Active

March 18, 2020

The following is testimony the we and our partners provided today to the state's Special Joint Legislative Committee on Coronavirus Response regarding safety and civil rights for incarcerated Oregonians.  

Co-Chairs Roblan and Holvey, and Members of the Committee,

The response to the global pandemic COVID-19 requires careful consideration of the public health and economic impacts on the people of Oregon and the institutions that provide critical services for our state. This is no different for our state’s prisons and jails, or for victim services agencies. We urge the government in its response to prioritize saving human lives, public safety, and reducing new infections to partner with our organizations and law enforcement agencies across the state and take swift action to prevent the outbreak of COVID-19 in our prisons and jails.

An ideal response is one that brings partners together in shared and diverse expertise; that in this scenario would be coordinated between public safety, public health and victims services professionals. A collaborative response will also take into account the unique risks and dangers to those experiencing stalking, domestic and sexual violence during this time and their need for adequate protections while we call for only the most essential hearings to be held. The process should also involve hearing from people directly impacted, including incarcerated people, formerly incarcerated people and crime victims as do how these policy and practice changes are working. Their voices are critical to informing how we move forward.

People in prisons and jails are highly vulnerable to outbreaks of contagious illnesses. Once a contagious illness enters, conditions in correctional facilities are highly conducive to it spreading. People in prisons and jails live in close proximity to each other. Many are housed in large dormitories, sharing the same space. People in prisons and jails do not have access to adequate soap and cleaning supplies, making infection control nearly impossible.

Many people in prisons and jails are in relatively poor health and suffer from serious chronic conditions due to lack of access to healthcare in the community, or limited healthcare provided in the correctional system. Medical staff are generally stretched thin even in the best of times. Though incarcerated people have a constitutional right to adequate medical and mental health care, the reality is they too often do not have access to it.

All this means that prison and jail populations are extremely vulnerable to a contagious illness like COVID-19. Moreover, prisoners have fewer options for protecting themselves and others. They don’t have the option to stay away from other people when they are sick. They can ask for medical attention, but prisons and jails have few infirmary beds and fewer rooms for medical isolation.

From policing, prosecution and pretrial hearings, to sentencing, confinement, and release, every aspect of the system must come under intense scrutiny for how it responds to this national public health crisis.

While our organizations strongly recommend additional actions1, we are encouraged by recent actions taken by Chief Justice Martha Walter that limit nonessential court operations statewide to limit traffic in and out of courthouses and stem the spread of the coronavirus. Similar to actions taken in other states like Ohio, the Washington County Sheriff has also announced he will be taking steps to reduce the jail population by considering early release for individuals meeting certain criteria.2 We encourage other Sheriffs to take similar actions.

Our organizations have reached out to several law enforcement offices and associations to share our concerns and offer suggested actions they can take to protect prison and jail populations as well as those on active supervision and uphold public safety in our state. Those letters are attached and suggested actions include:

  • Transparency with incarcerated individuals and their families, and the public regarding actions being taken by law enforcement agencies is paramount throughout this public health emergency. It is equally important for jail and prison staff and incarcerated individuals to receive the same information and education about how to best combat COVID-19 and how to recognize the symptoms. The information provided should be accessible regardless of a person’s disability or primary language.
  • Law enforcement officers need to balance their enforcement priorities with the realities of the pandemic. Police agencies need to rethink how arrests can be avoided or deprioritized to reduce the public health risks of unnecessary jailing. The Oregon Department of Corrections and Oregon jails should also refrain from transferring people to ICE custody, providing information to ICE that allows for their re-arrest upon release, or delaying anyone’s release as a result of an ICE request.
  • Prosecutors should use their immense discretion to reduce the number of people who are held pretrial or who are sentenced to a confined facility. This includes making full use of available diversion programs or alternatives that don’t involve confinement and offering non-confinement sentences in plea bargaining.
  • The Parole Board should expand release opportunities and expedite release decisions for incarcerated people.
  • The Governor should utilize her clemency powers to decrease incarcerated populations and create a culture in which transparency, safety, and the health of all people are paramount concerns.
  • Prisons, jails, and detention centers must be developing plans to protect people. They must provide soap, hand sanitizer, and cleaning supplies.
  • Parole and Probation departments should relax reporting requirements, decrease the use of custodial sanctions, waive monthly reporting fees and look for ways to support the people they are supervising so they do not lose their employment and housing during this crisis.

We request that the Joint Committee on Coronavirus Response address this critical issue by doing the following:

  • Appropriate emergency funding to reentry and treatment programs across the state so that individuals can be diverted away or released back into the community fully supported, resourced and educated.
  • Appropriate emergency funding to the Oregon Department of Corrections so it may adequately address the needs of this current crisis and mitigate the harms that will be caused by this crisis.
  • Appropriate emergency funding to the Board of Parole and the Governor’s office to support the expedited release of individuals through the clemency and parole process.

People in custody, including in prisons, jails, and civil detention, are often forgotten in emergencies. This creates unnecessary suffering and loss of life. We have the opportunity to take steps now to limit the spread of the virus in prisons, jails, and detention centers. But the time to act for the health of those incarcerated, and for the broader community, is now.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

ACLU of Oregon

Disability Rights oregon

Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association

Oregon Justice Resource Center

Partnership For Safety & Justice

Sponsors, Inc.

Hide banner image

Show featured video/image

Show related content

Date

Wednesday, March 18, 2020 - 8:15pm

Documents

PDF icon CriminalJusticeAdvocatesLetter[1].pdf

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Session

2020 JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE

Status

Active

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Show PDF in viewer on page

Show list numbers

Style

Standard with sidebar
Testimony of Kimberly McCullough, Policy Director
Concerning Portland City Council Item No. 892
 
August 9, 2017
 
Mayor Wheeler and Council Members,
 
The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon1 appreciates your consideration of our testimony concerning a proposed ordinance to adopt new Post Deadly Force Procedures for Portland Police Bureau.
 
Although it does not appear to be posted on today’s city council agenda, we understand that a revised ordinance is under consideration that would differ somewhat from Item No. 871 which was considered by this body on August 3rd of last week. We understand that the revised ordinance would authorize concurrent criminal and administrative investigations, including prompt internal affairs interviews of the officer, with both investigations conducted in a manner that preserves and protects the constitutional rights of the involved officer.
We submit this testimony to thank City Council for considering such a revised ordinance—which would be a significant improvement from Item No. 871 as originally introduced—but also to express concern that the revised ordinance still does not get us as far as we advise. In particular, the revised ordinance gives the Chief of Police and the Police Commissioner, in consultation with the City Attorney, to have the discretion to defer an administrative investigation until after the criminal investigation is completed “where circumstances suggest such deferral is warranted in a particular case.”
 
Allowing for discretionary delay of administrative investigations causes us great concern, as it creates significant ambiguity about what will actually occur when a deadly force incident occurs. We understand that the City Attorney and this body believe there are potential ambiguities in the law, and we encourage whatever actions the City feels it must take to clear up such ambiguity—including seeking a court determination if possible. However, we are very concerned that this discretionary exception will be utilized in a situation where it is actually unwarranted, hindering an administrative investigation when the public deserves swift action to seek answers and accountability.
 
Based on this concern, we encourage you to remove the provision allowing for discretionary delay of the administrative investigation from the revised ordinance. Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions, concerns, or would like to discuss this further.
 
1 The ACLU of Oregon is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to preservation and enhancement of civil liberties and civil rights, with more than 23,000 members in the City of Portland and over 44,000 members statewide.


Testimony of Kimberly McCullough, Policy Director
Concerning Portland City Council Item No. 871
August 3, 2017
 
Mayor Wheeler and Council Members,
 
The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon1 appreciates your consideration of our testimony concerning Item No. 871, an ordinance which would adopt new Post Deadly Force Procedures for Portland Police Bureau and authorize legal proceedings to determine whether requiring officers to provide statements in connection with an administrative deadly force investigation would preclude criminal prosecution.
 
We submit this testimony to express concern about this ordinance as drafted, and to urge you to either reconsider its adoption altogether or amend the ordinance before moving forward. We make this suggestion while appreciating the gravity of the tension presented when the City considers the constitutional, civil and public rights at stake when police officers use deadly force against members of the public they are sworn to serve.
 
On the one hand, we are longstanding and fierce advocates for the protections provided by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution, both for members of the public and law enforcement. It was because of this fact that we submitted an amicus curiae brief in State v. Soriano, 68 Or App 642 (1984) supporting the rights of a defendant held in contempt for refusing to testify in criminal proceedings.
 
On the other hand, a prompt administrative investigation into deadly force incidents is crucial for police accountability. Already this year, the City of Portland has seen multiple instances of deadly or serious harm at the hands of police officers, including the taking of the lives of two young men of color, Quanice Hayes and Terrell Johnson. The losses of those lives are tragedies for both their families and for our community. The public should not have to endure these tragedies without adequate investigatory procedures and full accountability if and when misconduct has occurred.
 
We believe, however, that these competing concerns can be adequately addressed by simply keeping administrative and criminal investigations wholly separate. Portland’s Independent Police Review of the Portland City Auditor's Office has already provided helpful legal analysis to this body outlining how separate investigations may occur without violating constitutional rights, and the National Lawyers Guild is submitting a separate memo with similar analysis and suggestions. We urge the City to carefully review these memos and pass an ordinance allowing for separate, but concurrent investigations as they suggest.2
 
It is a standard best practice for employers to implement internal policies and processes by which to ensure their employees are conducting themselves in their jobs appropriately. It is also a standard best practice to investigate employees, including collecting statements from them, when it is believed that internal policies may have been breached. The same is true when a potential broken rule results in the loss of life of another at the hands of a police officer.
 
Such investigations allow the employer to improve their policies and change their procedures to prevent future harm. And, if need be, such investigations allow the employer to fairly train, discipline or remove employees when harm could have been avoided and/or misconduct occurred.
 
The City of Portland and Portland Police Bureau (PPB) must be able to conduct an internal assessment of its employees and officers. The public needs a police bureau committed to ongoing improvement, transparency and the protection of civilian lives—even when those civilians are suspected of criminal action. When an officer causes harm to the public, prompt and independent scrutiny of personnel and policy concerns must occur to ensure future harm can be avoided and necessary changes are made.
 
Police officers are professionals. Professionals of all types—lawyers, doctors, engineers—have professional standards and employment policies that must be followed. Additionally, employees of all types must answer to their employer when they fail in their duties. Insulating police officers from professional standards or significantly delaying employer scrutiny only serves to promote public harm and distrust in the system. Police officers who breach PPB policies or standards should not be given special treatment that the rest of the hard-working public does not enjoy.
 
We were dismayed to read the Multnomah County District Attorney’s (DA’s) assertion that criminal investigations may not be kept independent from the police bureau’s internal investigation given the close relationship between the two agencies. While we disagreewith the DA office’s legal analysis, it was more troubling for us to see an elected office willing to create roadblocks rather than offer solutions to rebuild the public’s trust in our law enforcement bodies.
 
It is the DA’s responsibility to vigorously advocate for the public in cases of potential criminal misconduct by law enforcement. Rather than pushing for a less-accountable system, we hope that the DA’s office will instead work with the City and PPB to ensure complete separation of administrative and criminal investigations. And if an officer claims transactional immunity when a truly independent criminal investigation has occurred, we hope that the DA will oppose such a claim in court.
 
In conclusion, the ACLU of Oregon believes that the PPB personnel investigation and any criminal investigation can occur separately, and simultaneously, without infringing upon a police officer’s constitutional rights.
 
We urge you to reconsider or amend this ordinance, and not delay in adopting policy to allow for separate internal investigations to move forward with prompt collection of involved officers’ statements. Rather than waiting for a court to give a green light, this policy should take effect as soon as possible. Failing to do so further risks the community’s faith in its elected leaders’ commitment to police accountability and breaks promises made to the public about the removal of the 48-hour rule.
 
1 The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon (ACLU of Oregon) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to preservation and enhancement of civil liberties and civil rights, with more than 23,000 members in the City of Portland and over 44,000 members in the State of Oregon.

 

2 Because we generally agree with both of these carefully-crafted memos, we will not provide additional constitutional analysis in this testimony beyond stating that (a) Soriano is clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances related to fully separated criminal and administrative investigations into deadly force by law enforcement, and (b) we agree with the court in State v. Beugli, 126 Or App 290, 294 (1994), that use and derivative use immunity—not transactional immunity—is the proper remedy when the right against self-incrimination is violated, absent a legislative grant of further immunity.

 

Hide banner image

Show featured video/image

Show related content

Date

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 4:45pm

Related issues

Police Practices

Documents

PDF icon 8_3_17_ACLU_OR_Testimony_re_871.pdf
PDF icon 8_9_17_ACLU_OR_Testimony_re_892.pdf

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Session

Portland

Status

Active

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Style

Standard with sidebar
Subscribe to RSS - Active