portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

actions & protests | police / legal

COMMENTS ON REVISED DIRECTIVE 635.10, CROWD MANAGEMENT/CROWD CONTROL

To Chief Marshman, Acting Chief Davis, Capt. Bell, Captain Krantz, PPB Policy Analysts, Compliance Officer/Community Liaison Team, Community Oversight Advisory Board staff, US Dept. of Justice, Citizen Review Committee and the Portland Police Bureau:

While we are thankful that the Bureau has asked for more input into Crowd Management/Crowd Control Directive 635.10, as we predicted, the sheer volume of changes made to the last draft posted in January is far too large for a 15-day comment period. We've repeatedly requested "red-line" versions of proposed Directives, and noted that when you began this new process, a list of general concepts about changes being made would make public input more meaningful. Now we find ourselves in the position of sorting through the revised draft almost from scratch.

While all references to pepper spray have been removed from the Directive, it's not clear if that substance (whether in canisters or projectiles) is covered by the generic term "riot control agents," which still appears in a few places in the new draft (including Procedure 5.1.6). We remain opposed to the use of impact munitions, tear gas, flash-bangs and other weapons at protests, as well as bicycles used as weapons and the Mounted Patrol Unit in crowds.
To: Chief Michael Marshman < Michael.Marshman@portlandoregon.gov> Acting Chief Chris Davis < chris.davis@portlandoregon.gov>Captain Jeff Bell < Jeff.Bell@portlandoregon.gov> Captain Mike Krantz < Mike.Krantz@portlandoregon.gov> Dennis Rosenbaum < rosenbaumandwatsonllp@gmail.com> Community Oversight Advisory Board-Mandi Hood < mandi.hood@portlandoregon.gov> Citizen Review Committee < crc@portlandoregon.gov> PPB Directives < PPBDirectives@PortlandOregon.gov>

Cc: Adrian Brown < adrian.brown@usdoj.gov> Brian Buehler < brian.buehler@usdoj.gov> Jonas Geissler < Jonas.Geissler@usdoj.gov> Seth Wayne < seth.wayne@usdoj.gov> Jaclyn Menditch < jaclyn.menditch@usdoj.gov> News Media < newsmedia@portlandcopwatch.org>

Date: Tue 3/28/17 - 15:38

COMMENTS ON REVISED DIRECTIVE 635.10, CROWD MANAGEMENT/CROWD CONTROL
by Portland Copwatch
March 28, 2017

To Chief Marshman, Acting Chief Davis, Capt. Bell, Captain Krantz, PPB Policy Analysts, Compliance Officer/Community Liaison Team, Community Oversight Advisory Board staff, US Dept. of Justice, Citizen Review Committee and the Portland Police Bureau:

While we are thankful that the Bureau has asked for more input into Crowd Management/Crowd Control Directive 635.10, as we predicted, the sheer volume of changes made to the last draft posted in January is far too large for a 15-day comment period. We've repeatedly requested "red-line" versions of proposed Directives, and noted that when you began this new process, a list of general concepts about changes being made would make public input more meaningful. Now we find ourselves in the position of sorting through the revised draft almost from scratch.

As an experiment, we decided to go through our last set of comments to see whether they were incorporated by the Bureau, meaning some of these comments are in order based on the old policy rather than the new one, with references to the new section numbers for clarity.

We already were incorporating comments we made from September 2014 and after the Citizen Review Committee made their Crowd Control policy report to City Council in January 2015.

We had hoped to be asked to a meeting with the City to discuss this matter, as the ACLU of Oregon, the Portland National Lawyers Guild, and Oregon Lawyers for Good Government were invited to do (Oregonlive, March 3). Though we were shut out of that process, we support most of their recommendations and hope you will consider ours,. Even though we are not attorneys, we do have 25 years of experience with these matters.

We continue to feel that putting letters on each section (Definitions, Policy, Procedure) and numbering the definitions would make referencing the Directives much easier.


GENERAL COMMENTS

Last time we asked you to look to Directive 635.00 covering strikes and job actions, which contains the phrase "neutrality will be the guiding principal [sic]," and references to ORS 181.575's restrictions on law enforcement "collecting or maintaining" information about people's social, political or religious affiliations without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. The new policy suggests that officers "conduct themselves in a professional manner" and to keep their communications "content neutral" (New Policy Section 7), which is good. Similar language was in Old Procedure Section 3.4.* It also raises questions about officers photographed wearing pink pussycat hats at the Women's March and a "Make America Great Again" hat in Lake Oswego at the March 4 Trump. The new policy also cautions officers capturing video of marches to "comply with ORS 181.575" (which, we note here, is now renumbered as ORS 181A.250), while at the same time suggesting video be made for "situational awareness" and such video with no criminal activity on it be "turned over to the City Attorney's office to be stored" (New Procedure Section 4.4). This puts the Directive in conflict with the law-- suggesting to both collect and maintain information in violation. We also note here that Directive 635.00 was cross-referenced in the old version, but now aside from a mention of strikes as one form of demonstration in the definitions section, there is no specific connection.

While all references to pepper spray have been removed from the Directive, it's not clear if that substance (whether in canisters or projectiles) is covered by the generic term "riot control agents," which still appears in a few places in the new draft (including Procedure 5.1.6). We remain opposed to the use of impact munitions, tear gas, flash-bangs and other weapons at protests, as well as bicycles used as weapons and the Mounted Patrol Unit in crowds. The new prohibition on using the MPU's horses against people lying or sitting down (New Procedure Section 8.2) doesn't address the animals' being endangered by being in crowds and, in turn, endangering those attending. Where the old Directive said crowd control was to be used "to address public assemblies where unlawful conduct has taken place," the new one says these tactics can be deployed if the event "has become unlawful or violent" (New Definitions section) without defining those terms. Thus, as we said before, officers could crack down if one person jaywalks, and now, we'd add, if an officer feels a paper airplane being thrown is a form of violence.

While the new Directive suggests using arrests sparingly and to consider the "method" (New Procedure Section 11), it doesn't ban violent arrests. It also added a section we recommended addressing the use of outside agencies (New Procedures Section 6), but doesn't ensure they will be trained or identifiable in the same way as the PPB.

We raised the concern last time that the Bureau and "Independent" Police Review Division should consider there are multiple uses of force when one or more officers uses force against more than one civilian. The requirement for individual officers to report their own use of force is now in Procedure Section 12.4.1, while the Crowd Management Incident Commander (CMIC) has to "ensure all... applicable pertinent reports are submitted" (New Procedure Section 121.4). We'd still like clarification how those uses of force are counted in the PPB's Department of Justice ordered Force Reports. Additionally, the chain of command, while in some ways more clear (the CMIC makes all decisions), in other ways seems more confusing (lead supervisors debrief their "squads"-- New Procedure 12.3.2-- and the Operations Section Chief [a/k/a Assistant Chief of Operations] assists the CMIC--New Procedure 5.2).

While the Bureau has moved away somewhat from differentiating among events that are "permitted," "planned," "publicized" or "unpermitted," the new draft still separates sections on "Planned Demonstrations and Special Events " (New Procedure 4.1) and "Spontaneous Demonstrations" (New Procedure 4.2). This continues the mindset we cautioned against in our last comments which assumes an event the Bureau hasn't heard about before is not planned. This may be true from the PPB's point of view but not the organizers'. Thus, we continue to urge the use of the NW Constitutional Rights Center's "coordinated with the Bureau/not coordinated with the Bureau" if there is to be a separation. As we wrote before, "these differentiations should be minimized so that all protests are treated fairly." And we still think the policy should state, "The Bureau will not take adverse action against a group because it has refused to establish lines of communication with the Bureau."

We noticed the Bureau changed the Incident Commander's title from "Crowd Control" to "Crowd Management" which is a step in the right direction, but we still support NWCRC's suggestion of "crowd facilitation."

We stated before and re-state that seeing harm done to fellow community members and being subjected to unwarranted actions by PPB ourselves, "we have no interest in perpetuating police use of violence against unarmed, peaceful protestors. We oppose the use of the current array of weapons but are not going to advise on ways to harm people, that is not our task as a group promoting police accountability."

COMMENTS ON SPECIFICS

--Policy Section

New Policy Section 1 separates demonstrations, special events, "the managing of crowds during demonstrations" and "controlling crowds during civil disturbances." There isn't much discussion of protecting protestors from external violence-- whether by police, angry motorists or counter protestors (though that's addressed in Section 5)-- or simple tasks like blocking traffic to accommodate a march route (planned or unplanned-- this was covered in Old Procedure Section 1.5). We are reminded of the police in Tennessee who brought hot chocolate to the protestors who blocked a freeway there, telling motorists that the disruption of traffic could have been caused by an accident, construction or a weather incident so they should just wait it out. That philosophy should be adopted in Portland and included in the opening policy statement.

We note here that a "civil disturbance" is defined as "an unlawful assembly that constitutes the breach of peace or any assembly of persons where there is a threat of collective violence, destruction of property or other criminal acts." As noted in the general comments, criminal acts needs to be narrowly defined so officers don't use jaywalking as an excuse to get militaristic on a nonviolent protest. (See Section 4 for more details.) As we noted when analyzing Old Procedure Section 3.1.1.6,, "destruction of property" should be clear whether it includes temporary protest statements such as chalk, stickers or water-based paints versus more serious damage.

New Policy Section 2 reminds officers they can impose "lawful restrictions on the time, place and manner of expression," but not based on content, laying the groundwork for New Policy Section 3.

That Section 3 is a rewrite of previous Policy Section 1, which still includes the statement "the City of Portland has a tradition of free speech" without acknowledging the state and federal nature of the constitutional rights discussed. A new, helpful sentence says "it is the responsibility and priority of the PPB not to unduly impede the exercise of First Amendment rights," adding that "a police response that impedes otherwise protected speech must be based upon a compelling government interest." It is too bad these words weren't conveyed to the officers who attacked people at City Hall after the Police Association contract was signed, or at some of the protest actions which were violently disrupted starting after the election and continuing to late February, at least.

New Policy Section 4 rewrites Old Section 2 and removes descriptions of actions that are protected forms of expression, leaving in a list of criminal acts which are not protected. Trespassing and destruction of property are carried over from the old Directive, with "disorderly conduct and assaults" added in. Disruption of transportation, unlawful use of amplification devices and disturbances of the peace were dropped. In other words, either there are fewer reasons officers can now crack down, or more since this list says "including, but not limited to."

New Policy Section 5 expands on a sentence moved from old Section 2, saying "it is the goal of the Bureau to apply the appropriate level of coordination, _assistance_, direction, guidance, _and management, to protect constitutional rights_, life, property and to maintain public peace and order." (Words between _underscores_ were added in the new draft.) Language about "controlling" the crowd is now in Policy Section 6. The rest of Section 5 asks officers to "monitor the crowd throughout the event to assess the level of risk posed to both demonstrators and the public at large" which is better than previous talk about "threats." However it is followed with the stated "goal of minimizing potential disorderly or violent outbursts." The Directive asks to differentiate between those involved in "criminal behavior" (again, safety is not the threshold), and those who are "lawfully demonstrating," which, perhaps, a judge should decide, not a cop on the street. (Old Procedure Section 4.1.2 also talked about officer presence used to "deter criminal activity.") Then, perhaps in response to the Citizen Review Committee's 2015 recommendation #4 asking to minimize presence of militaristic uniforms, Section 5 says "members will strive to maintain a non-confrontational presence to dissuade participants from engaging in disorderly behavior and to encourage crowd self-monitoring." This shows a serious lack of self-awareness by the police how mere presence (whether in riot gear or not) can serve to escalate a situation. More focus should be put on keeping police away from the crowd unless it is needed for traffic management or resolving criminal acts of violence toward or from members of the crowd. Implying that police presence encourages the crowd to be "self monitoring" is like saying your bosses should stand over your desk 24/7 with weapons at their side to be sure you're always doing your work. Nobody wants that. (Note: The non-confrontational language repeats in New Procedure Section 3.2, with the caveat that officers should "strive" to be positive "when feasible," those caveats should be removed.)

New Policy Section 6 allows the Bureau to "reasonably restore order" using "reasonable crowd management and/or crowd control tactics to contain, control and de-escalate the situation." It seems odd that this is the first appearance of the concept of de-escalation, and that it's the last of the actions officers are asked to take.** The end of the Section calls for officers to focus on individuals or small groups engaged in "violent or disorderly behavior" to "reduce the need for an enhanced police presence." These terms should be better defined. We thank the Bureau for removing the phrase that said control might be "necessary" from the previous draft, though it reappears in New Procedure Section 3.

--Procedure Section

--1. Use of Force

New Procedure Section 1 puts use of force front and center in a Directive that, again, should encourage de-escalation, pointing to Directive 1010.00 Use of Force. There is no mention here of the weapons used by police in crowd situations, and previous cross-references to the policies on Baton Use, Aerosol Restraints, Less Lethal Weapons, and Special Weapons have been deleted in the reference section. If this Directive isn't going to establish guidelines for such weapons, references are needed. (Note: The reference to the Taser Directive is also deleted, but Tasers are addressed in Procedure Section 8.)

--2. Incident Management/Command

New Procedure Section 2 refers to Directive 700.00, the National Incident Management System and Incident Command System, which we commented on in January 2016. It also encourages the CMIC to develop an action plan prior to an event. We went into great detail in previous comments on the Special Weapons Directive asking the Bureau to outline acceptable guidelines for police response to crowds based on an action plan from 2012 < http://www.pjw.info/copwatch/PPB_crowd_orders_030112.pdf>. We won't repeat those suggestions here but believe more clarity and detail is better than too much discretion when it comes to crowd response by police.

--3. Communication

New Procedure Section 3.1 expands a bit on Policy Section 5's suggestion that "the Bureau shall empower participants to monitor themselves in an effort to limit member involvement." This approach should not surprise us as it is coming from a top-down, hierarchical paramilitary organization. But the PPB should recognize that people are perfectly capable to self-organize and create their own security guidelines and teams without being "empowered" by the police to do so. Perhaps the phrase should be "the Bureau shall be supportive of participants' organizing to set guidelines on behavior" or something similar.

New Procedure Section 3.1.1 then refers to "when a police response is necessary" rather than "when police, using the criteria outlined in this directive, choose to respond." Subsection 3.1.1.1 then calls for officers to "make reasonable efforts to contact" organizers and to "communicate its expectations and inform participants on permissible and restricted actions during the event." This is reflective of CRC's recommendation #8 which we critiqued as "paternalistic and ... tilting toward infringement of Constitutional rights." We suggested instead creating and posting a frequently asked questions list which can then be discussed by organizers. Moreover, given that enactment of this subsection only happens when "a police response is necessary," the insertion of police into the organizers' plan could be seen as intrusive once it has gotten to that point. We also noted in our previous comments on Old Section 1.1 that some people are taken aback and feel they're being monitored unlawfully when police call them or post to their social media pages. CRC Recommendation #5 on community relations noted "The PPB should be aware that not all community members and/or groups are open to [police] contact." We wrote in our January comments, "While there is nothing wrong with recommending more contact, it should not be seen as a means to resolve problems in crowd situations per se."

New Procedure Section 3.1.1.2 calls for the "PPB Demonstration Liaison" to maintain contact with demonstration organizers. Since the Definitions section identifies the contact for an event as a "Person-in-Charge," the same term should be used here (it is used this way in New Procedure Section 5.1.3). However, that term is problematic as we recommended previously to use the term "liaison" for the person from the organizing team talking to the police (comments on Old Section 1.1). That person may not be empowered to make decisions for the protestors, and may only be there to convey information back and forth. The Directive should reflect that reality. (Again, this may be a point that is lost on an organization locked into hierarchical rather than collective thinking.)

We hope the Bureau realizes that while it may be helpful for the Public Information Officer to put out information over social media (New Procedure Section 3.1.1.3), not everyone in a crowd is going to have access to or be interested in looking at their mobile devices (assuming they even own any) to see what the police have to say.

We are glad to see that Old Procedure Sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 which called for "threat assessments" and notifying the "targets" of protest actions have all been removed.

--4. Demonstrations and Special Events

This Section replaces Old Sections 1 & 2 on "Planned/Permitted Events" and "Unplanned/Spontaneous Events."

New Procedure Section 4.1 has the Assistant Chief of Operations (here properly identified) or Chief designating the CMIC, who in turn determines if a police response is "warranted" (4.1.1). "Warranted" then becomes "necessary" in Subsection 4.1.2, which asks the CMIC to use the "Event General Planning Reference Guide" to make a plan. Is that Reference Guide available to the public, and will it be vetted for public input? Subsections 4.1.3.2 and 4.1.3.3 ask the CMIC to activate the Rapid Response Team (RRT) if a civil disturbance is "anticipated" (what's the threshold for this-- reasonable suspicion or probable cause?) and to notify Detectives to plan for mass arrests. Perhaps there should be more cautionary language noting that mobilizing RRT and preparing for arrests doesn't mean there has to be follow through involving interaction with the crowd. Many times when people prepare for war, they decide to go ahead whether or not it is "warranted." And mind you, all of this is for "planned events."

New Procedure Section 4.2 is for "spontaneous demonstrations" and assigns the on-duty precinct supervisor to go to the scene and be the one to determine if "additional police response is warranted" (4.2.1) A confusing set of subsections involves contacting an RRT supervisor or commander (4.2.1.1), a CMIC (who in theory hasn't been assigned since the demonstration is "spontaneous"-4.2.1.1.1), who in turn can activate the RRT (4.2.1.1.1.1). Maybe this makes sense to "inside baseball" people but it's confusing to us. More confusing chain-of-command info continues in 4.2.1.2 (about a Sergeant who contacts a Lieutenant who can command if "two or more squads are involved"), 4.3 (referring to "MFFs", defined elsewhere as "Mobile Field Forces"), Responsibility Units, and the CMIC activating the RRT again (4.3.1.1).

We noted that in the September 2014 draft, the Bureau noted that "many spontaneous events can be lawful and facilitated with minimal or no police assistance." That sentence should be restored here.

Again, sections that talked about "risk" and "threat" (2.1, 2.3) were thankfully cut.

--5. Member Responsibilities

New Procedure Section 5.1 replaces Old Section 3 on the Incident Commander. The old language asking the CMIC to look at "threats" and "risks" (Old 3.1.1.5) is now rewritten to say "consider what crowd tactics are reasonable and warranted, if any, based on the totality of the circumstances" This is much better, but the old Directive also had a list of specific criteria to consider (likelihood of police action improving the outcome--which we noted should include concerns about escalating tensions, disengagement strategies and more) which might be shortened and reinserted here.

The Bureau removed problematic language about considering prior behavior of "participants and leaders" from Old Section 3.1.1.4. Thank you.

New Procedure Section 5.1.4 rewrites Old 3.2 about announcement to the crowd, removing "when possible" and saying the CMIC should "Ensure announcements are clear, consistent, lawful and appropriate." While there are some details in New Procedure Section 7.3.1 about giving two warnings before using force to disperse a crowd and in 7.4 about giving two warnings with time for the crowd to comply, these guidelines should all be in one place, as we noted before. Also language that prohibits contradictory orders ("get on the sidewalk / stay off the sidewalk") and using common sense (you can't tell a crowd to disperse and then block off their paths to do so) should be added. Having the CMIC in charge of announcements, rather than the RRT, is reflective of CRC's Recommendation #1, which PCW supported.

New Procedure Section 5.1.6 also uses the word "necessary" when describing the CMIC's decision-making around use of "riot control agents and/or special impact munitions," which again should be replaced by "warranted" or another word acknowledging it is a decision not an imperative. We hope it is just a wrong word choice that this section calls for use of weapons to address "civil disobedience" rather than a "civil disturbance."

New Procedure Section 5.2 needs to be retitled "Assistant Chief of Operations." It consolidates the duties of the A/C from elsewhere (assisting the CMIC and assigning units to the event).

New Procedure Section 5.3 similarly consolidates duties of the Detective Division, including a discussion of assisting with and processing mass arrests.

New Procedure Section 5.4 asks Sergeants to be sure officers have "proper equipment," get briefed before the event begins, and communicate the CMIC's orders to their squads.

New Procedure Section 5.5 is the first real part of the Directive outlining individual officers' responsibilities, and it only has two parts: 5.5.1-follow directions of the sergeant, and 5.5.2, prohibiting taking individual action unless it is to protect the officer or others in "exigent circumstances."

--6. Coordination with Other Agencies

As noted above, we appreciate this controversial issue being given its own section. It is good that the outside officers generally must defer to the CMIC to use less lethal munitions, though Section 6.1.2 uses both the terms "necessary" and "civil disobedience" in inappropriate ways. Worse, it is disappointing that outside officers policing Portland protests are not required to have the same training or follow the same policies as the PPB (explicitly stated in 6.1.3).

Given that the Bureau doesn't seem to want to address this tactical and legal conundrum, we wonder why, at the least, the City did not lobby the State Legislature to require all on-duty officers throughout the state to wear clear identification on their outermost garments, as the PPB is required to do. CRC recommendation #2 called for all officers to wear visible name tags. CRC recommendation #3 was to "encourage" officers who will be mobilized from other jurisdictions to attend PPB crowd control training; we feel this should be required for outside officers and their supervisors. Section 6.1.1. does require the CMIC to "appropriately brief outside agency personnel prior to their deployment," but doesn't outline the details of the content of such a briefing.

--7. Announcements and Warnings

Procedure Section 7.3.1 under "civil disturbance" includes direction for officers to "cite specific offenses and violations being committed" and to "give clear directions in an attempt to gain compliance." Since the announcements are now made using a military-grade LRAD device, these directions have become rather personalized lately, with the PPB calling out particular protestors by name. This is an intimidation tactic that should be stopped. This section doesn't include guidance on giving the crowd a chance to comply with orders or require documentation, even though both are present in Section 7.4 on "Unlawful Assembly." PPB also needs to deploy an officer in the field to listen to the announcements to be sure they can be heard, as the LRAD is directional and often hard to comprehend when a crowd is making a lot of noise and/or there is traffic going by; it is not clear if this is what is meant by "ensure the audio confirmation received by identified staff on other end" in Section 7.4.2.

Though we encouraged the Bureau to cite ORS 131.675 to explain when dispersal of crowds is lawful, that was not done (while the Statute is still referenced in the beginning of the Directive).

--8. Prohibited Crowd Control Tactics.

New Procedure Section 8 is a rewrite of Old Procedure Section 5, and we're glad to see it maintains the prohibitions on using fire hoses or canine units on protestors. We also applaud the addition of Section 8.1.3 which prohibits the use of Tasers, and more so because Tasers are referred to as "Conducted Electrical Weapons," the neutral term for the electroshock devices. We also support ACLU, NLG and OLGG's addition of deadly force to the list of prohibited tactics.

We addressed above the limitation of Section 8.2 prohibiting horses used only if "passively resistant demonstrators are sitting or lying down." As we wrote in January regarding Old Procedure Section 3.1.1.8: "[We think use of] Mounted Patrol in crowds is dangerous both to the horses and the participants and should be stopped. We continue to believe the PPB should retire the MPU and use the money for anti-racism and other equity programs."

We also asked to see batons, pepper spray, impact munitions, flash-bangs, tear gas, and bicycles as weapons banned from crowd use.

We are glad to see that the word "tools" is no longer being used to describe weaponry, and that there is no longer a reference to the use of police aircraft in crowd situations. However, we find it hard to believe the Bureau is discontinuing the use of the spy planes with no discussion; if the planes are not being discontinued to monitor protests their use must be addressed, particularly regarding ORS 181A.250.

--9. Crowd Dispersal

Again, ORS 131.675 should be quoted in Section 9 on Crowd Dispersal. There is only one subsection here, allowing the CMIC to order a dispersal when an event becomes a civil disturbance "or the crowd presents a clear and present danger to the safety of the public or [officers]."

There is nothing in this section referring back to the Announcement requirements nor, as we mentioned above, making sure people have a chance to comply with commands without being boxed in (or "kettled"), attacked and/or arrested; these concepts are inadequately addressed in Sections 10&11.

--10 & 11. Detentions and Arrests

Section 10 on detentions seems to have been written in response to a complaint that went to the CRC about the mass detention of protestors in 2014 after the Ferguson verdict. The Directive as written says "members _may_ be justified in detaining a crowd engaged in unlawful assembly after providing a lawful order to disperse followed by a reasonable opportunity to comply with that order." The use of the word "may" shows that the City is unsure on legal grounds whether you can detain people about whom the police can't articulate specific suspected criminal activity. Moreover, one of the complaints at CRC was that people who were on the sidewalk were boxed in and detained. And, it should also be noted, the time it took the police to make 10 arrests that night and then let people leave one at a time through a police gauntlet was longer than it likely would have taken for the crowd to finish its action and move on.

Section 11 on Arrests limits authorization for arrests to the CMIC (unless there are "exigent circumstances"). Section 11.2 says "careful consideration should be given to timing, location and method of the arrest." This is an improvement over Old Procedure Section 3.3.3 which just asked the CMIC to "weigh the effectiveness" of targeted arrests; PCW actually suggested adding timing to the list of factors. We also asked to include level of criminal behavior and the likelihood of escalating tensions, which unfortunately are not listed in the new draft. Section 11.3 does require officers to say what probable cause there is for arrest.

--12. Reporting and Coordination Requirements

New Procedure Section 12 rewrites Old Procedure Section 6, which asked the CMIC to submit a special report and ensure officers' reports are submitted before the end of their shift. New Section 12.4 still requires officers who use force to file a report, but there is no timeline set, which is unfortunate. It does, however, add that officers who witness the use of force also need to submit reports.

Section 12.1.5 requires the CMIC to hold a debrief of the event including areas of improvement (we assume this means areas which can stand to be improved, not just saying how the Bureau did better than a previous incident); the supervisor of each squad is also supposed to hold a debrief and write reports about the use of force (12.3.2).


OTHER COMMENTS

--The entirety of Old Section 4 on Crowd Control Tactics was more or less deleted, though it contained information that relates to mass arrests, Mobile Field Force tactics involving batons, dispersal, and specific weapon use (pepper spray, impact munitions and riot control agents). It also had an ill-defined suggestion to "pre-emptively confiscate potential weapons" which is just as well to be gone (Old Section 4.1.1).

--Some important definitions were deleted including the definition of "passive resistance."

--Even though Directive 635.20 "Community Member Observation of Police" is mentioned in the reference section, there is no policy about officers allowing video of their actions in a public setting such as a protest. We support the ACLU/NLG/OLGG recommendation to prohibit arrests of journalists or legal observers.

--Since the Directive is silent about the use of pepper spray, we repeat here that we believe pepper spray should not be used at all in crowds.

--In the past (and in Old Procedure Section 4.6) officers have been allowed to use chemical agents when people in the crowd threw items at the police. We continue to urge the Bureau, as we wrote in January, to "distinguish between a gum wrapper, paper airplane, empty plastic bottle, or cannon balls." We suggested self-defense by state agents would only be justifiable if they are struck by "items capable of causing injury more serious than a paper cut."

--In many ways it is good that the Bureau's policy doesn't include reference to the permitting process. It is odd that the police took to the media after several unpermitted protests were attacked saying they can issue permits on the spot. It seems better to just acknowledge that the protest is happening and make sure cars don't hit the demonstrators instead of asking for people to receive permission to protest the government they're protesting. CRC's recommendation #7 asked for a more centralized and easier process to apply for a permit, which we agreed with while noting "permits are not always required, and some would argue are undue burdens on free speech/assembly/expression. We believe strongly that First Amendment events should not have to be cleared through the Police."

--There is no particular part of the Directive reflecting CRC's recommendation #11, which prohibited targeting people based on their clothing or perceived political affiliation; PCW supports that recommendation.

--Finally, CRC also recommended (#12) that property confiscated during protests be promptly released; PCW also supports that recommendation.


While we really appreciate that the Bureau is now allowing public comment after initial changes are made and before implementation, it is outrageous that there with so many changes made we are being asked to comment on a 15 day timeline. Please consider our suggestion to release a draft or at least a conceptual framework during the opening 30 day period to make this process more meaningful.

Dan Handelman, Regina Hannon
and other members of Portland Copwatch

*-CRC's 2015 Recommendation #6 was for front-line officers to maintain a friendly demeanor; PCW supported this recommendation.

**-CRC's 2015 Recommendation #10 was to revise the Directive's preamble to emphasize de-escalation; PCW supported this recommendation.

Portland Copwatch
(a project of Peace and Justice Works)
PO Box 42456
Portland, OR 97242
(503) 236-3065 (office)
(503) 321-5120 (incident report line)
 copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org
 http://www.portlandcopwatch.org

homepage: homepage: http:// http://www.portlandcopwatch.org