTS calls were still being routed to the EPD. EPD officers will still be on the scene to protect CAHOOTS, if need be. 10. Closing Comments Civilian Review Board September 12, 2023 4 Chair Williams noted that regarding the member of the public's suggestion for a 24-hour call center at the auditor's office, the auditor's online portal allowed complaints to be made 24 / seven. Roseta said the public comment suggested it would be beneficial to get responses / mediation from the auditor's office 24 / seven, not have the ability to file complaints. Vice Chair Cortez asked if it would be a violation of people's rights to arrest all the residents of the house if EPD officers had not entered the premises and witnessed underage drinking. Foltz noted the residents of the house were arrested for excessive noise, not drinking. As the hosts of the house, they were responsible for breaking the noise ordinance. Chair Williams said the next meeting would be October 10, 2023. 11. Adjourn Chair Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. (Minutes recorded by. Diana Pamir Tisdale) Civilian Review Board September 12, 2023 5  Office of the Police Auditor September 2023 Open Case Report Inquiries Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 8, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-alt remedy RP complained an officer insulted him/her and acted inappropriately. Dismiss – no policy violations occurred and alternate remedy. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 8, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer engaged in inappropriate conduct. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 11, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained communications specialists acted unprofessionally. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 12, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP claimed an officer mishandled a call regarding a pet. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 12, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Categories: LECC Reporting Disposition: RP complained an officer acted retaliatorily and unprofessionally. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 15, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained he/she should have been contacted by an officer prior to prosecution declination by the Lane County DA's office. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 15, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer (off duty) went to an inappropriate social function. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 20, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained an officer improperly investigated an incident and failed to notify him/her of body worn camera activation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 20, 2023 : Class/sub-class: Inquiry Categories: Driving Disposition: Dismissed-o/s jurisdiction RP complained an officer drove improperly and unjustly conducted a traffic stop. Dismiss - outside agency. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 21, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers acted improperly and unjustly detained him/her. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 22, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers failed to provide him/her with assistance. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 25, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers mishandled a civil, eviction incident. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 26, 2023 : Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP complained officers acted improperly. Dismiss - timeliness. Service Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 1, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Categories: Driving Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer in a marked vehicle made a traffic violation without cause. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 5, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Courtesy Disposition: RP complained a communications specialist acted unprofessionally. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 6, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Disputed Facts Disposition: Dismissed-EE Not Identifiable RP complained an officer made an improper hand signal towards him/her. Dismiss - no identifiable employee. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 6, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Courtesy Disposition: Dismissed-EE Not Identifiable RP alleged officers acted inappropriately. Dismiss- no identifiable employees. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 7, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Disputed Facts Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained an officer acted inappropriately. Dismiss – no policy violations occurred. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 13, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Categories: Insufficient Follow-Up Disposition: RP complained officers failed to appropriately follow-up with him/her regarding an accident. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 15, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Courtesy Disposition: Dismissed-EE Not Identifiable RP complained he/she was treated disrespectfully by communication specialists. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 21, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition:  RP complained officers failed to properly follow-up on an investigation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 22, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Categories: Driving Disposition: RP complained an officer drove improperly and did not have emergency lights activated. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 25, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: RP complained a theft investigation was not properly handled. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Sep 26, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: Dismissed-o/s jurisdiction RP complained a communications specialist acted improperly. Dismiss - outside agency/jurisdiction. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 28, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: RP complained his/her requests for service with a noise complaint went unfulfilled and a communications specialist was discourteous. Policy Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 20, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: RP complained an officer improperly handled an investigation and failed to provide requested actions. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Sep 21, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: RP complained a communications specialist was unprofessional regarding a noise complaint complained an officer improperly handled a traffic stop for driving violations. Incident Reviews Incident type: Incident Review Status: Active Received date: Sep 13, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: RP complained an officer mistreated him/her during arrest processing. Incident type: Incident Review Status: Completed Received date: Sep 27, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Conduct Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP alleged officers engaged in criminal activity. Dismiss - no policy/criminal violations occurred. Incident type: Incident Review Status: Active Received date: Sep 29, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: RP disputed an officer’s statements during an investigation.  Independent Police Auditor’s Report – October 2023 Auditor’s Letter We are continuing to experience an The CRB will also be reviewing an uptick in complaints, with 32 investigation into two EPD received in September. We are also employees’ allegedly improper reviewing 11 uses of force from entry into an apartment. September; there have been 97 Please note, the CRB will not have reportable uses of force so far in a November meeting due to 2023. We’ll be reviewing the Auditor’s staff attending the complaints to attempt to identify any conference of the National trends that would account for the Association of Civilian Oversight of increase this year; we are currently Law Enforcement (NACOLE). still trending under our all-time high of 446 complaints in 2019. Leia Pitcher Independent Police Auditor As part of our focus on accessibility improvements, Beatriz Otero- Hernandez has been hard at work updating the websites for the Auditor’s Office and the Civilian Year to Date Complaint Volume Review Board. Both websites are 275 223 now live, and she has done a tremendous job, so be sure to check those out! 39 37 23 2638 25 21 32 33 32 34 26 37 2932 19 2024 Upcoming Public Meetings On October 10th, the Civilian Review Board will hear the 2022 Annual 2022 2023 Report from EPD’s Professional Standards Manager, Cindy Coleman. The presentation encompasses all the types of incidents that their team tracks during the course of the year. 101 E. Broadway, Suite 230 • Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016 • Fax (541) 682-5599 www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor  Police Commendations The Eugene Police Department Commendations from citizens for September 2023 maybe found at the link below. https://www.eugene-or.gov/2763/Commendations