Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 4.47.17 PM.png

Portland police union President Daryl Turner contends a Multnomah County judge doesn't have the authority to evaluate an officer's credibility "from the safety of a courtroom,'' after a judge last week acquitted a 16-year-old Portland boy accused of resisting arrest and criticized police actions. Turner said it was unfair for the judge to question officers' credibility based on "shaky cell phone video footage filmed from some distance away.''

(Helen Jung/The Oregonian)

Portland police union president Daryl Turner on Monday decried a Multnomah County judge's findings last week that officers used excessive force in the arrest of a 16-year-old boy.

Turner called the ruling "unfair'' and "discouraging,'' and questioned the judge's authority to second-guess the officers. He also said the judge shouldn't have relied on what he characterized as "shaky cell phone video footage.''

"What is most discouraging is that when police officers respond to a call, those officers must now be concerned that someone sitting in hindsight, from the safety of a courtroom, will not only question their actions, but their credibility,'' Turner wrote in a lengthy statement to members of the Portland Police Association.

Judge Diana Stuart, said last Thursday in the case of Thai Gurule, a Roosevelt High School sophomore who had been accused of resisting arrest and assaulting and strangling police officers, that police used excessive force. She also said they offered contradictory testimony to the events captured on video. The 16-year-old was acquitted of all criminal charges.

Thai Gurule and his mother, Saundra, hug on Thursday, March 12, 2015, after a judge cleared him of all criminal charges stemming from a chaotic scuffle with police in September 2014 that was captured on video by bystanders.

Two bystanders recorded the encounter with their cellphone cameras, and the video footage was played in court.

Read the judge's ruling here.

Turner argued that the video footage did not capture the encounter from the officers' perspective.

"The officers' reasonable perceptions count, not video footage,'' Turner wrote. "In this case, the cell phone video footage does not capture the physical struggle from the officers' perspective, nor does it capture the officers' reasonable, split-second decision-making and thought processes in tense circumstances.''

Turner suggested that police are at a disadvantage, not the 16-year-old who was charged with a crime. "With the national furor surrounding allegations of excessive force, police officers are now presumed guilty of misconduct and must prove that they acted appropriately,'' he wrote.

Gurule's attorney, Stephen Houze, said the court could not have ruled any other way, considering the video footage available from two bystanders and a bank surveillance camera.

"Were it not for the surveillance footage captured by the bank camera and the videos of two bystanders, the truth of what happened to Thai Gurule that September evening might never have been revealed in a courtroom,'' Houze said. "Fortunately, the court in this case had the benefit of seeing the events captured on those three cameras, as well as hearing the testimony of all officers involved."

Houze has filed a notice with the city of Portland that Gurule plans to sue for unlawful detention, assault and battery in the Sept. 14, 2014, encounter on a North Portland sidewalk. The city's Independent Police Review Division also is investigating the officers' actions in the case, said Constantin Severe, division director.

Read Turner's full statement below:

Late last week, Multnomah County Judge Diana Stuart found Thai Gurule not guilty of resisting arrest in an incident that occurred last September. I am very disappointed with her ruling. What is most discouraging is that when police officers respond to a call, those officers must now be concerned that someone sitting in hindsight, from the safety of a courtroom, will not only question their actions, but also their credibility.



I have sat in many courtrooms involving dozens of cases and have found judges to be fair, credible, professional, and knowledgeable regardless of their final rulings. However, in this case, it was unfair and in conflict with well-established legal principles to question the credibility of the police officers involved in this case based on shaky cell phone video footage filmed from some distance away. Graham v. Connor states that the reasonableness of a use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions as to the amount of force necessary in that particular situation. In other words, the officers' reasonable perceptions count, not video footage. In this case, the cell phone video footage does not capture the physical struggle from the officers' perspective, nor does it capture the officers' reasonable, split-second decision-making and thought processes in tense circumstances.



Judge Stuart's ruling is disappointing and her statements regarding the credibility of the officers' statements in this case is cause for concern. As a fact-finder, Judge Stuart may have disagreed with Sergeant Lille and Officers Hornstein and Hughes, but her disagreement with the officers' actions should not be a mark on their credibility. The officers acted reasonably in tense circumstances, and they clearly articulated the reasons for their actions in their police reports and testimony.



What is also problematic is the uneven playing field that officers now operate under. A civilian charged with a crime, such as Mr. Gurule, is presumed innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, with the national furor surrounding allegations of excessive force, police officers are now presumed guilty of misconduct and must prove that they acted appropriately.



We handle very difficult and dangerous calls for service with the overriding goal of resolving the issue safely and effectively. However, the presumption is that we want to harm the very people we are sworn to serve and protect. That sentiment must end. Not only is it untrue and unfair, it creates an insurmountable obstacle for police officers who simply want to do their jobs.



Daryl Turner, President

Portland Police Assocation

--Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212; @maxoregonian