WABC
Law Enforcement

How Much Do You Know About Police Policies?
What You Don't Know Can Hurt You
(Passages copied from the current manual are black print highlighted in white)

The "directives" in this manual are supposed to dictate most aspects of how the police should conduct themselves while doing their job, including how they should deal with the public in general.  Because these are things everyone should know, the Portland Police Bureau makes their policy manual available to the public online, free to download. You can visit their website and download the Adobe Reader version, http://www.portlandonline.com, on the Portland Police webpage

According to the Portland Police policy manual, a detainee (person arrested) could be forced to strip off their clothes in front of an officer of the opposite sex? Are you comfortable knowing that women could be forced to strip in front of a male officer if the ideal or "preferred" situation does not exist at the time?  Humiliation should not be open to preference, but according to the following directive, it is..

(DIR 650.00) Search, Seizures and Inventories (member responsibilities)

c. When a strip search is conducted, the search will be done by a member of the same gender as that of the detainee. A second member, preferably of the same gender as the detainee, will monitor the search (for safety and witnessing).
 

A Portland police officer by the name of Krohnke had to resign because women came forward about his invasive "searches".  By policy, male officers can search females, even touching them, as long as there is nothing noticeably  "sexual" about it.
 

GIVE ME A BREAK!  A man feeling up your shirt and the crotch of your pants is not sexually related, right?

Also according to to the manual, they can keep information about you even if you have done nothing wrong. It goes on to say that use of an "FCR" card is for when an officer has no right to contact that individual, because they have done nothing wrong!  This is a form of profiling, is illegal, and a violation of our constitutional rights. This directive in the Portland Police 2003 Policy Manual shows us that this is true:

The Field Contact Report (FCR) (910.00)
1. FCR cards are processed much as other police reports. Therefore, it is extremely important that appropriate boxes are filled in completely and legibly written. The subject’s PPDS record must be updated from the information on the card and a PPDS record established for those FCRs that do not presently have a PPDS number. 

What a waste of our tax dollars, it's a "workaround" to allow police to continue profiling citizens in spite of laws that forbid it by filing it under an address, rather than a person's name.  But wait!  There's more...

4. The Detective Division (Detectives) requests that members use the FCR to pass on valuable information they have by observing known criminal subjects with associates and/or vehicles. Current information on associates and vehicles of known criminals is very important to investigators. This information can be gathered by observation when contact is not practical or legal. Basic information as to the subject’s complete name and date of birth is necessary for the FCR procedure.

"When contact is not practical or legal?"--- What does THAT say?  If they aren't profiling PEOPLE illegally, then why would they need and include the "subject's complete name and date of birth" unless they are profiling people?  Why has nobody called them on this?  Maybe because this passage has been reworded in the 2005 Policy Manual...Changing the passage does not necessarily mean the practice has been stopped, it just means the PPB has become aware that people have seen the directive and questioned it. 

WABC commentary:  If exposing police to scrutiny puts them in "danger", it puts them in danger of having their brutal behaviors exposed.  The idea that the information presented might not be credible because it's based only on people's opinions seems to minimize citizen's opinions, which so far has been the job of the Independent Police Review and Internal Affairs.

As for what Sgt. Schmautz said---- "Some might just use it to get back at officers they dislike", Is there any doubt about what would make anyone "dislike" a Portland Police officer...let me see... How many supposed "sex offenders", including hookers, johns and other offenders whose crime only involved adults have been denied a place to live or a job, or have been beaten or killed, simply because their info was posted to a website, by the government?  and how many people convicted of cooking dope have had to live on the streets, even though their crimes were committed years ago?  Does it make any sense that only SOME people's actions should be posted for all to see?  Cops would be in no more "danger" than anyone they post online.  It's about time somebody put up a website like this, thank you ratemycop.com !   We suggest checking this website out, leaving honest input, and let's see where that takes us.  It sounds like another incidence of Law Enforcement's inherent fear of scrutiny (i.e. oversight) and their resistance to being held accountable for their actions.

In the event that an attempt is made to take down the website, WABC suggests we, the people most abused, should put our full support behind the website, and ensure the first amendment right to freedom of speech this website embodies.

Read this recent article on Government Surveillance

PRACTICE SAFE COMMUNICATIONS AT ALL TIMES---Never Assume You Are Alone

LOCAL MATERIAL WITNESSES

There have been several entries in the MCSO booking log that designated someone as a "material Witness".  In light of the following info culled from different websites, there may be reason for concern that the government may be trying to prepare indictments, possibly several of them, for people in the Portland area.  There are several news articles where police arrested several people and claimed they were part of a "conspiracy".  Criminal conspiracy is a serious charge, easily prosecuted and carries serious prison time for all involved (or not).  How can we NOT take that seriously?

Jordanian immigrant Osama Awadallah was acquitted of federal charges that he lied to a grand jury investigating the September 11th attacks. Ten days after the attacks, Awadallah - who was then a student at Grossmont College outside of San Diego - was taken into custody and held as a material witness...

According to  his Attorney SARAH KUNSTLER: "...a material witness warrant, which the government can use to detain people who aren't -- when there isn't probable cause, when they aren't charged with crimes, solely to bring them to testify before grand juries when it's determined that there is a probability that they won't go on their own voluntarily on subpoena."

THIS IS NO JOKE--- These people are logically expected to testify about something, or someone they know...

Check out these articles for more information---right click on link and save for later

Consequences of Arrest for Material Witness Detainees
Every Witness a Flight Risk
Misuse of Material Witness Law
Misuse of Material Witness Warrant
The Arrest of Witnesses Who Have No Info
 Witness To Abuse

Keep in mind that with our constitutional rights nearly gone, conspiracy cases are even easier for the state to make stick successfully-- especially with their treasure trove of personal information, associations, etc; that they already have, and can now use to investigate and then prosecute us, wholesale.

1. u Expect to see many more "material witness" abductions, before they start hiding them from us
   u Expect to see a proliferation of informants / infiltrators armed with this information
2. u Expect to see a massive wave of conspiracies prosecuted, involving several co-conspirators in each, while the government itself, and the info it has on us remains one deadly secret
3. u Expect that surveillance and profiling will continue, unhindered and unmentioned
4. u And expect to be doing a long set in prison with everyone else, if you don't get off your ass and DO something to protect yourself, your loved ones and your comrades!!!

Here's the list as of December 2007-  Material witness list for Portland Oregon

Steal this Story-The Real Reason the Police Did Not Cooperate
Author: Alan Graf
E-mail: peopleslawyer@qwest.net

The results of the mass defense of the Iraqi bombing protestors and the May Day protestors were impressive.  95% of the demonstrators got off without any conviction.   Judge Marcus declared one part of the disorderly conduct statute unconstitutional and raised the state's burden of proof to beyond a reasonable doubt in cases where they would arrest a protestor on a misdemeanor charge and later drop it to a violation.

These rulings made it much harder for the police to arbitrarily break up demonstrations and arrest protestors exercising their First Amendment rights.  These cases also cost the state thousands of dollars and resulted in presenting questionable police testimony in court to a judge who by the end of these trials wrote an opinion that blasted the tactics of the police department.  The City got a big mud pie in the face and was reeling from its effects.

We also uncovered evidence that showed that the police were still spying on non-criminal political protestors.  During the Iraqi bombing trials the DA produced a document written by an undercover agent stating that they were targeting Dan Handelman of Copwatch for (as the document stated) non-criminal activity in direct violation of ORS 181.575.  This document was produced to Judge Marcus.  Marcus was the same judge who had previously ruled in Squirrel v. Moose that the City had screwed up by spying on Squirrel and maintaining files on him.

Based upon this newly discovered secret evidence the mass defense team filed a motion with the court to dismiss all of the protestor cases based upon the state's "outrageous conduct."  A few days later we received a courtesy copy of a letter from city attorney Rogers addressed to the Judge explaining that the city attorney's office has "goofed" and had not followed Judge Marcus' previous order from Squirrel to regularly audit the police intelligence department's files.   Rogers went even further and explained that the city attorney should not be required to do the auditing because they were in a conflict because they were the cops' attorney I was surprised that Judge Marcus did not do much with this admission.

Push the reel forward to about two years later.  The city was reconsidering once again whether to renew its contract with the FBI to continue the Portland Joint Terrorist Task Force.  The progressive community once again hit the ground running.  There were meetings, lobbying of commissioners, presentations and demonstrations.

Before I attended the first council meeting on this renewal, I had this gut sort of feeling that I should bring to the council meeting a copy of the undercover agent's report which showed the Portland Police spying on Dan Handelman illegally and City attorney Jeff Roger's letter to Judge Marcus explaining why the city attorney did not follow their court ordered duties of auditing the police intelligence files.  Sure, enough my gut reaction turned into one those Perry Mason moments.

Like all of the other activists we sat through hours of staged testimony produced and directed by Mayor Katz.  At one point some Commissioners questioned Mayor Katz and Chief Kroeker about civilian oversight of the PTTF expressing "their concerns."  Mayor Katz triumphantly proclaimed that assistant city attorney David Lesh had examined the files of the intelligence unit and found that the city attorney had been auditing the files as required by law and consistent with Judge Marcus' order in Squirrel v. Moose.  She had a memo from Lesh stating as such.

With the documents in my hand signed by Lesh's boss that said the complete opposite I knew that all the work that we had done over the years had just paid off big time.  I was signed up to speak and did my deep breathing exercise to keep calm knowing that I had them by the (you know what).  Finally they called my name.   I proceed to give out copies of city attorney Roger's letter and the undercover memo to each council member.  I got to Mayor Katz and she unleashed lightning bolts out of her eyes at me.  I had my progressive armor on and deflected them.

I pointed to the letters and said there was a serious disconnect here because the letter before them from Lesh's boss was contrary to what Lesh had written in his memo and what Mayor Katz had told us.   It appeared that even if they could do the audits they were in a conflict position.  The years of work of the progressive community from Copwatch's diligence, to the National Lawyers Guild mass defenses, to the years of demonstrations by hard working and caring folks had lead to this magic moment where we could stand up to the empress and say, excuse me but you have no clothes.

They were scrambling because we had blown their cover that they had carefully woven designed to fool the public into thinking that the FBI would be supervised by a civilian elected Mayor.  The council session was continued to the next week for more testimony but everyone knew they were now in damage control.

Next week they completely changed their position and had Jeff Rogers testify.  He admitted along with Chief Kroeker that the Portland Joint Terrorist Task Force could not have any civilian oversight including Mayor Katz.  For all the "concern" that other Commissioners Francesconi and Sten previously raised about civilian oversight of the PTTJF, when push came to shove—it was only Commissioner Charley Hales who voted his conscience by opposing the continuance of the task force.

But that moment was carved in their minds.  Dedicated progressives in this town have organized and fought for the rights of the people.  Their dedication paid off.  It was impressive and it was democracy at its best.

A few months later when the FBI asked the City Police to collect and maintain information for them about Mid-Easterners, why do you think law and order minded city attorney David Lesh advised the police to refuse?   Why is that?  Could it be that he was still cleaning off the mud in his eye that the dedicated people of Portland had put there?   Why did Mayor Katz, Chief Kroeker and Jeff Rogers all say that they knew more about that law than Hardy Meyers.  It was true, they did and they were still smarting from the power of the people who had taught them about the power of democracy.

We can feel proud that the true story can be told.  Never ever underestimate the power of good hearted dedicated people to make a difference in this world.   Now why wouldn't corporate media want to publish a story like that?  I wonder?

Alan Graf
Co-Chair of the Portland Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild
address: 1020 SW Taylor St., Ste. 370, Portland Oregon 97205
phone: 503-452-2375

Remembering our country's history of grassroots movements can energize calls for impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Courage is in short supply in Washington, D.C. The realities of the Iraq War cry out for the overthrow of a government that is criminally responsible for death, mutilation, torture, humiliation, chaos.  But all we hear in the nation's capital, which is the source of those catastrophes, is a whimper from the Democratic Party, muttering and nattering about "unity" and "bipartisanship," in a situation that calls for bold action to immediately reverse the present course.

These are the Democrats who were brought to power in November by an electorate fed up with the war, furious at the Bush Administration, and counting on the new majority in Congress to represent the voters.  But if sanity is to be restored in our national policies, it can only come about by a great popular upheaval, pushing both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will.

The Declaration of Independence, revered as a document but ignored as a guide to action, needs to be read from pulpits and podiums, on street corners and community radio stations throughout the nation.  Its words, forgotten for over two centuries, need to become a call to action for the first time since it was read aloud to crowds in the early excited days of the American Revolution: "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government."

The "ends" referred to in the Declaration are the equal right of all to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  True, no government in the history of the nation has been faithful to those ends.  Favors for the rich, neglect of the poor, massive violence in the interest of continental and world expansion -- that is the persistent record of our government.

Still, there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the president to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress.

The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Representative John Conyers, who held extensive hearings and introduced an impeachment resolution when the Republicans controlled Congress, is now head of the House Judiciary Committee and in a position to fight for such a resolution. He has apparently been silenced by his Democratic colleagues who throw out as nuggets of wisdom the usual political palaver about "realism" (while ignoring the realities staring them in the face) and politics being "the art of the possible" (while setting limits on what is possible).

I know I'm not the first to talk about impeachment. Indeed, judging by the public opinion polls, there are millions of Americans, indeed a majority of those polled, who declare themselves in favor if it is shown that the President lied us into war (a fact that is not debatable).

There are at least a half-dozen books out on impeachment, and it's been argued for eloquently by some of our finest journalists, John Nichols and Lewis Lapham among them. Indeed, an actual "indictment" has been drawn up by a former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega, in a new book called United States v. George W. Bush et al, making a case, in devastating detail, to a fictional grand jury.

There is a logical next step in this development of an impeachment movement: the convening of "people's impeachment hearings" all over the country. This is especially important given the timidity of the Democratic Party. Such hearings would bypass Congress, which is not representing the will of the people, and would constitute an inspiring example of grassroots democracy.

These hearings would be the contemporary equivalents of the unofficial gatherings that marked the resistance to the British Crown in the years leading up to the American Revolution. The story of the American Revolution is usually built around Lexington and Concord, around the battles and the Founding Fathers. What is forgotten is that the American colonists, unable to count on redress of their grievances from the official bodies of government, took matters into their own hands, even before the first battles of the Revolutionary War.

In 1772, town meetings in Massachusetts began setting up Committees of Correspondence, and the following year, such a committee was set up in Virginia. The first Continental Congress, beginning to meet in 1774, was a recognition that an extralegal body was necessary to represent the interests of the people. In 1774 and 1775, all through the colonies, parallel institutions were set up outside the official governmental bodies.

Throughout the nation's history, the failure of government to deliver justice has led to the establishment of grassroots organizations, often ad hoc, dissolving after their purpose was fulfilled. For instance, after passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, knowing that the national government could not be counted on to repeal the act, black and white anti-slavery groups organized to nullify the law by acts of civil disobedience. They held meetings, made plans, and set about rescuing escaped slaves who were in danger of being returned to their masters.

In the desperate economic conditions of 1933 and 1934, before the Roosevelt Administration was doing anything to help people in distress, local groups were formed all over the country to demand government action. Unemployed Councils came into being, tenants' groups fought evictions, and hundreds of thousands of people in the country formed self-help organizations to exchange goods and services and enable people to survive.

More recently, we recall the peace groups of the 1980s, which sprang up in hundreds of communities all over the country, and provoked city councils and state legislatures to pass resolutions in favor of a freeze on nuclear weapons. And local organizations have succeeded in getting more than 400 city councils to take a stand against the Patriot Act.

Impeachment hearings all over the country could excite and energize the peace movement. They would make headlines, and could push reluctant members of Congress in both parties to do what the Constitution provides for and what the present circumstances demand: the impeachment and removal from office of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Simply raising the issue in hundreds of communities and Congressional districts would have a healthy effect, and would be a sign that democracy, despite all attempts to destroy it in this era of war, is still alive.
 

Special thanks to Prison Legal News for materials from the 2005 PLN newsletter

Page 3 >>