Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Officer Identification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chiefs and DPSST outline Oregon officer identification rules and training; sheriff urges 'go beyond statute'
Summary
Police leaders and DPSST officials told the committees Oregon law requires officers to provide name and identification numbers when safe; agencies widely supplement statute with policies (Lexipol) and local practices for visible identifiers and training; federal officers in joint operations follow federal policies, presenters said.
Chief Mike Krantz, Professional Standards Director Marie Atwood (DPSST) and Marion County Sheriff Nick Cutrum told the joint committees that clear, consistent officer identification is central to transparency and community trust.
Kranz (Chief Krantz) reviewed statutory requirements for officer identification and crowd operations, saying officers must provide name and an agency‑assigned identifier (or DPSST number) upon request when safe and practical; in crowd operations officers in larger jurisdictions must display name or unique identifiers on uniforms and helmets. He said Oregon agencies commonly use Lexipol, a standardized policy manual, to keep agency policies aligned with state law and best practices.
Marie Atwood described DPSST’s training and certification responsibilities, explaining the curriculum covers verbal ID, conspicuous display, authority notice during stops and vehicular‑stop training. She outlined DPSST’s complaint and compliance process — agencies conduct initial internal reviews, and DPSST reviews referrals to determine whether certification suspension or revocation is warranted.
Sheriff Nick Cutrum emphasized local practice, saying many agencies go beyond statute (contrasting patrol, detectives, and crowd units), and urged uniforms and contrasting/reflective colors to improve visibility and de‑escalation. On citizen verification, presenters said citizens may photograph encounters if not interfering; business cards, badges and body cameras also help identify officers. On federal officers, presenters said federal personnel operate under their own policies during joint operations and cannot be compelled by state statute to follow state uniform rules.
Committee members asked who pays for uniforms (agencies typically do) and how agencies train for rural verification scenarios. Presenters said uniforms are generally agency‑funded and emphasized field training (FTEP) for practical skills beyond academy basics.
The committee requested follow‑up material on DV/practical verification and noted concerns about differing uniforms (university public safety vs. municipal police) causing confusion in the field.
