A tossed-out court case from nearly four months ago has led the Portland Police Bureau to suggest changes to its policy handbook, but defense attorneys are not happy.

The suggested changes involve the bureau’s rules for sharing officers’ personnel files during criminal trials. Police are often called to be witnesses in court, where defense attorneys frequently place their credibility under a microscope.

The current rule on the bureau’s books states that it will share with the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office any allegations against an officer for dishonesty, bias, evidence handling or excessive force.

The new proposed policy would create more criteria that an allegation must meet before being shared. Under the new policy, some allegations would be shared with prosecutors immediately, while others would have to be deemed “credible” by the bureau.

Like many courtroom debates, this one centers around language.

Supporters of the change say the old policy made police disclose more than necessary about officers. Critics say the new policy is creating extra hurdles and risks shortchanging fair trials for defendants.

“We’re not trying to air out the dirty laundry of the Portland Police Bureau at every turn,” defense attorney Henry Oostram-Shah said. “An officer might have mishandled evidence in the past, and there’s evidence missing in a particular case.”

Officials with the bureau and the district attorney’s office both stressed that they are committed to sharing that information when relevant.

A landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brady v. Maryland, ruled that police and prosecutors must share any information that could help the defense.

“Our goal is to find the right balance between the criminal defendant’s Brady rights with the law enforcement officer’s confidentiality rights when the records sought are not material and exculpatory,” Portland police spokesperson Sgt. Kevin Allen said.

The revisions follow a recent court ruling in Multnomah County Circuit Court that led a judge to throw out criminal charges against a person arrested at last year’s pro-Palestine protests at Portland State University.

The defendant — one of roughly 30 people arrested that day — faced charges of interfering with a police officer, unlawful use of a weapon, and assaulting an officer.

Attorneys Shah and Drew Flood argued that the defendant was owed a closer look at the arresting officer’s personnel file. They argued the existing policy required the bureau to disclose any allegations of bias, evidence mishandling, dishonesty or excessive force, regardless of any internal affairs investigation.

The district attorney’s office countered that they had already provided everything the bureau had shared about the officer and it wasn’t their responsibility to go fishing for every allegation.

Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Angela Lucero ultimately sided with the defense. The judge wrote that the state had neglected its responsibility to “proactively” seek out relevant records, rather than “rely” on the city to send them.

Pat Dooris, a spokesperson for the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office, said they were caught off-guard by Lucero’s interpretation that the policy could “permit MCDA full access to any PPB officer’s personnel file for any reason.”

“This was never MCDA’s understanding of the original intent behind (the policy),” Dooris said.

The proposed policy changes were published online in May. The city of Portland is accepting public comment on them until June 18.

Several defense attorneys — including Shah and Flood — said they plan to share their issues with the change. Many expressed concerns that it will encourage prosecutors to be complacent about the evidence that the Portland police have decided to disclose.

“Unless the bureau hands it to them, in their minds, they have plausible deniability,” Juan Chavez, of the Oregon Justice Resource Center, said.

Besides Shah’s client, a handful of people arrested during the PSU protests saw their charges dismissed when it was discovered the city of Portland had retained far more footage of the arrests than was shared with defense attorneys. Multnomah County District Attorney Nathan Vasquez called it an “appalling” miscommunication.

“[The policy change] will cause mistrials. This will cause post-conviction reversals,” Chavez said. “And who does that serve? All to protect an officer’s feelings here, during an investigation? No, that’s not the concern at this juncture. The concern is someone’s liberty that’s at stake.”

Shah noted that the current policy doesn’t broadcast personnel files. Judges will look at them confidentially and decide what to allow into the courtroom.

Allen, the bureau spokesperson, stressed that the new, proposed language is based on best practices. Portland police will notify prosecutors of officers’ criminal convictions and charges, as well as times when the bureau determines an officer broke policy.

If an internal affairs commander deems certain allegations “credible,” the new policy states that the bureau will share those allegations even before an internal investigation is finished.

“It’s important to emphasize that this policy is only about reporting potentially exculpatory evidence and aligning our policy with best practices,” Allen said. “The bureau remains committed to conducting full, comprehensive internal investigations.”

According to the new policy, a bureau commander would determine an allegation’s credibility by looking at factors like its “inherent plausibility,” the “weight of witness accounts,” video evidence and corroborative evidence.

Regardless of the final policy, defense attorneys noted prosecutors are still bound by Supreme Court case law to seek out relevant information.

“Really, it’s going to provide cover for prosecutors who are not living up to that obligation,” defense attorney Zack Stern said.

If that’s the case, he said, defense attorneys will be forced to spend more time filing court motions and subpoenas to ensure defendants are getting all the information pertinent to their cases.

“It’s just going to lead to a ton of litigation,” Stern said. “Transparency allows judges and juries to make informed decisions. If they make a decision based on incomplete information, that wastes your tax dollars.”

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/04/portland-oregon-police-personnel-files-law-criminal-trials-evidence/