[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6276933,"mediaKeyId","2658543-a4e7ade760b16026f56cd7cbff9de24b","parentId",2658543,"title","Citizen Review Board reviews July 15, 2023 search; members split on truthfulness, conclude search likely unconstitutional","audioSeconds",446,"startMs",2197000,"endMs",2643000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2658543-a4e7ade760b16026f56cd7cbff9de24b&start=2197&end=2643","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2658543-a4e7ade760b16026f56cd7cbff9de24b/thumbnail_2197000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6276933/Eugene/Lane-County/Oregon/Citizen-Review-Board-reviews-July-15-2023-search-members-split-on-truthfulness-conclude-search-likely-unconstitutional","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276933-137d0b478ff1e978e22b7b6b87b4c9aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448017&Signature=XL~eFxLRQQZUa8E44ERqoGCG5S7mXXSmdnJqU6AwCiXuvvkky2VvxVLcKJhQBOZpuQnTGfI1FTRS4jkQ9AcF8FRXlZw9C~iI2czYUCEtjMhZZCdnJNpCoknIqyTtY3gWGrcHgEZ8iIC1Vu0CVzOuiKXZCamecjiHPf4aMVoV3yAhUyQd8uDgdTKzzUarxAzGmkm3n5gYnDmiIRjZE43Aylkt32S8j9lmWgtkBNdTn0m7DYwdA1~3U-Y6BF-Rc9C8bkIKu2ZnthCOIFS4RPw-FDewjv765ihprhkWUARzSaUrVOBIKiIYyy~wzEWiduM82oadwWkl0EAJBaiCSQUvgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Eugene, OR","date","2025-02-01T00:00:00Z","article","The Citizen Review Board spent the bulk of its meeting reviewing a July 15, 2023 Eugene Police Department response to a burglary report in which officers located a suspect and a second person in a fenced side yard and later found a bag that contained a firearm.

Rob (case reviewer) told the board the sequence: officers responded about 1:49 a.m., located the suspect and a second person (referred to in reports as a victim) in an enclosed side yard, and recovered a bag the victim claimed as his. The victim denied officers’ requests to search the bag. According to the review, Officer C carried the bag to the marked patrol area, then Officer D set the bag on the ground, used a flashlight and observed a firearm inside. The Lane County District Attorney’s Office later raised concerns about the circumstances of the firearm discovery, prompting an auditor’s review and recommendations.

The auditor’s memo described three allegations against Officer D: (1) truthfulness — allegedly failing to be honest about how the firearm was discovered, including not reporting that he manipulated the bag; (2) an unconstitutional search — allegedly manipulating the bag and exposing its contents without a warrant or valid exception; and (3) coercion — allegedly attempting to coerce consent to search by suggesting the victim could be charged if he refused. A single allegation was identified for Officer C: that the officer failed to submit a true, accurate and complete report describing what occurred with the bag.

According to the materials the auditor presented to the board, the auditor’s office recommended sustaining allegations (1) and (2) against Officer D and finding insufficient evidence for allegation (3). The chain of command and the chief reached different conclusions: the chief’s recommended outcome (as summarized in the presentation) found insufficient evidence on the first allegation, sustained the second and unfounded the third. For Officer C, the auditor recommended insufficient evidence and the chief recommended unfounded. Board members discussed those differing recommendations at length and cited the body-worn video shown to the board as the primary evidentiary basis for their deliberations.

Discussion focused on two legal and practical issues: (a) whether Officer D’s actions constituted an unconstitutional search of a closed container absent a warrant or recognized exception, and (b) whether omissions and shifting descriptions in the officer’s report and interview met the auditor’s definition of an untruthful statement. Board members and staff noted that search-and-seizure law is heavily dependent on case law and circumstance — including Ninth Circuit precedent — and that evolving rulings can change assessments of what a lawful search is.

Several members and staff called attention to the value of body-worn video for reconstructing events, and to the procedural complexity in deciding whether an apparent constitutional violation should be adjudicated administratively or decided in court through motions to suppress. Some members recommended additional or refreshed training on search-and-seizure law and clearer report-writing expectations; others urged caution before labeling conduct “untruthful,” noting the substantial personnel consequences of sustained truthfulness findings.

Board members stated their provisional positions during the deliberation (members’ statements as recorded in the transcript): several members said they agreed with the auditor that there was insufficient evidence on some items and sustained findings on others; other members aligned with the chief’s more restrictive standard for sustaining a truthfulness finding. The board did not record a single unanimous roll-call tally in the transcript for each allegation; the meeting record shows multiple individual positions and a close, contested deliberation on truthfulness versus procedural error.

Members concluded with a mix of recommendations for training and for continued attention to search-and-seizure case law; they also asked staff to ensure officers have clear guidance about when to seek warrants, and to consider peer coaching so officers challenge potentially problematic on-scene decisions. The board’s discussion noted the potential effect of problematic searches on prosecutions and the value of preserving evidence chain integrity.

The materials the board reviewed included the auditor’s report, body-worn video excerpts and the Lane County District Attorney’s office correspondence that raised the complaint.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Civilian Review Board | February 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Citizen Review Board reviewed a July 15, 2023 Eugene Police Department response in which officers located a bag later found to contain a firearm; the Lane County District Attorney flagged concerns and the auditor recommended sustained findings on some allegations while the chief reached different conclusions, prompting a split, detailed deliberation.","taxTitle","Eugene , Lane County, Oregon","taxId",2848,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6276938,"City outlines police-auditor recruitment: community panel, stakeholder interviews, council decides",840,910000,1750000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2658543-a4e7ade760b16026f56cd7cbff9de24b&start=910&end=1750","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2658543-a4e7ade760b16026f56cd7cbff9de24b/thumbnail_910000.jpg","/articles/6276938/Eugene/Lane-County/Oregon/City-outlines-police-auditor-recruitment-community-panel-stakeholder-interviews-council-decides","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276938-c5a16269ca89cacfc760879f7bc5544a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448017&Signature=NeJJG~WyW0nCKgDZasUwJR-t05Lz85ZTyYxaYAQzBclLfMWFIxHurXNW-Q2eMTcroNcWrZmmHrpmqvRmVPQON-mz9xM3g7DhRK-CAhL3VNRFZ5nz56S4JoGhmLwuBVpAKQ-7xDhHJrBAEkDXc9oDdtZnrmeEyLSgC3j9eIhQbxjjcX83Grb8qnLaU~5ZuokSpu1qlEZx36ySBk0A8O0Ev7mIb6mUNS1jHU~58P4c~ZI5x4i6F6Zdfk-6xY6V4RRG0H8vCiIKQ6xYEWjrttNLc~xCp-1ThSXBoHdLJffuZbma29Ldlf8kmalvxHmUHnPrxzdKNsziNwq99UNs6T9v-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Carrie Baraldo, interim co-director of the City of Eugene Employee Resource Center, told the Citizen Review Board that the city’s police-auditor recruitment opened in October and closed Jan. 1, and that council has directed an outreach-heavy selection process that includes an initial staff screening, a council review of written applications, screening interviews this week and in-person panels in March for finalists.

Baraldo said the city contracted Bob Murray & Associates to expand outreach to oversight professionals and other networks. She described a three-part in-person interview for finalists: a community “Q&A” panel, a structured internal-stakeholder interview and a council panel. Community panel members will submit written feedback after each candidate interview; that feedback will be provided to council, which has final hiring authority. Baraldo said the city’s recruiter expects the comprehensive background and reference stage to take about three to four weeks, so a finalist chosen in March would likely finish background checks in April.

The recruitment process matters because the police auditor is the primary civilian oversight position the council uses to review policing complaints and audits. Board members asked how the city will form a representative community panel, how to support candidates relocating to Eugene and whether the process will surface candidates of color and other underrepresented backgrounds. Baraldo said staff will reach out to neighborhood and community groups, ask each group to nominate one or two panelists, and that she will try to solidify dates quickly so community members can plan to participate. She also said she had asked the recruiting firm to discuss local demographics and community context with candidates during outreach.

Board members pressed for clarity on two procedural points: whether the community panel will be the same set of people for each finalist (Baraldo said yes, all finalists invited to the in-person process would meet the same panels) and how the community feedback will be used (Baraldo said council will receive compiled written feedback from community and stakeholder panels to inform its decision). Several members urged the city to provide relocation support and tailored outreach so candidates from outside the area better understand what living and working in Eugene will be like.

Baraldo said the recruitment brochure and outreach targeted law-enforcement-oversight networks, human-resources and diversity job sites, and that she attended the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement conference to engage oversight professionals. She said staff ran a minimum-qualifications screen and council then reviewed application packages and scored candidate written responses before deciding which applicants would move to screening interviews this week.

Baraldo also told the board the city will conduct a police-style background check (a comprehensive, investigator-prepared report) on the candidate council chooses to appoint; that step typically takes three to four weeks and may extend calendar timing into April. Board members noted the city had extended an interim monitor contract to cover the oversight gap while the recruitment concludes.

Baraldo invited board members to recommend questions for the community panel and said staff will contact the Citizen Review Board and other community groups to solicit panelists once dates are set. She repeatedly emphasized that council is the hiring authority and that the community panel’s role is advisory: written feedback will be compiled and provided to council to inform the final decision.

Board members thanked Baraldo and asked staff to keep the board informed about dates and opportunities to participate as community panelists.","City staff described a multi-step recruitment process for the City of Eugene police auditor, including national outreach, a contracted recruiter, screening interviews this week and planned in-person panels in March that will include a community Q&A panel whose feedback will be provided to city council for the final decision.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Citizen Review Board reviews July 15, 2023 search; members split on truthfulness, conclude search likely unconstitutional

City outlines police-auditor recruitment: community panel, stakeholder interviews, council decides