Public experts urge restoring 120‑hour evidence window and trauma‑informed training in Eugene police sexual‑assault policy
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
Two subject‑matter experts and detectives told the Eugene Police Committee the draft sexual‑assault procedure should reaffirm a 120‑hour evidence‑collection window and embed trauma‑informed interviewing (FETI/FEDI exposure plus advocacy training), while detectives cautioned against narrow certification that can complicate prosecutions.
Two outside experts and Eugene police detectives debated changes to the police department’s draft sexual‑assault procedure during the Eugene Police Committee meeting on Jan. 8.
Daniel Brown, who identified himself as general counsel and Title IX coordinator at Lane Community College, urged the committee to require trauma‑informed interviewer qualifications and to keep the evidence‑collection window at 120 hours rather than 84. “I would encourage you to put in the qualifications for an interviewer to have a training similar to FEDI or the actual FEDI training,” Brown said, adding that the Oregon attorney general’s task force still recommends 120 hours for evidence collection.
Elise Brown, a locally practicing SANE nurse examiner, told the committee she checked with regional providers and credentialing bodies and said they continue to recommend a 120‑hour window. “International Association of Forensic Nursing … still recommends 120 hours,” she said, and she warned that shortening the window could limit survivors’ ability to access care and evidence collection.
Detective Travis Cooper and other department investigators told the committee they supported wider trauma‑informed exposure for all responding officers while cautioning that formal, rarely used certifications can create problems in prosecution. Cooper described how patrol officers typically take the initial report and seize perishable evidence, then violent‑crimes sergeants triage and assign cases to detectives. He said investigators prefer “basic who, what, when, where, why, how” questions delivered in open‑ended, trauma‑informed ways rather than an inflexible checklist of technical queries.
Committee members pressed on two related points: whether the policy should define a category of “qualified investigator,” and how to balance frequent patrol first‑response needs with the advantage of specialized interviewer training. The chief and detectives noted that detectives are not a 24/7 resource, that some certified interview skills are perishable, and that using specialized partners (for example, child‑advocacy centers for certain interviews) can reduce trial vulnerability while preserving best practices.
By the end of the discussion staff said they would restore the 120‑hour language where appropriate and invited written recommendations from the public commenters to be folded into a revised draft. Several commissioners asked to see submitted written comments before voting; one commissioner recommended postponing a final vote for a month to allow staff to incorporate the feedback. The committee did not adopt final changes to policy 3.4 tonight.
