The rules adopted by the Commission on Statewide Law Enforcement Standards of Conduct and Discipline require law enforcement agencies, civilian oversight boards and arbitrators to make disciplinary determinations that adhere to those rules when presiding over cases of alleged misconduct by certified law enforcement officers in the state. The rules contain definitions, a disciplinary matrix that may include aggravating and mitigating factors, and rules impacting the arbitration process. The goal is to establish consistent, reasonable disciplinary standards across agencies to ensure fairness and accountability.

The standards are mandatory. Agencies must meet them when developing and applying their disciplinary processes.

The standards of conduct and discipline established in the Commission’s rules are applicable to all Oregon Law Enforcement Officers certified in the state, including Oregon State Police, county sheriffs, city and tribal police officers, as defined in ____, and expanded in 2024 to also include corrections, probation, parole officers, as defined in____. Agencies must ensure their policies and practices align with these statewide expectations.

Initial rules took effect November 1, 2022 for non-unionized police and sheriff’s officers, upon expiration of union contracts after November 1, 2022 for represented officers, and after January 2025 for officers who were included with the passage of SB 808 (2023.)

No. Discipline remains the responsibility of the employing agency or disciplinary body. The Commission establishes standards, provides guidance and support to agencies in adopting and applying the standards, and monitors whether agencies are applying the standards appropriately.

The Commission does not have authority over certification. That responsibility belongs to the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), which certifies all public safety professionals in Oregon. However, DPSST is represented on the Commission, and disciplinary decisions made by employing agencies—including those applying LESC standards—may be reviewed by DPSST to determine whether they affect an officer’s continued fitness for certification.

It is important to understand the distinction between the Commission’s focus on disciplinary standards and DPSST’s focus on a broader range of factors in certification decisions, including background, training, and overall fitness—not just misconduct history.

No. LESC rules currently apply to disciplinary actions involving the following types of misconduct:

• Assault
• Unjustified or excessive use of physical force
• Unjustified or excessive use of deadly force
• Sexual assault
• Sexual harassment
• Conduct motivated by or based on a real or perceived factor of an individual’s race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or homelessness
• Lack of Good Moral character (conduct constituting a state or federal felony, DV, stalking, Drug-related offense, bias or hate crime, sex crime, untruthfulness, misuse of authority)
• Use of alcohol or drugs while on duty

For types of conduct that are not covered by the LESC rules, the agency’s regular policy and practice apply.

Standards go through a public rulemaking process. Effective dates are announced with ample notice to allow for implementation planning. Law Enforcement Agencies are among the stakeholders who are sent notification of proposed Rule changes. Law enforcement staff and other stakeholders who wish to receive individual notice of any proposed rule changes and other notifications may subscribe individually to our email list.

Agencies may retain their own policies and collective bargaining agreements, but any policies and any agreements bargained after 2022 must be consistent with the statewide standards. Where conflicts arise, state standards take precedence.

All disciplining bodies shall adopt policies incorporating LESC rules. (Note: the failure of a disciplining body to adopt policies incorporating these rules does not impair the application of these rules. The LESC rules still apply whether agencies adopt such policies or not.)

Adoption of the LESC rules can take different forms for different agencies; one size may not fit all.  Agencies decide what best ensures compliance and serves the interests of fairness and accountability. Among the steps some agencies have taken:

• Reviewing OAR 265 that include the standards and guide.
• Informing or providing information to officers so they clearly understand conduct expectations and consequences for violations.
• Informing or providing information about LESC rules to all staff that investigate or make findings or disciplinary decisions.
• Adopting formal policies/including in existing policies. This could be something as simple as including the policy language, “[agency] will adhere to the administrative rules adopted by the Statewide Commission on Law Enforcement Standards of Conduct and Discipline.”
• Providing training to staff making disciplinary decisions (on the need to keep up with rule changes, how to classify allegations, how to use the matrix, how to apply mitigating and aggravating factors, how to document departures from presumptive penalties and avoid adverse arbitration decisions, etc.)
• Requesting training or technical assistance in applying the standards.

It is advisable to review LESC rules and the Guide to the LESC Rules when it becomes known that one of more of the allegations is a type of misconduct to which the standards apply. The investigation should use the same definitions for the conduct as that used in rule, and the disciplinary recommendations for sustained findings should be consistent with the sanction or range of sanctions in the LESC rule. If the allegations are sustained, they should result in either a mandatory or presumptive sanction. Presumptive sanctions may allow for mitigating or aggravating factors. The reasoning for any departures from the presumptive sanctions should be clearly documented.

There are annual requirements for agencies to report on their adoption and application of LESC rules, however at present we are finding the annual survey of Law Enforcement Agencies to be an adequate means of tracking and analyzing data to meet those requirements. It should be noted that agencies may still have other reporting requirements separate from the LESC data, as for example, DPSST disciplinary reporting requirements or the DOJ’s deadly force requirements.