177561, 279472, 234972, 855830, 1017942, 408782, 1021542. These are seven of the 991 Portland police officers who have reported using force against community members at least once since 2017. It takes weeks to find out what their names are.
The Portland Police Bureau (PPB) tracks the number of use of force incidents, as well as the type of force used and demographic data about the subjects involved, and the nature of the call. That information is kept in a large dataset PPB made available on its public dashboard, which is regularly updated 45 days after the end of each quarter. The data can paint a picture and provide year-over-year comparisons of how officers are using force and how frequently they do so, as well highlighting racial disparities in policing. The one thing the data doesn’t show: who’s doing what.
Rather than using names in the dataset, PPB assigns a unique, anonymous number to each officer in its spreadsheet tracking use of force. By law, the city is required to release the name of the officer attached to that number if a member of the public or the media requests it.
But the additional step can create barriers to transparency, and may brush up against state laws that require disclosure of numbers associated with police officers. It may also delay the public’s right to know which officers use force, the justification for that force, and demographic data that could reveal patterns in officers’ behavior. Officers are assigned various correlating numbers throughout their career: one is issued through the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), another unique number is displayed on their uniforms, another number appears on riot squad helmets. But the anonymous use of force number is exclusively related to use of force reports.
Initially, the Mercury requested officer ID records for reporting on whether or not Eli Arnold—a City Council District 4 candidate and bike patrol officer—has reported using force during his time with PPB. Arnold was hired in 2017. With the city’s failure to produce the name that coincides with the number, it’s unclear at this time if Arnold has reported any uses of force during his career.
The Mercury asked PPB to confirm the anonymous number for Arnold on October 13. PPB spokesperson Mike Benner responded, saying the public information office does not release that type of information. He said the records could instead be obtained through the “identify an officer” portal on the city’s website. That same day, the Mercury requested the name through the portal. But 10 days later, the city still had not returned it.
The law requires public records to be released by a jurisdiction “as soon as reasonably possible”—meaning it is flexible, but timely, and based on circumstances. That is open to interpretation, and theoretically any record could be immediately disclosed if moved to the front of the line. For example, in previous Mercury requests sent through the officer identification portal, the information has been received within six days. Requests through that portal fall under a different state law passed in 2021, which gives jurisdictions 14 days to return the identifying information.
Kip Silverman, the co-chair of the Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing (PCCEP), said without understanding the individual behaviors of each officer, it is impossible for PCCEP to determine if its recommendations are being implemented in a meaningful way and having the intended impact.
“Personally, I will share that I appreciate the intent of the cultural changes and goals of Chief Day and his team, because I feel they are greatly needed to get to the ground floor of ending the settlement agreement—but I believe without being bold in the realm of transparency and accountability, the efforts are being diminished,” Silverman said.
2021 Oregon law
In typical public records requests, if a requestor has an issue with what they perceive as an undue delay, they can appeal to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office for most request types.
But in this case, Deputy District Attorney Adam Gibbs said his office does not have authority over the officer ID record the Mercury sought. That’s because identifying an officer in this way is the result of a 2021 legislative action, House Bill 3355, which established requirements for uniforms and identification of crowd control officers. In other words, the only way to appeal withheld records is through the courts.
The bill also established the process allowing a member of the public to identify an officer—with the exception of under cover operations.
“If practical, safe and tactically feasible, upon request by a member of the public, a law enforcement officer shall provide the officer’s name and identification number, or, if applicable, a unique identifier assigned by the law enforcement agency, to the member of the public,” the bill states.
It is well established that PPB must release the names of an officer when the public requests it. And the anonymous use of force number PPB assigns is included in that requirement, thanks to an appeal to then-District Attorney Mike Schmidt’s office in 2022.
Schmidt ordered in favor of a group that sought to identify the use of force officers after the city argued it should be exempt because it was “an unreasonable invasion of privacy.”
“To be completely clear: this office has no authority to enforce the terms of HB 3355,” Schmidt wrote.
Schmidt told the Mercury Friday that with the passage of HB 3355, he felt it was clear that the legislative intent was that people should be able to know the identity of the people policing them, and should be available in cases where the public had an interest.
“When I was looking at specific cases in front of me then, and whether or not to release the corresponding name with the number, we erred on the side of trying to follow the legislative intent of increasing transparency,” Schmidt said.
Quest for answers is a mystic maze
Although PPB says the information is available, it remains unclear which office is ultimately responsible for disclosing the information. The Mercury has communicated with two PPB spokespeople via email over the past 10 days, asking whether the chief’s office, the public information officer, the Independent Police Review, or another PPB division was responsible for providing the information. On October 21, Ryan Rees, a PPB senior support specialist in the records division, said the information requested through the officer ID portal is technically not a public record, so that office is reportedly not responsible.
PPB spokesperson Terri Wallo Strauss told the Mercury October 23 that the city attorney’s office may be responsible, and said PPB had no estimate on when the request would be fulfilled.
“That’s completely separate from us,” Strauss said.
After the Mercury spoke with City Attorney Robert Taylor on October 23, he requested that Carrie Wilton, the city’s legal records support supervisor, look into it. Wilton said when she asked PPB—the same bureau that had no time estimate three hours prior—the bureau said to expect a response on or before October 27. That’s two weeks after the initial request to identify one officer for reporting on use of force.
“I reached out to the Police Bureau and there is no issue with your request and it should be fulfilled by the deadline,” Wilton said. “If there is anything else you have questions on, please let me know.”
The Mercury made a new request through the City Attorney’s office October 23, and asked Wilton to fulfill the request by the end of day Friday for a media deadline. Wilton said the request is not in her office’s purview, but said she sent a message to PPB’s records staff asking them to fulfill the request as soon as reasonably possible.
