The Portland Police Bureau is facing backlash from defense attorneys over proposed changes to its policy handbook regarding the disclosure of officers’ personnel files during criminal trials.
These suggested changes come on the heels of a court case from nearly four months ago, which has reignited debates about police transparency and defendants’ rights.
Currently, the policy mandates that the bureau shares with the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office any allegations against officers involving dishonesty, bias, evidence mishandling, or excessive force.
However, the new proposed policy aims to implement additional criteria for allegations that must be met before such information can be disclosed.
Under the new guidelines, some allegations would be shared immediately with prosecutors, while others would need to be deemed ‘credible’ by the bureau before being disclosed.
Defense attorneys, including Henry Oostrom-Shah, have expressed serious concerns about the potential impact of these changes on fair trials for defendants.
Oostrom-Shah stated, “We’re not trying to air out the dirty laundry of the Portland Police Bureau at every turn,” referencing the need for transparency when evidence critical to a case may be missing.
Both officials from the bureau and the district attorney’s office asserted their commitment to sharing pertinent information when it is relevant to a case.
This discussion of language surrounding the proposed changes is reminiscent of historical court rulings requiring the sharing of evidence that could help a defendant, such as the landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Brady v. Maryland.
Portland police spokesperson Sgt. Kevin Allen mentioned, “Our goal is to find the right balance between the criminal defendant’s Brady rights and the law enforcement officer’s confidentiality rights when the records sought are not material and exculpatory.”
The proposed revisions follow a recent ruling from the Multnomah County Circuit Court. In that case, criminal charges against a defendant arrested during pro-Palestine protests at Portland State University were thrown out because the court found that the police had not properly disclosed relevant personnel file information.
The judge sided with the defense, indicating that the state had failed to proactively seek out necessary records, and instead relied on the police bureau to provide them.
Pat Dooris, a spokesperson for the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office, was taken aback by the judge’s interpretation of the policy, which could allow full access to any officer’s personnel file for any reason.
Dooris said, “This was never MCDA’s understanding of the original intent behind (the policy).”
Since the proposed changes were published online in May, public comment has been accepted, with a submission deadline set for June 18.
Defense attorneys, including Oostrom-Shah and Drew Flood, have expressed plans to voice their concerns regarding the potential implications of the new policy.
Many worry that it may encourage prosecutors to overlook evidence that the Portland police have not disclosed under the new rules.
Juan Chavez from the Oregon Justice Resource Center voiced a strong opinion, stating, “Unless the bureau hands it to them, in their minds, they have plausible deniability.”
Recent cases related to the PSU protests highlight the ongoing issues with communication between the city and defense attorneys. At least a handful of individuals arrested during those protests saw charges dismissed when significant footage related to their cases was not shared by the city.
District Attorney Nathan Vasquez labeled the situation as an “appalling” miscommunication.
Chavez further warned, “The policy change will cause mistrials. This will cause post-conviction reversals.
And who does that serve? All to protect an officer’s feelings here, during an investigation? No, that’s not the concern at this juncture. The concern is someone’s liberty that’s at stake.”
Despite the proposed changes, Oostrom-Shah clarified that the existing policy does not openly disclose personnel files, as judges review them confidentially to determine what may be allowed in court.
Sgt. Allen emphasized that the new policy’s language is intended to align with best practices while the bureau remains committed to thorough internal investigations.
Under the revised policy, a bureau commander would assess the credibility of allegations based on various factors such as the plausibility of the claim, witness accounts, video evidence, and corroborative material.
Even with the anticipated changes, defense attorneys highlighted that prosecutors still carry the obligation to seek out relevant information under Supreme Court mandates.
Zack Stern, another defense attorney, pointed out that the new rules could serve as a cover for prosecutors who might not meet these obligations, leading to additional work for defense teams.
He stated, “It’s just going to lead to a ton of litigation. Transparency allows judges and juries to make informed decisions. If they make a decision based on incomplete information, that wastes your tax dollars.”
image source from：https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/04/portland-oregon-police-personnel-files-law-criminal-trials-evidence/
