Oregon Public Broadcasting | By Troy Brynelson | May 21, 2024
Attorneys for the city of Portland have asked a Multnomah County judge to overrule a jury’s roughly $1 million negligence verdict after a Portland officer shot and killed a man in a mental health crisis.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Naomi Sheffield argued in recent court filings that Officer Curtis Brown didn’t cause the 2021 shooting of Michael Townsend and that the jury’s verdict wasn’t “legally supported by the evidence.”
At the core of the court filing is a disagreement over how to interpret Oregon’s relatively new additions to state laws governing police use of deadly force.
Sheffield’s request asks a judge for a retrial or to overrule the jury verdict entirely. On May 3, 11 out of 12 jurors decided the city — through Brown’s actions — was negligent. Jurors ruled that Townsend had some fault, too.
Michael Fuller, who represented Townsend’s family in the civil trial, called the city’s argument an effort to “gaslight” the jury.
“The jury heard what they heard,” Fuller told OPB on Monday.
On June 24, 2021, Townsend had called 911, telling dispatchers he felt suicidal and had taken methamphetamine. He said he wanted a ride to the hospital.
Brown and another officer arrived shortly after to the Motel 6 where Townsend stayed. Townsend spoke with emergency medical technicians and another officer during much of the encounter. According to court records, Townsend appeared to change his mind about medical care.
When Brown and the other officer began to leave, Townsend reached back out, according to the court records. The officers offered to take him to the hospital, but told him he needed to be patted down before first responders could drive him.
Townsend eventually became agitated, according to the records. When officers turned to leave again, Townsend took out a sharpened hand tool and began “advancing” on the officers. Brown took out his pistol and fired.
Fuller contended the officers failed to follow the state’s deadly force laws. In 2020, lawmakers added language ordering officers to “consider alternatives” before using force, like using verbal de-escalation, waiting and using less lethal force if possible.
To Fuller, the officers had ample time to call for help from officers who have more crisis training, he told OPB. Brown also could have armed himself with a 40-millimeter less lethal “sponge” round in his car, Fuller said, but didn’t.
Sheffield, in court filings, argued that timeframe is wider than contemplated by the law.
“They have put on evidence of what Officer Brown should have done before Mr. Townsend ever presented a threat,” Sheffield wrote.
Similarly, Sheffield argued that Townsend’s “charge” with the tool could have led to a felony crime, and thus made his estate ineligible for a negligence claim.
The arguments around timeframe could create an interesting precedent, according to Portland-based attorney J. Ashlee Albies, who has represented families in police violence cases. The jury verdict sheds light on how the community is interpreting the deadly force standard, she said.
“We so rarely get trials on deadly force cases because they often settle,” Albies said.
Rachel Steven, Townsend’s sister, applauded the verdict and said it showed how the community wants policing to change. Initially, she said, her lawsuit only demanded the agency to bolster its policies around responding to people in mental health crises.
“The biggest thing is having the proper people responding and keeping those lethal weapons out of the situation,” Steven said.
She said most of the verdict money will be donated to the Mental Health Association of Portland.
City Attorney Robert Taylor said in a statement that his office is still weighing whether to file an official appeal. A judge isn’t expected to rule on the city’s latest motion for several weeks.
