0330.00, Internal Affairs, Complaint Intake, and Processing
Refer:
• Administrative Rule PSF 5.01, Independent Police Review—Complaint Intake and Processing
• Administrative Rule PSF 5.19 3b (5), Independent Police Review Division – Case Handling Guidelines
• Administrative Rule PSF 5.20, Internal Affairs Guidelines for Screening Referrals from IPR
• City of Portland, Human Resource Administrative Rule (HRAR) 2.02, Prohibition Against Workplace Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation
• DIR 0211.20, Files, Bureau and Division Personnel
• DIR 0305.00, Active Bystandership, Intervention, and Anti-Retaliation
• DIR 0310.00, Professional Conduct and Courtesy
• DIR 0310.20, Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Prohibited
• DIR 0315.00, Laws, Rules, and Orders
• DIR 0315.30, Satisfactory Performance
• DIR 0331.00, Supervisory Investigations
• DIR 0332.00, Administrative Investigations
• DIR 0333.00, Criminal Investigations of Police Bureau Employees and Other Law Enforcement Agency Sworn Employees
• DIR 0334.00, Performance Deficiencies
• DIR 0335.00, Corrective Action Process
• DIR 0336.00, Performance Review Board
• DIR 0345.00, Employee Information System
• DIR 1200.00, Inspections, Responsibility, and Authority
• Internal Affairs Complaint Log Form
Definitions:
• Administrative Closure: In accordance with Administrative Rule PSF 5.20, a determination by the Internal Affairs (IA) Captain, only as permitted below, that after an initial investigation has been conducted by the Bureau or the Independent Police Review (IPR), a complaint will not be investigated further.
• Administrative Investigation: A complete investigation into allegations of policy violations, conducted by or at the direction of IA or IPR.
• Complaint: Any complaint made to the City by a member of the public, a PPB officer, or a civilian PPB employee of alleged misconduct by a Bureau member.
• Mediation: A voluntary, non-disciplinary, confidential process used in an effort to resolve certain complaints by community members. Mediation involves the use of a neutral, professionally trained mediator to help facilitate and direct discussions between a complainant and Bureau members.
• Misconduct: Conduct by a member that violates Bureau regulations, orders, directives, or other standards of conduct required of City employees.
• Supervisory Investigation (SI): A formal, non-disciplinary process in which the involved member’s supervisor reviews a complaint alleging the member provided poor quality of service or committed a rule violation that, if substantiated, would not result in corrective action greater than command counseling.
Policy:
1. The Portland Police Bureau and IPR shall work in partnership to address complaints of policy violations against members of the Portland Police Bureau. Jointly, the Bureau and IPR shall identify and address patterns or behaviors that erode community trust and confidence, promote individual and organizational accountability for member conduct, and identify policy and training issues that will strengthen our police-and-community relationship and quality of service.
Procedure:
1. Role of IPR.
1.1. As set forth in this directive and in city ordinance, IPR has a role in receiving, numbering, and documenting complaints regarding allegations of misconduct against members of the Bureau, monitoring IA investigations of complaints, coordinating appeals of Bureau findings of complaints, and recommending changes in police practice and policy. IPR has the authority to conduct investigations that may include the types of complaints described in section 5.3.1. of this directive.
2. Complaint Intake.
2.1. Member Responsibilities.
2.1.1. Members who become aware of an act of misconduct shall report the act of misconduct to a supervisor as soon as practicable in accordance with Directive 0310.00, Professional Conduct and Courtesy.
2.1.2. Additionally, if a community member expresses concern about any member’s conduct or poor quality of service, the receiving member shall notify a supervisor as soon as practical, but no later than end of shift.
2.2. Supervisor Responsibilities.
2.2.1. If a member or community member alleges misconduct, the supervisor shall document the complaint and forward the information directly to IA.
2.2.2. If the member or community member’s concern is ambiguous or incomplete, the supervisor shall inquire to determine whether the concern amounts to an allegation of misconduct or not.
2.2.2.1. If the supervisor determines the allegation amounts to misconduct, the supervisor shall forward the allegation directly to IA.
2.2.2.2. If the supervisor assumes all facts as alleged are true, and the conduct still would not be a violation of Bureau regulations, orders, directives, or other standards of conduct required of City employees, then the supervisor shall consult with their lieutenant to determine if they can resolve the complaint at the Responsibility Unit (RU) level.
2.2.2.3. If the supervisor is unable to contact the concerned community member, the supervisor shall forward the allegation directly to IA to allow them to determine if the allegation amounts to misconduct.
2.3. Community Member Complaint.
2.3.1. A community member may file a complaint (e.g., verbal, written, electronic) regarding alleged member misconduct with IPR, IA, a Police Bureau Precinct, the Police Commissioner, or with any Bureau member.
2.3.2. Complaint forms shall be available in a conspicuous location, with public access, at each precinct.
2.4. Internal Complaints.
2.4.1. Members may file a complaint against another Bureau member. When a member is the witness, victim, or target of another member’s misconduct, they may report the alleged misconduct to anyone in or out of the chain of command (e.g., the Chief, Bureau of Human Resources [BHR], etc.). Individuals receiving a complaint shall forward the information directly to IA.
2.4.2. The Bureau shall initiate an investigation, even in the absence of a complaint from an individual, when the Bureau possesses information regarding misconduct that has not been previously addressed and which, if true, could result in discipline.
2.5. When the IA Captain, the Assistant Chief of Investigations, or a member of the Police Commissioner’s staff receives information that a member has engaged in conduct that may be subject to criminal and/or administrative investigation, they shall notify the IPR Director in a timely manner.
2.6. IA and BHR shall jointly conduct investigations regarding allegations related to HRAR 2.02. The IA Captain or designee shall immediately notify the Chief when any investigations involve HRAR 2.02 or Directive 0310.20, Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Prohibited. If allegations of misconduct involve the IA Captain and/or any other member of IA, the PSD Commander shall notify the Chief, and the Chief shall designate a member of command staff to assume the role of the IA Captain and/or any other member of IA for all purposes related to the investigation.
2.7. Once IA receives a complaint, the IA Captain or designee has the responsibility for process¬ing, investigating, or referring the complaint, unless the Chief directs otherwise in writing. No Bureau official has the authority to stop, intercede in, suspend, or in any way direct and/or unduly influence the substance of an IA administrative investigation. When allegations of misconduct require immediate attention, supervisors shall initiate the necessary action and notify the IA Captain or designee and the appropriate Assistant Chief through the chain of command.
2.8. If the Chief is the subject of an investigation, another Bureau or City entity (e.g., IPR, BHR) shall manage the investigation and findings.
2.9. Documentation.
2.9.1. The responding supervisor, or a designee, shall collect and document the following information, if available:
2.9.1.1. Names of complainant(s) and witnesses, addresses, telephone numbers, email address, and dates of birth,
2.9.1.2. Date, time, and place of alleged misconduct,
2.9.1.3. Identification of the member(s) involved,
2.9.1.4. Potential physical evidence identified in the complaint, and
2.9.1.5. Nature of the complaint.
2.9.1.6. Actions taken by any member to attempt to resolve the complaint.
3. Complaint Processing and Assignment.
3.1. Subject to the restrictions and criteria set forth in this Directive, the IA Captain or designee shall process each complaint through one of the following means:
3.1.1. Administrative Investigation conducted by IA,
3.1.2. Administrative Investigation conducted by the RU,
3.1.3. Administrative Investigation conducted by IPR,
3.1.4. Investigation by an outside entity, such as BHR, when IA has an actual conflict of interest or a special circumstance arises that, in the opinion of the IA Captain or designee, prohibits IA from conducting a timely or credible investigation,
3.1.5. Supervisory Investigation,
3.1.6. Mediation, or
3.1.7. Administrative Closure.
3.2. The IA Captain or designee shall coordinate with the Assistant Chief of Investigations or designee concerning all matters alleging criminal misconduct, in accordance with Directive 0333.00, Criminal Investigations of Police Bureau Employees and Other Law Enforcement Agency Sworn Employees.
3.3. A case shall be assigned for administrative investigation when there is a prima facie allegation of conduct that, if true, violates one or more Bureau directives and could result in discipline.
3.4. Generally, IA investigators shall conduct IA investigations; however, the IA Captain or designee, when appropriate, may assign complaints to be investigated or resolved at the RU level. IA shall assign the case within seven days of receipt. In determining whether it is appropriate for an investigation to be conducted at the RU level, the IA Captain or designee shall consider the following criteria:
3.4.1. If there could be a violation of criminal law,
3.4.2. The seriousness of the allegation based on the level of potential discipline should the allegation be sustained,
3.4.3. The involved member’s complaint and discipline history,
3.4.4. If the assignment to the RU presents a potential conflict of interest,
3.4.5. Input provided by the member’s RU Manager, and
3.4.6. The involved RU Manager’s ability to conduct an investigation.
3.5. Allegation formation.
3.5.1. If IA opens the case, they shall review the available material to determine which policies may have been violated. All alleged policy violations will be reflected in the investigation as allegations of misconduct.
3.5.2. Allegations will be written to:
3.5.2.1. Accurately reflect the concerns of the complainant;
3.5.2.2. Be phrased as violations of directives; and
3.5.2.3. Be specific enough to give the involved member notice of what misconduct they are being accused.
3.5.3. Allegations are subject to changes as the investigation uncovers new information or if the original allegation was improperly framed.
3.5.4. All allegations against an involved member stemming from the same incident shall be investigated by a single investigative unit. The most serious allegation will govern the assignment of the case.
3.6. The IA Captain or designee shall notify IPR of the processing and assignment of each complaint. If IPR disagrees with the decision, IPR will promptly notify the IA Captain, or designee. IPR has the authority to conduct the administrative investigation if the disagreement is not resolved.
3.6.1. If IA is conducting an investigation at the time of the notification, IA shall cease its investigation and provide all investigative materials to IPR.
4. Notifications.
4.1. When IPR receives a complaint, IPR is responsible for providing each complainant and the involved member with a tracking number and informing each complainant of the allegation classification and assignment.
4.2. When IA opens a complaint, IA shall notify each complainant and the involved member of the allegation classification and assignment upon designating a case number. IA shall forward a copy of the notice to IPR.
4.2.1. IA shall notify the complainant if the case is internal (i.e., against a fellow member).
4.3. The information provided to the involved member shall be sufficient to reasonably apprise them of the nature of the allegation(s) in the complaint.
4.4. IA shall provide additional notification to each complainant and the involved member if IA changes or updates the allegation. IA shall forward a copy of the second notification to IPR.
4.5. These notifications may be delayed in cases of criminal misconduct or where notification may compromise the integrity of an investigation.
5. Administrative Investigations.
5.1. An IA investigator assigned an administrative investigation shall follow the procedures described in Directive 0332.00, Administrative Investigations.
5.1.1. IPR may choose to participate in an IA investigation without assuming the primary investigative role.
5.2. An RU investigator assigned an administrative investigation shall follow the procedures described in Directive 0334.00, Performance Deficiencies, and Directive 0332.00, Administrative Investigations.
5.3. An IPR investigator assigned an administrative investigation follows IPR procedures.
5.3.1. IPR may choose to conduct its own investigation. Pursuant to City Code, IPR has the authority to investigate cases of public interest which may include complaints involving:
5.3.1.1. Crowd control;
5.3.1.2. Disparate treatment or retaliation against a community member;
5.3.1.3. Vulnerable or mentally ill persons;
5.3.1.4. Sworn members of the rank of Captain or higher;
5.3.1.5. Cases in which IPR disagrees with the IA Captain’s processing or assignment decision; or
5.3.1.6. Matters that the IPR Director determines are in the public interest and over which IPR has jurisdiction under City code.
5.3.2. If IPR notifies the IA Captain that they intend to conduct an independent investigation of any of the complaints listed in Section 5.3.1., IA shall not conduct a concurrent investigation.
5.3.3. IPR may request that IA participate in an IPR investigation, without relinquishing the primary investigative role. When requested, IA shall assist strictly in an administrative capacity and shall not perform any investigative functions unless requested by IPR.
6. Supervisory Investigation.
6.1. Pursuant to Directive 0331.00, Supervisory Investigations, supervisors shall investigate complaints against a member that, if sustained, would not result in corrective action greater than command counseling.
7. Mediation.
7.1. If the complainant is willing to engage in mediation, and the IPR Director and the IA Captain (or IA designee) conclude that mediation will meet the needs of the Police Bureau and the community, the involved member’s RU Manager shall offer mediation to the involved officer. This option is contingent upon the mutual agreement of: the IA Captain (or designee), the involved member’s RU Manager, the involved member(s), and the complainant. The IA Captain or designee, the involved member’s RU Manager, or the involved member may decline an IPR recommendation to mediate a complaint.
7.1.1. If any portion of a complaint relates to the following, then the complaint will not be eligible for mediation:
7.1.1.1. Allegations of excessive force by a member;
7.1.1.2. Allegations of criminal conduct by a member; or
7.1.1.3. Circumstances in which the member is a witness against the complainant in a pending criminal or traffic prosecution.
8. Administrative Closure.
8.1. The IA Captain or designee may administratively close an investigation after sufficient initial investigation by either IA or IPR, except in allegations of excessive force. Following administrative closure, no further investigative action will be taken, although the IA Captain may refer the complaint to the appropriate RU Manager for an informal debriefing. The IA Captain may decline to conduct further investigation of an allegation contained within a complaint under the following circumstances as set forth in Administrative Rules PSF 5.01 and PSF 5.20:
8.1.1. No Misconduct: The employee’s conduct, as alleged by the complainant, does not violate Bureau policy.
8.1.2. Trivial or De Minimis Rules Violation: The employee’s conduct, as alleged by the complainant, constitutes a minor technical violation that, if sustained, would not result in discipline and is too minor or too vague to justify a Supervisory Investigation.
8.1.3. No Jurisdiction: The complaint is against a non-employee, a former employee, or an employee of another department or other agency; or the employee resigns, retires, or shall no longer be employed by the Bureau by the time an investigation and disciplinary process could be completed. Even if the Bureau lacks jurisdiction, the IA Captain may decide to investigate a complaint based on the nature and seriousness of the allegations or based on a request from IPR or another law enforcement agency. For example, if serious misconduct has been alleged, the IA Captain may order an investigation so that the findings will be placed in the employee’s personnel or IA file, forward the findings to another agency, review the actions of the employee’s supervisors, or recommend a review of Bureau training or policies. Discipline may also be imposed if the employee returns to service.
8.1.4. Judicial Review: If it is likely that the investigation would focus on the action of a complainant such as an allegation that the complainant was improperly cited for a traffic infraction. Such cases are better addressed through legal proceedings where a court could place witnesses under oath, take live testimony, and render a decision.
8.1.5. Unidentifiable Employee: A documented reasonable investigative effort was not able to identify the (involved) employee.
8.1.6. Previously Investigated or Adjudicated: The alleged conduct was previously investigated or adjudicated by the Bureau and the current complaint does not provide substantially new evidence or allegations.
8.1.7. Lacks Investigative Merit: The IA Captain or designee must articulate specific reasons why the complaint is not credible or reliable.
8.1.8. The Complainant Delayed Too Long in Filing the Complaint to Justify Present Investigation: Complaints alleging significant misconduct will not be dismissed due to a delay in filing.
8.2. In all cases in which an investigation is administratively closed, IA will prepare an explanation and send it to IPR so the complainant can be advised. If the investigation is administratively closed because the involved officer is an employee of a different agency, IA will refer the complainant to that agency.
9. Criminal Complaints Involving Members.
9.1. Allegations of member misconduct, which include a possible criminal law violation, shall be investigated concurrently as a criminal and administrative investigation. Criminal cases involving members shall be processed according to Directive 0333.00, Criminal Investigations of Police Bureau Employees and Other Law Enforcement Agency Sworn Employees.
10. Unlawful Employment Practices, Discrimination Complaints, and Equal Employment Opportunities.
10.1. Complaints by members alleging unlawful employment practices shall be processed according to the City’s Human Resource Administrative Rule 2.02, Prohibition Against Workplace Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation and Directive 0310.20, Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Prohibited.
11. Personnel Performance Deficiencies.
11.1. Complaints regarding job performance problems or minor work rule violations may be processed according to the procedures in Directive 0334.00, Performance Deficiencies.
12. Disposition Notification.
12.1. If the complainant is a community member, IA shall write a disposition letter. The letter shall explain the investigation and findings or administrative closure. IA shall provide the letter to IPR within seven days of completion of the Police Review Board (PRB) for IPR’s use to notify the complainant.
12.1.1. If the complainant is a Bureau member, IA shall notify the individual and IPR directly.
12.2. If any changes in the findings occur as a result of proceedings relating to the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the labor organizations that represent sworn members of the Police Bureau, or as a result of administrative or judicial review, IA shall write a new disposition letter to follow up with the complainant as permitted by law. The complainant shall be notified of the new findings as described in this directive.
13. Liability Management.
13.1. If an officer’s use of force gives rise to a finding of liability in a civil trial, PPB shall: (1) enter that civil liability finding in the EIS; (2) reevaluate the officer’s fitness to participate in all current and prospective specialized units; (3) if no IA investigation has previously been conducted based upon the same allegation of misconduct and reached an administrative finding, conduct a full IA investigation with the civil trial finding creating a rebuttable presumption that the force used also violated PPB policy, which presumption can only be overcome by specific, credible evidence by a preponderance of evidence; (4) if an IA investigation has already concluded based upon the same allegation of misconduct and failed to reach a sustained finding, identify whether any new evidence exists in the record of the civil trial to justify the reopening of the IA investigation, and if so, reinitiate an IA investigation; and (5) if an IA investigation has already concluded based upon the same allegation of misconduct and failed to reach a sustained finding, and no new evidence from the civil trial justifies reopening the IA investigation, work with IPR to identify the reason why the administrative finding was contrary to the civil trial finding and publish a summary of the results of the inquiry.
13.2. Police liability management may review closed IA cases for compliance with policy, rules, and procedures related to the review of claims against the Bureau.
Effective: 6/21/2024
Next Review: 6/21/2026