EDITORIAL: Another take on police

Protester wins a judgment against a Eugene sergeant

Published: (Saturday, Jan 28, 2012 05:00AM) Midnight, Jan. 28

---

---

A federal jury’s ruling Monday that a Eugene police sergeant used excessive force to arrest an environmental activist in 2009 should serve as a reminder to law enforcement officials that people in the community they serve often see allegations of police misconduct through a different prism than the one police use to view those same allegations.

After a four-day trial, the jury awarded Josh Schlossberg $5,583 in damages after deciding unanimously that the environmental activist’s constitutional rights were violated by Sgt. Bill Solesbee during a March 13, 2009, encounter in front of an Umpqua Bank branch at Seventh Avenue and Oak Street.

Schlossberg had set up a table there to hand out leaflets. He was videotaping his interactions with police when Solesbee arrested him for allegedly violating a state law that prohibits people from secretly recording conversations. Schlossberg was released shortly after his arrest, and no formal charges were filed.

In his lawsuit, Schlossberg said he complied with the law by informing Solesbee that he planned to record their interaction and did not conceal his camera. A YouTube clip of the incident shows Solesbee saying that police had received a complaint that activists were “harassing people” and blocking pedestrians. After Schlossberg denied those allegations, the sergeant told Schlossberg that he needed a permit to set up a table on the sidewalk, and should “keep moving.”

Solesbee then took issue with Schlossberg videotaping their conversation. When the activist said he had previously informed Solesbee that he planned to tape their exchange, the sergeant denied that was the case and demanded the camera.

The YouTube tape shows Solesbee saying, “Give me that; that’s evidence.” That’s where the tape ends, and Schlossberg claimed that Solsebee injured him by forcing his arms behind his back, throwing him to the ground and placing his knee on his neck.

Schlossberg initially filed a formal misconduct complaint with the police department, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when Solesbee seized his camera and viewed its contents. Schlossberg also said the sergeant had used excessive force and arrested him without justifiable cause.

After an internal review, Chief Pete Kerns determined that Solesbee did not violate Schlossberg’s rights, and that both the arrest and the sergeant’s force were “objectively reasonable” and in compliance with department policy. The city’s police auditor also investigated the complaint and came to a similar conclusion.

Schlossberg then filed a lawsuit in federal court, where a jury reviewed the allegations and came to a different conclusion. So did U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin, who before the trial began took the unusual step of ruling that Solesbee violated Schlossberg’s rights by viewing contents of his video camera without a search warrant.

The jury’s ruling pleased department critics who contend that the city’s police officers rarely are held accountable for misconduct. But it’s unwise to make too much out of an incident that occurred nearly three years ago. The ruling should not be regarded as an indictment of the police department’s internal complaint system — or of the current conduct of the city’s police officers.

Yes, Eugene police have had some noteworthy problems over the years dealing with protesters, but its recent performance has been professional, and at times exemplary.

The department’s recent handling of the Occupy Eugene protest was marked by restraint, judgment and cooperation; it should be viewed as a model by other communities dealing with similar situations. Behind the scenes, the department has made a significant investment in training officers on protecting the rights of suspects and on the proper use of force. As for the police’s internal review system, the department says its overall rate of sustained allegations was 27 percent in 2010 and 26 percent in 2011, significantly higher than in most communities.

The federal jury’s ruling in the Schlossberg case should serve as a reminder to police that both real and perceived mistakes and misjudgments by officers carry a price — and that juries made up of ordinary people often have a different perspective on police misconduct than that of law enforcement.

But it should not be seen as a measuring stick for a department that has made marked improvement in recent years.