Appeal Summary

2015-C-0365/2016-X-0006
Case File Review/Appeal Hearing
December 14, 2016

Involved Persons

Appellant
Officer A
Sergeant B
Officer C
Witness 1
Witness 2
Witness 3
Witness 4
Witness 5
Witness 6
Subject

Allegations
1. Officer A used inappropriate force when taking Appellant into custody. (FORCE) (Directive
1010.00 Use of Force)
2. Sergeant B used inappropriate force when taking Appellant into custody. (FORCE)
(Directive 1010.00 Use of Force)
3. Officer A applied handcuffs improperly when taking Appellant into custody
(PROCEDURE)(Directive 870.20 Custody and Transportation of Subjects)
4. Sergeant B applied handcuffs improperly when taking Appellant into custody
(PROCEDURE)(Directive 870.20 Custody and Transportation of Subjects)

Incident/Complaint Summary
On November 25, 2015, Portland Police Bureau officers were dispatched to a
disturbance at City Hall involving Appellant and Subject at a session of City Council.
Subject was yelling loudly and described by several witnesses as in the midst of a
mental health crisis. Appellant was in the Council Chamber videotaping Subject. City
Hall security requested that Appellant leave Council Chambers, which he refused to do
as he did not want to stop filming Subject. At one point, Appellant attempted to walk
past Witness 1 and was taken to the ground. Officer A and Sergeant B handcuffed
Appellant and escorted him out of City Hall.
Complainant contacted IPR stating that he had been subject to pain compliance
techniques which he felt was the result of his activities as someone who films police
encounters with members of the public. Appellant additionally complained that
handcuffs had been applied too tightly.
Internal Affairs Investigation

Summary of Appellant, Officers, and Witness Interviews:

Appellant
When interviewed by Internal Affairs, Appellant stated that he attended the Council
Session on November 25, 2015. Appellant stated that he believed Subject was in the
midst of a mental health crisis. Appellant said he was aware the Project Respond had
been requested.
Appellant claimed that during his arrest he was subject to pain compliance techniques,
which he described as having his wrist bent backwards. The Appellant described what
the officers, using pain compliance techniques even when I wasnt handcuffed and I
said Im not resisting. So, they were using pain compliance from the beginning. The
Appellant described himself as 100% compliant. The Appellant felt that he was subject
to use of force due to his over 10 years of filming the police.
The Appellant told the Internal Affairs Investigator that the involved officers used pain
compliance on him until he reached the officers patrol car.
The Appellant stated that he did not resist the officers attempting to handcuff him after
he was taken to the ground by the City Hall security guard.
The Appellant described how he felt that the involved officers handcuffed him too tightly.

Witness 1
Witness 1 works as a security officer and is part of the Mayors protective detail.
Witness 1 described Subject as being out of control and Appellant filming him. While
attempting to get Subject out of Council Chambers, a Commissioner requested that the
chamber be emptied. Witness 1 requested that Appellant leave as well, he recalls their
back and forth as:
The Commissioner just ordered the chamber cleared. She can make you leave,
you need to go. You cant stop me filming. You cant make me leave.
Witness 1 stated that he was not trying to stop Appellant from filming but to get him to
comply with the Commissioners request. The Appellant attempted to push past
Witness 1 and concerned that Appellant was attempting to interfere with the officers
dealing with Subject, he took Appellant to the ground. Witness 1 and another security
officer held Appellant down until Officer A was able to handcuff Appellant. Witness 2
remembered Sergeant B as being the on scene PPB supervisor but could not recall his
level of involvement in handcuffing Appellant.
Witness 1 did not see the involved officers using a wrist lock or another type of pain
compliance. The witness stated that he did not see any excessive force used. Witness 1
described Appellant being led out of City Hall, as being pushed or guided out.

Witness 2
The witness worked as a security guard at City Hall on the incident date and had
opened Council Chamber to members of the public. Witness 2 recognized Subject and
that he had excluded him the previous day. He told Subject that he was excluded from
Council and Subject disregarded him and started speaking loudly in the Council
Chamber. City Hall security called 911 and the involved officers responded.
Once the disturbance started, the Mayor or another Council member called for a recess
and most Council members and some members of the public left. Security attempted to
clear Council Chambers but were unable to get the room completely empty.
Witness 2 saw Appellant punch Witness 1 twice and attempted to push around him to
continue filming the involved officers interaction with Subject. Witness 1 proceeded to
takedown Appellant. He described the officers handcuffing the Appellant as, Its my
recollection they handcuffed him when he was downThey took his hands around and
handcuffed him. it was as kid gloves as anything Ive ever seen. Witness 2 stated
that he did not view any inappropriate force used by the officers.

Witness 3
Witness 3 is a supervisor of City Hall security personnel and had been viewing the
Council Session on a monitor and had decided to go to the Council Chamber when he
saw Appellant attempt to push past Witness 1. He witnessed Appellant being taken to
the ground by Witness 1, who proceeded to hold him until Officer A and Sergeant B
took Appellant in to custody.
Witness 3 was not able to see the actual handcuffing of Appellant.

Witness 4
Witness is security officer who was in Council Chambers on the incident date. He
described the involved officers taking Appellant into custody as one officer on each side
of Davis. Witness 4 described the officers taking Appellant into custody in the following
manner.
 That was about it. There was no Appellant struggled a little bit, but he did not
thrash about or strike anybody or try to kick anybody or anything.
Witness 4 remembered the Appellant protesting that he was being handcuffed, but did
not hear any complaints of pain. Witness 4 did not see officers use any pressure points
or strikes on Appellant.
Witness 4 described the officers leaving Council Chambers with Appellant in the
following matter:
Investigator: how did they help him get up so that, of course, they could
leave Council Chambers?
Witness 4: They had him bend his knees and they both took him by the arm
and the shoulders as he pushed up with his legs.
Witness 5
Witness 5 is employed by Portland Community Media, which does live broadcasts of
City Council meetings. He witnessed the incident while viewing camera monitors. Once
the disturbance started, Witness 5 took cell phone video of the monitor. Witness 5 paid
more attention to the officers interaction with Subject and did not view Appellant being
taken to the ground by Witness 1 or the handcuffing by the involved officers

Witness 6
Witness 6 attended the Council Session as a City staff attorney. Witness 6 states that
he saw when Witness 1 took Appellant into custody. The Witness saw the officers
handcuff the Appellant. Witness 6 did not recall too much about the involved officers
contact with Appellant due to Subject being, very loud and very vocal. Witness 6 did
not recall anything inappropriate about how the officers handcuffed Appellant. Witness 6
recalls that the handcuffing occurred quickly. Witness states that the comments that he
remembered Appellant making revolved around his property such as his camera, bag,
and pepper spray.

Officer A
Officer recalled handcuffing Appellant and taking him into custody. Officer stated that
the handcuffing was a simple, normal handcuffing. The Appellant was laying down,
face down with his hands at his side. The Appellant did not resist. The officer stated that
he did not use any physical force on the Appellant. The Appellant did mention that he
felt the handcuffs were too tight and Officer A checked for tightness and put his fingers
in the gap between Appellants wrist and the handcuff. Officer A stated that he did not
use a control hold to get Appellants compliance.
Appellant was escorted out of City Hall, with nothing out of the ordinary happening.
Appellant complained about a wrist injury and Officer A checked the handcuff gap
again. An emergency responder came and conducted an evaluation of appellant and
found no signs of injury. Officer A recalled that Sergeant B took a photo of Appellants
handcuffed wrist.

Sergeant B interview
Sergeant B recalled arriving at City Hall and met with Officer C outside of Council Chambers.
Sergeant B explained the plan as:
once another officer got there, Officer A, we made a plan that basically Appellant was
going to go. I wanted him out the way so then we could deal with Subject and if that
meant we had to wait for a while with Subject and let him espouse we were going to be
fine.
Sergeant B recalled requesting Project Respond and an ECIT officer to respond to his location.
Sergeant B witnessed Appellant being trespassed by City Hall security and him refusing to
leave. Sergeant B stated that they wanted Appellant out of the room, so they could focus on
Subject, even if they meant waiting for a period of time. The officers moved to take Appellant
into custody but Officer C and Subject were having an altercation so Sergeant B and went back
to assist Officer C.
When Sergeant B got to Appellant he was already on the ground. Officer A and Sergeant C
rolled Appellant from his back to his stomach to facilitate handcuffing. Officer A recalls using a
wrist lock on Appellants right arm.
Sergeant B described the wrist lock used as being consistent with his training. Sergeant B did
not recall Appellant making a complaint of pain at the time of the handcuffing.
Later, Appellant complained about his wrists hurting and an ambulance was requested.
Sergeant B also had Appellant photographed while handcuffed, to document that he was
handcuffed appropriately. AMR medics attempted to check Appellant for injury but he did not
comply with their requests so the examination ended prematurely and Appellant was
transported to jail

CHRONOLOGY OF CASE PROCESSING DATE

Date complaint filed with IPR 12/14/15
Date IPR Initial Intake Investigation completed 12/28/15
Date IA Investigation initiated 1/7/16
Date IA investigation completed 3/21/16
Date completed IA investigation assigned to IPR for review 3/23/16
Date completed IA investigation assigned to RU Manager for recommended 4/5/16
findings
Date RU Managers recommended findings to Branch Chief for 4/19/16
recommended findings
Date recommended findings received by IA Captain for recommended 4/26/16
findings
Date recommended findings sent to IPR for recommended findings 4/26/16
Date of IA recommended findings 4/27/16
Date of IPR of recommended findings 4/28/16
Police Review Board Held N/A
Date of IA Disposition Letter 4/29/16
Date of IPR closing cover letter 5/3/16
Date appeal request received 5/17/16

TIMELINESS OF CASE PROCESSING TIME ELAPSED BENCHMARK

(Calendar (Calendar Days)
Days)

Time from date complaint received in IPR to the date 14 14

case referred for an administrative investigation
(12/14/2015 12/28/2015)
Time necessary for completion of investigation 74 60
(1/7/2016 03/21/2016)
Time from date IPR investigation sent to RU Manager to 14 14
date of RUs recommended findings received by Branch
Chief for recommended findings
(4/5/2016 4/19/2016)
Time from date recommended findings received by 6 7
Branch Chief to date referred to IA Captain for
recommended findings
(4/19/2016 4/25/2016)
Time from date recommended findings received by IA to 1 7
date IA made recommended findings (concurrent with
IPR review)
(4/26/2016 4/27/2016)
Time from date recommended findings received by IPR 2 7
to date IPR made recommended findings (concurrent
with IA review)
(4/26/2016 4/28/2016)
Time from date of completed findings recommendations 4 14
to mailing of the disposition letter
(4/29/2016 5/3/2016)
Totals 114 123
Time from date complaint received to date Disposition Letter sent to 141
Complainant
(12/14/2015 5/3/2016)

Findings and Definition of Findings

Finding: A determination of whether an allegation against a member is unfounded,

exonerated, not sustained or sustained. These findings have the following meanings:

Unfounded: The allegation was false or devoid of fact or there was not a credible basis
for a possible violation of policy or procedure.

Exonerated: The act occurred, but was lawful and within policy.

Not Sustained: The evidence was insufficient to prove a violation of policy or

procedure.

Sustained: The evidence was sufficient to prove a violation of policy or procedure.

Any of these findings could be accompanied by a debriefing, which would involve the
superiors of an involved officer talking about the incident and providing instruction as to
how the situation might have been handled better.
No. Allegation summary Category Finding

1 Officer A used inappropriate force when FORCE Exonerated

taking Appellant into custody. (FORCE)
(Directive 1010.00 Use of Force)
2 Sergeant B used inappropriate force when FORCE Exonerated
taking Appellant into custody. (FORCE)
(Directive 1010.00 Use of Force)
3 Officer A applied handcuffs improperly when PROCEDURE Exonerated
taking Appellant into custody.
(PROCEDURE) (Directive 870.20 Custody
and Transportation of Subjects)
4 Sergeant B applied handcuffs improperly PROCEDURE Exonerated
when taking Appellant into custody.
(PROCEDURE) (Directive 870.20 Custody
and Transportation of Subjects)
Options Available to the CRC
At the appeal, the CRC has the following options available to it:
1. The CRC can affirm the finding, meaning that it believes that a reasonable
person can make the same decision based on the available information, whether
or not the committee agrees with the decision; or
2. It can challenge the finding; meaning that the committee believes a reasonable
person would have reached a different finding based on the available
information. The CRC can recommend a debriefing as part of any challenged
finding; or
3. It can refer the case to the Independent Police Review or Internal Affairs for
further investigation.