The recent Cheney visit to Portland’s airport drew a small crowd of approximately 100 protestors to a field across from the airport’s Embassy Suites Hotel. As usual, police officers with the Rapid Response Team (RRT) formed a long line in the street between the field and the hotel, facing the crowd barricaded behind a fence. The police, greatly outnumbering the activists, served as the audience for the protestors unable to speak their political dissent to the vice president inside the hotel — out of hearing range from the peoples’ message.

On the bright side, unlike previous protests, police did not wear full riot gear, although some officers held less lethal projectile weapons with attached cylinders, which were either sage launchers or weapons that fire pepper balls, rubber bullets, beanbags, or stingers.

Protestors carried signs, chanting their disapproval of Cheney’s policies and connection to corporate interests. At one point, the chanting ceased and an amp system projected Martin Luther King’s voice, eloquently stating his distaste for government policies in the 1960’s that maintained civil rights’ abuse and led to the slaughter of many in Vietnam — a conflict that has been compared to the Iraq situation.

It’s questionable whether First Amendment rights mean much during such protests since the police control where activists speak to the point that the intended audience doesn’t hear them. Prior to the Cheney protest, a group of activists met with a police liaison, Deputy City Attorney David Woboril. As a result, the police used bicycle fencing to contain the activists rather than the usual 8-foot chain link fencing with barbed wire at the top. Still, the courts have permitted government to control the time, location and place for the exercise of First Amendment rights to protect public safety and enforce local laws such as noise ordinances. And of course law enforcement must protect visiting “dignitaries.”

Even so, some of the measures used to control protests support the theory that the intent is to eliminate political dissent. If the government had respect for the expression of opposition to current policies, why did the Portland Police Bureau decide to assign several officers on the day of the recent Cheney protest to Tri-Met’s Max train stations along the route to the airport? The protestors used the Max, because police blocked street access to the demonstration area except for members of the media, and no vehicular parking was made available for protestors.

At the last stop near the airport, Tri-met fare inspectors and police officers greeted all departing passengers by demanding to see proof of ticket purchase. Frequent riders of the Max have often stated that this type of surveillance is rarely done and never by so many officials at one time.
A team of legal observers attended the protest, including Damon Woodcock, a retired police officer who served the PPB for over 16 years.

Woodcock showed his retired police ID to a Tri-met official when asked to show proof of purchase. Although the Tri-met ordinance indicates that “regularly sworn officers” can ride the Max without paying fare, Woodcock and other officers had always understood that Tri-met extended the policy to retired officers. That way if a crime is committed, even a retired officer could take some kind of protective action.

Instead of politely informing Woodcock that he was mistaken about the free-fare policy, Officer Dan Costello, Sergeant John Tellis, and Commander Mike Bell — all of whom knew Woodcock — accused him of unlawfully “flashing his badge.” That is a very serious charge considering that’s it’s a crime for anyone other than “a regular member of the police force of the City to use in any manner” a Portland police badge.

After Commander Bell demanded to see Woodcock’s retired police ID, he implied that the card wasn’t valid because he had no idea what it was. Note that the Department of Public Safety that trains and certifies Oregon’s law enforcement members issued Woodcock’s ID card.

What’s interesting, though, is that the officers who challenged Woodcock’s ID seemed to be unsure of the Tri-met free-fare policy, since later on they looked it up — most likely only because Woodcock asked to see the ordinance — but still didn’t get it right: They concentrated on what jurisdiction issued the ID rather than on whether or not the officer was an active Bureau member.

Other officers, including four ATV officers and at least two mounted police officers, soon joined the three officers confronting Woodcock, creating a semi-circle behind him so that he was completely surrounded by officers. Woodcock walked away only to be faced by Officer Peterson who asked menacingly, “Did you get that?”

It’s important to note that in 2002, Woodcock received a large settlement from the City after filing a stress disability claim that the Bureau fought. Woodcock, who began life as a female, always identified with the male gender. He decided to transition to male in late 1997, first by changing his name from Debbie to Damon. Later on he took male hormones and underwent sex re-assignment surgery.

Woodcock spent the bulk of his career as a Central precinct officer. He knew the sex correction wouldn’t be accepted easily by other male officers, but hoped the Bureau would help him since Central had previously dealt with another female-to-male officer. Such a transition required switching from the women’s locker room at the precinct to the men’s.

After being assigned to the men’s locker room for one week, Woodcock learned through the police bureau’s “rumor mill” that he had been the victim of a hate crime. His name on his locker door had been enclosed in a circle with a diagonal line slashed through it — the usual symbol that emphasizes that what’s inside the circle is null and prohibited.

Before Woodcock knew about it, the symbol had been removed, although traces of it — obvious erasures — remained. Just enough for Woodcock to realize the rumor was true. But as Woodcock points out, the worst part was the apparent attempt to cover up the crime by Bureau officials. Instead of a supervisor calling Woodcock and reporting what happened, he heard about it from a concerned co-worker. Equally troubling, the Bureau did not initiate an investigation to find out who perpetrated the hate crime against Woodcock until he insisted on one.
Simultaneously, the famous Central Precinct overtime investigation was taking place during which Woodcock turned in a Bureau member for making death threats to officers cooperating with the investigation. The outcome found two officers guilty of intimidating witnesses, although no criminal charges were filed.

Instead, the Bureau charged Woodcock with a crime of which he was subsequently exonerated. Woodcock didn’t learn about the exoneration until months later and so Bret Smith, then Captain of Internal Affairs, was able to use the criminal allegation against Woodcock during his disability hearing. As a result, Woodcock’s claim was initially denied. Interestingly, Bret Smith is now commander of NE Precinct where the Cheney protest took place and officers harassed Woodcock.

Given all of the above, the officers’ confrontation of Woodcock during the protest is suspicious considering the issue — whether or not he paid the Tri-met fare. If fare hasn’t been paid, a citation can be issued resulting in a fine. Woodcock received no such citation.

The law allows fare inspections, but it appears to be a rare practice. Indeed, Alan Graf, a civil rights attorney and police accountability activist, asked Lt. Mark BigEagle if it such enforcement was normal practice for the police. BigEagle replied, “No, it’s just for today.”

Selective enforcement of violations such as jaywalking and Tri-met proof of purchase seems to be a regular practice of the police during protests against government policy. No such activity happens at demonstrations supporting government policy, fueling the theory that political dissent is being targeted. If not, what would justify the police seeking proof of purchase? Especially at a time when the Bureau is so shorthanded? How does such enforcement protect visiting dignitaries? If someone had the resources to attempt an attack on a heavily protected official, he or she could surely afford $1.60 to ride the Max. Likewise, how does such enforcement prevent riots? Not that Portland regularly has riots but the police seem to keep expecting them anyway.

Woodcock’s retired police ID is valid regardless of whether PPB officials recognize it or not. And yet as Woodcock departed the protest area, Commander Bell threatened to have him charged with “impersonating an officer”. This certainly makes it easier to understand why most Bureau members don’t report police officer abuse.

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