May 10, 2017
VIA EMAIL
The Honorable Ted Wheeler
Portland City Hall
1221 SW 4th Avenue, Room 340
Portland, OR 97204
MayorWheeler@portlandoregon.gov
RE: Portland Police Bureau’s Crowd Control Activities on May 1, 2017
Mayor Wheeler,
In March, you met with a number of lawyers representing the National Lawyers Guild, Lawyers
for Good Government and the ACLU to discuss our concerns about the Portland Police Bureau’s
(PPB) indiscriminate use of force and chemical weapons in crowd control. At the meeting, we
talked at length about de-escalation as the primary role for police in a crowd control situation. In
the comments we made to directive 635.10 (attached), our organizations also emphasize that deescalation is the most important function of the police.
We appreciated your constructive engagement at the meeting. You called the police in riot gear
“storm troopers” and when we asked you for specific solutions to stem the indiscriminate use of
force, you said you would advocate for focused use of force toward those committing crimes,
and adopt a demilitarized look for the police, including getting rid of “those trucks with
sideboards” that police in riot gear ride on. These commitments were in line with the priorities
for police reform you put forth as a mayoral candidate, which included: “Actively demilitarize
the police force and encourage a culture of community engagement and problem solving.”
We are deeply concerned about PPB’s response to the permitted march on May Day. Based on
the eyewitness accounts from legal observers, organizers of the march, and members of the
public that have reached out to our organizations, the response was confusing, swift, and, by all
accounts, escalated a predominantly peaceful march. Instead of preventing violence, PPB’s
response precipitated it, turning a peaceful march into a dangerous and chaotic situation.
PPB appeared to approach the May Day march and rally in an adversarial manner.


At the rally, PPB took signs away from ordinary participants, claiming the sticks were too
long and could be used as weapons. One of these participants, a therapist who works a
successful practice in NE Portland focused on the LGBTQ community, described the
situation as unnecessary and confusing given that the rally was peaceful and family
oriented. His sign was dismantled so PPB could seize his sign stick, which was

 ACLU of Oregon, NLG Portland Chapter, and OL4GG
PPB Crowd Control Activities on May 1, 2017
May 10, 2017
Page 2
apparently “too big.” Others were allowed to carry signs with sticks. What is clear is that
PPB did not previously communicate with participants before they moved through a
peaceful crowd to select individuals for enforcement of a never-before-articulated rule
disallowing signs with sticks of a certain size. This selective enforcement may be a
violation of the First Amendment. Regardless, people reported that this created
unnecessary tension in a completely peaceful setting.


The march organizers had arranged a “resting trailer” at the rear of the march to
accommodate people with disabilities. PPB swarmed the truck pulling the trailer after the
march began and forced it to exit the march after only one block. This may have
prevented members of the disabled community or people with mobility issues from
participating in this march. Failing to accommodate people with disabilities, and thereby
preventing them from participating in the march, may be a violation of both the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the First Amendment. Regardless of the legal
violations, it is wrong for PPB to take action preventing disabled members of our
community from participating in civic events.



For much of the march, PPB lined both sides of the sidewalk, hemming the marchers in
and intimidating them. Heavily armed PPB officers actually walked in the street in the
midst of marchers, creating a tense and volatile environment.



Marchers peacefully went by bridge entrances, which were lined with PPB officers in riot
gear.



Several battalions of officers in riot gear drove up to the rear of the march, which was
still peaceful. Without warning, PPB first announced that the permit for the march had
been revoked and that individuals engaging in violence would be arrested. The
revocation of the permit may be a violation of the First Amendment.



A few minutes later, PPB then announced that the street was open to traffic, even though
hundreds of marchers remained in the street, and that anyone in the street would be
arrested.



After just a few more minutes, PPB announced that the area was closed and everyone
needed to disperse, but did not give instructions as to a safe exit route.



The announcements were made from a sound truck at the rear of the march. Even if PPB
instructions had been clear and even if people had been given time to comply, the march
leaders and participants in the front of the march could not have complied because they
had not heard PPB’s announcements or witnessed their battalions arriving.

In discussing the march with legal observers and march leaders, it is clear that very little property
destruction or violence occurred before PPB cancelled the march permit. To our knowledge,

 ACLU of Oregon, NLG Portland Chapter, and OL4GG
PPB Crowd Control Activities on May 1, 2017
May 10, 2017
Page 3
before PPB revoked the permit, there were a couple Pepsi cans and what appeared to be a
commercial smoke bomb typically used in photography thrown by a small group at the back of
the march, and one window was broken. These incidents were isolated and limited. Without
proof, we can only assume that PPB’s claims that “Molotov cocktails” were thrown was
inadvertent hyperbole. The alternative conclusion was that PPB was intentionally disseminating
false information to suppress a peaceful assembly. In any event, PPB has not explained why it
did not simply respond to these isolated incidents by arresting the individuals responsible. It is
hard to understand how individual perpetrators could have gotten away, given the heavy PPB
presence at the march.
In response to the chaos that followed the revocation of the march permit, PPB used flashbangs
indiscriminately, rushed the streets with dozens of officers in riot gear, and several people have
reported experiencing chemical irritants. These tactics and weapons were deployed in the middle
of downtown Portland, which adversely affected bystanders and peaceful protesters and
exacerbated the amount of property destruction. The PPB response turned downtown into a
battleground, jeopardizing the safety and civil rights of Portland residents.
In summary, PPB created tension at the rally, long before the march began, then police in riot
gear stormed the city instead of dealing with isolated incidents of property destruction. The
police declared the entire assembly unlawful within an hour after the march began, purportedly
because of a few objects thrown at the back of the march. This was a disproportionate and
dangerous response. The vast majority of protesters were left confused as to whether they could
continue peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights, or whether they had to leave and
where to go. Only a few minutes later, while people with impaired mobility and children were
still making their way out, the police rushed the crowd, creating chaos and panic. Both legal
observer and media accounts confirm that the property destruction and fires occurred after the
police declared the gathering illegal and began attacking the demonstrators.
To be clear, we are neither advocating for nor justifying acts of property destruction. If people
engage in criminal behavior, the police may arrest them. However, the criminal behavior of a
few does not give police the right to attack and restrict the First Amendment rights of everyone
else.
On May Day, PPB created a more violent, more dangerous situation for everyone in downtown
Portland because of their aggressive, militaristic response. Many people, including families who
had participated in the May Day march and innocent passersby, were scared and some were
injured in the chaos created by the broad use of concussion grenades, while others reported use
of munition rounds that were both concussive and contained additional chemical irritants. These
indiscriminate, violent tactics are exactly what our organizations hope to curb with the new
crowd control directive. Protests are not going away anytime in the near future. As a policy
matter, we are concerned that aggressive tactics curtail civil rights and discourage peaceful
protesters from attending demonstrations, while intensifying the distrust and anger towards the
police by others.

 ACLU of Oregon, NLG Portland Chapter, and OL4GG
PPB Crowd Control Activities on May 1, 2017
May 10, 2017
Page 4
Again, we ask your office to advocate that PPB create a directive that is focused on
demilitarization and de-escalation in crowd control situations. And subsequently, that such a
policy be implemented so that Portland can remain a hub for the safe exercise of First
Amendment activities in these troubling times.
When running for office you campaigned on the promise of police reform and have publicly
called for the de-militarization of PPB. Your public support of the aggressive, militaristic tactics
used by PPB in response to the May Day protests is a troubling break from your campaign
promises. The Portland Police are sworn to uphold the constitution and protect and serve the
people of Portland. As the head of the police bureau, it is your duty to see that they do.
Sincerely,

Mat dos Santos
Legal Director
ACLU of Oregon

Katherine McDowell
Vice President, Litigation
ACLU of Oregon

Brenna Bell
Member
National Lawyers Guild
Portland Chapter

Kristina Holm
Co-Leader
Lawyers for Good Government
Oregon Chapter

Kimberly Mason
Member
Lawyers for Good Government
Oregon Chapter