<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=2JinMr_0ma6s92E00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=2JinMr_0ma6s92E00" width="1320" height="743" ></figure>PORTLAND, Ore. — Portland leaders are in the process of finalizing a pilot program to outfit officers with body cameras – ending a decade-long debate and clearing a final hurdle that nearly forced the city and police union to arbitration.A KATU investigation found the agreed-upon policy to implement body-worn cameras puts Portland in line with other similar-sized cities, though many major American cities differ.The final delay came down to a disagreement over whether officers can watch their video before writing reports or doing interviews. Dozens, if not hundreds of agencies, allow officers to watch their video before giving statements or writing reports, including after the use of deadly force.The adopted policy for a 2-month pilot project with FIT officers and Central Precinct allows officers to review their videos for report-writing but dictates when, and if, officers can watch their video after a use of force.Body cameras are seen as another step toward accountability, and in cases of deadly force, they can provide a telling look into what happened right before officers make the decision to shoot someone.“I think it's great; it's going to make, I think, cops better at their jobs. We can kind of see what's going on there. I think it'll reassure the public that our public safety officers are out there doing what we expect them to do,” Commissioner Mingus Mapps said.“It is transparency and accountability, right? We don't get just a 'he said, she said' sort of reporting of what occurred,” Commissioner Rene Gonzalez said.In Portland, the lack of body cameras often means a lack of video when officers make that decision – as was the case in the shooting death of Robert Delgado in April 2021. Grainy cell phone video from a witness is all that showed the shooting. Police officers responded to reports Delgado was waving a gun in Lents Park. An officer shot and killed him within five minutes of getting there, according to the police bureau’s timeline.Officer Zachary Delong told a grand jury he tried talking to Delgado when he got there, but moments later, “Mr. Delgado bent over, squatted down, reached down with one hand and in the mental movie of this incident that I have he was reaching down on the ground. And the very next frame that I can remember is him standing upright with his arm outstretched with a gun in his hand and I'm staring down the barrel of it it was pointed right at me.”Delong fired twice and killed him. Police officers reported finding a realistic-looking airsoft pistol next to Delgado. The grand jury cleared Delong of criminal wrongdoing.“We know that's what they're saying, but what really happened,” Robert’s sister, Tina Delgado, said. “I wish I could have seen that moment that they say that my brother picked up a gun and pointed it at them.”One reason Tina will never see that moment is that Portland police officers did not have body cameras that day – the last major city where that’s true.Adding cameras on police officers has been under debate for a decade. COVID-19 scrapped an initial pilot program in 2020 when the mayor pulled the funding due to city-wide budget cuts. Then, city commissioners approved spending $2.8 million on cameras in November 2021.“More evidence is always better,” said Portland Police Association president Aaron Schmautz. “It's important that this step is moving forward. I think it's important that accountability is viewed as a global reality.”The final sticking point came down to whether officers could watch body camera videos before writing reports or doing interviews after use of force.KATU Investigates reached out to police agencies in America’s 50 largest cities to see how this debate has been settled elsewhere. We heard back from 22. Seven either don’t allow officers to watch their video or only do if a supervisor allows it, including San Francisco, Columbus, Washington D.C., and Minneapolis.Spokespeople for sixteen agencies said officers can watch their video before interviews or report-writing.“Why was it important for the union to fight for officers to be able to view the video in at least certain circumstances,” KATU asked Schmautz.“Because the video is a witness, it's not the eyes of the officer. There may be even questions that you don't even know exist until you watch the video. Multiple reports, multiple recounting of things, little incomplete pieces can lead to truthfulness allegations,” Schmautz said. “We're just making sure, again, that we're having access to all the evidence to give a good comprehensive, full report the day of so that the community can have answers to the questions as quickly as possible.”Here’s where the union and city came down in policy nearly 18 months after setting aside the money to pay for the first cameras: in less serious uses of force, officers must first give a statement to a supervisor then watch the video to write a report. In cases of deadly force - like a shooting - the officer may be required to give an on-scene statement and an initial interview without watching his or her video.Once the officer explains why they fired their gun or used deadly force, the interview will stop. Then, the officer and the investigator will watch the video to finish the interview. By policy, the investigator cannot watch the video before the officer.“The big thing for us was having the interviewer also not watch that video, to make sure that the questions that are being asked aren't, again, polluted by information that they wouldn't otherwise have,” Schmautz said.City and police leaders all stressed the value in reaching an agreement before arbitration - a process where a judge would rule in one party's favor and determine which policy to move forward with.“I like the optics of what we have here. This was grownups sitting at a table and resolving their differences and finding common ground. That's what I like about it.” Commissioner Rene Gonzalez told KATU. “We need to attract and retain police officers in the city of Portland, and we have to have a reasonable relationship with our police force. If they're being reasonable, it's imperative that the city's reasonable too.”Despite the agreement, there is still consternation among civil rights lawyers – like Juan Chavez.“This was a policy that was developed in the back room with the police union and the city. The public only had less than a week to weigh in with city council before it was adopted,” Chavez said.The Oregon Justice Resource Center attorney doesn’t like the fact that investigators cannot watch the video before the officers they interview. Chavez and other critics of the policy are hopeful the city renegotiates it before cameras are deployed city-wide on every officer.“You would hope that an officer with who is truly doing a homicide investigation has all the facts when they're asking questions to the person who committed the homicide,” Chavez said. “I think that's kind of a half measure that won't ensure that there's a proper truth-telling in that moment when it's most crucial.”Chavez said he wanted to see a policy with stronger protections on surveillance and greater access for the public to view and assess the data collected. He also wanted to prohibit officers from watching their video at all during an investigation or discipline process.“It still goes to the fundamental constitutional question of ‘what did the officers see, and what gave them the legal justification to do what they did?’ Nothing else matters. What the cameras saw is not material to that central constitutional question,” Chavez said.For city leaders and the police union, the policy represents a compromise. Further disagreement means a longer delay and possibly less accountability.“I think where it ultimately came down was a fair place to start. And I think that given that it's been so long, we've been years without it, I think that we owe the public and we owe the city the opportunity to start in this way,” Commissioner Carmen Rubio said. “I don't believe that Portlanders deserve to wait another several years before we have those cameras on our officers.”“From an accountability standpoint, the vast majority of police interactions don't include force, but they do include conduct. And so, we can answer those questions, ‘was the officer polite’; the officer says the community member was intoxicated or was engaging in some kind of behavior. We can demonstrate to the public accountability on both sides,” Schmautz said.“I also think it's going to help protect against false claims against police officers. We have to settle a number of those every year in the city of Portland without really good knowledge of what actually occurred. It's just as a precautionary step,” Gonzalez said. “It's a great step for accountability, and it's a great step to protect the city.”Due to Portland’s settlement agreement with the US Department of Justice over the use of force against mentally ill people, the federal agency will have the final say on a policy. Despite DOJ attorneys acknowledging the policy does not meet some of their requirements, they agreed to let the pilot project move forward in a letter to city commissioners ahead of the April 26 vote approving the policy.The pilot program is set to start in mid-august and then the full rollout would be between next April and August.</div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Frustration, excitement follow Portland's agreement on body camera policy after delay

PORTLAND, Ore. — Portland leaders are in the process of finalizing a pilot program to outfit officers with body cameras – ending a decade-long debate and clearing a final hurdle that nearly forced the city and police union to arbitration. A KATU investigation found the agreed-upon policy to...