The Washington County Sheriff's Office has come under fire for initially ignoring a deputy's questionable comments to a 14-year-old girl during an arrest and instead focusing its public response on the man who caught the encounter on video.

On Tuesday afternoon, a day after the video went public, the office released a statement acknowledging Deputy Brian Klostreich's "inappropriate comparisons to women of other beliefs and cultures."

Klostreich had told the girl that her parents would be justified to hit her and that she's lucky she doesn't live in the Middle East.

Sheriff's Office statement

As the deputy spoke to the girl, he made inappropriate comparisons to women of other beliefs and cultures as a way to illustrate to the young woman her situation was not as bad as she thought.

While we believe the deputy was acting in good faith, there is no question that his remarks were insensitive and inappropriate. We hope to turn this incident into a learning opportunity for the rest of staff.

Though Klostreich was "acting in good faith," the Sheriff's Office statement called his remarks "insensitive and inappropriate." The comments are under review and Klostreich remains in his regular position, said Sgt. Bob Ray, an agency spokesman.

But the agency has already faced criticism for its first response: Sheriff's officials said they believed the recording was an illegal invasion of privacy and implied the neighbor who took the cellphone video would be investigated.

"After watching this video, we really understand why this neighbor was concerned because many of the things the officer said were inappropriate and display a lack of cultural competency," said Kimberly McCullough, legislative director for the ACLU of Oregon.

"We believe all Oregonians have the right to record police when they are doing their jobs, especially when they are concerned about potential misconduct," McCullough said.

Oregon law makes it a misdemeanor crime to illegally record a conversation and distribute it. The issue with the recording in this case, according to legal experts, comes down to whether it was made in "plain view of the participants" - language used in the current law.

That determination would have to be made by the courts, McCullough said.

"But regardless of that, the First Amendment protects us from criminal charges for circumstances like this," she said.

"We are disappointed that the Washington County Sheriff's Office's first response was to threaten the concerned neighbor with criminal charges, and that they don't seem to be concerned with this officer's behavior," she said.

Ray said the sheriff's office needed more time before commenting on the deputy's actions.

The situation unfolded Saturday afternoon at a Tigard apartment complex when Darren Hall heard the deputy talking with the girl. Hall said he started recording after he heard Klostreich yell and swear at her.

He wasn't hiding while he recorded the interaction from nearby stairs outside the girl's apartment and would have been clearly visible if the deputy, the girl or her mother had glanced his way, he said.

He believes the Sheriff's Office raised the legal questions in an attempt to keep the video from becoming public and should have immediately condemned the deputy's remarks.

"By issuing the (initial) statement that they issued, they are silently condoning what he said," Hall said. "And that's really problematic."

Klostreich had been called to the apartment to investigate a fight between the girl and her mother. Klostreich was captured saying to them, "If my kid did that to me, I'd pretty much beat the hell out of him."

He went on to say that women should stay home and be mothers and that if the girl lived in the Middle East, she'd have to wear "a rag" over her face and would be considered "scum" and "property."

In part of the 25-minute video, Klostreich is visible at the apartment door talking to the family. During other parts, he steps inside the unit but he is still audible on the footage and the door is left open.

Ray, the sheriff's spokesman, said the girl's mother wanted to make a criminal complaint about the video.

Sheriff's Office initial response

The following statement was provided by Washington County Sheriff's Sgt. Bob Ray:

It is my understanding that there was a video recording of a domestic violence incident involving a minor this weekend, and that there is probable cause to believe the video was made in violation of ORS 165.540. It is also my understanding that the domestic violence victim wishes to press charges against the suspect who illegally captured the video and audio of a private conversation within the victim's home and then posted it to a public forum.

As you are aware, ORS 165.540(1)(c) makes it a crime to obtain an in-person conversation, and 165.540(1)(e) makes it a separate crime to "Use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, any conversation, telecommunication or radio communication obtained by any means prohibited by this section." In light of that, any further disclosure of the illegally captured video will likely result in additional criminal charges for violation of this statute, and could also result in civil liability for invasion of privacy.

The Oregonian has made a request for a copy of the police reports involving the underlying domestic violence charge. In light of the fact that there are at least two criminal investigations arising from this incident (one for domestic violence and one for the subsequent unauthorized recording of an in-person conversation without notification and an additional count for unauthorized disclosure of the conversation) we will not be able to provide any information pursuant to a public records request pursuant to ORS 192.501(3) as it is investigatory information compiled for criminal law purposes.

"To make it clear, the recording of the deputy is not what's in question," Ray said Tuesday. "The recording of the family in their apartment is what's in question. Not the deputy."

Ray said the Sheriff's Office isn't conducting a criminal investigation into the recording itself and declined to say whether the agency asked another department to handle it.

Hall told The Oregonian/OregonLive that police hadn't contacted him about the video.

Tung Yin, a Lewis & Clark Law School professor, said police often conclude too quickly that a recording is illegal without considering someone's First Amendment rights.

Generally, the main issue at play, Yin said, is whether the parties in the recording know that the camera is rolling.

"It's OK to record it, but people should know that they are being recorded so they will be more careful and more guarded," Yin said.

The law, he said, also is designed to prohibit people from hiding and secretly filming others.

In Hall's case, Yin said, it may be hard to argue that the video was taken in plain view, but he could still rely on a First Amendment defense. Yin said he's not sure how strong the defense would be, but said the case does involve the public monitoring police behavior.

McCullough of the ACLU said even if Hall violated Oregon statute, his First Amendment rights would kick in.

She worked on HB 2704, a bill that added protections for people recording police encounters under Oregon's eavesdropping law. The changes came after the arrests of a series of people who had recorded police.

In a letter calling for Oregon senators to approve the bill, the ACLU said it believes that some recordings of police made secretly are still protected by the First Amendment. McCullough said courts have ruled the same.

"Civilians play a role in holding cops accountable," she said. "If they face charges for doing what they believe is their civic duty, that's a danger."

-- Rebecca Woolington

503-294-4049; @rwoolington