Federal Court Says Sanctions Are On The Way For Portland PD Over Violations Of Protest Restraining Orders

from the rule-of-law-is-cool-until-it-applies-to-you,-I-guess dept

Police forces -- both local and federal -- greeted Portland protests with violence. To be sure, there were some violent protests. But officers of both varieties felt they should be able to target journalists and legal observers with the same force they were deploying against rioters.

Once the feds rolled into town, things got worse. This was met with litigation, with journalists and observers asking the court to make the cops play by the normal rules of engagement. If journalists and observers weren't committing any crimes, they should be free to report and observe without fear of being beaten, shot at, or gassed.

The court agreed. So did the court above it, albeit belatedly. Injunctions were granted, prohibiting the use of force against the plaintiffs. These injunctions were immediately violated, resulting in more litigation.

It wasn't just the feds, although the feds were the most immediately noticeable violators of this court-ordered relief. The local police were having problems keeping themselves from greeting non-violent protesters with violence. A federal judge has just ruled that the Portland Police Department (PPD) violated his instructions and his restraining order on multiple occasions. (via Courthouse News Service)

Back in June. Judge Marco Hernandez banned the use of tear gas by cops except in life threatening situations. Another modification to his order banned the use of rubber bullets and pepper balls against "people engaged in passive resistance." According to Hernadez's latest ruling [PDF], the Portland Police have continued to violate his orders.

The court cites several instances detailed by protesters. In at least three cases, PPD officers violated the court's instructions on force deployment during a protest on June 30 -- less than a month after Hernandez issued his first order.

As described above, FN303s and 40mm less-lethal launchers must be used “as outlined in PPB Use of Force Directive 1010” and “shall not be used where people engaged in passive resistance are likely to be subjected to the use of force.” FN303s and 40mm less-lethal launchers are impact munitions governed by ¶ 6.4.2 of Use of Force Directive…

The Court finds that three of the eight incidents involving the use of impact munitions violated the Order. These three incidents include: (1) two deployments of fifteen rounds from an FN303 against individuals carrying a banner (Incidents 2 and 3) and (2) the deployment of a few rounds from an FN303 against an individual picking up an unknown object between the protest line and the police line (Incident 9). The remaining incidents did not violate the Order.

In one instance, the PPD tried to justify its excessive force by claiming a banner held by retreating protesters could have injured officers.

Officer Taylor testified that he deployed his FN303 against an individual holding onto a banner because he believed the banner would later be used as a weapon. Specifically, he cited the following circumstances in support of his belief that the banner may be dangerous: (1) the atmosphere of the protest that day; (2) the movement of protestors behind the sign as though it was a shield; (3) the slow pace of the protestors holding the banner, causing interference with the police formation; (4) the protestor’s refusal to let go of the banner; and (5) the use of PVC pipe as the banner’s frame, which he testified can be reinforced with cement or nails.

We're going to need a lot more than pure speculation, says the court.

But none of the circumstances cited by Officer Taylor suggested that this banner was a weapon or would be imminently used by protestors as a weapon.

And it's not like the protesters were operating under the cover of darkness to manufacture a PVC-and-cloth weapon of mass police destruction.

Police officers had ample opportunity to observe the banner before Officer Taylor deployed his munitions. The incident occurred while it was still light out, and video shows that the long PVC banner was flimsy.

Unjustified. And a violation of the judge's order.

And—most importantly—nothing suggested that the individual Officer Taylor targeted was engaged in “[a] threat or overt act of an assault, . . . which reasonably indicate[d] that an assault or injury to any person was about to happen, unless intervention occur[ed].” Use of Force Directive 1010 (Definitions). At most, the record shows that the individual who was refusing to let go of their sign was engaged in passive resistance.

While the PPD has mostly complied with the orders, it has not always complied with all the orders. Being mostly compliant simply isn't good enough. The court says sanctions are incoming.

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to comply with the Order. The Court acknowledges that Defendant took some steps to ensure compliance on June 30. Captain Passadore, for example, read the requirements of the Order over the radio after calling for attention from all officers involved in crowd control on the evening of June 30. There is also evidence in the record that Captain Passadore directed all supervisors to ensure that all officers were informed of the requirements of the Order. And the Court is cognizant that PPB has been stretched thin over the past few months with the same RRT officers working endless hours in response to ongoing protests. It is also aware of the effect the pandemic has had on PPD's ability to conduct additional trainings. Nevertheless, the Court cannot conclude that a single radio transmission and a discussion with RRT officers and supervisors on June 30, 2020, constitutes “all reasonable steps” Defendant could have taken to ensure compliance with the Order that evening. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant City of Portland in contempt.

Unfortunately, if this comes down to fines, the City of Portland will just dig into its bag of "Other People's Money" and pay them. But it could result in further restrictions, which isn't going to work out well for an agency that's already demonstrated it can't follow printed instructions.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, journalists, police, portland, portland pd, protestors, use of force


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 8 Dec 2020 @ 4:20am

    So...

    What's the issue?

    Police abuse the law. They ignore a judge's order. City will pay fines. People get bludgeoned and arrested (and thankfully in this case not killed).

    Justice was done... right? No need to get upset, right?

    E

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Eldakka (profile), 8 Dec 2020 @ 6:05am

    Unfortunately, if this comes down to fines, the City of Portland will just dig into its bag of "Other People's Money" and pay them.

    How about the sanctions be stripping qualified immunity from any officers - and their supervisors - for any incidents considered in breach of the restraining order?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2020 @ 6:12am

    You know, that rolled up newspaper isn't going to do you any good six months after the puppy shat on the carpet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Dec 2020 @ 10:27am

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: So long as someone else is footing the bill police have no reason to care what the law or a judge says, because they never face any real penalties for their own actions.

    Want to make them care then levee penalties against them personally, they were told flat out that they are not allowed to engage in certain actions and they did so anyway, at this point it seems entirely justifiable to make it clear that if anyone wants to sue the police any of the thugs involved will not have QI as a defense and can be sued personally.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2020 @ 11:07am

    It's a common mistake, but it's the Portland Police Bureau, (PPB) not the Portland Police Department or PPD.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Dec 2020 @ 2:15pm

    Sounds like our white-nationalist backed fascist police state is resisting its own system to make it seem less like a fascist police state.

    Since, during the past four years, we've seen countless incidents of state agents and officials ignoring court orders and congressional orders, it seems precedented that's totally an okay thing to do.

    Did I mention we should maybe abolish the justice system who can't seem to curb its own dogs?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Annonymouse, 9 Dec 2020 @ 6:15am

    Five bucks and sanctions won't even get you a cup of coffee.

    Only when the judges get the cojones to put blue butts behind bars and take away the lethal toys from the rest is there any hope of things improving.

    Then there is the training required.
    Applicants must serve as a Barista for at least 6 months with a clean record.
    Two year program that includes a psy and background check before being allowed near weapons of any kind on the second year.
    After graduation a mandatory physical and knowledge exam every three years to maintain accreditation.
    Must be carrying insurance.

    Did I miss anything?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 11:56am

      Re:

      Gut if not outright ban the police unions, as while they may serve some purpose in an ideal world these days they only seem to care about making sure cops only have to follow the rules they like and aren't held responsible for anything, make psychological exams a regular thing right alongside physical and knowledge, rather than just when they're looking to get hired, and last but most certainly not least utterly kill the very concept of QI.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 2:32pm

    Unfortunately, if this comes down to fines, the City of Portland will just dig into its bag of "Other People's Money" and pay them. But it could result in further restrictions, which isn't going to work out well for an agency that's already demonstrated it can't follow printed instructions.

    maybe they should have written it in crayon......
    at least then a 5 year old would understand the instructions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.