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, February 13, 2024 – 5:30pm Attend Via Webinar: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/84429269099 Passcode: Feb24CRB Attend by Phone: 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 October and December meetings) 5 minutes (5:35pm) 3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons 5 minutes (5:40pm) 4. Training Topic: Community Court 20 minutes (5:45pm) 5. Training Topic: Body Worn Cameras 15 minutes (6:05pm) 6. Break 5 minutes (6:20pm) 7. Case Review: Failure to Activate Body Worn Cameras 45 minutes (6:25pm) 8. Liaison Elections: Human Rights/Police Commission 20 minutes (7:10pm) 9. Auditor Report 10 minutes (7:30pm) 10. Closing Comments 15 minutes (7:40pm) 11. Public Comment 5 minutes (7:55pm) 12. Adjourn (8:00pm) Upcoming Meeting: March 12, 2024 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 October 10, 2023 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Jose Cortez, Vice Chair; Rick Roseta; Clay Neal; Alan Leiman; Monique Griffin; Rob Eller; Lindsey Foltz; Leia Pitcher; Cindy Coleman; Sergeant Joel Peckels; Seargent John Jensen. ABSENT: Carolyn Williams, Chair, Bernadette Conover. Vice Chair Cortez convened the Civilian Review Board (CRB) at 5:30 p.m. The Land Acknowledgement was read, introductions were made, and a quorum was established. 1. Agenda and Materials Review There were no changes made to the agenda. 2. Minutes Approval (Minutes from September 2023, Meeting) Leiman made the following amendments to page three of the September 2023, meeting minutes: • Insert the words "need to" in the phrase, "Leiman said an officer would not need to seize the stereo and empty cups to prove there was noise and drinking." • Remove the words "with a retaliatory mindset" from the phrase, "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. Replace those words with, "more likely to issue a warrant." MOTION: Griffin moved, seconded by Leiman, to approve the June 2023, CRB meeting minutes with amendments. The motion passed unanimously – 4:0. 3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons . Leiman said the police auditor presented the annual report at the last Police Commission meeting, and it was well received. They were glad to see the training topic on today's agenda and noted that it should be presented to the CRB annually. 4. Public Comment There was no public comment. 5. Training Topic – Office of Professional Standards Annual Report Coleman said Sergeant Joel Peckels and Sergeant Ryan Nelson investigated all the cases in 2022 and noted that Rick Webber was an integral part of the day-to-day functions of the Eugene Police Department (EPD). The complete Office of Professional Standards Annual Report was published on the City of Eugene website under EPD Publications. Report Highlights: Civilian Review Board October 10, 2023 0  • There were only 16 allegations of misconduct made in 2022. Allegations of misconduct required an EPD Internal Affairs (IA) investigation. If any of the allegations were sustained, a disciplinary phase would take place. • There were 286 supervisor actions in 2022. Supervisor actions were categorized as service complaints, policy complaints, or inquiries. While service complaints were slightly more in 2022 than in 2021, the incident reviews were slightly less. • There were 356 commendations made in 2022. • The EPD was below the 10-year average for IA cases in 2022. • In 2022, the auditor categorized most cases as performance-based cases. • Of the 16 allegations of misconduct made in 2022, nine were sustained. • Of the 16 allegations of misconduct made in 2022, nine were internal and seven were external. • Of the nine internal allegations investigated, five were sustained. • Of the seven external allegations investigated, two were sustained. • In 2022, there were two written reprimands, three oral reprimands, five documented cases of counseling, and two documented cases of coaching. • There were 28 incident reviews opened, all of which remained incident reviews at the time of their closure. • 57 of the supervisor actions were service complaints. • There were 10 vehicle pursuits in 2022. • There were 159 uses of force in 2022. Factors leading to a use of force included active resistance, attempts to flee, and possession of weapons. 91 percent of these incidents resulted in arrest. The average age of offenders was 36 years of age. • Taser use decreased by 20 percent in 2022. • There were 13 canine uses of force in 2022. • 102 shows of force were reported in 2022. A show of force is defined as an officer drawing or displaying any weapon. Vice Chair Cortez noted that it was 6:30 p.m. and that the CRB needed to move to the next agenda item. In closing, Coleman said all cases provided the EPD with an opportunity to gain experience, learn and evolve. 6. Break The CRB took a break from 6:30 p.m. to 6:35 p.m. 7. Case Review: Constitutional Rights, Body Worn Video (BWV) Summary of Facts • On July 22, 2022, Citizen 1 called the EPD communications center and requested police assistance. Officer A responded and went to Citizen 1's residence. Citizen 1 said they allowed an individual (the suspect) into their residence and allowed them to use their cellular phone. While inside the home, the suspect stole two other cellular phones and left. • Citizen 1 said they sent electronic messages to the suspect expressing a desire to recover the stolen phones. The requests were unsuccessful. • Citizen 1 told Officer A that they had gained access to the suspect's electronic messenger and email. (Note: when the suspect used Citizen 1's cellular phone, they signed into their account and did not sign out.) Citizen 1 informed Officer A that the suspect's electronic communication Civilian Review Board October 10, 2023 1  contained exchanges regarding illicit drug trafficking and that they had captured some of those discussions. Officer A questioned Citizen 1 about the suspect's drug activity. • Citizen 1 said they believed the suspect was staying with their parents (Reporting Party [RP]) and provided Officer A with their address. On July 22, 2022, Officer A went to the RP's residence. Officer B assisted Officer A with the investigation. • Officer A arrived at the front door of the RP's residence, opened the exterior screen / storm door, pushed the interior door open and announced, "Hello, your door is open." (Note: when the officers arrived at the residence, the exterior door was closed, and the interior door was slightly ajar.) • Moments later, both officers entered the RP's residence. The officers conducted a limited residential search, exited the residence, and encountered the RP on the balcony outside of their front door. The RP expressed dissatisfaction that the officers entered their residence. • In their IA interviews, both officers asserted a warrantless entry into the RP's residence was justified by the community caretaking exception. Officer A acknowledged that they failed to activate their body-worn camera. Allegations: • Improper Search and Seizure and Failed Body-worn Video Equipment Deployment o 322.2 Search and Seizure: On July 22, 2022, Officer A entered the RP's residence without a search warrant or valid exception to the warrant requirement. o 1203.7.1 Body Worn Video: On July 22, 2022, Officer A failed to use their BWV system while they conducted an investigative encounter with the RP. o 322.2 Search and Seizure: On July 22, 2022, Officer B entered the RP's residence without a search warrant or valid exception to the warrant requirement. Adjudication Recommendations • Officer A – 322.2 Search and Seizure: Sustained by the EPD Chain of Command, the Auditor, and the Chief of Police. • Officer A – 1203.7.1 Body Worn Video: Sustained by the EPD Chain of Command, the Auditor, and the Chief of Police. • Officer B – 322.2 Search and Seizure: Sustained by the EPD Chain of Command, the Auditor, and the Chief of Police. This was an externally generated complaint. Eller noted that while the EPD Chain of Command, the Auditor, and the Chief of Police sustained the allegations, Officer A and B's Line Sergeant found their conduct to be within policy. General Discussion Leiman said this was the second search and seizure that had been reviewed by the CRB recently where the EPD Line Sergeant found sustained allegations to be within policy, which warranted some questioning as to why that happens. Regarding Officer A and B's assertion that their warrantless entry into the RP's residence was justified by the community caretaking exception, that exception would only be valid if there was an established threat of danger to any person or property, an intent to endanger any person was established, or a missing person was thought to be inside the premises. They noted that the exterior door was closed, and the interior door was only slightly open. They agreed with the sustained allegations. Civilian Review Board October 10, 2023 2 Vice Chair Cortez said they found the IA investigation to be thorough and comprehensive. Griffin concurred with Vice Chair Cortez and expressed appreciation for the EPD Chain of Command's review of this case and all cases. They asked if there was any impact from the RP's decision to eventually allow the officers into their residence. Pitcher said it made no impact on the allegations. Rosetta said they struggled with the credibility of the RP in that what they told the person at the EPD communication center was in contrast to what appeared in the video. They felt that there was no harm done by the officers entering the premises without justified cause. Neal said they disagreed with Rosetta's characterization of the RP because of the way that they responded to the officers. It was justifiable to feel like the officers invaded their privacy by entering their home. They noted that they thought the allegations were handled well. Complaint, Intake, Classification, and Monitoring Discussion Vice Chair Cortez said the classification was straightforward. Relevant Policies and Practices; Training Considerations Discussion Vice Chair Cortez asked CRB members what they thought about Officer A not understanding his right to enter a residence and if that was an important issue. They also asked if Officer A was a seasoned officer. Pitcher said Officer had been on the force for three years and Officer B had been on the force for two years. Neal said they read the report before they watched the video. As they were reading the report, they agreed with Officer A's decision to a welfare check because the door was partly open, and it was late at night. When they watched the video, it was clear that the intention to enter the residence was to look for something and not to check on the safety of someone and they were no longer in agreement with the officer's decision. Lieman said this was a constitutional violation. The length of time that these officers were on the force was irrelevant. They should know the law. They were concerned that the EPD Line Supervisor thought it was okay for the officers to do so. There was nothing at the front door of that residence that presented any pending danger going on inside. Rosetta disagreed and said the officers should be allowed some discretion. If the officers did not enter the premises and there was a woman inside bleeding and dying, it would reflect poorly on the EPD. The suspect was described as being erratic and there was some reference to them having a gun. Leiman said there was no evidence that the suspect was even there. The law required there to be some indicator that danger or serious harm was being done to a person or the property, intent to endanger any person was taking place, or a missing person was believed to be inside the residence. Rosetta asked where in the EPD policy did it state that. Leiman said the constitution trumped the policy. Civilian Review Board October 10, 2023 3 Pitcher said the EPD policy required that officers followed the constitution. If the officers entered the residence unlawfully and found someone inside dying, it would not be admissible because they entered the premises without a valid reason. Vice Chair Cortez said the EPD Chief's sustained recommendation reflected the constitution. Griffin said there was nothing going on at the residence on that day that warranted entry of the RP's home. Neal said for the officers to not know their entry was unlawful should indicate the need for some training. It seemed like the officers cared about the community, and it was unfortunate that they made a poor decision. Leiman said the officers went above and beyond to locate the stolen items, which was surprising since the items were two cellphones. The officers were not acting under an emergency circumstance. His concern was that the EPD Line Sergeant thought their conduct was okay. This indicated that training was needed on this topic. It was important because it involved the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Griffin agreed with the adjudications. 8. Auditor Report The auditor's office was experiencing a substantial uptick in complaints, to which no unifying trend had been established. Staff was trying to work on their accessibility, and recent updates had been made to the auditor's office website. 10. Closing Comments Leiman thanked Sergeants Peckels and Jensen, Cindy Coleman, the auditor's office staff, and CRB members for the work that they do. Neal said his experience in the Portland Police Bureau was stressful and they appreciated being involved with the EPD. 11. Adjourn Vice Chair Cortez adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. (Minutes recorded by. Diana Pamir Tisdale) Civilian Review Board October 10, 2023 4  MINUTES Civilian Review Board Zoom Webinar December 12, 2023 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Carolyn Williams, Chair; Bernadette Conover, Alan Leiman, Rick Roseta, Monique Griffin, Rob Eller, Lindsey Foltz, Leia Pitcher, Beatrice Otero-Hernandez, Cindy Coleman, Deputy Chief Shawn Adams. ABSENT: Jose Cortez, Vice Chair; Clay Neal. Chair Williams convened the Civilian Review Board (CRB) at 5:30 p.m. A quorum was established. 1. Agenda and Materials Review There were no changes made to the agenda. 2. Minutes Approval (Minutes from October 2023, Meeting) Griffin made the following amendments: • Remove the following sentence from the Closing Comments: o Griffin expressed her gratitude for the experience of being a CRB member. • Add the following sentences to the General Discussion: o Griffin asked if there was any impact from the RP's decision to eventually allow the officers into their residence. o Pitcher said it had no impact on the allegations. Pitcher suggested postponing the approval of the October 2023, meeting minutes until the January 2024, meeting. Members of the CRB agreed to postpone approving the amended October 2023, meeting minutes. 3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons Griffin said an important fact that they learned at a recent training was that roughly 55 percent of cases reviewed by the auditor’s office were sustained by the Eugene Chief of Police. Conover asked if the Land Acknowledgement would be read. Chair Willimas said they had received pushback from reading that and suggested not to read it this month. Griffin suggested that if the Land Acknowledgement was not read every month going forward, it could at least be read during Native American Heritage Month. Conover said they would prefer to have some form of acknowledgement at the beginning of each meeting. Chair Williams said a training topic on the history of Eugene or Oregon would be of interest to them. Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 0 Griffin said they learned in their University of Oregon (UO) history class that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) enforced sundown within the city limits at one time and noted that they would be interested in learning more about that. . 4. Training Topic – Alternative Crisis Response Deputy Chief Adams said most people were aware about Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) and their long history in Eugene. They noted that the EPD and CAHOOTS had an ongoing relationship and that CAHOOTS was a model program. In the past, when CAHOOTS was needed for medical or behavioral health issues, a medic and a crisis worker from CAHOOTS were dispatched to the scene by the EPD. In 2022, a decision was made to transition CAHOOTS from the EPD to the Eugene Fire Department (EFD). There were two primary reasons for that decision. The first reason being that it made more sense to have CAHOOTS associated with the fire department, being a life support response agency. The second reason had to do with EPD budgeting. Since the transition, there was a misconception that EPD no longer had a relationship with CAHOOTS. Deputy Chief Adams confirmed that was not true. CAHOOTS vans were still equipped with computers, they still responded to the same calls, and EPD officers still arrived on the scene when CAHOOTS requested their assistance. Though the relationship between the EPD and CAHOOTS was solid, Chief Skinner and Deputy Chief Adams wanted to see the relationship expand. Qualified mental health professionals (QMHP) were now being embedded into police departments throughout the country, including the EPD. QMHP’s were dispatched with EPD officers in response to calls involving behavioral health issues. QMHP’s did not wear a standard police uniform, and they usually took the lead in such instances. The Lane County Behavioral Health Division would embed a QMHP into the downtown core of Eugene using grant funds during the summer of 2024. Additional grant funding would enable a second QMHP to be assigned to the downtown core sometime during the fall of 2024. Conover asked if the QMHP’s would be required to remain in the downtown core or if they could be dispatched throughout Eugene as needed. Deputy Chief Adams said their primary focus would be to provide service in the downtown core. They could provide service elsewhere under limited circumstances. This was due to the nature of the grant funds. Chair Williams asked what defined the downtown core. The downtown core was defined as publicly-owned property and rights-of-way located within the area bounded by a line that ran from the intersection of 10th Avenue and Pearl Street, north to 8th Avenue, west on 8th Avenue to Lincoln Street, south on Lincoln Street to 10th Avenue, east on 10th Avenue to Charnelton Street, south on Charnelton Street to 11th Avenue, east on 11th Avenue to Willamette Street, north on Willamette Street to 10th Avenue, and east on 10th Avenue to Pearl Street, including sidewalks on both sides of the streets and avenues that define the area. Chair Williams asked if the downtown core QMHP’s would be on patrol. Deputy Chief Adams confirmed they would be. They added that the EPD would learn what worked and did not work as the program unfolded. Chair Williams noted that the QMHP’s would be different than CAHOOTS because they could approach and respond to people who presented a threat of danger. Deputy Chief Adams said the QMHP’s could also handle case work. Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 1 Chair Williams asked if the QMHP’s would partner with downtown agencies doing the same type of work. Deputy Chief Adams confirmed that they would. Pitcher asked what would happen if a call came in regarding a person having a mental health crisis who was in possession of a knife. Deputy Chief Adams said if someone was armed in any way, an EPD officer would be on the scene to protect the QMHP. Conover asked if this program was modeled after another city’s program. Deputy Chief Adams said if was not modeled after any other city’s program. Conover asked about the grant requirements. Deputy Chief Adams said they did not have that information, but they could provide more details about that at a future meeting. Conover asked if Springfield would also have a program like this one. Deputy Chief Adams replied that Springfield would not. Rosetta asked who would make dispatch decisions and how the decisions would be made regarding who to dispatch. Deputy Chief Adams said EPD officers responded to 911 calls and made the decisions regarding who to dispatch. Right now, the EPD was trying to get a foothold on the downtown area. Once the program proved to be successful, it could be utilized throughout other parts of Eugene. Pitcher asked if QMHP’s would be county employees or EPD employees. Deputy Chief Adams said they would be county employees. They noted that the positions would be filled by two QMHP’s as opposed to multiple QMHP’s to help establish strong relationships. Conover asked what the criteria was for the QMHP. Deputy Chief Adams said Lane County had all the details about that. They noted that one individual had already been selected for the position. Pitcher asked if the QMHP’s would wear body cameras. Chief Deputy Adams said they would not because they were not employees of the EPD. They noted that depending on the intensity of the situation, an EPD officer may be on the scene, and they would be wearing their body camera. Griffin asked if the evening hours were a high-risk time for situations to arise. Deputy Chief Adams said more behavioral health situations arose in the daytime than in the evening. Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 2 Conover asked if there would be a press release about this. Deputy Chief Adams said one press release was already put out and confirmed there would be more released as the program unfolded. Pitcher said having this program and CAHOOTS would be beneficial for the community. Foltz said regarding other national models for programs like this one, the Police Executive Research Forum put out a report in October 2023, and specific city examples may be listed. Leiman joined the meeting. Chair Williams asked Leiman if he had any general comments. Leiman said they did not have any amendments for the October 2023, meeting minutes. The Police Commission met once since the last CRB meeting, and the Hate and Bias report was discussed. 5. Break The CRB took a break from 6:35 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. 6. Case Review: Use of Force – Flashlight Strike Summary of Facts On December 1, 2022, Officer A responded to a call for service regarding a disorderly person. Officer A encountered an individual (a suspect) and unsuccessfully attempted to converse with them. The suspect was verbally combative to Officer A, Officer A told the suspect they did not wish to engage in a physical altercation. Officer C and Officer D approached the suspect, contacted them, and arrested them for criminal mischief 1 – vandalism. Prior to law enforcement contact, the suspect cut their hand and was bleeding. Sergeant E told the officers on the scene not to place the suspect in the patrol vehicle until medical care was provided for their wound. Officer A assisted with custody of the suspect on the sidewalk. Officer A told the suspect that they had some “yuckiness” on them. The suspect became agitated, called Officer A an expletive and attempted to kick Officer A. Officer A attempted to dissuade the suspect’s actions. Officer told the suspect that if they did not stop kicking, they would hurt their leg. The suspect continued and raised their leg again. Officer A struck the suspect on their leg with their flashlight. In the Internal Affairs (IA) interview, Officer A stated that they did not intend to cause the suspect harm. They defended their actions and said they were trying to stop the suspect from kicking. Allegations Use of Force: That Officer A used force in excess when they used their flashlight as an impact weapon to strike the suspect who was detained in handcuffs, which was reasonable given the circumstances. Adjudication Recommendations • Auditor – Sustained • EPD Chain of Command – Within Policy Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 3  • EPD Chief – Within Policy Eller said this was an internally generated complaint. They noted that the materials provided for CRB review included the following: • Body Worn Camera and In Car Camera Video • IA Report Detailing the Investigative Process • All Correspondence Related to the Complaint (Including Internal Correspondence) • Adjudication Recommendation Memo from the Chain of Command • Adjudication Memo from the Auditor • All Related Reports and Records • Relevant EPD Policies Complaint, Intake, Classification, and Monitoring Discussion Conover said there was a conversation between Officer A and their sergeant. There was a concern as to whether or not that foreclosed the auditor’s ability to investigate this case. Pitcher confirmed there was an objection. Conover asked what the objection was based on. Pitcher said it had to do with an employment law, IA, and officer A potentially being disciplined twice. Conover asked if the conversation between Officer A and their sergeant took place before the IA investigation. Pitcher confirmed it did. Conover asked if that conversation played a role in the decision to go forward with an IA investigation. Pitcher said no. The IA investigation came into play because the auditor’s office was reviewing the allegation of Use of Force. They noted that the auditor’s office reviewed every Use of Force. The auditor’s office did not know at that time that the sergeant had already spoken with Officer A about the issue. Conover asked if it would be too late for the auditor’s office to add an allegation after the adjudication recommendation was received from the EPD Chief. Pitcher said that was correct. Conover noted that despite the chief’s adjudication recommendation, they stated that Officer A exhibited poor decision making in their tactical judgement. That statement seemed like the perfect opportunity for the chief to sustain the allegation of Use of Force. Pitcher said in the past, allegations had been dismissed at that stage, and adjudicated at that stage, but if allegations were added, notice would need to be given to the officer and the opportunity for them to be heard would need to take place. Hypothetically speaking, allegations could be added, but they had not seen that ever happen before. Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 4 Deputy Chief Adams said Officer A had already been interviewed by IA. Information had been gained from the interview and a judgement was made. If the case were reopened, IA could not interview again, and the first statements made could not be used. The only time that protocol would change would be if the person conducting the interview knew that the statements being presented were not true. In that instance, the interview would cease, and the employee would be given notice. Chair Williams asked why poor decision making in Officer A’s tactical judgement was not considered to start with. Pitcher said what they were worried about was that the suspect was hit with a flashlight while handcuffed. The auditor’s office was not convinced that Office A was acting within policy. Conover said in this situation, and based on the chief’s statements, it seemed as if it was a judgement issue. Conover notated lawful but awful in that section of the memo because they thought a judgement should have been included. Deputy Chief Adams said adding an additional allegation was not possible after the fact. They authored that memo and the language used was intentional to memorialize what happened so it could be used at a later time if needed. Conover said they appreciated the memo because it was so detailed. Leiman said regarding the complaint, intake, classification, and monitoring, it was possible that the sergeant decided to counsel Officer A instead of bringing it to IA. Nevertheless, it was reassuring that the auditor recognized that this complaint warranted an IA investigation. Chair Williams said they felt the same as Conover. A red flag was raised in their mind because if Officer A’s behavior was okay, it could undermine the whole system if worse conduct were also considered okay. Pitcher said the auditor’s office encouraged and wanted supervisors to do their job of supervising their employees, but the auditor’s office needed to do their job too. Chair Williams said the investigation was done well and monitored well, but they noted that they did not like the way Officer A came across in their interview. They acted like they were above the process, and their responses to the auditor’s questions seemed disrespectful. It seemed like a power play to belittle those questions. Officer A approached this situation with bravado and seemed to have a superhero complex. They noted that the CRB had reviewed comments from Officer A before, and they came across the same way, which was concerning. Pitcher said they were struck by the disrespect for their team as well. Griffin said the disrespectful tone from Officer A was unfortunate because the work that was being done by the auditor’s office was fair. Relevant Policies and Practices; Training Considerations Discussion Leiman said they were hesitant to say this but there was a reoccurring theme in cases like these where every time an officer tried to be compassionate and give the suspect a break, it ended up creating trouble. In this case, deciding not to put the suspect in the patrol car until they received medical attention, and not seating an intoxicated, bleeding person down on the ground because it was wet caused the situation to escalate. Leiman wanted officers to use discretion, but it did seem to always end up causing trouble. Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 5 Chair Williams said Officer A stated in their interview that the reason they said, “I will hurt you”, was because they were trying to use a different approach to get compliance from the suspect. However, in watching the video, Officer A said, “Don’t kick me”, and then said, “I will hurt you”, two seconds afterward. It did not seem like there was enough time to think that through and decide to try a different approach. Chair Williams wanted to make it clear that the injury on the suspect’s hand was not caused by any officer. The wound occurred prior to the officer’s arriving on the scene. They asked if there was any policy about putting a suspect in handcuffs if a wound on the hand was present. Deputy Chief Adams said the only policy that could potentially apply would involve the suspect wearing a cast. If a suspect punches a window and cuts their hand, it was probably wise to put them in handcuffs. Chair Williams said there was a lot of conversation about whether or not to put the suspect in the patrol car, which seemed dumb. Deputy Chief Adams said dumb was probably the correct word for that. The patrol car seats were hard so they could easily be disinfected. Ideally, you don’t want a lot of bodily fluids in the car, but if a suspect was potentially violent, they should be contained in the patrol car. It was unfortunate that the sergeant made that decision. Chair Williams asked if there was any follow-up with that sergeant about making that decision. Deputy Chief Adams confirmed that there was. Conover said as they understood it, the sergeant instructed officers to make sure the bleeding had stopped before the suspect was put in the car. It did not seem like anyone was inspecting the wound. Rosetta noted that one officer was dealing with the wounded hand for quite a while. Conover said as soon as the suspect became agitated and started kicking, it would seem that the topic of putting them in the car would resurface among the officer’s and the sergeant. Chair Willimas said Officer A handled the suspect well after the kicking and hitting with the flashlight ceased. Griffin said it was interesting to hear Officer A tell the suspect that they would hurt them. That seemed cruel and not ideal. It seemed ridiculous for them to say they did not mean to cause the suspect harm during their IA interview, after threatening to hurt the suspect in the moment. Regarding policy, they did not understand how Officer A’s behavior was within policy. It seemed as if the EPD Chain of Command just decided to give it some kind of adjudication because it was not that big of a deal. Obviously, the auditor did not feel the same way. Conover said this reminded them of a previous case where a suspect bit an officer’s hand. The difference between their IA interview and this IA interview was huge. That officer’s response to being bit by the suspect was similar to one’s reaction to getting stung by a bee, yet that officer was found to have violated policy. Perhaps if Officer A tried to walk the suspect a bit, it would have deescalated the kicking. There were a lot of tools available for Officer A to use. Pitcher noted that the office’s response to being bitten was found to be within policy. Adjudication Discussion Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 6 Leiman said in their opinion, Officer A’s behavior was punitive. Using the flashlight to strike the suspect was not an act of self-defense or done in the defense of others. Chair Williams said if Officer A used a taser on the suspect while they were handcuffed everyone might have thought that was an extreme choice. This situation was similar to that. The suspect’s kicking was not a serious threat to Officer A. Hitting the suspect with a flashlight was not the right tool for the job. The level of force used by Officer A was unwarranted. Griffin said it was an excessive use of force and it was not a legitimate defense of self or anyone else. Griffin noted that they realized that officers get kicked by suspects quite often. Officers needed to find different ways to deal with that. Griffin asked Pitcher what the level of force was for using a flashlight to strike a suspect. Pitcher said using a flashlight to strike a suspect could be considered a low level of force, depending on how hard an officer was hitting and where they were hitting. A hard strike to a suspect’s head could be deadly. In this case, it was low level, but still felt like an inappropriate use of force. Conover said it was interesting to read the three memos. In the first sergeant’s memo, it indicated that the reason why this was within policy was because the the force was used to make an arrest or prevent an escape from custody, yet the arrest had already been made and there were not any indicators that the suspect was trying to escape. Per EPD Policy, Use of Force could also be used in self-defense. This sergeant’s reasoning did not apply to this case. Their reasons were not helpful at all. Regarding Deputy Chief Adams memo, Conover appreciated their explanation as to why judgement was not included, but they wish it had been. Officer A’s words and their actions raised a concern. Rosetta said Officer A was the first one to have contact with the suspect. It seemed as if Officer A did not know how to deal with the suspect because they stayed across the street from them, which seemed wise. The other officers circled around the suspect so they could not flee from the scene. Two other officers made the decision to put the suspect in handcuffs. At that point Officer A was not even in the picture. Officer A was asked to stand in for a training officer and hold the suspect in detainment. The first thing the suspect did was call Officer A an expletive and began kicking. The option to put the suspect in the patrol car or on the ground was previously denied by the sergeant. Officer A was left holding a person who was verbally abusive and kicking them. Officer A did not say they were going to hurt the suspect, they said they were going to hurt the suspect’s leg. Officer A did not hurt the suspect’s leg because there was not a complaint made about the suspect having a hurt leg. Officer A’s reaction to the kicking stopped the suspect from kicking. Rosetta said that did not seem like an unreasonable use of force. A person in handcuffs could be just as dangerous as someone out of handcuffs. There was not a complaint made by the suspect about being struck with the flashlight. Officer A was put in this situation, and they did not choose to be in this situation. After Officer A got the suspect under control, they treated them nicely. Within Policy was the proper adjudication. Conover said the reason why they pointed out the sergeant’s memo was because their reasoning for why it was within policy did not match the events that took place. Rosetta said the sergeant’s adjudication could mean anything. Conover said they did not agree with the sergeant’s reasoning as to why it was within policy. They did agree with Deputy Chief Adams reasoning. Rosetta disagreed with the idea that Officer A was intent on hurting the suspect. Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 7 Conover said their quote was “I will hurt your leg if you kick me.” Conover asked Rosetta if Officer A’s tone made it seems as though they were not intent on hurting the suspect. Rosetta said yes. Deputy Chief Adams said they were a bit shocked when they heard Officer A struck a handcuffed suspect. However, after thinking about all the things that could have been done prior to striking the suspect, they all seemed superfluous to the moment when Officer A struck the suspect. That was how Use of Force was judged. Officer A was on the scene doing their job. The suspect had no right to assault the officer. The suspect was warned but did not stop kicking. Officer A used the flashlight because it was what they had available in the moment. Their actions were not malicious. That was the basis of how the EPD Chain of Command, and the Chief reached their adjudication. Conover asked Deputy Chief Adams if EPD policy was that if Use of Force was not sadistic in nature, it would be within policy. Deputy Chief Adams said no. That was an example based on the four basic standards in Graham v. Connor: 490 U.S. 386 (1989); what was the nature of the crime, what was the need to apprehend, what was the injury inflicted as a result, and was it proportional. If the four-part standard were applied to this case, it was a low-level offense, the suspect was already in custody, there was no claim of injury, and the use of force was proportional to the suspect’s kicking. Griffin said they did not think that the use of force was proportional. The better thing to do would have been to control the suspect’s legs. The officer’s goal should not be to stoop to the suspect’s level, but to maintain decorum. Deputy Chief Adams said Officer A was holding the suspect with one hand and holding a flashlight with the other hand. It was okay if everyone here did not agree. Their intent was to share how and why the EPD came to their decision. Conover said the most important part of the CRB’s processes was having discussions that would be relayed back to the EPD. Leiman said they watched Officer A’s videos and two other officer’s videos, and they did not see that Officer A’s use of force was defensive to the suspect’s kicking. They asked if anyone else saw defensive actions in Officer A’s use of force. In their opinion, Office A’s use of force was punitive. Pitcher said it was easy to say they could have done this, or they could have done that. The standard they analyze in their line of work was determining the least intrusive action an officer could have made. They decided that officer A’s use of force was not reasonable, and it was okay to disagree. Rosetta noted that the standard was not what was objectively reasonable to anyone other than the officer. Griffin said all they could do was analyze these cases and share their thoughts about them. Chair Williams said they could not say the allegations should have been sustained or that they were within policy. Though the use of force was not the right choice to make, it did not cause injury to the suspect. It also seemed like there was insufficient evidence. Griffin asked Pitcher if they believed this was an excessive use of force. Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 8 Pitcher said yes. Griffin agreed with the auditor, that the allegation should have been sustained. Conover did not agree with the first sergeant’s reasoning as to why Officer A’s behavior was within policy, but they did agree with Deputy Chief Adams reasoning, who also found the allegation to be within policy. Rosetta said they agreed that the allegation was within policy. Leiman agreed with Chair Williams and said Officer A’s behavior was unacceptable. However, based on the four basic standards in Graham v. Connor: 490 U.S. 386 (1989), they could not pick a side. 7. Chair / Vice Chair Elections Chair Williams said they received consent from Cortez to nominate them for the position of CRB Chair. MOTION: Chair Williams moved, seconded by Conover, to appoint Jose Cortez as the 2024, CRB Chair and Carolyn Williams as the 2024, CRB Vice Chair. The motion passed unanimously – 5:0. 8. Auditor Report Pitcher said they accompanied Eller at the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Conference in Chicago last month, and that they were on the annual conference committee. They could share the conference materials if anyone was interested. Another conference would take place on December 14th and 15th, and they could provide details about that if anyone was interested. The 2024, National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Conference would be held in Tucson, Arizona in October. If anyone was interested in attending, the auditor’s office may be able to pay for some of the costs involved. Complaints were up in October 2023, and down in November 2023. Vice Chair Williams noted that the next CRB meeting would be on February 13, 2024. 10. Closing Comments Griffin said CRB members should start thinking about potential partnership opportunities. Conover said the cases they reviewed were not like many of the cases in other parts of the country. It was easy to forget how good the officers were in Eugene. Leiman wished everyone a happy holiday. Vice Chair Williams said they hoped more traffic control officers would be hired in 2024. 11. Adjournment Vice Chair Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. (Minutes recorded by. Diana Pamir Tisdale) Civilian Review Board December 12, 2023 9  Office of the Police Auditor December 2023 Open Case Report Inquiries Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 4, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Categories: Untimely Patrol Response Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained police response to his/her service request was untimely and handled poorly. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 8, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP complained an officer acted unprofessionally in 2022. Dismiss - Timeliness Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 11, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Categories: Employee Coached/Counseled Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP alleged an officer used unnecessary force during an arrest. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 12, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained he/she was falsely arrested and was the victim of a crime. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 13, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained officers failed to provide proper assistance. Dismiss - No Policy Violations Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 13, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained officers refused to answer his/her assistance request. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 14, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer failed to properly investigate an assault. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 14, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained an incident was improperly handled. Dismiss - No policy violations. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Dec 14, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers improperly handled a theft investigation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 15, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained that an officer parked a Eugene police vehicle improperly. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 15, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained a Eugene PD employee improperly influenced an investigation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 21, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-EE Not Identifiable RP complained officers improperly used their cellular telephones. Dismiss - Officers not identifiable. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 22, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer improperly detained and harassed him/her. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Dec 26, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition:  RP alleged he/she was improperly cited by officers when he/she was the victim. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Dec 29, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained his/her requests for police assistance with an unhoused trespasser were improperly handled. Service Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 5, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained Eugene PD failed to properly respond to his/her request for service. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 5, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Courtesy Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained officers improperly handled unhoused camping. Dismiss - No Policy Violations Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 12, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained officers improperly handled a driver suspected of DUII. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 13, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP alleged his/her request for a lost property investigation was ignored. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 14, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Categories: Driving Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP alleged an officer drove his/her vehicle improperly during a traffic stop. Dismiss - No policy violations. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 18, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Categories: Untimely Patrol Response Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained officers’ response time towards a trespasser was excessive. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 18, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Dismissed-alt remedy RP alleged officers conducted an incomplete investigation which resulted in a failed prosecution. Dismiss - Remedy with Lane County DA's office. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 18, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Categories: Untimely Patrol Response Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained his/her request for service was ignored. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 27, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained officers improperly handled a shoplifting incident. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Dec 29, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer improperly conducted his/her arrest for DUII. Incident Reviews Incident type: Incident Review Status: Completed Received date: Dec 1, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained officers improperly handled an investigation and made substantial errors. Incident type: Incident Review Status: Active Received date: Dec 5, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Conduct Disposition: RP complained an officer tried to have an inappropriate relationship with a third party.  Eugene Police Department December 2023 Closed Case Report Incident type: IA Investigation Status: Completed Received date: Oct 9, 2023 Class/sub-class: Allegation of Misconduct / Performance Disposition: Sustained Allegations: 1. 103.5.19 Neglect of Duty: It is alleged that an employee was sleeping on duty on 9/20/23 in violation of policy. 2. 103.5.19 Neglect of Duty: It is alleged that an employee was sleeping on duty on 10/3/23 in violation of policy. 3. 103.5.19 Neglect of Duty: It is alleged that an employee was sleeping on duty on 10/9/23 in violation of policy. Incident type: IA Investigation Status: Completed Received date: Nov 3, 2023 Class/sub-class: Allegation of Misconduct / Conduct Disposition: Unfounded Allegations: 1. 103.5.18 Intoxicants: That Supervisor A possessed and/or used intoxicants while on duty without authorization. 2. 103.5.9.g Conduct: That Supervisor A failed to foster a safe work environment when he/she consumed intoxicants while supervising night training at the range.  Office of the Police Auditor January 2024 Open Case Report Inquiries Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Jan 2, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer acted improperly during an investigative follow-up. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Jan 7, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained he/she was improperly detained, and his/her vehicle was improperly towed. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Jan 8, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained he/she was unjustly trespassed from a coffee shop. Dismiss - No policy violations Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Jan 8, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-EE Not Identifiable RP complained an officer was unprofessional. Dismiss - Incident/employee not identifiable Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Jan 11, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained an animal welfare officer mishandled an incident. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Jan 12, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained a motorcycle officer acted unusually. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Jan 19, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Categories: Insufficient Follow-Up Disposition: RP complained he/she has been unjustly treated and unable to reclaim his/her property from the evidence control unit. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Jan 25, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained his/her motorcycle was improperly disposed of by Eugene PD. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Jan 25, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained officers improperly handled a request for assistance. Dismiss – No policy violations Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Jan 29, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained Eugene PD members delivered substandard service. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Jan 29, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained officers lacked courtesy. Dismiss – No policy violations Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Jan 29, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-EE Not Identifiable RP complained officers acted improperly. Dismiss - Officers not identifiable Incident type: Supervisor Intake Status: Initial Received date: Jan 31, 2024 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Categories: LECC Reporting Disposition: RP complained an officer improperly detained him/her. Service Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Jan 5, 2024 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: RP complained two supervisors performed below established standards. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Jan 8, 2024 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Categories: Untimely Patrol Response Disposition: RP complained officers failed to make a timely response to a request for aid. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Jan 23, 2024 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Categories: Untimely Patrol Response Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained officers improperly responded to an assault. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Jan 29, 2024 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: RP complained officers mishandled a restraining order violation and complained a communications specialist was unprofessional. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Jan 29, 2024 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Categories: Driving Disposition: RP alleged an officer drove his/her marked vehicle improperly. Policy Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Jan 29, 2024 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained the process to file an online report was flawed.  Independent Police Auditor’s Report – January 2024 Auditor’s Letter Our office ended 2023 with higher complaint Our office is working on our 2023 Annual volume than 2022. We received a total of 28 Report, where we will examine complaint complaints in December to bring us to a total trends more in depth. We are also of 370 for the year. We reviewed the 9 compiling a report on vehicle pursuit reportable uses of force that occurred in statistics and trends; both of these reports December, and EPD ended the year with a will be issued by Spring of 2024. total of 132 uses of force. This is down from Upcoming Public Meetings 159 reportable uses of force in 2022. On February 13th, the Civilian Review While we received more complaints in 2023 Board will hear from Municipal Court than in the previous year, our vigorous Administrator Sarah Callegari about preliminary investigation process has resulted Community Court. The CRB will also be in more complaints being dismissed by our reviewing a case where officers failed to office. Because of our work on the front end activate their body worn cameras. of investigations, fewer complaints have been sent over to EPD for follow up. We are The CRB will hold their following meeting working with the Eugene Police Employees’ on March 12, 2024. Association and EPD to further streamline our Leia Pitcher access to preliminary investigative materials, Independent Police Auditor such as body-worn video and police reports, reducing workload for staff and providing more efficient results for the community. 2023 Complaint Volume 370 329 39 37 37 31 45 23 19 26 38 25 21 32 33 32 34 20 24 26 29 32 20 22 26 28 2022 2023 101 E. Broadway, Suite 230 • Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016 • Fax (541) 682-5599 www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor  Independent Police Auditor’s Report – February 2024 Auditor’s Letter Upcoming Public Meetings Our office received 20 complaints in January of 2024; we also reviewed 13 reportable uses The Civilian Review Board Application of force. Review Panel will meet: Civilian Review Board Membership February 20, 2024: 12 p.m. January was also recruitment month for new The Civilian Review Board is scheduled to City of Eugene Boards and Commissions hold public meetings on the following members. We received applications from dates: many qualified community members hoping February 13, 2024: 5:30 p.m. to serve on the Civilian Review Board. We offer our thanks to all those who have applied March 12, 2024: 5:30 p.m. and are excited to have such a robust pool of April 9, 2024: 5:30 p.m. candidates. Leia Pitcher In accordance with the CRB selection process Independent Police Auditor set out in City Code, the Mayor and I have established a community panel to review the applications. These community members receive all the application materials submitted to the city by those interested in serving. The panel will review these applications and recommend qualified candidates to City Council. Council will appoint new members to City Boards and Commissions in the spring and the newly Year to Date Complaint appointed members will begin their terms in summer 2024. Volume 37 Outreach 20 I was recently included in an interview on KLCC focusing on police reform and oversight January – you can listen to the segment featured in 2023 2024 Oregon On the Record here. Upcoming Public Meetings The Civilian Review Board Selection Subcommittee will meet: February 20, 2025: 12 p.m. 101 E. Broadway, Suite 230 • Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016 • Fax (541) 682-5599 The Civilian Review Board will hold public www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor meetings on the following dates: February 13, 2024: 5:30 p.m. March 12, 2024: 5:30 p.m.