I. Portland's Current System of Police Review
Nationally, review systems like Portland's are chronically under-empowered, under-staffed and under-funded. Heavy reliance upon documents provided by the police makes objective review of citizen complaints difficult. For example, IID's investigation sometimes leaves out potential witnesses who never come to PIIAC's attention because of the limitations of PIIAC's powers. In an investigation reviewed by PIIAC in April 1993, witnesses came to testify, but PIIAC did not consider their testimony because they were not part of the initial IID investigation.
In the eyes of the public (including those mistreated by police), these review systems appear to be
mere extentions of the police force. Further, many civilian review experts find these systems to be
The public is calling for improved civilian
PIIAC has recently taken some steps to become more effective. The Citizen Advisors are now
|
1. Oregonian, April 28, 1992, p. A1. 2. Ibid, p. A12. 3. Citizens Crime Commission: Public Safety 2000     "Information for meeting on     Aug. 25, 1992," p. 31. |
4. City Club of Portland, Vol. 72, No. 33,     January 17, 1992. 5. Editorial, April 14, 1988. 6. Editorial, February 4, 1993. 7. Letter to Vera Katz, April, 1993.
|