Executive Summary
Since August 2017, Portland Police Bureau (PPB) has reported, investigated, and reviewed 100% of all events in which physical coercion was used to effect, influence, or persuade a resistant subject to comply with an officer, including the intentional pointing of a firearm at an individual. At least 20% of those events were then audited by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to assess compliance with the reporting, investigation, and review requirements in the United States Department of Justice Settlement Agreement (US DOJ SA), paragraphs 74-77. For more than four years, officers have demonstrated greater than 98% compliance with the reporting requirements in the US DOJ SA. Supervisors have demonstrated greater than 97% compliance with the investigation requirements in the US DOJ SA.
Reporting and investigation requirements are determined by the force type used and risk of injury, or actual injury. Review requirements, or the number of levels of command review, are determined by factors warranting an elevated review, such as an injury resulting in hospitalization; these are referred to as categories of review. There are four categories of review: Category I (deadly force), Category II (non-deadly serious use of force), Category III (non-deadly force resulting in non-serious injury (actual/complaint/potential)), and Category IV (non-deadly force unlikely to result in injury). The requirements for the different categories differ in the number of levels of review but require the same reporting and investigation requirements for all uses of force, including Category IV: force that is intended to establish control of a resistant person, though not reasonably likely to cause persistent pain or physical injury. The officer who is involved in a Category IV force event must notify their supervisor, wait on scene until the supervisor arrives, and complete a Force Data Collection Report (FDCR) in addition to all other required reports. The supervising sergeant, after arriving on scene, must interview the involved officer, all witness officers, community members who witnessed the use of force, and gather all other evidence necessary to complete an After Action Review (AAR) report. The supervisor is also responsible for reviewing all required reports and ensuring that they are correct before they are approved.
Risk is assessed by law enforcement agencies by considering the liability (lawsuits and complaints), potential for injury (to officers or community members), and damage to legitimacy and the trust between the agency and the community. Once identified, risk should be prioritized. Good risk mitigation involves prioritizing risk and then applying law enforcement resources effectively, efficiently, and economically.
The use of Category IV force types is low risk in terms of claims, lawsuits, and complaints, but it increases the risk of eroding public trust and decreases PPB legitimacy due to its disproportionate use. PPB’s reporting, investigation, and review requirements for Category IV force deviates from other agencies in the United States and the National Use of Force Reporting initiative, suggesting that it is not consistent with reporting standards. PPB’s current requirements for non-deadly force exceed its accreditation requirements, as well. The Oregon Accreditation Alliance (OAA) force standard requires that “any force used that is capable of causing injury is recorded and a formal review process is established to review use of force incidents for compliance with existing policy and law.”
The current requirements are resource intensive. The amount of time officers and sergeants spend reporting and investigating Category IV force events reduce time spent working towards PPB’s mission to reduce crime and the fear of crime by working with all citizens to preserve life, maintain human rights, protect property, and promote individual responsibility and community commitment. The current process reduces the amount of time that officers and supervisors are available to respond to calls. PPB’s average response times to calls have more than doubled since fiscal year (FY) 2016. The average response time for high priority calls increased from 8 minutes in 2016 to 20 minutes in 2024. The average response time for medium priority calls increased from 16 minutes in 2016 to 47 minutes in 2024. The average response time for low priority calls increased from 41 minutes in 2016 to 84 minutes in 2024. The increase in response times was not due to an increase in calls for service: in FY 2016 there were 246K calls and in FY 2023 there were 224K calls. The strain on resources is compounded by the decrease in the number of sworn members since 2016, from 950 to 789.
In addition to the resource strain on officers and sergeants, Records Division personnel must manually attach all FDCRs to the associated case in the records management system (RMS). The impact on PPB's Records Division personnel manually attaching FDCRs to their associated case detracts from time that could be spent on other Records Division responsibilities, such as public records requests.
The upcoming implementation of body-worn cameras (BWC) will provide an enhanced accountability tool that will provide robust documentation of police-public encounters. This tool will provide better reporting of low-risk encounters with less of a strain on resources than the current reporting and investigation requirements.
The solution presented in this proposal will improve Portland Police Bureau’s (PPB) overall risk management position by correctly prioritizing the risk associated with the reporting, investigation, and review of Category IV non-deadly use of force. The solution takes advantage of the Bureau’s new body-worn camera technology to provide enhanced accountability and transparency and reduces the amount of time that officers and sergeants spend on administrative tasks allowing them more time for core mission responsibilities, such as responding to calls for service.
Summary of Findings
The current reporting, investigation, and review requirements do not reflect that the use of Category IV force is low risk of liability and injury:
- By definition, Category IV force types are not reasonably likely to cause persistent pain or physical injury.
- 2% of the total amount paid for police action claims and lawsuits was due to the use of a Category IV force type or a Category IV force case.
- 5% of complaints of alleged misconduct made by a member of the public or PPB member were related to Category IV force.
Data analysis of Category IV force is misinterpreted and misused decreasing the legitimacy of the agency and trust between PPB and the community:
- On average, Category IV force applications account for 76% of all force applied.
- Most analyses of PPB’s use of force conclude that when force is applied, more than half is low risk and no further analysis is required.
- Officers who use a disproportionate amount of Category IV force compared to their peers may be subject to the same criticism as officers who use greater amounts of Category I-III force.
- The subjectivity of Category IV’s resistance requirement introduces skepticism regarding officers who did not experience resistance when controlling the same subject as officers who did.
The current reporting, investigation, and review requirements are resource intensive:
- When averaged annually, the reporting and review of Category IV events have taken up to 29,667 sworn staff hours over the past six years, which equates to 14 full-time employees.
- Officers have spent the equivalent of 20 work weeks writing FDCRs for Category IV force events.
- Sergeants have spent the equivalent of 92 work weeks completing Category IV AARs.
- In 2023, Records Division personnel spent minimally 112 hours, the equivalent of nearly 3 weeks, attaching FDCRs to their associated case in the RMS.
PPB’s Category IV requirements deviate from other law enforcement agencies, national, and accreditation standards for use of force reporting, investigation, and review:
- A review of 12 agencies that operate under a US DOJ SA found that 9 make an exception for Category IV or de minimis use of force.
- The Oregon Accreditation Alliance (OAA) standard requires that any force used that is more likely to cause injury is recorded and a formal review process is established to review use of force incidents for compliance with existing policy and law.
- The FBI National Use of Force Reporting Initiative collects data on only force resulting in serious bodily injury, death, or a firearm discharge at a person.