Two years after Kendra James was shot by a police officer, community members in North Portland are still confused, baffled, and angry. The investigation into the shooting left more questions than answers–mostly because the police bureau has refused to share any information about their investigation or how they came to the conclusion that officer Scott McCollister did nothing wrong.
Then there was the James Jahar Perez shooting a year later. Again, there were strange and brutal facts that hovered around the shooting–like why did the officers shoot first and only taser the victim after bullets riddled the man’s body? And why did the police not try negotiation? Or, why did they shoot in the first place when the victim was not even armed?
But again, those questions and potential answers fell into a black hole of information. The police bureau claims they conducted an internal investigation–but no one in the press or the public was given access to those records.
Such is the invariable pattern at the police bureau: The only insight the public has to the inner-workings of the bureau is the outcome of these so-called investigations, which invariably excuse officers from any wrongdoing. This pattern has led to a mounting doubt from citizens regarding the accountability of Portland’s police.
But this wall of secrecy may be on the verge of breaking down–not brick by brick, but with a series of crashing bureaucratic wrecking balls.
Last week, the Oregonian punched a significant hole into the blue wall of silence. On Wednesday, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the police bureau must turn over memos and notes from the internal review of McCollister, the officer who shot James. The newspaper has been pursuing these records for the past two years; despite demands from a Multnomah Circuit Court and even the District Attorney’s office to turn over the records, the Oregonian has still been routinely rebuffed by the police bureau.
Quoted by the Associated Press, police chief Derrick Foxworth argued that disclosure would have a “chilling effect on the free flow of frank, uninhibited advice and self-critical observations.”
But the three-member panel from the Court of Appeals unanimously and firmly ordered the police to hand over the notes, which may include more clues into how and why McCollister acted the way he did that night–and how his superiors decided to handle the shooting.
“The public’s need to have complete confidence that thorough and unbiased inquiry has occurred is most urgent and compelling,” Justice David Schuman explained in his legal opinion. “That confidence comes from transparency.”
This legal ruling comes simultaneously with another powerful blow to the police bureau’s arrogance. One of the primary complaints about shooting investigations is that they simply rubberstamp whatever rationale an officer gives–without really challenging or investigating the circumstances. In fact, a Grand Jury has never indicted a Portland police officer for criminal wrongdoing in a shooting.
But earlier this year, community demands for changing the Grand Jury proceedings finally gained traction when state senator Avel Gordly introduced Senate Bill 301, legislation that would open Grand Jury testimony to the public. The bill grew directly from the frustration expressed by community members after McCollister was excused by a Grand Jury from any wrongdoing in the James’ shooting.
The bill is currently working through the budget process and has a favorable chance to pass. It has received widespread support (though Mayor Tom Potter has not taken any position on it as of yet). The only real opposition has come from the police union itself, who have parroted the rationale that opening internal investigations to public scrutiny will somehow be counterproductive.
“We then become second-guessed through this transparency,” Portland Police Association President Robert King has explained.