In a notable decision made in late June, Multnomah County District Attorney Nathan Vasquez ruled that a recent police shooting was justified without convening a grand jury, a departure from the traditional approach taken by his predecessors.
This ruling has ignited a discussion among civil rights advocates and local officials about the implications it has for public accountability in law enforcement.
Critics, including civil rights attorneys and a Portland city councilor, argue that bypassing a grand jury undermines public involvement in the critical process of holding police accountable, potentially eroding trust in law enforcement.
Conversely, supporters, including representatives from police officer unions, view Vasquez’s decision as an overdue correction to past policies that they perceive as overly reliant on grand jury involvement for police-related fatal shootings.
Dan Thenell, an attorney who collaborates with police unions in Oregon and Washington, expressed his gratitude for Vasquez’s use of discretion in these instances.
He noted that there are still counties that routinely present every police shooting to a grand jury, which he found inappropriate.
On June 13, the incident that sparked this policy shift involved Multnomah County Deputy Adam Suboh, who responded to a call on Northeast Glisan Street regarding a man, Ladarius Collins, who was threatening his brother.
Witnesses alleged that Collins held a gun to his brother’s head.
Upon arrival, Collins fled on foot, and video footage captured the moment when he turned and aimed his weapon at Deputy Suboh, who then fired six shots, resulting in Collins’s death.
On June 27, Vasquez announced that the shooting was justified.
Deputy Suboh is currently on administrative leave, according to spokespersons for the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office.
Just days later, on June 30, Vasquez declared a separate shooting justified after convening a grand jury for that case.
The grand jury determined that Officer Andrew Young acted appropriately in using deadly force against an individual threatening others with a .22 caliber rifle in a Southeast Portland apartment.
The disparity between the two cases, according to Vasquez’s office, lay in the amount of evidence available for review.
A spokesperson explained that the key fact regarding why Officer Young fired his weapon needed further examination by the grand jury, while the evidence presented in Suboh’s case was deemed sufficient for an immediate ruling.
Notably, Oregon law does not mandate the use of a grand jury in these situations; it simply requires district attorneys to establish policies governing responses to incidents involving deadly force.
Vasquez’s policy remains unchanged from that of his predecessor, which has traditionally leaned toward grand jury involvement.
The response to Vasquez’s ruling reflects a broader societal context in which public concern over police accountability appears to have diminished since the nationwide protests following George Floyd’s murder in 2020.
Although that tragedy sparked significant legislative changes in many states, the frequency of such discussions has notably decreased in Oregon and Washington in recent years.
Mike Schmidt, Vasquez’s predecessor, adhered to the more traditional route of relying on grand juries for most fatal police shootings, positioning Portland and Multnomah County as somewhat of an outlier compared to other regions.
Mike Gennaco, who leads the California-based OIR Group, which analyzes police policies, noted some advantages of regularly calling grand juries.
He highlighted the importance of having police officers testify, allowing for greater public transparency through the release of grand jury transcripts.
Ultimately, the goal remains public trust in the justice system.
Yet, Gennaco acknowledged that there hasn’t yet been a universally accepted method that satisfies public scrutiny, whether that method involves a prosecutor or a grand jury.
Innovative approaches are being tested in states outside of Oregon to build trust in the accountability process.
In California, a new law mandates that the state attorney general review all police shooting cases involving unarmed individuals.
Meanwhile, Washington state has established an Office of Independent Investigations, which may take jurisdiction over cases of deadly force but still delegates the final decision regarding justification to local prosecutors.
Moreover, there have been noticeable efforts among prosecutors to enhance transparency regarding their decision-making processes, moving beyond brief statements to more detailed explanations.
Gennaco noted, “It used to be a one- or two- or three-sentence statement. But now they’re very detailed.”
While this shift may not eliminate dissent, it does represent a step toward clarifying decisions, even in complex cases.
Vasquez’s decision regarding Deputy Suboh included an extensive memo detailing how the analysis was conducted in this instance, further contributing to the conversation about accountability and transparency within law enforcement practices in Multnomah County.
This development highlights an ongoing tension between the need for accountability, public trust, and the discretion exercised by legal authorities in handling sensitive cases involving police actions.
image source from：opb
