Authorize City Attorney to appeal judgement in ACLU of Oregon, et al. v. City of Portland, Multnomah County Circuit Court Case No. 20CV27116

WHEREAS, on or about December 23, 2021, in the above-referenced matter, the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, entered its Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part the Parties’ Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment (the “Order”), and entered a corresponding Judgment on or about April 8, 2022 (the “Judgment”); WHEREAS, the Order and Judgment concern an issue of first impression regarding the interpretation of ORS 181A.250, a statute in which the City has a substantial interest because it governs the treatment of certain types of information by law enforcement; WHEREAS, the Order and Judgment create ambiguity in the appropriate application of ORS 181A.250; WHEREAS, the ambiguity created by the Order and Judgment may negatively impact the ability of the City to confidently adopt and fully implement certain police reform measures of importance to the City, including but not limited to the purchase and implementation of police body cameras and policies implicating the use of live video for situational awareness by the Portland Police Bureau’s Incident Command Center; WHEREAS, the legal implementation of these measures and practices are of considerable importance to the City as it seeks to improve police accountability, transparency, and performance within the City of Portland; and WHEREAS, the Office of the City Attorney recommends that the City seek clarification of the meaning and application of ORS 181A.250 through an appeal of the Judgment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Attorney is authorized to take all steps necessary to appeal from the trial court’s judgment in ACLU of Oregon et al. v. City of Portland , Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah Case No. 20CV27116, to pursue that appeal to its conclusion in any higher court, and, in furtherance of such appeal, to make any stipulation, agreement, or admission as in the City Attorney’s judgment may be in the interest of the City.