The Eugene Police Auditor Review Board reviewed three service-level complaints and closed them without sustained policy violations, and it discussed a separate May 2025 professionalism allegation involving officers’ response to a suicidal subject who had been inhaling nitrous oxide.

On procedural business, the board moved to approve the minutes from its September meeting and the motion passed; one member, Josh, abstained because he was not on the board in September. Chair Cortez called the vote and a board member confirmed “Correct. 1 abstention.”

Case summaries presented by auditor’s office staff described the three dismissed service complaints:
- A May 2025 complaint in which a reporting party alleged Eugene Police Department mishandled property and that a shotgun had been destroyed. The auditor’s review, including Independent Police Lawyer’s Office review, found no policy violation; the RP was given instructions for retrieval and the complaint was dismissed.
- A May 2025 complaint alleging failure to respond to a late-2024 break-in. The incident was not identifiable in dispatch records and was dismissed as not identifiable.
- An August 2025 complaint alleging a mishandled investigation and an improper arrest. The auditor’s office reviewed available materials and dismissed the complaint as untimely under the ordinance’s timeliness requirement.

On timeliness, board members and staff discussed the ordinance’s limitation windows and the “except for good cause” provision. Lindsay of the auditor’s office said there is a statutory provision that allows review outside the time window in extraordinary circumstances: “there is a provision in the ordinance, this language that says except for good cause.” Board members said the time bar exists for reasons similar to statutes of limitations—memory loss, witness availability and fairness—and that changing the window would require a council-level change and likely negotiations.

The meeting’s most substantive review was a May 2025 allegation of unprofessional conduct during two responses to a suicidal subject. The auditor’s summary said four officers responded; the subject repeatedly inhaled from a large nitrous oxide canister and at one point reported leg paralysis. Officer A used a foot to contact the subject’s leg to test for paralysis; later Officer A removed a knife, “pretended to throw the knife into a field,” and the conduct was described as ineffective. The subject was taken into custody and placed on a mental‑health hold at Riverbend Hospital; the auditor’s materials noted the reporting party later died.

The auditor’s report listed a single allegation of professionalism: that Officer A engaged in disrespectful conduct and did not provide courteous service. The auditor’s office recommended “sustained, chain of command” for the allegation, while interview summaries show the chief’s adjudication found the officers’ actions were within department policy. The officer interviewed acknowledged the knife-throw tactic was ineffective and, when asked, stated that after seeing how the subject reacted, they did not think they had provided courteous service.

Board members discussed whether the conduct fit professionalism, courtesy or judgment classifications and considered the context of two distinct contacts, training in suicide intervention, and the practical choices officers make in the field. Several members said they found the intake, review and classification by the auditor’s office appropriate and that, on balance, the department’s adjudication and the totality of circumstances supported a finding that actions were within policy. Members also emphasized the broader policy issue: a need for more community resources and mobile crisis coverage so police are not the only response for behavioral‑health crises.

The board did not change the chief’s adjudication at the meeting. Members recommended continuing outreach about filing timelines, and staff noted complaint volumes have increased since outreach began. Auditor Craig reported 45 complaints in September and said the office’s outreach work, including media and community events, is ongoing.

Board members closed the meeting by welcoming newly appointed member Josh, and by thanking staff and two officers who participated during the case review.