When Eugene police officer Judd Warden tased then-University student Ian Van Ornum at an anti-pesticides rally in May 2008, Van Ornum was lying face-down on the ground with a hand held behind his back. Upon his second tasing, Van Ornum was handcuffed and still on the ground.
When Van Ornum was found guilty last month of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, several jurors anonymously told The Register-Guard they were concerned police had used excessive force against Van Ornum. Witnesses in court testified that officers pulled Van Ornum’s hair, twisted his arms and threw him to the ground. Van Ornum’s doctor testified that he suffered a concussion.
After the city of Eugene hired Joyce Naffziger to look into police actions surrounding Van Ornum and two others’ arrests, the private investigator was effectively barred from doing her job when the Eugene Police Employees Union argued its contract prohibits non-police officials from directly questioning union-represented officers.
Now, less than a year after Van Ornum’s tasing and arrest, and less than three weeks after Naffziger resigned for being unable to complete an independent investigation into the Van Ornum case, the Eugene Police Department plans to expand its Taser program.
Disappointing if not shocking, the events surrounding Van Ornum’s case and the decision to equip all officers with Tasers will only further erode what little trust much of the Eugene community has in its police force. Choosing to expand the Taser program amid a highly controversial investigation into the very same issue – one in which public opinion is fraught with skepticism and concern – cannot help but seem like a slap in the face to those legitimately concerned with police accountability.
The Van Ornum case should be completed in a truly independent and transparent manner before decisions are made that directly relate to the outcome of the investigation. Considering the outcry and questions the case has brought about, it is especially incumbent upon EPD to treat the case and its surrounding issues responsibly. But since Naffziger’s resignation, interim police auditor Dawn Reynolds said her task was only a “quasi-independent investigation.” She also said the conflict of interest cited by Naffziger is “a real problem,” but will not hire another outsider to investigate the case further. In light of such concerns, it would seem reasonable to make resolving them a priority before jumping the gun – or, perhaps, the Taser – on expanding the program.
Did EPD ever take the investigation seriously? If Naffziger’s was just a “quasi-investigation,” and no plans exist to hire a new one, it seems likely that hiring a private investigator was just an attempt to pacify the public, when there was no intent to truly examine the case further.
Also of concern is the fact that on the same day Van Ornum was sentenced, the EPD gave Warden its Officer of the Year award. EPD gives the annual award for “performance during a 12-month period that demonstrates a quality of work clearly and significantly exceeding the requirements of his/her position,” police spokeswoman Melinda Kletzok told the Eugene Weekly. This comes two years after the Oregon Peace Officers Association gave its Medal of Valor to the EPD officer who killed 19-year-old Ryan Salisbury after shooting him multiple times with an assault rifle (police ruled the shooting was justified self-defense). Apparently, EPD thinks it must reassure the officers unlucky enough to come under the public’s scrutiny and criticism.
EPD Police Captain Steve Swenson called it a “reasonable conclusion” that EPD Taser use has saved lives – according to a report on the Taser pilot program, officers used Tasers six times in incidents which police say would have warranted deadly force. This may be the case, but the Van Ornum incident strongly presents the likelihood that Tasers can and will be misused. If EPD believes expanding the Taser program to be the best course of action, it should first take steps to demonstrate its dedication to using them responsibly by responding to allegations of police misconduct in at least a quasi-serious way.
If EPD wants the respect and cooperation of citizens, it needs to take decisive and transparent steps toward accountability. At this point, its concerns seem to lie first and foremost with expanding its power and making lame attempts at saving face.
[email protected]