University of Oregon Oversight System

Goals of the U of O Civilian Oversight System 1) To build trust between the community/students and the University Police Department. 2) To improve police performance. 3) To reduce the risk of liability to the university.

Established … State of Oregon authorizes. Police Department is organized, including selection, training, policies and procedures. Police Department activiates. Work begins on intake, classifying, monitoring and reviewing complaints.

Complaint Process Entry for Complaints – One process for students (Shang); one process for others. Consideration of a bifurcated system. – How can complaints be taken: in person, writing, telephone, third party, rep. like an attorney, anonymous, confidential? – Once taken, what is the communication process to the complainant?

Complaint Process Continued Who decides what the classification should be? What happens if a person is making an allegation that is criminal in nature? What happens if the matter should be decided by the courts (i.e.: I should not have received a citation for trespassing.) Mediation as a valuable tool. What about non-sworn employees? Should there be a separate investigative process, an auditor, or should someone within the current infrastructure of the university coordinate all complaints and reviews? What resources (cash) will be allocated to meet this process? Who will manage public and exempt records? What happens when an officer fires his gun? Who conducts investigations? Once an investigation is completed, who decides whether the employee acted appropriately?

Classification of Complaints Currently, complaints fall under two broad categories….. 1)Misconduct 2)Service Complaints Classification determines how the complaint will be investigated.

Types of Conduct Complaints (Sub-classification) 1.Criminal Conduct 2. Allegation of Misconduct 3.Deadly Force Review (Internal Process) 4.Inquiry 5.Policy Complaint 6.Service Complaint 7.Use-of-Force Review (Internal Process with OPA participation)

Allegations of Misconduct These allegations include the following subcategories: – Conduct – Constitutional Rights – Courtesy – Discrimination – Use of Force

Service Complaints Conduct Constitutional Rights (seldom used in this context) Courtesy Discrimination Disputed Facts Other Performance Service Level Use of Force (seldom used in this context)

Complaint Intake Process Whenever possible, individual complainants are personally interviewed and the interview is recorded. Staff gather the who, what, when, where and how of the incident. Staff gathers contact information from the complainant and collects data relating to age, racial background, gender and other issues relevant to data tracking. Staff write a summary of the complaint, make an attempt to identify the employees and, if more than one officer was involved, what their individual roles were.

Communication to Complainants and Employees at the End of the Process Complainant intake office, police, combination? Unlikely that public will know the names, outcomes or discipline as a result of the complaint process – complainant is probably entitled to at least a portion of this info – ultimately for U of O counsel to decide.

Oversight of U of O Police Should there be a review board external of police to review investigations of complaints involving sworn police officers and other employees, to: (a) review the completed investigation and adjudication of complaints filed against sworn police officers; (b) require that the police re-open an investigation; (c) provide comments on an investigation, including recommendations to the police chief and final decision maker; (d) review trends and statistics of complaints against employees, and provide reports and recommendations to the President or other designated administrators. (e) Oversee and evaluate the work of the complaint body/office.

Performance of Process Investigations into allegations of police misconduct are investigated in a thorough, fair and timely manner. (60 to 90 days) The process is as transparent as possible. The process is free from bias. Should the oversight system be independent from the police. To build trust between the community and the police department.

* authority * Police authority is by grant from the communities they serve. * * The authority is subject to limitations & should reflect community values. * * Police are account-able to the public. * Accountability requires transparency. * * Transparency requires access to information. * * Transparency ensures public confidence. Oregon public record exemptions make it more difficult.

Strengths – All external complaints go through external office – Ability to monitor ongoing Internal Affairs Investigations – Ability to participate in interviews of witnesses – Widespread community support – Access points for complaints, separate from police. Police should still be available for intake or solve customer service issues. – Transparency through deliberations of case reviews in public meetings – Opportunities for public comment – Opportunities for translating findings into policy recommendations

Investigation of Misconduct Allegations Allegations of criminal conduct are reviewed by the DA. If it does not appear to rise to the level of criminal (i.e., intent) then it is investigated through the IA process as an administrative investigation. Other misconduct allegations are investigated by one of two IA sergeants. This process is usually completed within 60 days. For EPD, ask OSP to investigate.

Internal Affairs Investigations IA investigators review police reports, view in-car-videos, dispatch entries etc. IA investigators interview civilian witnesses and police department witnesses. They are recorded. – Sworn officers have the right to have their union representatives present with them during the interview. – Sworn officers have Garrity Rights, this means they must answer questions but the information cannot be used against them in a criminal investigation.

Monitoring the Investigation Throughout the investigation, OPA engages in conversation with the IA investigators – To identify emergent issues not recognized in the initial complaint intake – To discuss possible questions for witnesses – To assist in contacting witnesses or providing services (translators, interpreters etc.) Meets with senior staff and IA to ensure the investigation remains on schedule and discuss policy and training issues related to individual cases.

Review of the Investigation After the IA Investigative Report is written, OPA reviews – the investigative report and police records, – Listens to all the recorded interviews – Reviews photographs, medical records, in-car- videos – Reviews the relevant policies. – Meets with the named employees supervisors to discuss adjudication outcomes based on the IA investigation.

Recommendations After reviewing the investigation, OPA makes a recommendation to the Chief of Police (designee of the hiring authority) as to whether the allegation(s) should be adjudicated as – Sustained – Unfounded – Within Policy – Insufficient Evidence (The allegation cannot be proven by a preponderance of the evidence)

Recommendations (continued) * In the adjudication recommendation OPA may also comment on the quality and thoroughness of the investigation. For example, OPA may address any perceived bias toward witnesses. * OPA may also identify any policy or training issues that were identified in the course of the investigation.

Recommending Cases for Review by the CRB * Cases close when the employee(s) named in the complaint have been notified as to the Chief’s adjudication determination and, where applicable, the employee has received notice of any discipline that will be imposed. * At the end of each month OPA publishes synopses of the closed cases and provides these to the CRB with recommendations as to which case(s) have merit for review.

Collecting Data & Spotting Trends Each month, closed cases are entered into a spreadsheet maintained by OPA. Tracking includes: – The length of time to investigate and close cases. – The age, race, gender or special status that was identified (i.e. disabled, demonstrator, mental health issues) – A summary of the complainant’s statement. – The allegations against each officer(s) – Whether the complainant was charged, jailed or taken into protective custody. – Whether there were injuries to complainants or officers and whether medical treatment was required. – The adjudication recommendations by: the chain of command, the Chief, OPA and, where applicable CRB.