April 30, 2004

Update

Foxworth provides some of his background, and his training and experience as a police officer in the Portland Police Bureau.

Foxworth cannot talk about specifics because of the pending review, but he will explain some training endeavors and review processes that have taken place and will take place.

He says over the past year or year and a half, the Bureau has met with many communtiy groups, and professional organizations have looked at officer-invovled shootings, such as the PARC report.

Those recommendations included manner shootings investigated, training issues, docuemtnation of firearm use, looking at alternatives to non-lethal tools. As a result, the Bureau is implementing some of them. Also, there are recommendations from CPORT which looked at similar issues, as well as two other groups, the AMA Ad-Hoc Committee, and a City Club report on community policing. An incredible amount of feedbakc and recommednations.

He says steps have been taken. On deadly force, they continue to look at non-lethal alternatives. Nationwide, many agencies are looking at or have adopted the Taser. The Bureau has done that, but not every officer is trained yet. When working in neighborhoods they will be equipped with Tasers. They have evaluated use of the Taser, and will firm up policy which will be put before community groups before being adopted.

Also, looking at the investigations of officer-involved shootings. PARC report said officers should be separated and communciations restrictions put in place. Also now, supervisers take appropriate actions to so separate. Bureau makes sure that all interviews are tape recorded, especially with officers. Attempt to make sure civilians are taped as well.

Training. It's his goal as chief to make sure training that is professional national standard. Looking for best practices and lessons learned to incorporate. There have been cases in the past where there has been a delay up to 72 hours in interviewing officers. This has not been the case in recent shootings, officers have been interviewed within 24 hours. In this case, less than 24 hours following the incident.

Pointing of a firearm is something citizens have expressed concerns about, and wanted policy that officers document evevery time they pull a firearm out. Now, they do not have to document when they pull it out, but they do have to document every time they point it at an individual. Looking at other agencies, they've had this practice for quite some time.

Concern about review of these types of incidents, and what happens. Historically, internal admininstrative review of shootings, they will have training division, assistant chiefs, commander of individual involved. They review and make a recommendation whether the shooting is in policy or out of policy. Concern that no citizen involvement, and union concerned about no peer review. They will create a use of force board that includes citizens and peer members. All will be voting members on the recommendaton which will be given to the chief.

Question: There's been testimony in this incident, concern expressed about policy of "pretext" stops. Is there a policy regarding this? Foxworth says the issue of "profiling" is looked at by many agencies. Data collected, they are looking at how to interpret this data, is it meanginful. Does it really say there is profiling taking place? Racial profiling is defined as an officer taking an action based solely on the individual's race. We encourage officers to address neighborhood problems to be creative in doing their work, but there is not apolicy in place that says "pretext" stops is something that is prohibited. It is a useful tool in doing law enforcement work.

Question: Is there a fundamental problem in current system of deadly-force training? It's our feeling that the training is probably some of the best, but we're also looking for that validation from a national organization. Good quality training but we want to compare it to a national standard.

Question: At appropriate time, will you personally meet with Perez family to listen to their concerns over the shooting? Foxworth has met with them previously. He says it's important to rememebr that a number of people have been deeply impacted by this. The Perez family, Sery, Macomber. Important that all of us reach out to all who have been deeply impacted. He is willing to meet with them, but also willing to meet with other memebrs of the communtiy and people in the Bureau.

Question from Senators Gordly and Carter: Will you adress changes to hiring of officers? Looking for best methods for recruiting (this added by Schrunk who is chastized by one senator). Is there curretnyl psychological evaluation fo candidates? Foxworth had recent conversations with those responsible for this, and they are looking at how to improve recruitment strategies. As part of hiring process, prior to being hired, a person has to pass a psychological evaluation. Is the ocnducted by one person, panel, of number of psychologists? One person the Bureau works with, professional doctor who understands attributes being sought in an officer.

Question: How many citizens on deadly force review board? Discussing selection criteria and number of citizens, as well as peer members. At this time, anywhere from 2-3 members from citizens and peer groups.

Question: How does the budget or lack of budget affect amount of training? If he had his desires, he would want to puit officers thorugh as much training as possible, but what we provide right now is good training. We've gone from 40 hour in-service training, we've had to be creative because of budget considerations. We deliver some training at precicnt level rather than taking them out of the precinct. But we make sure it's the training that's needed.

Question from juror: When an officer is suspicious about a driver for lack of eye contact, is that profiling? Foxworth doesn't want to address that at this time, due to the internal review that needs to take place. After the inquest, internal review will begin, and the scope is much broader than a criminal investigation. Looks at training, equipment, tactics, decision-making, policy. Since that hasn't taken place, he will not answer this question.

Question from juror: Are all computers in car keyboard operated? Are all actions logged automatically? Keyboard, not voice-activated. Majority of actions are documented through the computer. Also documented by the 911 center.

Schrunk asks if Foxworth has thoughts about the public hearing first-hand from all of the witnesses during this inquest. He says that it was his commitment that the Bureau would be actively involved in this, because he beleives in openness, transparency, and accountability. He believes this has been helpful because it's a fforum where questions could be asked and concerns raised, and addressed, but in a structured environment with civility and decorum. Important because of the public interest. Believes it has been helpful and worthwhile.

Update

No further witnesses at this time. Schrunk has instructions for the jury. But first a brief five-minute break.

Update

Schrunk first has a statement from the Perez family which he will read. They appreciate the opportunity to thank the inquest jury for its role in allowing the tragic facts to be made public. It seems clear to them that the death was unnecessary. The issue for the jury is what was the cause. Obviously a gunshot. But other questions important for the community. Why are officers making pretext stops? Sicne when are officers to stop cars because they are too nice for the neighborhood? Why not less-than-lethal force? Officers had more than a simple traffic stop on their minds. Which unarmed motorist will be the next victim? Lewinski was brought in to tell about action-reaction, but he did not tella bout the impact of racial profiling on police shootings. Or why this scientififc style of training has resulted in two such shootings in eleven months. How many minority citizens must be killed before the Bureau completely re-examines itself. We are not all armed killed. When determining cause of death, consider that Perez was killed as result of pretext stop, that he was killed because one officer badly over-reacted, and that was caused in part by training officers to be afraid of citizens. Consideration of these questions could begin healing process for family and Portland.

(That was heavily paraphrased by us.)

Time for instructions from Schrunk for the jury.

Important to understand what your decision is and what it is not. There is no determination of fault or justification. That is based on Schrunks authorty over the inquest. Natural, accidental, suicidal, or homicidal are the only options for cause of death.

Your role has nevertheless been an important one, representing public community as a whole.

In deciding the limited questions, you are to consider all the evidnece you find worthy of belief. Duty to weigh evidence and decide case on merits. evaluate evidence for reliability, without bias, sympathy, or prejudice. No guesswork or speculation. Solely on evidence in this inquest. Disregard anything not produced at this hearing.

And the webcast moronically cut away in the middle of Schrunk's instructions, so we missed some while switching to the radio. No idea how much we missed. Much of the instructions so far seem to be the basics on types of evidence.

Update

Explanations of different types of witnesses (non-expert and expert) and how to judge witness opinions. Explanation of terms such as "preponderance of the evidence."

In jury room, one juror will be presiding juror and be spokesperson for the jury. Four or mroe jurors must agree on a verdict. Presiding juror will sign verdict form. Verdict must be based on preponderance of evidence. When verdict, court will be reassembled to hear verdict.

Purpose of inquest has been to make public accurate information.

If after they return with verdict, Schrunk will take jury back into jury room to discuss their thoughts and concerns, and he will convey their messages to the public, the Mayor, the Chief of Police if they feel any are necessary.

Now KBOO is babbling over the audio again so we can't hear the last bits of whatever Schrunk is saying. No, now they've cut away altogether.

Update

Picking up with the OregonLive audio feed, it appears we missed the very end of Schrunk's instructions to the jury. Schrunk is now thanking everyone for their participation. "The jury is still out if [this inquest] achieved it's purpose," he says (claiming no pun intended). But he hopes it was instructive and can begin the healing process, not just for this tragedy but the community as a whole.

The inquest is adjourned until a verdict is in.