Administrative Rule Adopted by Auditor's Office Pursuant to Rule-Making Authority
1. To increase efficiency in the timely resolution of appeals, the Citizen Review Committee will conduct a Case File Review to ensure that all information necessary to hear an appeal is gathered and ready to be reviewed. In no instance is a Case File Review to be conducted for the purpose of dismissing a matter prior to hearing the appeal.
2. Prior to the Case File Review, each Committee member will review the complete administrative investigation case file. Any questions or concerns arising from this review will be promptly brought to the attention of the Portland Police Bureau’s Internal Affairs Division or IPR as appropriate, so that a response may be made to the full Committee during the Case File Review.
3. Only Committee members who have reviewed the complete administrative case file will participate in the discussion of the case.
4. The Case File Review of a pending appeal will occur prior to the appeal hearing. At the beginning of each Case File Review, the Chair will briefly outline the allegations, Police Bureau’s findings, and note whether all Committee members have reviewed the complete case file. The Chair will explain that the Committee is not to deliberate the substance of the allegations, but to ask questions about the investigation and material in the file to ensure completeness and readiness for an appeal hearing.
5. At the Case File Review, the IPR Director and the Internal Affairs Captain or their respective designees shall briefly explain what investigation was done and what materials were made available for Committee to review. IPR and Internal Affairs should address questions or issues raised individually by Committee members during their review of the case files.
6. If, at the conclusion of the Case File Review, the Committee believes it has all information necessary to conduct the appeal hearing, a vote shall be taken on when to hold the appeal hearing.
a. If the CRC members believe more information is necessary prior to an appeal hearing being conducted, the members shall state what additional information or investigation is requested and put this to a vote.
b. The CRC may make one request for additional investigation or information to the investigating entity, i.e. Internal Affairs or IPR at any point during its review. The investigating entity must make reasonable attempts to conduct the additional investigation or obtain the additional information within 10 business days or provide a written statement to the CRC explaining why additional time is needed. The request for additional investigation or information may contain multiple points of inquiry, but no follow-up requests will be permitted. The additional request shall be voted on by a quorum, the members voting must have read the Case File in order to vote, and any request with multiple points of inquiry must be prioritized.
8. Absent extraordinary circumstances, results from further investigation should be made available at least one week prior to the next regularly scheduled Committee meeting where the Case File Review will be continued or the appeal will be heard.
• Submitted for inclusion in Portland Policy Documents, October 23, 2002.
• Originally published as CRC PROTOCOL NO. 02-11, approved by IPR Citizen Review Committee, effective September 3, 2002.
• Amended by the Committee on March 18, 2003 to include provisions allowing the the Committee to recommend changing a declination to a service complaint and to add a debriefing to an investigation finding at the pre-hearing level. Also amended to allow an appellant to address the committee when such a motion is made. Also amended to include a provision for the Committee Chair to verify that the appellant is aware of the consequences of a Committee motion.
• Vacated by the Committee, June 21, 2003.
• Interim Protocol adopted by the Committee, December 16, 2003.
• Interim Protocol amended January 17, 2003, by permitting comment by involved parties at the beginning of the hearing.
• Interim Protocol adopted as final by the Committee, February 17, 2004. Pre-hearing statement amended to advise involved parties of their right to be heard at the beginning of the hearing. Involved party statements move to be heard by the Committee after the presentation of the IPR work paper.
• Protocol repealed by the Committee and deleted from Portland Policy Documents by City Auditor, August 14, 2007.
• Protocol rewritten and approved by the Committee, August 11, 2010. Case File Review Meeting Protocol replaces in its entirety its deleted predecessor (Pre-Hearing Protocol).
• Protocol amended November 20, 2015 as the result of revisions to City Code 3.21.150.