uniformppb.jpg

The Portland Police Bureau has completed a report containing summaries of police misconduct cases reviewed by a Police Review Board in June and December 2014.

(The Oregonian/File)

A Portland police officer tested positive for steroids during a random drug test last February and resigned last spring, months before the Police Review Board unanimously recommended that he be fired, according to bureau documents released this month.

The officer is the second to have a drug test come back positive since the Police Bureau started random drug testing in 2012. But the officer who resigned is the first to do so after results showed evidence of steroids.

The only other officer whose test was considered positive was fired, but not because of the presence of an illegal drug. That officer couldn't provide enough of a urine sample for testing, according to city officials.

In last year's case, the officer submitted a urine sample as part of the random drug testing on Feb. 11 and the result came back positive for steroids. The Police Review Board recommended the officer be fired, finding he failed to adhere to a "contractual condition of employment.''

But the officer resigned April 23 before the recommendation. The bureau's report doesn't identify the officer.

The review board also recommended that the chief include "pro-hormone" substances in the bureau's drug abuse policy -- which prohibits any use on or off-duty of any non-prescription controlled substance -- and note that it is "incumbent on the officer to know what is inside'' a bottle.

But former Chief Mike Reese declined to follow that recommendation after consulting with the bureau's personnel division, according to the bureau.

A summary of the case was among 14 misconduct cases reviewed last year by the review board. The bureau's report doesn't identify the officers by name. The review board is an advisory panel that looks at police internal investigations, issues findings on police misconduct and recommends discipline.

Other cases reviewed last year involved an officer caught driving drunk while off duty; an officer who racked up multiple parking tickets on his personal vehicle that he had stripped of visible license plates and a legible Vehicle Identification Number; two officers who got into a fight with another man while off duty; and a supervisor who made repeated offensive sexual and derogatory comments about women.

Brief summaries of some of the cases reviewed follow, based on the bureau's report:

-- An officer resigned before the board ruled he was untruthful during an internal affairs interview regarding allegations that he inappropriately touched another bureau employee in 2013. The same officer failed to request an on-call child abuse detective to respond to a hospital where a child suffered serious injuries. The failure resulted in the inability to file charges in the case.

-- Officer James Escobar resigned before he was fired for repeatedly racking up parking violations on his personal car. He had removed its license plates and concealed its Vehicle Identification Number. He had incurred enough unpaid tickets that parking patrol ordered his car towed last year. While it was about to be towed, Escober, while on duty, drove up and asked the city employee if he could pay the tickets then to avoid his car being towed. The car was still towed, and Escober did pay the fines. The Police Review Board characterized Escober's actions as "arrogance and entitlement'' and recommended his termination. In a separate complaint, the board found Escober was rude and unprofessional when called to respond to a dispute on a TriMet bus between a passenger and the driver, and that he failed to hand his business card over to the complainant who had asked for it.

-- Officer Kent Scott was found to have violated bureau policy for driving drunk and speeding while off-duty on Southeast Division Street on last Feb. 18. Scott admitted to drinking six to eight shots of whiskey and three beers. But because the officer expressed remorse, four of five review board members recommended a one-week suspension without pay. The chief issued a one-week suspension without pay.

-- A supervising officer admitted to making "sexual and derogatory comments

regarding women" over the course of months. In one instance, he

was relating some kind of inappropriate personal anecdote in a room with

children present and defended himself by claiming he was using the story as a

"teaching moment." One board member couldn't conceive how it would have ever risen to a "teachable moment.'' While one board member suggested a demotion, citing the bureau's potential liability having a supervising officer with this on his record, the majority of the board suggested he be suspended without pay for 40 hours, which the chief upheld.

-- An officer made an inappropriate gesture and touched another employee while standing near the employee's desk, and was then untruthful about the encounter during an internal affairs interview. The officer resigned before the board recommended the officer be fired.

-- An officer asked another officer to run a credit check on a third party. The employee who was asked to conduct the check had concerns and alerted a supervisor. An investigation found the officer lied about the purpose of the credit check, fabricating a reason why it should be done when it was sought for personal reasons - for the officer's spouse. The board voted 3-to-2 to find that the officer was untruthful and recommended termination. The majority argued that police have a "heightened duty'' to be truthful, especially when it comes to the handling of sensitive personal information. The majority sustained the untruthfulness complaint based on a "preponderance of evidence'' standard. The chief issued an 80-hour suspension without pay instead, because the board didn't sustain the untruthfulness complaint under the more stringent "clear and convincing evidence'' standard.

-- Two off-duty officers who were with their families got into a scuffle with a man who had pretended to aim an imaginary weapon in their direction. The families went into a business, and one officer left to follow the man and confront him. Later, the man returned to the business and a struggle ensued at the door. The two officers ended up chasing, tackling and punching the man, and holding him until on-duty officers arrived. The board found the officers used unwarranted force and failed to de-escalate the encounter, and should have called 911. The majority of the board recommended both officers face 20-hour suspensions without pay, which the chief followed.

After reviewing other cases last year, board members recommended that Multnomah County jail videos of the booking area should also include audio and that officers be required to wear body cameras while on duty.

Dan Handelman, of the watchdog group Portland Copwatch, called on the Bureau to do "gender parity training,'' considering some of the sexual misconduct complaints that have arisen. Officers do undergo city training on sexual harassment and discrimination.

"There have been so many incidents of sexual misconduct over the years, it seems the time has long passed for such a training to begin,'' Handelman wrote in an email to the bureau.

Handelman also characterized the bureau's report as confusing because it continues to include numerous redactions, including dates of incidents and pronouns to conceal the gender of an officer investigated for misconduct. He likened it to "Police Review Board Mad Libs.''

--Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212; @maxoregonian