Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Independent auditor finds Eureka Police response to Cal Poly Humboldt protest aligned with best practices; auditors call for clearer mutual‑aid command and de‑f
Summary
An OIR Group review told the Eureka City Council that while EPD officers used measured force and acted professionally during the April 22 Cal Poly Humboldt protest, the incident exposed gaps in planning, unified command and mutual‑aid coordination; the auditors issued six recommendations and EPD committed to training and multiagency debriefs.
The Eureka City Council on Aug. 6 received a report from the city’s independent police auditor (OIR Group) on the Eureka Police Department’s (EPD) April 22 response to a protest at Cal Poly Humboldt.
Chief Stevens described the mutual‑aid request and EPD’s actions, saying he first authorized a small response—"I authorized the request"—to assist Cal Poly personnel who had asked for help to arrest approximately 25 people occupying Siemens Hall. Stevens said the initial response was one sergeant and four officers; as the situation escalated and a county‑wide Code 30 was issued, he recalled additional personnel and ultimately had about 20 EPD personnel on scene. Chief Stevens said officers encountered thrown cans, paint and physical assaults and that three officers sustained injuries during the initial altercation.
Julie Ruhlin and Teresa Magula of OIR Group presented their review, which analyzed hours of body‑worn camera and public videos, written reports and EPD interviews. The auditors concluded EPD ‘‘stepped into a situation that was different than what they expected’’ but that "the EPD response was in alignment with best practices around crowd management and use of force." They identified four broad areas for improvement—command and control, planning and contingency operations, mutual‑aid agreements and a formal critical‑incident review process—and recommended multiagency debriefs, a mutual‑aid agreement to clarify command relationships and sending personnel to mobile field‑force training. The auditors said several of their recommendations already had been adopted or were in progress.
Council members asked detailed follow‑up questions about the auditors’ recommendations, risk assessments, what a Code 30 request means (a county‑wide request for immediate assistance), and whether formal written mutual‑aid agreements exist. The auditors and city staff said mutual aid in Humboldt County is often an understood practice rather than an elaborate written agreement and recommended written expectations and templates to govern future responses. Chief Stevens said EPD will send personnel to additional training and pursue multiagency debriefs to implement lessons learned.
The report was received for the record; council directed staff to return with future agenda items to review mutual‑aid arrangements and implementation progress on the auditor’s recommendations.
