As you may recall, police officials announced earlier this month that Chief Mike Reese had offered to meet a citizen appeal panel halfway in a discipline case involving an officer who pepper-sprayed homeless campers during a chaotic confrontation last year beneath the Morrison Bridge.

That panel, the Citizen Review Committee (CRC), had voted 6-1 in August to urge Reese to sustain allegations that Officer Todd Engstrom used improper force—challenging the chief's initial finding that Engstrom ought to be exonerated. And Reese, upon further review, eventually came back with a counteroffer, contained in a letter sent to the CRC: He wouldn't go that far, but he would be willing to rule the accusation unproven and order a "debriefing."

But although the outline of that compromise was revealed during the CRC's October 1 meeting—described by Professional Standards Captain Dave Famous—the police bureau still wasn't ready, at the time, to release the chief's letter or even detail his reasoning. That is, until today. The Mercury, through a public records request, has obtained a copy of Reese's letter (pdf), albeit redacted to keep Engstrom's name from public view. (The Mercury had identified Engstrom through records previously provided, on a somewhat related story, by the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office.)

Reese, in his fairly short letter, directly addresses the main point the CRC raised in its decision to challenge Engstrom's exoneration. Although the panel was concerned that Engstrom had pepper-sprayed a man, Angel Lopez, who'd confronted cops during a camp sweep, it was even more upset about Engstrom's decision to pepper-spray Lopez's girlfriend.

Engstrom told investigators he'd sprayed her because she was grabbing on Lopez to "un-arrest" him. The CRC members, however, seized on the fact that Engstrom hadn't ever announced that Lopez was arrested, meaning it wasn't clear that when his girlfriend was trying to pull him away that she was doing something wrong, let alone something that deserved having her face pepper-sprayed without warning.

Reese explained he didn't fault Engstrom for not announcing his arrest of Lopez, because there just wasn't time. He also said he thought Lopez's girlfriend, by moving quickly, put herself at risk in the midst of a chaotic confrontation with officers. Further, Reese said he wished more of the witnesses in the scrum had been willing to talk to investigators and that there was even more video of the encounter.

"I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to determine whether [Engstrom's] action in deploying the pepper spray was or wasn't within policy," Reese wrote.

He specified, afterward, that any debriefing would entail a discussion about Engstrom's lack of a warning and some talk about de-escalation options.

Engstrom was already disciplined for actions that helped turn the sweep into the chaotic mess that it became—grabbing a dog and pinning it down, something the bureau argued he should have known would escalate things.

The CRC will consider Reese's letter at a hearing November 5. If it holds fast, and so does Reese, the appeal could go to the Portland City Council for a binding decision. That's only ever happened once before.