Security camera footage shows police officers and firefighter paramedics talking to Michael Ray Townsend moments before being shot and killed by Portland police officer Curtis Brown on June 24, 2021.
Courtesy of the Portland Police
The city of Portland will consider appealing a jury verdict that found a police officer acted negligently three years ago when he shot and killed a man in the middle of a mental health crisis.
City Attorney Robert Taylor has asked Portland City Council for the OK to challenge the verdict from a Multnomah County Circuit Court jury earlier this year. Family members of the man, Michael Ray Townsend, are expected to testify during the hearing.
If authorized, city attorneys will appeal the May 3 ruling that found officer Curtis Brown failed to follow use of force laws when he fatally shot Townsend on June 24, 2021.
On that day, Townsend called 911, telling dispatchers he felt suicidal and had taken methamphetamine. He said he wanted a ride to the hospital. After a protracted conversation involving Townsend, Brown, another officer and emergency medical technicians, the officers said Townsend could get in an ambulance after a pat-down.
Townsend became agitated, took out a sharpened screwdriver and began “advancing” toward the officers, according to court records. Brown took out his pistol and fired.
The jury awarded Townsend’s family $1,030,661.
Representatives with the city attorney’s office declined to comment Tuesday, but according to city documents they believe they have a two-pronged appeal in the works. Taylor drafted a resolution ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, which will be introduced by Mayor Ted Wheeler.
In the draft, Taylor contends the courts have misunderstood Oregon’s use of force laws. Officers are allowed to use deadly force when there’s a reasonable belief they, or others, are in serious danger, and city attorneys argue that standard applied when Townsend moved toward officers with a sharpened screwdriver.
In 2020, however, lawmakers added language to the state laws that ordered officers to “consider alternatives” before using force, like verbal de-escalation, waiting and using less lethal force if possible.
Attorney Michael Fuller, who represented Townsend’s family in the civil trial, said Tuesday that the city isn’t accounting for these law changes. He said the city’s argument is “consistent with the old law.”
“We agree with the officer that, when it got to that point, (Officer Brown) was in fear for his life,” Fuller said. “We weren’t arguing it was a wrongful death once it reached that point.”
Rather, Fuller argued the new state laws place greater onus on police to be prepared to avoid using deadly force. One example, Fuller argued, is that Brown could have armed himself at any point with a less-lethal, 40-millimeter “sponge” round in his patrol car’s trunk.
“That’s a reasonable opportunity to consider a lesser degree of force,” Fuller said.
Judge Christopher Marshall ultimately instructed jurors to consider the broader timeframe of when Brown exited his car. Eleven out of 12 jurors found the city negligent. Portland attorneys are likely to challenge that interpretation in appellate court, if commissioners vote to authorize.
Taylor’s resolution also says that Judge Marshall shut down one of the city’s lines of defense. City attorneys attempted a “felonious conduct” defense, arguing Townsend wielding the sharpened screwdriver was a serious felony.
Under Oregon law, a defendant in a lawsuit can be spared from personal injury or wrongful death claims if the person injured was engaged in a serious felony.
Fuller said he believed the city’s defense had no merit because a subsection of that law notes that the defense doesn’t apply in unjustified use-of-force cases.
“If the city is negligent because the officer didn’t consider alternatives, then that defense doesn’t even come into play,” Fuller said.