The Portland NLG submitted the following commentary to the City Council:

Dear Mayor Adams and City Commissioners:

Thank you for the continuing opportunity to weigh in on the Department of Justice/City of Portland Settlement Agreement. We know the City and the DOJ have worked very hard on drafting and modifying this agreement, and appreciate that effort, including the most recent changes. We hope, however, that the Agreement is not final and the City will continue to consider community input. Toward that end, we highlight some additional concerns here.

USE OF FORCE

During my testimony at the City Council meeting last Thursday, Mayor Adams asked for clarification on the difference between our proposed language for the use of force policy to require “the least amount of force necessary to achieve a lawful objective” and the current language of “only the force reasonably necessary to achieve a lawful objective.” Words have tremendous practical as well as symbolic value; the “least amount of force” connotes a fundamental shift in the Bureau’s approach to use of force. The use of the term “least amount of force” rather than what is “reasonably necessary” would create a more cautious approach.

We also support the specific recommendations and analysis made by Tom Steenson related to use of force, in his letter dated November 12, 2012.

OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

We support the Citizen Review Committee’s request for extending the 21-day deadline for the CRC to resolve an appeal. (Paragraph 121). As the members of the CRC testified, they are all volunteers, dedicated volunteers, but many have jobs that make this timeframe to restrictive. In addition, the NLG offers volunteer advocates for the CRC hearings, and we require three weeks notice in order to find a volunteer advocate and allow adequate preparation time. Shortening this timeframe to 21 days will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to continue to offer this service.

We continue to urge the City to define the CRC review standard of “supported by the evidence” as “preponderance of the evidence” rather than the “reasonable person” standard, which has proved to be overly deferential. (Paragraph 61). A preponderance of the evidence standard is not only more easy for the public and the CRC to understand, it would enhance the legitimacy of the review process, something the DOJ agrees is currently lacking.

We appreciate that lawsuit payout information is included in the COCL semi-annual reviews, but urge the broadening of the category of information from just “settlements” to include judgments and jury awards. (Paragraph 170.e.v.). All three of these categories are important to help identify deficiencies in policy and training, and/or issues with particular officers.

For a Better World,

J. Ashlee Albies, Co-Chair
National Lawyers Guild
Portland, Oregon Chapter

Yesterday, the Portland City Council unanimously passed the IPR reform ordinance. The NLG, as part of a broader effort led by the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition, supports the reform. This is a big step in the right direction, but there is still a lot of work to be done. The NLG will participate as part of a stakeholder group to push for greater independent oversight of the police in the upcoming 90 day review period.

For more information, see the Oregonian Article and Revised Ordinance:

Portland City Council unanimously approves police oversight reforms

IPR Revised Ordinance

Community members packed City Council yesterday afternoon to testify in support of Commissioner Randy Leonard’s proposed ordinance to strengthen the Independent Police Review Division. President of the Portland Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, Ashlee Albies, was quoted saying “The police have power and authority that is unmatched in our society. A system of checks and balances is all that we ask.” The council decided to continue the hearing on March 31, 2010 at 6pm. Hope to see you there!

To learn more, see:

Oregonian Article

Mercury Article

Ordinance

The Portland NLG advocated for an appellant, for the first time, in the Independent Police Review (IPR)/Citizen Review Committee (CRC) process on February 17, 2010. Prior to this hearing, appellants were entitled to an advocate to assist with the process, but had to find one on their own. Dan Handelman and Regina Hannon from Copwatch and Debbie Aiona from League of Women Voters collaborated with local attorneys Ashlee Albies, Mark Kramer and law student Logan Perkins to contact the IPR/CRC and develop a strategy to help complainants prepare their appeals. At the end of yesterday’s meeting, the CRC approved giving potential appellants the NLG’s contact information in case they’d like assistance with the appeal.

Logan Perkins was outstanding as an advocate during the CRC hearing for Frank Waterhouse, with Ben Haile as supervising attorney. Logan successfully convinced the CRC to overturn IPR findings that condoned the use of a Taser on Waterhouse by Officer Frashour. The CRC members gave great statements on why they thought that use of force was unjustified.

See stories here:

Mercury article

Oregonian article

February 12, 2010

Officer Frashour’s Fatal Shooting of Aaron Campbell Should Not Be a Surprise to the City or to the Public.  In September of 2009, A Federal Jury Found Frashour to Have Committed Civil Rights Violations Involving Similar Misconduct.

(Portland) – Neither the Portland Police Bureau, nor the City of Portland, nor the public should be surprised about Officer Frashour’s fatal shooting of Aaron Campbell.  Unfortunately, Frashour’s decisions and police polices have previously led to the inappropriate use of force by Frashour.

On September 18, 2010, a federal jury found that Frashour had violated the civil rights of Mr. Frank Waterhouse in an incident involving similar misconduct.  In the Waterhouse case, Frashour unlawfully shot Mr. Waterhouse with a taser at the same time that another officer shot Mr. Waterhouse with a beanbag shotgun.  Frashour did not properly warn Mr. Waterhouse prior to shooting him with the taser.  The incident resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Waterhouse.

Portland civil rights attorney and National Lawyers Guild member, Mr. Benjamin Haile represented Mr. Waterhouse in the successful civil rights trial.  Mr. Haile states:

“Frashour’s shooting of Campbell is remarkably similar to his ‘tasing’ of Mr. Waterhouse.  In both cases, Frashour justified his actions as being reasonable in light of officer safety concerns.  In both cases, Officer Frashour did not properly coordinate his actions with the other police officers present.  In both cases, other officers were taking actions to incapacitate the victim at the same time that Officer Frashour pulled the trigger.  Like the grand jury, I am mostly concerned about the City of Portland’s failure to properly train and lead its officers.  Both incidents could have been avoided.

“I extend my condolences to the Campbell family.  I’m glad that Frashour did not have a rifle when he attacked Mr. Waterhouse.  Otherwise, I fear that Mr. Waterhouse would have been killed like Mr. Campbell.  Portland police training policies and use of force policies need to be seriously overhauled.”

(Mr. Haile can be reached by email at Ben@portlandlawcollective.com and at the Portland Law Collective office at 503-228-1889.)