On the agenda: Eugene meeting — License Plate Reader (Feb 10)

City of Eugene

CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD
It is the mission of the Civilian Review Board to provide fair and impartial oversight and review of internal
investigations conducted by the City of Eugene Police Department involving allegations of police misconduct, use of
force and other matters. The Board will strive to build trust and confidence within the community and to ensure that
complaints are handled fairly, thoroughly and adjudicated reasonably. The Board will encourage community
involvement and transparency in order to promote the principles of community policing in the City of Eugene.

Civilian Review Board Meeting Agenda
Hybrid Meeting
Tuesday, February 10, 2026 – 5:30pm
Attend in Person: 101 East Broadway, Suite 230 Eugene, OR
Attend Via Webinar: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/85307932771
Passcode: Feb26CRB
Accessibility: The meeting will be held virtually. For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48
hours’ notice prior to the meeting. Se puede proveer interpretación al español con un aviso de 48 horas. To arrange
for these services / Para reservar estos servicios: 541-682-5016, [email protected].
A completed Request to Speak Form is required for providing Public Comment. Forms must be submitted by email
to [email protected] as early as 15 minutes before, but no later than 15 minutes after the meeting has
been called to order.

Item

Time (Starting)

1. Agenda and Materials Review

5 minutes (5:30pm)

2. Minutes Approval (Minutes from December meeting)

5 minutes (5:35pm)

3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons

10 minutes (5:40pm)

4. Training: Law Enforcement Identification

15 minutes (5:50pm)

5. Case Review: One Service Level Complaint

5 minutes (6:05pm)

6. Break

5 minutes (6:10pm)

7. Case Review: Two Incident Review Level Complaints

60 minutes (6:15pm)

8. Auditor Report

10 minutes (7:15pm)

9. Public Comment

5 minutes (7:25pm)

10. Closing Comments

15 minutes (7:30pm)

11. Adjourn

7:45 pm
Next Meeting:
March 10, 2025
101 E. Broadway Suite 230  Eugene, Oregon 97401
Phone (541) 682-5016  Fax (541) 682-5599
www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor

February 2026

Monthly Update
City of Eugene Independent Police Auditor’s Office

IN THIS
ISSUE:

Auditor’s Update
Community
Engagement
Complaint & Use of
Force Volume
Open & Closed
Case Reports
Upcoming Meetings
& Closures

February Updates
Auditor’s Update
This year marks a milestone for the Office of the Independent
Police Auditor! In 2004, a review of Eugene’s police oversight
system set the stage for the City Council to establish our office in
October 2006. This October, we’ll celebrate 20 years of
independent police oversight. Over the past two decades, and
amid national conversations on police accountability, we’ve
remained committed to ensuring oversight that reflects the values
of the Eugene community. Planning is underway for an event to
honor this anniversary and highlight our accomplishments. Stay
tuned for details!
In January, our office received several complaints regarding law
enforcement response to activity at the Federal Building. While we
cannot review the conduct of other law enforcement agencies, we
can investigate whether any Eugene Police Department policies or
procedures were violated. A preliminary investigation is underway,
and we’ll share updates as they become available. Mayor Knudson,
Chief Skinner, and I also released a joint statement concerning
federal enforcement activities. We remain committed to
transparency and accountability in all public safety matters.
Craig Renetzky
Police Auditor

Community Engagement
This past month, we continued building meaningful connections and fostering collaboration across
our community. Our team participated in key events to strengthen ties, including the Cal Young
Neighbors meeting, Police Commission and Human Rights Commission meetings, the State of the
City Address, and tabling at the Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration at the Shedd Institute. We
also supported bilingual access through an Employee Resource Center benefits translation.
Additionally, Police Auditor Craig Renetzky and staff met with staff from the 4J school district, Lane
County Deflection Program, Community Supported Shelters, LILA, Latino community leaders, and
others. These efforts reflect our ongoing commitment to listening, learning, and building trust
throughout Eugene.
We’re also excited to share that our recent recruitment period for the Civilian Review Board was a
success. We received 16 applications to fill three open positions. A subcommittee will meet on
February 12 to review applications and vote on advisory recommendations for City Council. The new
members will begin their terms in July 2026. Thank you to everyone who helped spread the word and
encouraged community participation!

Auditor Renetzky speaks on a panel
alongside Jensina Hawkins and
Chief Skinner, answering questions
from the Cal Young Neighbors
Association (right).
Beatriz Otero Hernández speaks to
a community partner while tabling
at the MLK Jr. Celebration. (bottom)

Complaint & Use of Force Volume
Our office received 35 complaints in January and reviewed 8 reportable uses of force. Eugene Police
Department employees also received a total of 16 commendations last month.

Closed Cases
Report
January 2026
Classification

SubClassification

Received date

Disposition

Allegations Formatted

Allegation of
Criminal
Conduct

Conformance
to Laws

1/4/2026

Dismissed-o/s
jurisdic

RP alleged a Medford officer
engaged in criminal activity.

Allegation of
Misconduct

Performance

1/13/2026

Dismissed-alt
remedy

RP alleged an employee violated
policy regarding his/her work
absence usage.

Open Cases
Report
January 2026
Classification

SubClassification

Inquiry

Inquiry

Status

Received
date

Disposition

Narrative

Completed

1/2/2026

Supervisor
ReviewClosed

RP complained an EPD press
release contained false
statements.

Active

RP complained an
investigation was mishandled,
and his/her request for public
records was ignored.

1/2/2026

RP complained an officer
failed to arrest to two
individuals for their conduct.

Inquiry

Completed

1/6/2026

DismissedOther

Inquiry

Completed

1/14/2026

Supervisor
ReviewClosed

RP complained officers acted
wrongly and mishandled an
investigation.

1/18/2026

Dismissedprev
reviewed

RP complained he/she was
improperly surveilled by EPD
and other law enforcement
agencies.
RP reported a heated dispute
with a neighbor over dog
feces.

Inquiry

Completed

Inquiry

Completed

1/22/2026

Supervisor
ReviewClosed

Inquiry

Completed

1/28/2026

Dismissedprev
reviewed

RP complained an
investigation lacked adequate
follow-up.
RP complained an officer
acted improperly and was
rude.

Service
Complaint

Courtesy

Completed

1/2/2026

DismissedOther

Service
Complaint

Performance

Completed

1/5/2026

Dismissed-EE
Not Identif

RP complained an officer
drove his/her patrol vehicle
improperly.

DismissedOther

RP complained officers
mishandled a pyrotechnic
incident.

Service
Complaint

Performance

Completed

1/5/2026

Service
Complaint

Service level

Active

1/5/2026

RP complained EPD failed to
address his/her safety
concerns.

Open Cases
Report
January 2026
Classification

Service
Complaint

SubClassification

Performance

Status

Completed

Received date

1/6/2026

Disposition

Narrative

DismissedOther

RP complained an eviction
was mishandled and personal
property was improperly
disposed of.

Service
Complaint

Performance

Completed

1/9/2026

DismissedOther

RP complained a
communication center
specialist was dismissive of
his/her call.

Service
Complaint

Performance

Completed

1/12/2026

Dismissedo/s jurisdic

RP complained public works
improperly disposed of
his/her property.

1/14/2026

Dismissedalt remedy

RP complained an officer
mishandled a traffic accident
investigation.

1/19/2026

Dismissedo/s jurisdic

RP complained public works
improperly disposed of
his/her property.

Completed

1/20/2026

Supervisor
ReviewClosed

RP complained an officer
failed to properly address a
life or death matter.

Completed

1/21/2026

DismissedOther

RP complained an officer
improperly operated a patrol
vehicle.

Service
Complaint

Service
Complaint

Service
Complaint

Service
Complaint

Performance

Performance

Service level

Performance

Completed

Completed

Service
Complaint

Service level

Completed

1/23/2026

Administrati
vely Closed

RP complained about the EPD
reporting process and
expressed dissatisfaction
with an officer.

Service
Complaint

Performance

Completed

1/26/2026

DismissedOther

RP complained officers used
unnecessary force on
him/her.

1/27/2026

DismissedOther

RP complained an officer
improperly handed a dispute
regarding vehicle parking.

Service
Complaint

Performance

Completed

Open Cases
Report
January 2026
Classification

SubClassification

Status

Received date

Service
Complaint

Performance

Initial

1/27/2026

Disposition

Narrative
RP complained an officer
improperly drove his/her
patrol motorcycle.

Supervisor
ReviewClosed

RP complained that EPD did
not provide free Narcan to
the community.

Policy
Complaint

Completed

1/20/2026

Policy
Complaint

Active

1/20/2026

RP complained the public
records request fees existed
(were charged).

Active

1/27/2026

RP complained a sexual
assault investigation was
mishandled.

Policy
Complaint

Incident
Review

Conduct

Completed

1/7/2026

Supervisor
ReviewClosed

RP alleged officers engaged
in prohibited political activity
while on-duty.

Allegation of
Criminal
Conduct

Conformance
to Laws

Completed

1/4/2026

Dismissedo/s jurisdic

RP alleged a Medford officer
engaged in criminal activity.

Allegation of
Misconduct

Performance

Completed

1/13/2026

Dismissedalt remedy

RP alleged an employee
violated policy regarding
his/her work absence usage.

Upcoming Meetings, Events,
and Closures
Feb. 10: Civilian Review Board Meeting

Follow us to stay informed!
@EugenePoliceAuditor

Feb 12: CRB Application Review
Subcommittee Meeting
Feb 12: Police Commission Meeting
Feb 16: Presidents’ Day - Office Closure
Feb 18: Council Work Session on LPR

@Eugene_IPA
Independent Police Auditor City of Eugene

Technology

Contact us:
101 East Broadway, Ste. 230
Eugene, OR, 97401
541-682-5016
[email protected]

Submit complaints &
commendations 24/7
via our Public Portal

Civilian Review Board (CRB)
Held in person at 101 East Broadway Suite 230 Eugene, OR 97401
and via Zoom webinar
December 9, 2025
5:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chair Jose Cortez, Vice Chair Elise Josephson, Clay Neal (online), Noah Coon Britni
D’Eliso, Rick Roseta, and Joshua Burstein
ABSENT: None
INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR’S OFFICE STAFF: Craig Renetzky, Lindsey Foltz, Robert
Eller, Amanda Cordova, and Beatriz Otero Hernandez
EUGENE POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFF: Detective John Jensen, Officer Owen Griffith, Deputy
Chief Shawn Adams, and Community Service Officer (CSO) Supervisor Paul Bishop
OTHER: None
Chair Jose Cortez convened the Civilian Review Board (CRB) at 5:32 p.m. and read a land
acknowledgement statement.
1. Agenda and Materials Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
2. Minutes Approval (October 14, 2025) attachment
MOTION: Josephson moved, seconded by Roseta, to approve the October 14, 2025 meeting
minutes as amended.
VOTE: 6:0:0 PASSED
IN FAVOR: Chair Cortez, Vice Chair Josephson, Britni D’Eliso, Noah Coon, Joshua Burstein, and
Rick Roseta
Clay Neal was not present for the motion.
3. Training Topic: Community Service Officer
Eugene Police Department (EPD) Community Service Officer (CSO) Supervisor Paul Bishop provided
professional and personal background information by way of an introduction.
He said the EPD CSO program started in the early 1970s with one position. Today, the CSO department
includes 15 FTE positions. Currently, there are 10 full-time staff members and four supervisors. He
described CSOs as unarmed, nonsworn, professionally trained officers who are members of the operation
support division of the police department. They provide a wide variety of services including managing an
online reporting system and supporting traffic crashes/hazards, traffic direction for major incidences (such
Civilian Review Board

December 9, 2025

1

as sporting events), parking violations, safety hazards, cold residential and business burglaries, frauds,
scams, SANE kit pickups, animal welfare, recovered stolen property, found property/contraband, criminal
mischief, missing persons, runaways, and patrol support. Bishop noted that it is not an exhaustive list. He
added that their department receives an average of 30-50 online reports per day, an average of 15,000
online reports per year. They also oversee and manage guardian trailers, mobile command bus/units, radar
trailers, and meridian barriers. CSOs wear gray button-down shirts that also serve as bullet resistant vests.
Chair Cortez asked if the police department benefits from CSOs being less expensive than police officers.
Bishop agreed. He added that CSOs receive more forensic training than police officers do.
Josephson asked Bishop if he sees a pipeline for CSOs to become police officers.
Bishop responded affirmatively.
4. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons
Neal provided a report from the Police Commission, which met twice since the last CRB meeting. He
stated that there were multiple conversations about Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology
and the associated policy. He reminded Board members that the Police Commission approved a policy
related to ALPR technology prior to City Council’s discussions about the use of the technology within
EPD. He noted that EPD will no longer be contracting with a specific vendor. He summarized that EPD
had used ALPR technology successfully but there were community concerns about its impact on privacy.
5. Case Review: 1 Service Level Complaint
Eller provided a PowerPoint presentation of the case summary, as follows:





In September of 2025, the Reporting Party (RP) said EPD officers told him or her that his or her
property would be handled in a certain manner post arrest. The RP complained his or her property
was impounded and the retrieval cost was too expensive.
Classified as an inquiry, the RP’s complaint was reviewed by members of the Independent Police
Auditor’s Office.
The review of the incident determined no policy violations were made by EPD and the complaint
was dismissed.

Adjudication and General Discussion
Josephson agreed with the classification. She highlighted a potential need to provide reasonable
coordination for proper storage and retrieval of personal property.
D’Eliso agreed with the classification. She added that the case reveals a problem within the community.
Roseta agreed with the classification. He questioned if the cooperation of the RP was a problem and a
leading reason for the dismissal.

Civilian Review Board

December 9, 2025

2

Ms. Foltz responded that because everything was handled in accordance with policy means that it would
be dismissed.
Roseta asked if it is typical that the amount of money that it costs to retrieve items impound is high.
Foltz responded that she does not know.
Jensen added that costs are incurred through the business who impounds the vehicle(s).
Chair Cortez clarified for the record that EPD does not set the fees associated with impounds.
Coon agreed with the classification. He offered a suggestion related to retrieval of the vehicle(s).
Chair Cortez agreed with the classification.
Neal agreed with the classification. He questioned if the Police Commission should create a different
policy related to the specific type of property involved in the case.
6. Case Review: Allegation of Criminal Conduct: Conformance to Laws (Allegations Regarding Use
of Force, Conduct, and Body Worn Video)
Eller provided a PowerPoint presentation of the case summary, as follows:












In January 2025, officers were dispatched to an address in Eugene regarding an allegation of
criminal activity. Officer A and Officer B arrived on scene and investigated the complaint.
Officer B requested the individual (Arrestee) believed to be involved in criminal activity to speak
with him/her. The Arrestee complied with the officer’s request, and they spoke for several
minutes.
Officer B maintained contact with the Arrestee while Officer A contacted the individuals who
reported the criminal activity. When Officer A arrived at Officer B’s location, he/she (Officer A)
detained the Arrestee in handcuffs.
As the officers escorted the Arrestee to the front of the patrol vehicle, he/she yelled to his/her
spouse and resisted (pulled away from) the officers. Officer A then delivered multiple focused
blows to the Arrestee and followed the strikes with two dry stun taser deployments. The Arrestee
was taken into custody and charged with trespassing and resisting arrest.
Supervisor A met with Officer A and discussed the incident. During the conversation, Supervisor
A directed both parties mute their active body-worn cameras.
In Officer A’s Internal Affairs (IA) interview, he/she was questioned about the interactions with
the Arrestee. Officer A stated he/she had safety concerns with the Arrestee. Officer A
explained/justified the use of force because of the Arrestee’s failure to follow instructions,
threatening behavior, and resistance.
In Supervisor A’s IA interview, he/she stated the BWV cameras were muted to discuss
investigative strategies.

Summary of Allegations

Civilian Review Board

December 9, 2025

3

1. 800.2 Use of Force: That Officer A used force in excess of that which was reasonably necessary
under the circumstances, when he/she repeatedly struck the Arrestee, after he/she was
handcuffed, during his/her arrest in January 2025.
2. 800.2 Use of Force: That Officer A used force in excess of that which was reasonably necessary
under the circumstances, when he/she discharged his/her taser multiple times on the Arrestee,
after he/she was handcuffed, during his/her arrest in January 2025.
3. 103.5.9.e Conduct: That Officer A’s actions, demeanor, and treatment of the Arrestee was
unprofessional, unbecoming, and brought him/her and the department into disrepute.
4. 1203.7.4 Body Worn Camera: That Supervisor A muted his/her Body Worn Camera in violation
of policy.
Eller presented adjudication recommendations, as follows:
Officer A Use of Force:
Chain of Command - Sgt/Lt/Cpt/DC: Sustained
Chief: Sustained
Auditor: Sustained
Officer A Use of Force:
Chain of Command - Sgt/Lt/Cpt/DC: Not Sustained
Chief: Sustained
Auditor: Sustained
Officer A Conduct:
Chain of Command - Sgt/Lt/Cpt/DC: Sustained
Chief: Sustained
Auditor: Sustained
Officer A Body-Worn Video:
Chain of Command - Sgt/Lt/Cpt/DC: Not Sustained
Chief: Within Policy
Auditor: Within Policy
Supervisor A Body-Worn Video:
Chain of Command - Sgt/Lt/Cpt/DC: Sustained
Chief: Sustained
Auditor: Sustained
Complaint, Intake, Classification, and Monitoring Discussion
D’Eliso said she appreciated the case being selected. She asked if the Arrestee was the source of the
complaint.
Civilian Review Board

December 9, 2025

4

Foltz responded that the case was flagged internally and by the Arrestee.
D’Eliso sought clarification about the timeline, intake process, and other involved jurisdictions.
Foltz provided further context.
Roseta agreed with the intake and classification.
Neal asked for further clarification about the origin of the criminal complaint.
Foltz implied that classification occurs within the Auditor’s Office (AO).
Neal asked how many criminal complaints have been generated within the AO in the past year.
Foltz estimated that one to three criminal complaints have been generated within the AO in the past year.
Neal asked sought clarification about the adjudication classifications.
Foltz described their reasoning for the adjudication classifications.
Chair Cortez sought further clarification about the intake process.
Foltz described the AO’s process regarding use of force, including a daily viewing of police reports and
body worn footage. She stated that after reviewing the footage, the case was flagged by the AO and IA.
Josephson agreed with the intake and classification. She asked why adherence to laws was not included.
Foltz said they decided not to write against that because the criminal investigation was complete and it
felt like the administrative investigation against the policies was most appropriate.
Relevant Policies and Practices; Training Considerations Discussion
Eller stated that an officer must have some ability to control a person in handcuffs who outweighs him/her
and/or poses some risk to him/her. He cited a stun/taser exceptionality and asked for further clarification.
Foltz responded that there is a specific way (dry stun) to use a taser for pain compliance, which may be
used as an exception if there is a danger that cannot be overcome.
Chief Adams added further context about defensive tactics and observed that Officer A utilized an
inappropriate tactic for the situation.
Burstein observed that there were two officers and a supervisor present on the scene. He asked for further
context around protocols.
Chief Adams responded that generally if there is one suspect they want to have two police officers, citing
strength in numbers. He confirmed that in this instance there were two officers, and yet there was poor
Civilian Review Board

December 9, 2025

5

communication between them. He noted that the second officer was new to the position, and ultimately it
was him who succeeded in calming the suspect down and getting him to comply.
Neal brought attention to a possible need for training around body worn video, specifically when it is
valid to mute or turn off body worn video.
Chief Adams responded that policy generally states that police officers may not mute their body cameras.
Neal suggested the police department consider asking supervisors if the training feels like it is in line with
policy.
Chief Adams assured Neal that EPD raises the topic regularly.
Eller asked Chief Adams if he believes the policy will change.
Chief Adams responded he does not think the policy will change.
Coon observed that Officer A never communicated a fear of force coming from the Arrestee. He asked if
it is standard that one would communicate with the other officer present about a reasonable fear of force.
Chief Adams responded that it is a nuanced question. He said there is not a specified dialogue between
the two officers. If there is a threat they are aware of going in, officers may discuss tactics (i.e. if this
happens this is what we will do). Otherwise, he said, the approach is intrinsic.
At Foltz’s request, Chief Adams provided more context about how police officers are trained to approach
multi officer scenes.
Chair Cortez asked how long EPD has been using body worn video.
Griffith confirmed that EPD has been using body worn video since around 2011 – six years later it was
used widely on patrol.
Foltz pointed out that EPD has a very high level of compliance regarding the use of body worn cameras.
Adjudication
Neal agreed with the Chief and AO adjudication recommendations.
Coon agreed with the Chief and AO on the first three adjudication recommendations. He stated Within
Policy regarding the fourth allegation and Sustained regarding the fifth allegation.
Chair Cortez agreed with the Chief and AO adjudication recommendations.
Josephson agreed with the Chief and AO adjudication recommendations.
D’Eliso agreed with the Chief and AO adjudication recommendations.

Civilian Review Board

December 9, 2025

6

Roseta agreed with the Chief and AO adjudication recommendations.
7. Public Comment
There were no requests to provide public comment.
8. Auditor Report
Auditor Renetzky highlighted the Citizen Police Academy happening March 4 through May 6, 2026.
He mentioned that CRB member head shots are scheduled to occur prior to/during the February 2026
meeting. In the new year the AO will be updating their feedback survey. He mentioned that upcoming
training topics include Emergency Vehicle Operator Course (EVOC); and members may submit topics.
Auditor Renetzky recognized Chief Adams for his service at EPD.
9. Closing Comments
CRB members offered sincere thanks to Chief Adams for his service at EPD and contributions to the
Board.
10. Adjournment
Chair Cortez adjourned the CRB meeting at 7:26 p.m.

(Minutes transcribed by Terah Van Dusen, LCOG)

Civilian Review Board

December 9, 2025

7