Mental Health Association of Portland

Oregon's independent and impartial mental health advocate

Federal court judge wants public input on Portland-federal justice agreement on police reforms

Posted by admin2 on December 21st, 2012

By Maxine Bernstein, The Oregonian, Dec. 21, 2012

(L-R) Portland Police Chief Mike Reese, Mayor Sam Adams, U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall

(L-R) Portland Police Chief Mike Reese, Mayor Sam Adams, U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon said Friday he will allow public testimony at a “fairness hearing” the court will hold next year on the negotiated settlement that the city of Portland reached with federal justice officials on police reforms.

Simon described his objective in holding such a hearing as three-fold: to help him determine whether or not the settlement agreement is “fair, adequate and reasonable”; to keep the process transparent and “give everyone a full and fair opportunity to be heard.” He cautioned that it won’t resemble a trial.

Simon said any person or group who wants to more formally intervene in the case must submit a motion to the court by Jan. 8.

But any citizen who wishes to participate in the fairness hearing should submit written comments to the federal court clerk by Jan. 22, sharing their ideas on how to conduct the hearing.

Simon said he’s open to holding the hearing at night or during the weekend to better accommodate the public. A date was not set.

Members of the Albina Ministerial Alliance, National Lawyers Guild and Portland Copwatch, who were present at the court’s first hearing on the negotiated federal settlement Friday and allowed to address the court, applauded the judge’s approach.

Attorney Michael Rose, on behalf of the Albina Ministerial Alliance’s Coalition for Justice and Police Reform, told the judge that his procedure for reviewing the matter was a “very reasonable and sane way of getting through this morass.”

Rose also told the court that the alliance’s coalition will be submitting a motion to formally intervene in the case, as the Portland police union has done.

Friday was the first court scheduling hearing since the federal government on Monday formally filed a lawsuit against the City of Portland in U.S. District Court. The lawsuit, alleging excessive force by police, was filed along with a 76-page negotiated settlement agreement that calls for a multitude of Portland police reforms.

The court filings stem from the U.S. Department of Justice’s nearly 15-month investigation into use of force by Portland police. The inquiry found police engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force against people suffering from or perceived to have a mental illness.

The settlement, approved by the City Council on Nov. 14, calls for widespread changes to Portland police policies on use of force, Tasers, training, supervision and oversight.

On Tuesday, the Portland Police Association filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in the case, alongside the city. The union argues that the negotiated changes to Portland police policies and procedures undermine the collective bargaining rights of union members.

The union cited a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case that allowed the Los Angeles Police Protective League to intervene in a consent decree before the federal court on Los Angeles police reforms in 2002.

“I don’t know whether those factors will or will not apply in this case,” Simon told attorneys Friday.

Anil Karia, the union attorney, told the judge he was concerned that the city and Portland Police Bureau might be moving ahead with training on revised use of force and Taser policies. Karia inquired if he should seek a “stay” on the agreement to halt the police bureau from implementing changes until the court rules on the settlement.

“The PPA is concerned about ongoing implementation of aspects of the agreement,” Karia told the judge.

If the bureau were to start training on any revised force policies, Karia argued that “that mere act violates collective bargaining.”

Portland Copwatch’s Dan Handelman also noted in court that the city plans next month to put out a request to hire a compliance officer who would oversee the reforms.

“We’re letting the proverbial cart get before the horse,” Karia said.

The judge replied that he’s taken no action. He noted that parties to a private settlement could still move forward with parts of it, without the blessing of a court.

If a motion for a stay was to be filed, the judge said he’d schedule an expedited hearing to rule on it.

City Attorney James Van Dyke acknowledged that the city and police bureau may want to move ahead with terms of the agreement, such as training, before its formally adopted.

“I don’t expect the settlement agreement to be entered until after a fairness hearing,” Van Dyke told the court. “Nevertheless we have some desire to collectively bargain with our union in regard to some of the changes in our settlement agreement.”

Federal prosecutors have until Jan. 21 to submit their response to the police union’s motion to intervene in the case.

Simon set the next court hearing in the case for Feb. 19 at 9 a.m. to rule on the pending motions.

Simon likened his role in this case to the role of the court in deciding whether to accept a settlement in a class-action case.

“It’s essentially a ratification of a compromise,” Simon said.

Oregon’s U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall, also present in court, and Billy Williams, assistant U.S. Attorney, said the judge’s move to include public comment is consistent with how the nearly 15-month investigation was handled.

“We applaud the court’s direction,” Marshall said.

3 Responses to “Federal court judge wants public input on Portland-federal justice agreement on police reforms”

  1. Jason Silverstein: More Compassion, Less Police Force Against the Mentally Ill « CrimeAlertBlog.Com Says:

    [...] this affects working conditions. Though the City Council approved the settlement on November 14, Judge Simon will allow motions to intervene until January 8 and citizens who wish to be heard at a fairness [...]

  2. Laura Finney R.N. Says:

    I really would like to see the training manuel for the police. I would particularly like to know how the family that may be on the scene with a loved one in crisis helps and or is not respected by the police.
    Does the training manuel include how to treat the family, or are they told to back off as guns are aimed at them and they are threatned to be arrested for interferance…even if they are advocating to protect the loved one,
    I would also like to know if nurses are ever going to be employed by the police department for crisis beside the mental health crisis team.
    Social workers on the mental crisis teams can not give sedation medication…I think most in crisis would prefer sedation from a calm nurse than a taser shotgun or handcuffs. I think police observing what nurses do to reduce tension and not just tackle people might help as part of the training. I am not suggesting that just any psych nurse be choosen for the position though…because some psych nurses just use the tackle technique.
    Seek out nurses that know more. Like distraction and collaboration with family.

    If the family was allowed to be a part of the police tactic speaking to Aaron Cambell through out the entire episode he may have survived…never under estimate the power in the blood.

  3. admin2 Says:

    Here is the PPB policy and procedure manual, from their web site – http://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/article/112802

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>