Last month, a decision by the city attorney ended a case involving a Eugene police officer tasering a University student, closing the investigation once and for all.
City attorney Glen Klein reviewed the powers of the Civilian Review Board and decided, despite its vote to re-investigate the actions of the officer in question, it did not have this authority.
In January, the controversial case of a Eugene police officer tasering a Chinese student in his own home was put to rest after Police Chief Pete Kerns exonerated the officer, Judd Warden, following an internal EPD investigation. Although Kerns said Warden acted within EPD policy, the Civilian Review Board voted the following month that Warden did not, and said the investigation should be reopened.
Klein’s decision raises questions about what kinds of cases are within the purview of the board. This seven-member board has reviewed more than 20 cases involving questionable police force. The tasering case was the first instance in which the board recommended EPD reopen a case.
In his official memorandum on the decision, Klein distinguished two different types of cases, each designating the board a different role. In community impact cases, the board does indeed have the power to compel the police department to reopen investigations. In closed cases, however, the board has no such power.
“The reasons for differentiating the handling and review of closed cases as compared to community impact cases — some of which are based on policy concerns and others based on legal concerns — are explained in the police commission’s report to the city council,” Klein said.
That report summarized the board’s role in closed cases: “The closed case review is prospective in nature, the focus of which is to establish if the complaint system worked as intended in that particular case and to develop recommendations for process improvements.”
Deputy Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds said the local controversy relates to a broader dialogue.
“It’s a debate a lot of communities are having right now,” Reynolds said. “If (civilian review boards) have oversight power, how much should they have? And if they do not have oversight power, what is their appropriate role?”
Merrick Bobb, director of the national Police Assessment Resource Center, a group that was instrumental in the design of Eugene’s police oversight model, said the limited power of Eugene’s board is the standard.
“It’s fairly common across the country for oversight committees to make recommendations to their local police force, but I don’t know of any agency that has the power to compel the police to reopen a case,” he said.
Bobb believes it is the obligation of local elected officials to represent the public interest when civilian oversight does not accomplish substantive policy change.
“If the department just thumbs its nose at the agency, then it’s up to politicians to use political pressure to get the PD to listen to the public,” Bobb said. “Otherwise, it’s just window dressing; it’s just people twiddling their thumbs.”
Police auditor Mark Gissiner said Klein’s report helped define the role of the board in future cases, something he welcomes.
“That’s what this is about, is tightening this language up so there is less confusion,”
Gissiner said.
He also mentioned the importance of defining police oversight policy in a historically gray area. “I’m not sure we’re there yet in Eugene,” he said, “but this dialogue certainly helps.”
Gissiner also said the student has claimed a tort lawsuit against the city.
[email protected]