University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name United States v. City of Portland PN-OR-0001
Docket / Court 3:12-cv-02265-SI ( D. Or. )
State/Territory Oregon
Case Type(s) Policing
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
On December 17, 2012, the United States of America filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, against the City of Portland ("the City") based on the conduct of the Portland Police Bureau ( ... read more >
On December 17, 2012, the United States of America filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, against the City of Portland ("the City") based on the conduct of the Portland Police Bureau ("PPB"). The United States, represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The complaint alleges that officers of the PPB engaged in a practice of unconstitutional use of force against individuals with actual or perceived mental illness. Specifically, the United States claimed that: (1) police encounters with such individuals too frequently resulted in a higher level force than necessary; (2) PPB officers employed tasers more times than necessary on such individuals, or in circumstances where such force was not justified; and (3) PPB officers used a higher degree of force than justified for low level offenses. The United States alleged that this conduct amounted to a pattern or practice by law enforcement officers which deprives individuals of their rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The United States also argued that these violations resulted from the City's failure to provide adequate policies, training and supervision.

This lawsuit is the culmination of an 18 month-long investigation of the PPB by the DOJ pursuant to Section 14141. That investigation, which began in June of 2011, was prompted by the high number of PPB officer-involved shootings that involved individuals with mental illness. On September 13, 2012, DOJ issued a Findings Letter which stated that it found reasonable cause to believe the PPB was engaging in unconstitutional conduct, and that it had identified serious deficiencies in policies, training, and officer accountability measures that substantially contributed to this conduct. That same day, the DOJ and the City released a joint statement declaring the parties' mutual intent to reach a negotiated settlement agreement to resolve these issues.

On December 17, 2012-the same date the complaint was filed-the parties filed a joint motion to enter a settlement agreement and conditionally dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The proposed settlement agreement includes detailed provisions addressing PPB policies and practices regarding: (1) use of force; (2) dealing with persons perceived as or actually suffering from mental illness or mental health crises; (3) dealing with persons suffering from addictions and behavioral health challenges; (4) crisis intervention; (5) identifying at-risk employees; (6) officer accountability; (7) training; (8) supervision; (9) misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; (10) transparency and oversight; and (11) community engagement. Proposed Settlement Agreement. The proposed settlement agreement also includes provisions regarding the implementation and enforcement of its terms. Id.

On December 18, 2012, the Portland Police Association ("PPA"), a labor union representing employees of the Portland Police Bureau, filed a motion to intervene. On January 8, 2013, a coalition of organizations seeking reform of Portland police practices also moved to intervene. Both these parties wished to participate in any negotiations of the proposed settlement agreement. On February 19, 2013, the District Court (Judge Michael H. Simon) granted in part and deferred in part PPA's motion. Op. and Order 3, Feb. 19, 2013. The court also denied in part and deferred in part the coalition's motion, but granted them "enhanced amicus status for remedy purposes." Id. Ultimately, both parties were allowed to participate in the settlement negotiations.

All parties reached a tentative agreement regarding the terms of the proposed settlement in December 2013. On August 29, 2014, the District Court issued an order entering the settlement agreement and conditionally dismissing the litigation. Order Entering Settlement Agreement. The Court retained jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, to enforce any provision of the Settlement Agreement or the two agreements that resulted from the parties' settlement negotiations. The Court further ordered the City to direct the Compliance Officer/Community Liaison, a position created under the Settlement Agreement, to provide copies to the Court of all final quarterly reports which are referenced in the Settlement Agreement. Finally, the Court also directed the parties to attend annual settlement-compliance hearings.

On October 27, 2014, the City appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As of November 28, 2014, litigation is ongoing.

Greg in den Berken - 09/20/2014
Richard Jolly - 11/28/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Disability
Mental impairment
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
General
Aggressive behavior
Excessive force
Failure to supervise
Failure to train
Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects
Pattern or Practice
Mental Disability
Mental Illness, Unspecified
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
42 U.S.C. § 14141
Defendant(s) City of Portland
Plaintiff Description The United States government.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Federal Enforcement of Police Reform
By: Stephen Rushin (University of Illinois College of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program )
Citation: 82 Fordham Law Review 3189 (2014)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Panopticism for Police: Structural Reform Bargaining and Police Regulation by Data-Driven Surveillance
By: Mary D. Fan (University of Washington)
Citation: Forthcoming, 87 Washington L. Rev. __ (2012).
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  What Happens When Police Are Forced to Reform?
Written: Nov. 13, 2015
By: Kimbriell Kelly, Sarah Childress and Steven Rich (Frontline/Post)
Citation: Washington Post (Nov. 13, 2015)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:12-cv-02265 (D. Or.) 07/07/2016
PN-OR-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Proposed Memorandum of Agreement
PN-OR-0001-0008.pdf | Detail
Collaborative Agreement
PN-OR-0001-0009.pdf | Detail
Statement of Intent 09/12/2012
PN-OR-0001-0006.pdf | Detail
DOJ Findings Letter re: Investigation of PPB 09/13/2012
PN-OR-0001-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section
Complaint 12/17/2012
PN-OR-0001-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Proposed Settlement Agreement 12/17/2012
PN-OR-0001-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion to Enter Settlement Agreement and Conditionally Dismiss Action 12/17/2012
PN-OR-0001-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Deferring in Part Motions to Intervene by the Portland Police Association and by the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition for Justice and Police Reform 02/19/2013 (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0001-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Fairness Hearing 12/20/2013
PN-OR-0001-0011.pdf | Detail
Order Entering Settlement Agreement 08/29/2014 (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0001-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum for the Compliance Officer and Community Liaison Re: COAB Administration and Operations 04/06/2015
PN-OR-0001-0012.pdf | Detail
Letter Re: Policy Review 08/10/2015
PN-OR-0001-0014.pdf | Detail
Letter Re: Technical Assistance Regarding Crisis Intervention and Behavioral Health 08/17/2015
PN-OR-0001-0015.pdf | Detail
Letter Enclosing Periodic Compliance Status Assessment Report for the Settlement Agreement 09/10/2015
PN-OR-0001-0010.pdf | Detail
Memorandum to the Compliance Officer and Community Liaison Re: COAB Operations 12/02/2015
PN-OR-0001-0013.pdf | Detail
Letter Re: In-Service Training 02/26/2016
PN-OR-0001-0016.pdf | Detail
Judges Simon, Michael Howard (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0001-0002 | PN-OR-0001-0005 | PN-OR-0001-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brown, Adrian L. (Oregon)
PN-OR-0001-0001 | PN-OR-0001-0004 | PN-OR-0001-0007 | PN-OR-0001-0008 | PN-OR-0001-0010 | PN-OR-0001-0014 | PN-OR-0001-0015 | PN-OR-0001-9000
Buehler, Brian D. (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0010 | PN-OR-0001-0014 | PN-OR-0001-0015 | PN-OR-0001-0016 | PN-OR-0001-9000
Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0001 | PN-OR-0001-0007 | PN-OR-0001-0008 | PN-OR-0001-0009 | PN-OR-0001-0010 | PN-OR-0001-0015 | PN-OR-0001-0016
Geissler, R. Jonas (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0001 | PN-OR-0001-0004 | PN-OR-0001-0007 | PN-OR-0001-0008 | PN-OR-0001-0009 | PN-OR-0001-0010 | PN-OR-0001-0014 | PN-OR-0001-0015 | PN-OR-0001-0016 | PN-OR-0001-9000
Hager, Jared (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0016 | PN-OR-0001-9000
Hebert, Janice E. (Louisiana)
PN-OR-0001-9000
Jones, Michelle A. (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0001 | PN-OR-0001-0004 | PN-OR-0001-0007 | PN-OR-0001-0008 | PN-OR-0001-9000
Knight, David W. (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-9000
Marshall, S. Amanda (Oregon)
PN-OR-0001-0003 | PN-OR-0001-0004 | PN-OR-0001-0006 | PN-OR-0001-0007 | PN-OR-0001-0008 | PN-OR-0001-0009
Morse, Thomas Jackson (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0009 | PN-OR-0001-9000
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0003 | PN-OR-0001-0004 | PN-OR-0001-0006 | PN-OR-0001-0007 | PN-OR-0001-0009
Preston, Judith C. (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0010 | PN-OR-0001-0015
Samuels, Jocelyn (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0008
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
PN-OR-0001-0007 | PN-OR-0001-0008 | PN-OR-0001-0009
Williams, Billy J. (Oregon)
PN-OR-0001-0004 | PN-OR-0001-0007 | PN-OR-0001-0008 | PN-OR-0001-0010 | PN-OR-0001-0014 | PN-OR-0001-0015 | PN-OR-0001-0016 | PN-OR-0001-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Karia, Anil (Oregon)
PN-OR-0001-9000
Osoinach, Ellen C. (Oregon)
PN-OR-0001-9000
Van Dyke, James H. (Oregon)
PN-OR-0001-0004 | PN-OR-0001-0007 | PN-OR-0001-0008 | PN-OR-0001-0009 | PN-OR-0001-9000
Woboril, David L. (Oregon)
PN-OR-0001-9000
Other Lawyers Albies, Jessica Ashlee (Oregon)
PN-OR-0001-9000
Curphey, Shauna M. (Oregon)
PN-OR-0001-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -