Portland trial pits local cops against feds over protest tactics

PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — In a trial over the legality of deploying federal troops to Portland, federal and local law enforcement officers on Thursday offered dueling depictions of the situation at the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility.

Portland, joined by the states of Oregon and California, is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the deployment of federalized National Guard troops, ordered by President Donald Trump in late September to protect the “war ravaged” city and its ICE facility.

The plaintiffs opened the day by contrasting local police crowd control tactics to those of federal law enforcement.

Craig Dobson, assistant chief with the Portland Police Bureau, told the court that he has concerns about the National Guard being deployed into Portland due to how little training they have in crowd management.

“If you inadvertently overreact or underreact, you can encourage others to engage in criminality,” Dobson explained, adding that a situation can quickly “blossom into disorder.”

The Portland Police Bureau not only has special training in crowd control but also rules around the use of force — both of which stemmed from reform after extended periods of unrest in 2020.

The federal officers, on the other hand, are bound by no such reform, the plaintiffs argued. A video taken at the ICE facility on the evening of Oct. 18 showed a munition slamming into the ground and releasing a white cloud in front of a large group of protesters.

Dobson explained that federal officers launched tear gas munitions from the roof of the ICE facility, an action he testified was unwarranted by the Portland Police Bureau’s standards. He was among those in the large crowd who were gassed that evening.

The federal government contended that the National Guard was desperately needed to aid the federal officers, who it says are spread thin and left without support from local law enforcement.

A Federal Protective Service Regional Commander said local law enforcement sprang to the aid of federal officers when there were protests at an ICE facility in Spokane, Washington.

“Do you think you’d get that kind of support in Portland?” Justice Department Attorney John Bailey asked.

“Uh, no,” the commander, identified only as R.C., responded. The court allowed the federal government’s witnesses to be identified only by their initials out of concern for harassment.

Portland has four Federal Protective Service officers, or inspectors, to cover the Portland region, which stretches up into southern Washington and east to Bend. Those officers are tasked with protecting over 100 federal buildings in the area.

The situation at the ICE facility has not only required that additional federal officers be sent to the site, but it has taken a toll on federal officers’ mental health, R.C. testified.

“They’re constantly in proximity to the protesters, who say some of the most vulgar, foul, racial slurs consistently through the day and throughout the night on bullhorns,” R.C. said.

W.T., a commander with the Federal Protective Service, agreed.

“‘There’s a pretty constant narrative out there that we deserve to die and there’s been threats of violence against our people,” W.T. said.

Protesters have placed a prop guillotine in the road, shone a bright light in officers’ eyes, drawn targets on the sidewalk to goad officers to jump off the roof and carried bats and shields, according to W.T.

“Does placing a prop guillotine in the road violate the law?” asked Naomi Sheffield of the Portland City Attorney’s Office. W.T. said placing any obstruction in the road is disorderly conduct, but conceded that the prop guillotine itself was legal.

Throughout all of this, the Federal Protective Services officials told the court that the Portland Police Bureau barely assisted.

For instance, on the night of June 14, the Portland Police Bureau waited hours to declare a riot.

“We had a leveled expectation that given the circumstances, given the officer safety factor, given the level of violence displayed that night, we did expect a response from [Portland Police Bureau],” R.C. said.

He clarified that he thought the Portland Police Bureau does a good job when they are allowed to do so. Oregon’s laws largely prevent that, the federal government implied.

Both Federal Protective Service employees told the court that they didn’t think there were enough federal officers to keep control of the space. However, the city and states showed a chart illustrating that for five of the eight days leading to Trump’s call for military intervention, federal officers outnumbered protesters, sometimes by more than double.

The plaintiffs also showed a video of an altercation on the driveway of the ICE facility in mid-August, which they described as one of three incidents currently being investigated over the use of force employed by federal officers. The video showed multiple officers tackling a protester.

“As far as [Federal Protective Services] is concerned, and as far as I’m concerned, that is not the approach I would have taken,” R.C. said.

R.C. said differing use-of-force standards across the various federal agencies that have been called in for support have complicated operations.

He told the court that neither he nor his boss had been told about the National Guard plan ahead of time. When asked whether he agreed with Trump’s statement that Portland is “on fire”, R.C. said no.

The Justice Department also walked back its disclosure that it defied a federal court order by keeping Oregon National Guard troops in Portland during the second day of a three-day trial.

“To be clear, after the court issued the Saturday temporary restraining order, no Oregon National Guardsmen were deployed to the building,” said Eric Hamilton, Justice Department attorney, referring to the ICE facility.

He said between seven to 10 officers were sent to the federal immigration facility at 11:30 a.m. — about four hours before U.S. District Judge Immergut issued a temporary restraining order blocking the federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard. Hamilton admitted that the federal defendants don’t know exactly when they pulled back and that it had taken some time for the news to travel down the chain of command.

But Immergut questioned why the Trump administration couldn’t immediately call off the troops after she issued the order, but was able to pivot plans and send in both the Texas and California National Guard, with guardsmen even arriving in the state by Saturday night.

“Doesn’t that seem odd?” Immergut asked the Justice Department. “The point is that they could have gotten the message to the guardsmen if they felt it was important.”

The combined trial and preliminary injunction hearing is expected to conclude on Friday.