News
Street Roots « May 13-19, 2016
Page 7
Exonerated?
Citizen Review Committee clings to
wrong version of policy before voting to
clear police bureau in Klug case
BY EMILY GREEN
STAFF WRITER
1\ /I" att^ew Klug was justifiably
|%/| frustrated, and you could hear it in
X V Ahis voice as he pleaded with the
Citizen Review Committee, again and again,
to look at the evidence he’d brought to his
appeal hearing May 4.
The committee before him that evening is
an arm of the Independent Police Review
(IPR), staffed by volunteers, that oversees
appeal hearings when a complainant
disagrees with the findings of an
investigation into their complaint against the
Portland Police Bureau.
It’s their job to objectively listen to both
the bureau and the appellant, and then either
agree with bureau findings or challenge
them.
It was more than a year ago that the IPR
first received Klug’s complaint against police
for repeatedly using a Taser on him after he
was involved in a road rage incident while
riding his bicycle in Northwest Portland.
After multiple delays, his case seemed to
be finally nearing its conclusion.
At his first appeal hearing, it was
determined the police bureau’s internal
affairs’ investigation was incomplete -
investigators didn’t talk to any of the
witnesses who said, on the scene, that they
thought the Taser was unnecessary. It was
sent back for further investigation.
Then at Klug’s second appeal hearing on
April 20, no one from the police department
showed up - the bureau cited safety concerns
following a CRC meeting where an audience
member threw water at a CRC member on
March 30. The appeal hearing was
rescheduled.
Now, Klug was back before the committee
again, dressed to impress in a black suit and
tie, with a pile of supporting documents in
hand. The investigation was now complete
and members of the police department were
present, as the CRC had officially compelled
them to be there.
Before the committee voted in agreement
with police bureau findings to exonerate the
two sergeants, Klug repeatedly told its
members they were going to be basing their
decision on the wrong set of rules governing
Taser use.
The directive for stun guns has changed
numerous times over the years, and it was
important that the committée was referring
to the version of the rules that was in effect
on the day the incident occurred.
But they weren’t.
The version committee members had in
their possession - provided by the police
bureau - was not dated, but the version Klug
had brought with him - and provided the IPR
with in advance - was.
His was also signed by former Police Chief
Mike Reese and contained the dates that the
rules were effective, which he told the
committee emphatically several times as he
waived it before them, asking that they
simply look at it to see for themselves.
When a Police Bureau lieutenant offered
to list off the dates the rules had been
revised - which would have^ indicated Klug
had the correct version - acting committee
chair Julie Ramos said no.
Rather than taking a moment to compare
Klug’s document with the document in the
committee’s packets, the committee relied
on a representative for the defendant, the
police bureau, who told them they had the
right directive, but did not offer any proof or
documentation to substantiate the claim.
Instead, the representative from the police
said Klug must have the wrong version
because he was listing numbers that weren’t
a part of the directive in 2014.
“It’s not a mathematical equation, it’s
dates,” exclaimed an agitated Klug.
“We have the ones that were in place at
that point in time. We’re going to move on,”
said Ramos.
As it turns out, Klug had the correct
version of the directive all along, and it was
the committee who was looking at the wrong
version.
“It seemed like there was more interest in
getting to the end of the meeting than doing
due diligence,” said Portland Copwatch’s Dan
Handelman, who was at the hearing and tried
to make a point of order - which is allowed
under CRC rules - by reading a city code to
the committee that states it may take into
consideration the evidence Klug was futilely
attempting to present.
But the committee cut Handelman off
before he could finish reading the rule.
While the committee was referring to the
wrong version, it’s unlikely that having the
correct version would have ultimately made
any difference in its conclusion.
“It doesn’t matter whether it changes
anything,” said Handelman. “What matters is
that they were using the wrong one and they
insisted that they were using the right one,
and they refused to look at his.”
Handelman said the volunteer committee
members are likely burned out - they’re
meeting twice as often as directed in order to
speed up appeals, and many are young
professionals with full-time jobs, whereas in
the past, many members were retirees with
more time to review what can be 200-page
case files.
Handelman cried foul after Klug’s appeal
hearing, and sent an email to committee
members and the IPR, stating, “It appears
that the entire review of this incident was
done using the wrong Directive, and that the
CRC received bad instructions from City
personnel once again.... We are writing now
to interrupt the transmission of CRC’s votes
from last night before they are forwarded to
PHOTO BY EMILY GREEN
Members of the Independent Police Review Board, the Citizen Review Committee and police
watch the video of Matthew Klug’s Sept. 17, 2014, Tasing and arrest at a May 4 hearing.
the Bureau based on faulty information.”
Two days later, Klug received a letter from
IPR stating: “We have been informed by the
Portland Police Bureau that the incorrect
directive was used,” and “Police Bureau
Internal Affairs will be sending the
investigative case file back for the findings
process for review.”
Klug will have to go before the committee
for a fourth time when his appeal hearing is
rescheduled.
Klug’s ordeal began on Sept. 17, 2014. It
was two years after the U.S. Department of
Justice found Portland police had a “pattern
and practice” of using excessive force,
including unjustified stun gun use, against
people with mental illness.
Because Klug has a traumatic brain injury,
epilepsy and a diagnosed mental illness, his
case begs notice.
It illuminated multiple system pitfalls in
the city’s handling of citizen complaints
against the police bureau as it inched its way
through investigations, reviews, an appeal
and an additional investigation, as reported
by Street Roots in December - and now an
invalid decision by the Citizen Review
Committee based on bad information.
Throughout the complaint process, he’s
maintained he was riding his bicycle south on
Northwest 19th Avenue when a car “zipped
up behind” him in the bike lane and struck
his tire on that autumn afternoon in 2014.
A road-rage-fueled confrontation between
Klug and the motorist ensued a few blocks
later, and a police sergeantseveral cars back
in traffic heard the motorist yelling for help,
according to the police report the sergeant
filed.
The sergeant said he pulled up alongside
the motorist, and she told him Klug had
punched her windows while circling her
vehicle. The report indicated she was crying
and very upset.
The police sergeant found Klug several
blocks away from the motorist and he pulled
him over. He described the look on Klug’s
face as “pure anger.” The sergeant’s report
indicated that Klug repeatedly yelled, “Why
are you stopping me?” and that after he was
told it was regarding the incident with the
motorist, Klug shouted, “She hit me. Why are
you stopping me?”
The report noted Klug was uncooperative,
and his continuous movements and angry
yelling led the sergeant to believe Klug might
harm him - an assertion the CRC decided
was reasonable.
The sergeant later told investigators that
at one point, when he reached for his
weapon, removing the cover for easy access,
he recalled thinking “this behavior of Klug’s
was so abnormal and so seriously concerning
to me.”
He also said it never occurred to him Klug
might be displaying mental health symptoms.
At the appeal hearing, a police bureau
representative said the sergeant had
undergone crisis training, but he didn’t know
if that training had occurred before or after
the incident involving Klug - a seemingly
relevant piece of missing information.
If the sergeant had thought the incident
might be mental health related and had
called the bureau’s crisis unit instead of
calling for backup, the unit would have likely
arrived on the scene within about 5 to 10
minutes, depending on where in Portland
they were dispatched from, according to the
police bureau.
The two officers that arrived as backup
also noted in their reports that Klug’s
behavior was erratic, aggressive and
uncooperative.
The police struggled to get Klug into
handcuffs, as Klug continued to kick, yell and
try to wriggle out of their grip, according to
police reports.
Klug said he was scared because when the
officers approached him, they were holding
their weapons.
An officer stunned Klug with a Taser twice
directly, and then a third time through two
prongs that had been deployed and attached
to Klug’s back.
The Citizen Review Committee discovered
Klug was stunned a fourth time, but the
bureau said it was likely an accidental
deployment of the Taser, which drew concern
from committee members.
According to witness statements taken on
the scene and during a follow-up
investigation, Klug was exhibiting behavior
that led witnesses to believe he was in the
throes of a mental health crisis immediately
before Portland police deployed the Taser
multiple times.
It was stated in the appeal summary that
the citizen witness who captured a video of
the incident indicated, “it seemed that he
was an individual with mental health issues
or serious social behavior issues.”
The motorist declined to press any
charges against Klug. However, prosecutors
charged him with, menacing, disorderly
conduct, interfering with a peace officer,
resisting arrest, attempted assault of a public
safety officer and attempted escape.
All the charges were later dropped in
exchange for Klug dismissing the $5 million
lawsuit he filed against the city, alleging
police used a Taser on him multiple times
without probable cause.