See something we could improve on this page? Give website feedback.
Label:
Report
Published
Highlights from 2025
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
IPR received 213 complaints from community members in 2025, a nineteen percent increase from the 179 received in 2024. Complaints from Bureau members increased to 64 in 2025, up from 45 in 2024. Out of 74 Full Administrative Investigations opened in 2025, IPR conducted 19.
City moves into self-monitoring for parts of Settlement Agreement
The City entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2014 to address policing practices and complaint processing. In 2024, the City and the Department of Justice jointly requested the appointment of an Independent Monitor with greater authority to replace the previous evaluator.
The Independent Monitor team, MPS & Associates, was appointed by judicial order on July 1st, 2024 and published its first compliance reviews in 2025.
View the Independent Monitor website
A continuous period of substantial compliance with provisions related to investigation timeliness allowed the City to propose a plan for self-monitoring of these requirements in 2025. If the City maintains substantial compliance while self-monitoring for two review periods, those paragraphs are eligible to be terminated from the Settlement Agreement.
The paragraphs relevant to IPR's work on investigations that are currently in self-monitoring are:
Paragraph 121: The requirement that administrative investigations are completed within 180 days.
Paragraph 122: The requirement that administrative investigations into police misconduct are not delayed by concurrent criminal investigations.
Paragraph 123: The requirement that the investigative agency responsible for an investigation provide an explanation for cases that exceed 180 days.
IPR is responsible for timelines on cases we administratively close and investigations we conduct that go to findings. Of these 143 cases in 2025, 94 percent (134) were closed in under 180 days. Nine cases were closed in over 180 days or remain open and are over 180 days.
IPR completes its portion of investigations into 2020 protest command decisions
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.
IPR has completed its portion of these investigations and all six were sent to City partners for findings review in 2025.
View this addendum on page 60 of the settlement agreement, under Paragraph 192
New civilian oversight board appointed
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. These final recommendations involved the creation of a new community board and oversight office.
The 21-person volunteer Community Board for Police Accountability was appointed by City Council in 2025. This board will hire a director to staff and run the new Office of Community-Based Police Accountability that will eventually replace IPR, the Citizen Review Committee, and other parts of the accountability system. 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.
Documents about how the new system will function are available on the City's website
Public meetings of the Community Board for Police Accountability can be viewed on the City's website
Use of Deadly Force in 2025
There were four applications of deadly force by Portland Police officers in 2025, one of which was fatal. IPR does not have the statutory authority to investigate applications of deadly force, but IPR Directors are able to review investigations, make recommendations, and contribute to discussions around findings and discipline.
Damon Lamarr Johnson died in police custody on June 27th, 2025. Officers were responding to a call to check on the welfare of a man waving knives out of his window and flooding his apartment. Johnson lost consciousness while detained by Portland Police and later died at the hospital. A Multnomah County Grand Jury reviewed the incident but did not indict the officers. Internal Affairs review of this incident remains pending.
On September 27th, officers used a neck hold on Bo W. Davis during a struggle where officers reported Davis attempted to take an officer's gun. Internal Affairs' review of this incident remains pending.
Bryan Velasco-Ruelas was shot on September 20th, 2025 during an exchange of gunfire with officers during a traffic stop. The Multnomah County District Attorney's Office declined charges against the involved officers after deeming the use of force justified. Internal Affairs' review of this incident remains pending.
On November 5th, officers located Robert D. Hatley after responding to community member reports of an unclothed man with a handgun. Officers used a police vehicle to strike Hatley after hearing a shot fired and then used a taser to take him into custody. Internal Affairs' review of this incident remains pending.
The City also contracts with an independent outside agency, The OIR Group, to review all officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths.
Reviews of incidents up through 2022 are available on the City's website
What complaints were made in 2025?
Community members submit complaints to IPR in person, online, through the mail, or over the phone.
IPR received 213 complaints from community members in 2025. This is the highest number of community member complaints received since the drop beginning in 2021.
Complaints filed by Portland Police Bureau members and non-sworn employees also increased from 45 in 2024 to 64 in 2025. This is higher than many of the recent years since 2021, but similar to the number of Bureau complaints seen before 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 213 community complaints IPR and Internal Affairs opened in 2025, 146 were administratively closed after an initial review of the evidence. Of those 146, 49 percent were closed because the conduct described would not be a violation of a Bureau directive if proven true. Thirty-seven percent of the administratively closed cases were closed because there was clear and convincing evidence that misconduct did not occur as alleged. This closure reason is only for allegations of excessive force and is often made after reviewing evidence provided by body camera footage.
Thirty-two of the total 213 cases were opened for full administrative investigation.
Of the 64 complaints initiated by Bureau members in 2025, 66 percent (42) were opened for full investigation. Seven were administratively closed and seven were handled as supervisory investigations. Seven remain open as ongoing investigations that could result in either administrative closure or full investigation
Officers assigned to Portland's three precincts were the subjects of 85 percent of community member complaints. Central precinct officers were the subject of 74 complaints in 2025, similar to the 78 from the previous year. Complaints about East precinct officers increased by 22 in 2025 to 70 and complaints about North precinct officers remained similar at 37.
What were complaints about?
A complaint of misconduct can involve multiple allegations. The 213 complaints filed by community members resulted in 381 allegations of misconduct that have been assigned findings so far. These numbers will change as cases opened in 2025 continue to close. Allegations are categorized by type and the specific Bureau policy involved.
Procedure allegations accounted for 33 percent (125) of allegations in 2025, followed by allegations of excessive force at 30 percent (116). This is a 17 percent decrease in force allegations from 2024.Allegations of Conduct violations returned to levels seen in 2022 and 2023, rising 47 percent from 68 in 2024 to 100 in 2025.
It is important to note that although they are classified as Community member cases because they involve actions of an officer against a community member, many complaints are opened directly by IPR after the Bureau flags a potential issue during the review of reports or body camera footage. Seventy-eight percent (90) of Force allegations were opened this way in 2025.
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, twenty-five percent of community member allegations (14) were found to be a violation of Bureau policy in 2025. Ten sustained allegations were Conduct violations, three were Procedure violations, and one was Force.
These findings may change as cases opened in 2025 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 written 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.
Thirty-one officers were disciplined in 2025 and three resigned, retired, or separated from the Bureau before discipline was imposed. Most officers received command counseling and written reprimands. Nine officers were suspended without pay for varying lengths of time.
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).
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.
- 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. Return to section ⇑
Closed Investigation. A complaint that has been assigned findings and formally closed.