See something we could improve on this page? Give website feedback.
Label:
Report
Published
Highlights from 2024
Independent Police Review (IPR) provides impartial civilian oversight of the Portland Police Bureau. It receives, investigates, and monitors allegations of officer misconduct submitted by community members or Police Bureau employees.
Complaint numbers remain consistent
The number of complaints received from community members has been very consistent since 2021. IPR received 179 complaints from community members in 2024, which is very similar to the 176 received in 2023. Complaints from Bureau members decreased to 45 after a spike in 2023 due to procedural issues with required paperwork. Out of 65 Full Administrative Investigations opened in 2024, IPR conducted 18.
Full implementation of body-worn cameras improves investigation process
The Bureau-wide implementation of body-worn cameras had a large impact on complaint investigation in 2024. Investigators were able to gather more information about incidents which improves allegation accuracy and case-processing efficiency. Footage from body-worn cameras also helped investigators identify additional behavior that may not have been the subject of the complaint but was identifiable during footage review.
Consistent staffing balances caseload
After increasing investigator staff to pre-pandemic levels in 2023, IPR hired an Administrative Specialist in 2024 to help with community contacts and case workflow. The addition of the Administrative Specialist returned IPR to full staffing for the first time since 2020 and helped balance investigator workload to manageable levels.
Five administrative investigations opened in 2024 exceeded 180 days. Eleven investigations conducted by IPR in 2024 were closed in under 180 days. One remains open and under 180 days.
City and Department of Justice select an Independent Monitor
The City entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2014. This settlement agreement includes many provisions that address policing practices and complaint processing.
In 2024, the City and the Department of Justice jointly requested the appointment of an Independent Monitor. The Independent Monitor replaced the previous body responsible for evaluating the City’s compliance and has more authority to make recommendations and identify barriers to compliance.
The Independent Monitor team, MPS & Associates, was appointed by judicial order on July 1st, 2024 and will be publishing public reports going forward.
View the Independent Monitor website
Investigations into decisions made during 2020 protests continue
The DOJ found the city out of compliance with sections of the settlement agreement regulating use of force after the protests in 2020. An addendum was made that tasked IPR with investigating supervisory decisions around training, deployment, and review of uses of force during the protests. IPR opened four of these investigations during 2022 and two additional investigations in 2023 as investigations uncovered new information. These investigations are wider in scope than IPR’s usual investigations and involve complex reviews of police bureau actions. All of these investigations remained open in 2024. As IPR has returned to full capacity, we had more ability to work on these investigations.
View this addendum on page 60 of the Settlement Agreement under Paragraph 192
New form of civilian oversight still taking shape
Voters in the City of Portland passed a ballot measure in November of 2020 to establish a new system of police oversight and accountability. The City formed a board of community members to recommend the structure and operations of the new system and in 2023 City Council approved a modified version of the board’s recommendations.
In 2024, the United States Department of Justice reviewed and approved the City’s plan for the new system. The judge who oversees the settlement agreement accepted the necessary amendments in 2024 but delayed their implementation until a new City Council was seated in the beginning of 2025. The City completed a recruitment for the Board in the spring of 2025 and City Council appointed the Board’s first 21 members and six alternates on June 18th, 2025.
The new system will replace IPR, the Citizen Review Committee and other parts of the accountability system when it is implemented. IPR will continue to take complaints and investigate misconduct until there is a way to bridge the gap between the current system and the future one.
View the Police Accountability Commission website
View the Office of Community-based Police Accountability's website
What complaints were made in 2024?
Community members submit complaints to IPR in person, online, through the mail, or over the phone.
IPR received 179 complaints from community members in 2024. This is very similar to the number of community member complaints received yearly since 2021.
Complaints filed by Portland Police Bureau members and non-sworn employees decreased to 45 in 2024, 36 fewer than in 2023. This is a return to around the five-year average of 54 after the spike in 2023 from procedural issues with required paperwork.
The number of community member complaints received by IPR plunged after 2020 and has remained consistent over the last four years. From 2011 to 2020, IPR received an average of 400 community member complaints per year with a high of 435 in 2016. Since 2021, IPR has received an average of 180 community member complaints per year with a high of 193 in 2021.
Misconduct investigations may take many paths
A complaint against a police officer goes through many stages before receiving potential findings. When a complaint is submitted to IPR, an investigator conducts an initial intake investigation. During the intake investigation, investigators interview the complainant, gather police reports, dispatch records, body camera video and other evidence, and write an initial report. An IPR manager reviews the report and evidence to decide what happens with the case. There are many possible resolutions for a case at this point including closure, full administrative investigation, supervisory investigation, precinct referral or mediation.
Of the 179 community complaints IPR and Internal Affairs opened in 2024, 94 were administratively closed after an initial review of the evidence. Of those 94, 40 percent were closed because the conduct described would not be a violation of a Bureau directive if proven true. Thirty-six percent of the administratively closed cases were closed because there was clear and convincing evidence that misconduct did not occur as alleged. This is a closure reason reserved for allegations of excessive force. Thirty-three complaints were closed due to clear and convincing evidence in 2024, compared to two complaints in 2023. This determination is often made after reviewing evidence provided by body camera footage.
Forty-three of the total 179 cases were opened for full administrative investigation.
Of the 45 complaints initiated by Bureau members in 2024, 51 percent (23) were opened for full investigation. Ten were administratively closed and eight were handled as supervisory investigations.
Officers assigned to Portland’s three precincts were the subjects of 89 percent of community member complaints. Central precinct officers were the subject of 76 complaints in 2024, an increase of 20 from the previous year. Complaints about East precinct officers decreased by 13 in 2024 to 47 and complaints about North precinct officers remained similar at 37.
What were complaints about?
A complaint of misconduct can involve multiple allegations. The 179 complaints filed by community members resulted in 340 allegations of misconduct that have been assigned findings so far. These numbers will change as cases opened in 2024 continue to close. Allegations are categorized by type and the specific Bureau policy involved.
Allegations of excessive force increased slightly from 2023 to 2024. This small increase made excessive force allegations the largest allegation category for the first time since 2020. In 2024, Force allegations accounted for 37 percent (127) of all allegations, followed by Procedure allegations at 32 percent (110). This increase in force allegations is likely tied to an increase in referrals from Bureau supervisors who review officer uses of force as part of an After Action Review process. IPR has seen an increase in referrals from the After Action Process since the implementation of body worn cameras.
What happened to investigated complaints?
After an investigation is completed, a Police Bureau supervisor reviews the investigation and provides a recommendation about whether the officer violated a Bureau policy. Of cases that went through a Full Administrative Investigation, seventeen percent of community member allegations (22) were found to be a violation of Bureau policy in 2024. Twelve sustained allegations were Procedure violations, eight were Conduct violations, and two were Courtesy violations.
These numbers may change as cases opened in 2024 continue to close.
What happened to officers with sustained allegations?
Discipline for a sustained allegation falls within a range. The mildest discipline an officer can receive is command counseling or a letter of reprimand. More serious forms of discipline are demotion, suspension from work without pay, or termination of employment. Some officers also resign or retire while an investigation is pending.
Twenty-five officers were disciplined in 2024 and nine resigned, retired, or separated from the Bureau before discipline was imposed. Most officers received command counseling and employment was terminated for two officers.
Background
How does the accountability system work?
The accountability system is comprised of people inside and outside the Police Bureau who take complaints and gather evidence, offer perspectives on whether work rules were violated, and recommend levels of discipline to the Police Chief and the Mayor, who make the final decisions. If decisions are appealed, an arbitrator can weigh in to uphold or overturn their decisions.
Roles and responsibilities are shared across agencies
Independent Police Review is housed outside of the Police Bureau and is comprised solely of civilians. Internal Affairs is a unit of the Police Bureau and is staffed by both sworn officers and civilians. IPR receives and investigates complaints, makes recommendations on whether violations occurred, and monitors all cases investigated by Internal Affairs, including officer-involved shootings.
IPR investigators engage people who want to file a complaint about an officer to understand the circumstances and evaluate evidence collected during the initial intake process. An IPR manager then decides what happens with the case depending on the available evidence. Cases can be closed, retained for further investigation by IPR or Internal Affairs, or referred to the officer’s supervisor for follow-up and action. Complaints that do not qualify as misconduct can be referred for voluntary mediation or to a precinct commander to follow-up with the complainant.
Complaints that may be substantiated and have the potential to result in discipline of unpaid leave are heard by the Police Review Board, which is an internal advisory body to the Chief. It is made up of command staff and officers, an IPR manager, and community volunteers. All officer-involved shootings or in-custody deaths go before the Police Review Board.
Members of the Police Review Board vote on what findings and discipline to recommend to the Chief of Police. The Chief considers the recommendations and makes a final determination, sometimes in consultation with the Mayor, about whether to sustain an allegation and what discipline to impose.
Glossary of terms
The City of Portland’s Independent Police Review (IPR) and the Portland Police Bureau’s Internal Affairs share many similar duties with nuanced differences. The following definitions focus on the explicit meaning of terms as they apply to IPR’s side of the misconduct investigation process.
Independent Police Review. The Independent Police Review (IPR) is a city agency separate from the Portland Police Bureau that investigates alleged misconduct by Portland Police officers. IPR is staffed solely by citizen employees. Most complaints received by IPR come from members of the community. Community members can directly submit a complaint about officer misconduct to IPR in person, online, or over the phone. Return to section ⇑
IPR, established in 2001, is different from the upcoming Community Board for Police Accountability that will replace IPR and other parts of the current accountability system when implemented.
Internal Affairs. Internal Affairs is a division of the Portland Police Bureau, supervised by sworn-Police staff, that investigates alleged officer misconduct. Most complaints opened by Internal Affairs originate from Bureau members or review of Bureau reports. Return to section ⇑
Investigator. Investigators at both IPR and Internal Affairs conduct investigations of alleged misconduct. Investigators at IPR are non-sworn civilians who take complaints from community members, collect evidence, interview community member and Bureau witnesses and complainants, and write reports on their collected information. Return to section ⇑
Complaint. A description of alleged misconduct by a Portland Police Bureau officer. A complaint can be made by both community members and Portland Police Bureau employees and submitted to IPR in person, online, or over the phone. A complaint can also be initiated by IPR or Internal Affairs without a community member or Bureau member description if there is reason to believe misconduct may have occurred but a complainant has not come forward. Return to section ⇑
Complainant. The person who experienced or was impacted by the alleged misconduct. Return to section ⇑
Intake Investigation. Investigators conduct an Intake Investigation on complaints of alleged officer misconduct. During Intake Investigations, investigators collect reports related to the complaint, look for video of the incident, compile lists of witnesses and involved Bureau members, and may conduct initial interviews. Investigators generally have two weeks to conduct an Intake Investigation, at the end of which they submit a written report on their investigation to an IPR Director. Return to section ⇑
After Action Report. A written report that describes a police action and assesses its adherence to policy through critique and evaluation using required criteria (defined in the Portland Police Bureau's Directive 0910.00). Return to section ⇑
Director Decision. IPR has a Director and a Deputy Director who read all Intake Investigations written by investigators. They use the information in the Intake Investigation to decide what path the complaint should take next. The most common decisions for a complaint after an Intake Investigation are:
- Administrative Closure. The complaint is closed based on review of the evidence. Return to section ⇑
Reasons for Administrative Closure include:- No Misconduct. The behavior alleged in the complaint is not a violation of Bureau policy.
- Clear and Convincing Evidence. There is clear and convincing evidence that the alleged behavior did not occur, such as video of the incident. Return to section ⇑
- Complainant Unavailable. IPR is unable to contact a complainant and the complaint cannot move forward without more information. This can happen when attorneys representing complainants deny IPR’s request to interview their client, a complainant wishes not be interviewed, or the contact information IPR has for a complainant is incorrect.
- Judicial Remedy. The underlying complaint is regarding the validity of a violation or criminal citation that is best determined though the legal system. For example, a Complainant says they received a traffic ticket but were not speeding. This should be resolved through traffic court.
- No Jurisdiction. The behavior alleged in the complaint was not committed by a Portland Police officer. This may include complaints about other city employees or members of other public safety agencies. In this case, IPR may direct the complainant to the correct agency or forward the complaint to the corresponding oversight body.
- Unidentified Officer. The Intake Investigation was unable to identify the officer allegedly involved in the incident.
- Supervisory Investigations. Directors may refer a case for Supervisory Investigation if the alleged behavior would not result in serious discipline if proven true. Supervisory Investigations are conducted by the involved officer’s supervisor, who will review the Intake Investigation, contact the complainant, talk with the officer, and collect their own evidence if needed. Supervisors will find the allegation of misconduct either Substantiated or Unsubstantiated and meet with the officer to discuss their findings. If an allegation is Substantiated, the supervisor may impose discipline of either Command Counseling or a Letter of Reprimand. Return to section ⇑
- Precinct Referral. The behavior described in the complaint does not amount to misconduct but the Bureau could benefit from knowing about the complaint. In this case a Director will forward a summary of the complaint to the corresponding precinct’s Commander. This can be used when a Director notices patterns of behavior that are not misconduct but could benefit from intervention, or when a Bureau policy is causing confusion amongst community members. Return to section ⇑
- Mediation. A Director can seek permission from the complaint to recommend the complaint for mediation. If the complainant and the involved officer agree to mediation, both parties sit with a professional mediator to discuss the incident and explain their perspectives. If a complainant agrees to mediation but the officer declines to participate, the complaint can still proceed through a different case path. Return to section ⇑
- Full Administrative Investigation. A Director will assign a complaint for full administrative investigation if none of the conditions for Administrative Closure are met. Investigators have 70 days to conduct a Full Administrative Investigation that includes interviews with community members and Bureau employees, collecting and reviewing evidence, writing a report, and making recommended findings. Full Administrative Investigations end with finding determinations of either Exonerated, Sustained, Not Sustained, or Unfounded and can include discipline if Sustained. Return to section ⇑
Allegation. A violation of Bureau policy described in a complaint. Similar to how a criminal case can involve multiple charges of wrongdoing, a complaint can involve multiple allegations. Allegations are formally written for each potential policy violation in an incident and each allegation is assigned a finding. Return to section ⇑
The allegation categories are:
- Conduct. Unjustified, unprofessional, or inappropriate actions, unsatisfactory performance. Return to section ⇑
- Control. Inappropriate use of a hold or other technique to control a person’s movement.
- Courtesy. Discourteous or rude statements or conduct. Return to section ⇑
- Disparate Treatment. Inappropriate action or statement based on a characteristic of a person such as race, sex, age, or disability.
- Force. Inappropriate use of physical force or pointing a firearm at a person. Return to section ⇑
- Procedure. Failure to follow an administrative or procedural requirement. Return to section ⇑
Finding. Determination at the allegation level of whether a policy violation occurred. Return to section ⇑
The four possible findings for Full Administratively Investigated allegations are:
- Sustained. The alleged behavior occurred and violated Bureau policy. Return to section ⇑
- Not Sustained. There is not enough evidence to prove the behavior violated policy.
- Exonerated. The alleged behavior did occur but was not a violation of Bureau policy.
- Unfounded. The allegation is false or without a credible basis based on the evidence.
Ongoing Investigation. A complaint assigned for Full Administrative Investigation that is still in the investigation stage and has not been assigned findings yet.
Closed Investigation. A complaint that has been assigned findings and formally closed.