User:Tlacuilx/Portland Police Bureau

After a series of encounters between Portland Police Bureau and civilians that resulted in a higher percentage of excessive force and guns shot, senator Merkley in collaboration with… requested that the department of justice open an investigation on the PPB. The investigation lasted 18 months. At the end of the investigation, on September 13, the DOJ wrote a letter to Mayor Adams detailing their findings in which the Portland Police had engaged in unconstitutional conduct. The DOJ found that encounters between PPB and those who were perceived of mental illness or suffering of a mental breakdown episode were at a higher risk for use of excessive force from the PPB officers. By the end of the investigation, a set of recommendations were crafted for the PPB on how to move forward.

The 2011 Department of Justice investigation resulted in a settlement agreement between the City of Portland and The United States. The agreement aimed to support Portland Police Bureau initiatives to improve the relationship between police and those who PPB identified as suffering from mental health related issues to avoid excessive force.

The agreement mandated that PPB and the city of Portland developed or revamped safe police engagement practices paying close attention to community engagement, training, force use, and crisis intervention aiming to decrease issues in the entity’s oversight and get ahead of patterns before community trust in the PPB deteriorated. To measure whether the city had met the settlement agreement’s goals, the city would be subjected to three main categories; 1. The city had addressed and improved the engagement procedures listed in the agreement itself, 2. Community presence and acceptance of the Police, and finally, 3. Whether the changes made were viable.

The proposed settlement agreement includes detailed provisions addressing Portland Police Bureau policies and practices regarding: (1) use of force; (2) dealing with persons perceived as or actually suffering from mental illness or mental health crises; (3) dealing with persons suffering from addictions and mental health challenges; (4) crisis intervention; (5) identifying at-risk employees; (6) officer accountability; (7) training; (8) supervision; (9) misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; (10) transparency and oversight; and (11) community engagement. The proposed settlement agreement also includes provisions regarding the implementation and enforcement of its terms.

The agreement did not serve as admission of wrongful doing by PPB and thus could not be used as evidence. The agreement did make the city of Portland responsible for allocating additional funding for the development and implementation of the new guidelines and obligations outlined in the agreement itself. The implementation of the agreement was “intended to protect the constitutional right of all members of the community, continuously improve the safety and security of the people of Portland, keep PPB employees safe, and increase public confidence in PPB, all in a cost-effective, timely, and collaborative manner.[1]” regarding the use of force, the agreement required that PPB revised its use of force policy, to also report and keep track of all reports of excessive use of force were properly documented. Under the agreement, PPB was to implement reasonably necessary use of force, encourage police officers to develop crisis management, de-escalation, and conflict solving practices without resorting to the use of force when responding to calls When dealing with persons perceived as or actually suffering from mental illness or mental health crisis, PPB needed to determine if the use of force was an appropriate response based on whether they perceived a person to have a mental illness. Additionally, PPB was instructed to deescalate force as resistance from suspect decreased, maintaining a “reasonable” level of force to maintain control over the situation.

The settlement agreement also delineated protocols on how to deal with persons suffering from addictions and mental health challenges. The federal government expected that City of Portland’s partnerships with local Community Care Organizations would facilitate the establishing of “public walk-in centers for individuals with addictions and/or behavioral health service needs.” [2] to improve the behavioral health care system in the sate with suggested improvements such as: access to medication management services, addressing the unmet needs of Portland community members, amongst others.

In order to address Crisis intervention, PPB was subjected to expanding the capacity and expertise by being equipped to interact with people in mental health crisis without using excessive force. [3] PPB was tasked with developing an Addictions and Behavioral Health Unit within 60 days of the settlement taking effect. Within 90 days from the effective date, PPB was expected to also institute an Addictions and Behavioral Health Unit advisory board.

PPB was expected to continue to monitor and identifying at-risk employees, using and their existing Employee Information System to track down any officer who had used “force in 20% of his arrests in the past six months”[4] and trigger a case management threshold.

With the implementation of constant monitoring in the actions of police officers, the PPB and the City would uphold officer accountability through ensuring that “all complaints regarding officer conduct are fairly addressed… and complainants receive a fair and expeditious resolution. officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system.”[5] As well as the continued requirements that officers who witnessed lethal force events briefed any supervisor or detective on-scene to locate evidence, identify witnesses and suspects.

Training; aimed to reflect PPB’s expectations; officer commitment to “the constitutional rights of the individuals who have or are perceived to have mental illness whom they encounter and employ strategies to build community partnerships to effectively increase public trust and safety.”[6] Supervision; (9) misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; (10) transparency and oversight; and (11) community engagement. [1] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2); United States v. City of Portland, Case No. 3:12-cv-02265-SI

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid