IPR not interested while DA tries to prosecute victim

Attorney Heather Bissel tried to ensure police followed the law. As a result she was physically harmed, officially ignored and the subject of what some would consider prosecutorial abuse.

By Diane Lane
Concerned about government abuse, many citizens watch police officers in action. One of the basics of copwatching involves standing at a “safe distance” while observing citizen/police encounters.

This principle didn’t work for Heather Bissel and her boyfriend, Chris Babcox, during their observation of a downtown traffic stop on their way home from a night out with friends in April 2003. Bissel, an attorney very aware of civil rights, stopped to make sure the officers followed the law. Instead, she and her partner ended up being slammed to the sidewalk, arrested, and charged with “interfering with a peace officer” and “resisting arrest.” Bissel and Babcox were acquitted of all charges five months later.

The incident with the police started a nightmare that continues today, as Bissel struggles to recover from a hyper-extended neck, disk protrusion and lateral tear to her shoulder. Bissel may require surgery for the shoulder injury.

In his police report, Officer Jason Lile claimed that Bissel, Babcock and their two friends were “right behind” him while he and other officers handled a “high risk” traffic stop. Despite having SIX other officers — all armed, all trained to use force — Lile insisted that the four unarmed citizens created an “officer safety concern,” because Lile couldn’t watch them and the driver of the car at the same time. According to Lile, a female acquaintance of the driver had entered the scene and began arguing with the officers. Lile feared that the group of friends might also be associated with the driver.

The high-risk nature of the stop seems doubtful. The driver, who had a suspended license, came out of his car at the request of the officers so that the car could be towed. Two associates of the driver challenged the police action orally without making any physical threats. In fact, the police did not arrest anyone directly involved in the stop.

Bissel claimed that she and her friends stopped to witness the traffic stop on a raised sidewalk — 30 feet away from the officer’s location. She also stated that large barriers prevented easy access to the incident location.

Even so, Lile ordered the group to go to a garbage can about 90 feet away. All of them proceeded to do so, but apparently Babcox didn’t move fast enough for Officer Lile and kept asking if he had moved far enough. Babcox was within approximately 10 to 15 feet of the trash can when Officer Lile arrested him by slamming him face down to the concrete with such force the young man’s head received a cut that later required four stitches.

Officer Lile feared that Bissel posed a threat to him after he had arrested her boyfriend. Bissel, at 5’3” and 125 lbs, merely stood, verbalizing her distress about her boyfriend lying still as if unconscious. Lile did not indicate that the young woman made any physical threats such as a lunge toward him with a weapon. And yet, Lile grabbed her wrist, turned it sharply and threw her to the sidewalk. He then dropped on top of her back and yelled at her to place her arms - pinned beneath her by the officer’s weight - out so he could cuff them. Bissel claimed that other officers straddled her and then one of them kicked her in the ribs. After leaving her laying on the hard surface for a while, the officers lifted her up by the handcuffs and took her to booking. According to police reports, it took three officers to handcuff the small woman.

The officers claimed that both Babcox and Bissel physically resisted being handcuffed — a claim the couple refutes. Officer Lile appears to be over 6’ tall, at approximately 180 lbs. Even though he was on top of her — a fact supported by the police reports — the officers insist that she resisted by kicking her feet. Resisting arrest means that someone engages in force that presents a substantial risk of physical injury to any person. Try kicking backwards while face down on a hard surface with someone kneeling on your back — it’s actually quite ineffective.

Hoping for justice, Bissel filed a complaint with the Independent Police Review (IPR), which accepts citizen complaints by giving the cases it finds worthy to the Police Bureau’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD) for investigation. Bissel primarily alleged that Officers Lile, Friedman, Brennan, and Engweiler used an excessive amount of force when force shouldn’t have been used at all, because Officer Lile wrongfully arrested her and Babcox.

The IPR director, Richard Rosenthal informed Bissel that his system doesn’t examine “conduct relating to the truth or falsity of a citation issued by a police officer”. That’s an incredible statement considering that the IPR has reviewed an allegation of false arrest in the past. Furthermore, the IPR ordinance defines the powers of the IPR and, weak as they are, the system handles complaints about police misconduct, defined as behavior by an officer during an encounter with a citizen that violates a Bureau policy. The policy that pertains to arrests without warrants indicates that an officer must have probable cause before making such an arrest. Bissel’s complaint form clearly states that she believed Officer Lile made a false arrest because he had no probable cause — clearly an allegation of a violation of police policy.

Despite this, Lt. George Babnick of the IAD refused to investigate Bissel’s accusation of false arrest because it didn’t “articulate facts that would indicate a violation of Police Bureau rules or procedure.” The Lt. concludes that Officer Lile had a proper basis for arrest from READING HIS POLICE REPORTS as if those accounts are incontrovertible, absolute truth. If an officer makes a false arrest, improperly using force, is it likely that he or she will state that in their report?

This type of incident — where unarmed citizens are seriously injured because an officer unreasonably perceives himself to be in danger — highlights an important point made by the US Commission on Civil Rights in its report about police behavior released a few years ago. After extensive research, the Commission determined that some police departments place too much emphasis on officer safety, which can cause officers to use excessive force or use it when it is not needed.

As an attorney, it wasn’t lost on Bissel that the District Attorney’s office chose to prosecute her criminal case despite having insufficient evidence to support the charges against her and Babcock. The prosecutor accused the two of intentionally attempting to prevent Officers Lile and Friedman from performing their “lawful duties with regard to another person”. By merely observing, how would Bissel and Babcock keep six officers from conducting the traffic stop? The officers claim that Babcox became argumentative with the officers; however case law indicates that the intention of the law against interfering was to address physical conduct. Speech - some of which is still protected by constitutional rights — was not intended to be limited by this law.

As if being unreasonably arrested and injured wasn’t enough, the Oregon State Bar (OSB) subsequently subjected Bissel to an examination of possible misconduct. Oregon law requires attorneys to become members of the Bar before practicing law in Oregon. The OSB enforces ethical rules attorneys must follow.

The District Attorney’s office has a policy to inform the OSB whenever a Bar member is charged with a crime. But, as Bissel points out, it’s more likely that the intention of the policy was to report attorneys who had been convicted of a crime rather than acquitted.

It’s important to note that the Multnomah County court system operates under limited resources due to budget cutbacks. But somehow, the district attorney’s office not only took valuable time to prosecute this case, but also to write letters to the Bar - letters that probably took a considerable amount of time to prepare since they contained many details about Bissel’s case. Almost one year after the incident, the OSB found no violation of the ethical rules.

Considering the above, it’s possible that the district attorney reported Bissel’s charges in an attempt to discourage her from filing a civil suit against local government; however, Bissel intends to seek all available remedies.

Diane Lane is a paralegal, writer, police accountability and civil rights activist and can be reached at dianelane@riseup.net.