Portland committee hears update on federal settlement, DOJ requests and timeline for final termination

Deputy City Attorney Heidi Brown told the Community and Public Safety Committee on Nov. 18 that the city’s settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice — entered into the record in 2014 following an investigation into patterns and practices by the Portland Police Bureau — remains active but has been amended and partially terminated in places.

The committee heard historical context from Reverend Dr. Leroy Haynes Jr. of the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition for Justice and Police Reform, who traced the coalition’s advocacy through high-profile cases that prompted the DOJ review. Brown then outlined the settlement’s substantive sections — including use of force (with particular attention to taser policy), training, community-based mental health services, crisis intervention, an employee information system (EIS), officer accountability, and community engagement via the Portland Committee on Community Engaged Policing (PCCEP). "We entered into and the court accepted this in 2014," Brown said, describing the compliance and monitoring framework.

Brown said the city achieved substantial compliance on many paragraphs in 2020 but that COVID-19, the 2020 protests after George Floyd’s murder, and wildfires disrupted training, reporting and other requirements. Those disruptions prompted a 2021 DOJ letter of concern and subsequent mediation; the city and DOJ reached amendments in 2022 that added eight new paragraphs and created a framework of "discrete sections" for monitoring. Brown said roughly 40 percent of paragraphs have been terminated and many sections have moved from monitoring to self-monitoring, but that seven paragraphs across six discrete sections still remained in partial compliance in the monitor’s draft. "We're looking at at least two years out," she said, meaning a year in substantial compliance followed by a year of self-monitoring before eligibility for dismissal on remaining sections.

Brown described several concrete changes she said the city has implemented since the settlement: an enhanced crisis-intervention training curriculum for officers, the institution of a body-worn camera program, a dedicated overtime line for PPB training, and expanded investigatory responsibility for the Independent Police Review (IPR) to include higher ranks for certain reviews. "The use of tasers, particularly in people in a mental health crisis or who are mentally ill, has significantly decreased," she said.

Brown also informed the committee of recent enforcement friction with DOJ. On Oct. 3, 2025, DOJ sent an extensive document request the city characterized as seeking records tied to arrests and enforcement actions and (according to Brown) alleging viewpoint discrimination rather than alleging new excessive-force findings. The City Attorney’s Office responded on Oct. 6 and again after a follow-up request on Oct. 29 by treating the submissions as Oregon public records requests and declining to provide the broader access DOJ sought under the settlement. Brown said the city, the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition and the Mental Health Alliance are "standing in solidarity" opposing what she called an improper expansion of DOJ enforcement. Brown noted two separate complaints alleging viewpoint discrimination had been filed: one by a group identified in the presentation as the American First League and another by counsel for Nick Sorter.

Committee members pressed for clarity about what has "changed in practice" rather than process: Councilor Zimmerman asked what the community should expect differently now than in earlier years. Brown cited training and reduced taser use as concrete examples but acknowledged the monitor’s evolving interpretation of compliance has complicated a clear single narrative: "There have been significant changes," she said, "and that's been our position — to return control over the police bureau to the city council and to the mayor when appropriate."

Public speakers during the item later connected these updates to ongoing local harms and workforce questions. Mental-health advocates told the committee the settlement’s core work on reducing lethal force against people with mental illness remains unfinished, while union-aligned testimony raised concerns about protections for IPR employees amid a transition to a new oversight office.

The committee did not take a formal enforcement action at the meeting; Brown said the next court hearing on the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 6, and she offered to return with additional information after that hearing.

The committee’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Dec. 9 at 2:30 p.m.