A study by the Force Science Institute, involving officers from 22 agencies in both Oregon and Washington sought to examine how officers react under stressful conditions and how they remember a scene after the fact. The findings are notable and show that officer “mistakes” are often not deliberate or due to inattention, but caused in part by how fast a scenario happens and the adrenaline involved.

“The Traffic Stop Study” was conducted by the Force Science Institute, a research center out of Mankato Minnesota, in Hillsboro. More than 90 officers participated. It was held in a business garage, according to the Oregonian, where white walls and tile floors provided little distraction.

Officers were tested by a researcher posing as a speeding driver. After communicating with the “driver”, police officers would find the man to be paranoid and speaking strangely. This was to get them distracted from the physical threat. Then, the driver would take assaultive action with a weapon concealed somewhere in the vehicle.

Officers were asked to record what happened after the event. Most forgot important details. For example, one officer remembered seeing a weapon, but didn’t remember hearing shots fired. They would also forget things like what was said leading up to the shooting and how they reacted, jumping behind a vehicle, for instance.

The cops would be shown a video of the scenario, outlining everything they had missed when writing their report.

“What I thought I did and what I did were similar but different,” said one officer. “That’s what scares me about stuff like this – our perception is our reality.”

The testing also showed officers how what they perceive can be different from what actually happens. Most officers in tense situations such as the one in the research doubt their actions and believe they move too slowly. But the research shows despite their actual response time, the officers feel like they are moving in slow motion, possibly due to the adrenaline.

We often expect police officers to remember precise details of a crime scene or emergency situation, but “that’s not at all realistic,” says Alexis Artwohl, an expert on police stress and retired police psychologist. “They are trained observers, but they are also human beings. There are biological limitations to what they can do.”

The departments involved hope the study findings can help keep officers safer on the job and they might play a role in changing law enforcement training on a national level.

Could adrenaline play a role in an officer making dramatic mistakes on a police report? Sure, having the court acknowledge a mistaken officer is quite another story.

If you’ve been charged with a criminal offense and have questions about the police’s version of events, contact us today to discuss your rights and what can be done. We can challenge the officer’s report in court and work to get you the most positive results possible on your case.

If you have multiple convictions for DUII, you will be required to have one. Under a law passed in 2011, if you are a first-time offender placed on diversion for DUI, you will also be required to have one. But, Oregon lawmakers are now looking at ways to ensure all DUI offenders are required to have ignition interlock devices installed on their vehicles, especially those who try to bypass the requirement.

According to The Oregonian, only about 1/3 of those DUII offenders who are required to have ignition interlock devices installed actually go through with it. Many of the others simply wait out their period of suspension or claim they have no vehicle at their disposal. Yes, even those without driver’s licenses will continue to drive illegally, rather than deal with the inconvenience and cost of installing and maintaining an ignition interlock device.

The devices are used to test the blood alcohol level of the driver. If it shows you have been drinking, you are unable to start the car and a report is generated to alert officials of your failed attempt.

The drunk driving offender is required to cover all costs related to the operation of the device. One company that offers services says they charge a $65 installation and a $59 monthly fee for them.

Around 10,000 multiple-DUI offenders are required to get the devices every year, and another 10,000 are placed on diversion and required to have it as well. But according to The Oregonian, only 3,715 were installed on Oregon vehicles as of last July.

So, who are the people driving around with this expensive equipment in their vehicles? “What you have in essence are the volunteers,” says Multnomah County Judge Kathleen Dailey.

Officials want to see greater compliance with the laws, and are looking at ways to gather up those who seem to be skating around it.

But their effectiveness is questionable. One study showed that one year after the devices are taken out of the vehicle a person’s likelihood to reoffend climbs back to an average rate.

Ignition interlock devices are only one of the inconveniences of a DUI charge. Even if you are fortunate to qualify for diversion, you will face penalties that will impact your day to day life in a variety of ways.

The laws in Oregon are strict and you need someone on your side who is interested in helping you get the best results possible on your case. Contact our offices today to discuss the details and how we might be able to help.

What happens when the latest iPhone is released? People clamor to get it. And some of those clamoring aren’t waiting outside of the Apple store, they are waiting for you to act nonchalant with your new purchase – if even for a second – so they can take it for themselves.

According to the Oregonian, gadget thefts on Portlands TriMet system have skyrocketed over the past several years and thieves are focusing on the flashiest gadgets and those people, you likely know some, who are too into their phone to realize someone is eyeing them and plotting a theft.

Last year alone, there was a 12% spike in thefts on TriMet trains and officials are blaming all of the high-tech gadgets and also their owners’ preoccupation.

About 70% of the serious crimes that occurred on TriMet trains were thefts. Since 2006, just before Apple released the first iconic iPhone, thefts on the rails have increased 65%, despite riders increasing only 5%.

The Oregonian compared the crime rates on TriMet with that of other large metropolitan subway systems and surprisingly found Portland’s rates to outpace other, larger cities.

TriMet found 4.9 serious crimes for every 1 million boardings in 2011. In Los Angeles, that number is only 2.55 crimes per 1 million boardings. Boston reported 2.9 crimes. While there can be differences in how the cities report these crimes, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department claims their reporting system is just like Portland’s.

Usually thieves will simply grab the device off the lap or out of the hands of the owner and run off as the doors are closing. Other times they will rob the owner, demanding they hand their phone over.

TriMet has started a campaign to encourage awareness among their patrons. When you are absorbed in a game of Words With Friends or checking Facebook, you might not notice the person plotting a theft.

“Too often, people aren’t being alert and watching their property. They make themselves easy prey for thieves,” says Transit Police Commander Mike Crebs.

Because these offenses happen so quickly, the thieves are rarely caught. But the city is seeing more plainclothes officers on the trains in an effort to dissuade and catch those who are suspected of taking gadgets.

Stealing an iPhone is much cheaper than purchasing one—as long as you don’t get caught. But if you are caught, you will face serious penalties.

If you are accused of a theft offense, contact us today to see how we might be able to help.

A Portland man was walking home from dinner with friends one night when he saw a flashlight shined in his direction and the words, “Get Him!” shouted. Blinded by the light and unsure of who was behind it, he ran. As the footsteps caught up to him, he was tased, forced into the ground and restrained.

Daniel Halsted suffered facial and hand lacerations as well as facial fractures that night, which he calls the “most traumatic” of his life. But his version is quite different from the version told by arresting officer Benjamin J. Davidson.

Officer Davidson claims he was called to the area on a report of vandalism. As he arrived, he saw three suspects running toward him. When he shouted, two took off behind some houses and the other, who he claims was Halsted, ran onto the sidewalk. It was when he refused to stop at the direction of Davidson that Halsted was tased and brought to the ground.

Davidson says Halsted resisted arrest. He initially cited him with criminal mischief and resisting arrest, but the prosecutor didn’t file charges.

Current law allows officers in the city to use a Taser “when a person engages in, or displays the intent to engage in physical resistance or aggressive physical resistance,” according to OregonLive.com. However, this policy is less strict than those followed by other police agencies.

A recent ruling in the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals says Tasers should be only used as an “intermediate use of force” when there is an immediate threat against the safety of the police officers or someone else. Officers are being trained on this ruling but no formal policy changes have been made.

No criminal charges were filed against Halsted or against Officer Davidson, but Halsted did win a victory in civil court where a jury ruled excessive force was used against him. He was awarded over $200,000.

During the trial, attorneys for the city brought up the fact that Halsted collected Kung Fu movies, asking if he had ever been trained in martial arts. The head film programmer at Portland’s Hollywood Theatre responded that he had not.

This tendency to dig into a person’s past and their personal life is normal in both civil and criminal cases. If you are charged with a crime, you can bet that the prosecutor will do whatever possible to make you look like a criminal. It’s your defense lawyer’s job to ensure this tactic doesn’t work.

If you are accused of something like criminal mischief, assaulting a police officer, or any other criminal offense, we may be able to help, call for a consultation on your case.

The Oregon legislature has passed a bill that will toughen the state’s drunk driving (DUII) laws, requiring a breathalyzer (ignition interlock) device to be installed in the vehicle of every convicted DUII offender.

HB 3075 which passed both the Senate and the House unanimously, and goes to Governor Kitzhaber for signature.

Under existing law, a first offense DUII commonly results in a DUII diversion program. The diversion program allows participants to attend alcohol education and addiction programs, and if successfully completed, would be afforded a chance to have the DUII charge dismissed.

According to OregonLive.com, Oregon’s MADD representatives suggest that this is a major loophole, and that this law is so lax that program attendees routinely show up drunk at their education and treatment program sessions. But one would presume this clearly invalidates the terms of their diversion program, and results in more significant penalties, including driver’s license suspension.

On the other hand, representatives from restaurant trade groups note that data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates that the average BAC level for a fatal DUI incident is .19, and 70% of fatal incidents are from a .15% BAC or higher, nearly twice the legal limit of .08% BAC. And yet we are talking about punishing first time offenders barely over the limit with a costly and potentially job destroying requirement.

Though first time offender interlock requirements are a growing trend nationwide, most other states have interlock requirements only for either multiple convicted drunk driving offenders, or so-called “high BAC” offenders, who registered blood alcohol levels of .15% or higher at the time of arrest. These offenders are considered the most dangerous, and the most likely to re-offend, likely due to severe alcohol addition problems.

Despite the beverage industry call for the Governor to veto this bill, there has been no suggestion that he is not inclined to go along with the clear will of the legislature.

We will follow the passage, implementation, and results of this bill as it likely becomes law.

This week U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez announced the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division would be opening a broader inquiry into the Portland Police Department. The investigation is to determine whether or not there is a pattern of civil rights abuses within the city by the local police. The announcement comes after the urging by many high powered local officials.

Portland isn’t the only city undergoing such an in-depth inquiry. Both Seattle and Newark are in the same boat and Denver might not be far behind. This renewed interest in civil rights allegations has been spurred by the Obama Administration’s said-dedication to the matter following years of little action under the Bush Administration.

The former police commissioner and now city commissioner, Dan Saltzman called on the feds to launch the investigation several months ago. He was joined in supporting the inquiry by several  civil rights groups and the Mayor.

The announcement comes just days after a letter was sent to the mother of 23 year old Aaron Campbell, alerting her that the feds wouldn’t be pursuing criminal charges against the police officer who fatally shot and killed Campbell in January 2010. On that winter day, cops were called out because Campbell was suicidal after the death of his 25 year old brother. He exited the home backwards upon police request with his hands interlaced at the back of his head. He was shot with six beanbag rounds before an officer fired a lethal round from his AR-15.

No criminal charges will be brought because the feds didn’t feel they could meet the burden of proof. In a case like this, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully deprived Campbell of his rights. This means, according to the Oregonian, that “accident, mistake, fear, negligence, or bad judgment are insufficient to establish a criminal violation.”

The effects of this inquiry depend on what the DOJ finds. They could make recommendations or monitor the department if it’s found that there is a pattern of abuses.

You don’t have to be a victim of police brutality to be frightened when you are facing criminal charges. Nearly anyone would be apprehensive about the possibility for jail time or a tarnished record. If you’re up against criminal charges, contact us today.

The Oregon Supreme Court is in the midst of a case that questions the role or impact of medical marijuana use on the right to bear a firearm. Four plaintiffs are before the court, all of which receive medical marijuana via prescription and all of which are also licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

The main source of disdain is Sheriffs across the state who believe medical marijuana users should not be allowed to carry weapons like everyone else. They see the combination as a disaster waiting to happen. Others, including trial court judges in the four cases, believe the parties in question are responsible gun owners and responsible citizens, not pot heads with itchy trigger fingers.

Medical marijuana laws have been on the books in Oregon for about 13 years now and the prescription pot is used for everything from pain disorders to treating the side effects of chemotherapy. Currently, there are about 40,000 medical marijuana users in the state.

The President of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association believes the “whole medical marijuana thing is a farce,” according to the LA Times. He states the majority of the medical users spend most of their day “running around stoned” and is concerned that weapons in the hands of these high patients isn’t in the best interest of public safety.

Because federal law still bans the use of marijuana as a controlled substance and also makes it illegal for someone to possess drugs and a gun at the same time, they argue that medical marijuana users shouldn’t be afforded the same gun rights.

Carrying a concealed weapon isn’t that difficult in Oregon, where nearly anyone can get a permit unless they have convictions on their record.

Those who use medical marijuana and carry weapons argue that they are rarely, if ever, “high”. They also state they have a need for the firearms, for self protection and security. One Circuit Court judge stated the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court cases are “hardworking, honest, conscientious people who use medical marijuana as contemplated by the statue…They are similarly responsible in their use and possession of weapons.”

Law enforcement officials seem to have visions of Reefer Madness on their minds, with wild marijuana users running the streets armed. On the contrary, the plaintiffs in this case are so ill and in pain, the likelihood they would make any sudden movements, even to draw a weapon, seem pretty rare.

However, law enforcement officials are tasked with enforcing laws, and you can bet if they find that you are violating one, they will do something about it. Whether you are facing marijuana charges or weapons charges, you need someone on your side. Contact my offices today for a free consultation on your case.

Measure 11, a bill passed in 1994, sought to bring harsher punishments to criminals in an attempt to keep the public safe and appear tough on crime. It did that, increasing incarceration rates across the state. But a new report questions if the effects of Measure 11 are as intended or if it has done more harm than good.

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission’s report, released last week, says the mandatory minimums prescribed by Measure 11 have largely done away with judicial power and instead shifted the power of the justice system to the prosecutors in the state. The report was commissioned by the state as they examine potential changes to Oregon sentencing laws to minimize the damage of the state budget crisis.

The Commission Chairman, a former judge, states “There is a reason the Founding Fathers created an independent judiciary” going on to state Measure 11 has done away with the role of the judge and transferred that power to the prosecutor. Opponents of the report state it is politically motivated and is “anti-incarceration, anti-law enforcement, and anti-victims.”

The report found that without Measure 11 in place, the state prison system would need 2,900 fewer beds. The number of those incarcerated by the measure has been increased largely because prosecutors use the threat of mandatory minimums in convincing defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, resulting in incarceration even when, perhaps, the case would have resulted in acquittal had it gone to trial.

Ultimately, the punishment for a suspected crime is now determined by a prosecutor in their choosing of an appropriate charge and the negotiation of a plea agreement. Justice is being carried out in hallways rather than courtrooms as attorneys bargain their way to a compromise, a compromise that often favors the state more than the defendant.

The report doesn’t make any recommendations for change but supporters of Measure 11 are worried that it will be a platform to eventually do away with or change the current sentencing laws.

The vast majority of criminal cases are resolved in plea agreements. This is true across the country. Ideally a plea agreement is favorable for both parties involved, though for the defendant it’s often a matter of the lesser of two evils.

If you are facing criminal charges and wondering about your options and the likelihood of a favorable plea agreement, contact me today.

A new bill before the Oregon legislature would require an ignition interlock device be installed in the car of anyone arrested for a 1st offense drunk driving charge (DUII), even before they are convicted.According to KEZI, the bill before the Oregon house would punish those who are able to avoid conviction by entering a DUII diversion program. The diversion program typically involved an alcohol education program, a victims impact program, and probation. If the program is successfully completed, the charge is dismissed as a diversion instead of a criminal conviction. Although, if a second DUII offense is ever charged, it will still count the diversion as a prior conviction.

An ignition interlock device is a rolling breath test machine installed in the car, which requires a clean (alcohol free) breath sample for the ignition to start. The problem with requiring an IID for any 1st offense DUII is that it unfairly punishes people based on what could easily be a one time, marginal incident, and it doesn’t truly target serious alcoholics and chronic drunk drivers.

Not to mention that the punishment kicks in before any proclamation of guilt. This is true in virtually all drunk driving cases, where at a minimum, a person’s driver’s license is immediately suspended before any hearing takes place. Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply, in what Lawrence Taylor calls “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”

There are alternative ignition interlock bills that could also be passed, so the details remain hard to pin down on exactly how this may play out.

An article in this week’s Oregonian takes a hard look at the fear of crime versus the reality of crime and begs an important question—how can people statewide fear crime more than ever despite actual crime numbers falling?

A survey from PSU’s Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute asked Oregon residents across the state about their perception of crime. Only 10% said they thought crime had fallen during the past year and only 38% thought it remained static. The remaining all thought crime had increased.

When it came to their neighborhoods, they were slightly more conservative, with only 25% reporting they believed crime had climbed on a local level.

Interestingly, though, crime has actually fallen again this year and is at the lowest levels since the 1960s in Oregon. This strange disconnect between fear of crime and reality is nothing new, politicians and the media have been playing off of it and likely increasing it for years.

The Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at PSU, Brian Renauser states that this disparity can affect “everything from public policy to law enforcement’s ability to keep the public safe—even simple livability and peace of mind.”

The citizens of Oregon aren’t alone in their exaggerated fear of crime; the same sort of fear exists across the country, as does the reality of a falling crime rate. But the good news rarely makes it onto the evening news. Instead we are bombarded with more and more tales of high crime and horrendous acts by a select few.

One study, from the University of Nebraska recently showed what crime shows people watch tends to affect their fear of crime. Those who prefer the reality-documentary based shows are more likely to feel that crime is around every corner. They are also most likely to have little faith in the criminal justice system in general.

News stories and coverage of positive impact by law enforcement and decreased crime rates simply don’t get the ratings that the juicy, scary stuff does. Similarly, a politician who promises to be “tough on crime” plays right into this irrational fear, as do some overly restrictive laws and practices by police.

The survey from PSU indicates those people most likely to believe crime is at all-time highs consider themselves to be conservative and make less than $50,000. Interestingly, this income bracket is also the more likely to distrust police.

Mistrust of the criminal justice system is often characteristic of those people who have had first-hand experiences with the system. They don’t trust it because they may have been treated unfairly or feel like they got an exceptionally harsh sentence.

Having a local criminal defense attorney on their side may have prevented them from facing the more serious penalties. Consulting with such an attorney can give you insight into the realities of your charges and the potential consequences it may carry. Contact our offices today if you are facing criminal charges in Oregon.