In Response to The Oregonian’s DPSST Investigative Report

Daryl Turner, President
Oregon Coalition of Police & Sheriffs


Portland, OR:  Earlier today, The Oregonian published a lengthy article about the role of the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST)—Oregon’s training and certifying agency for police officers, corrections officers, firefighters, private security personnel, and other public safety personnel.

However, there are several elements to this narrative that are either ignored or out of place, notably confusion about DPSST’s role in the public safety regulation and the failure to use the most relevant comparative statistics.

Most concerning, however, is the overarching premise that DPSST is meant to act as some sort of super-employer, its authority superseding local elected officials and local departments that would become secondary to State control over their day-to-day personnel processes. If this were the case, the State would have to drastically increase the DPSST budget, as well as pass new statutes that would guarantee their procedures meet due process standards. In fact, DPSST is only one vital element of a complex regulatory environment — one that spans multiple agencies and multiple levels of government. Looking at DPSST actions in a vacuum ignores a wide array of other discipline, penalties, and ongoing restrictions that are at work with regard to ensuring officer accountability.

As an organization representing rank and file police officers, deputy sheriffs, and other line personnel employed by Oregon’s largest police departments and sheriffs’ offices, we are committed to transparent discussions about our oversight systems. But for those discussions to have meaning, we must look at these structures objectively and acknowledge that each element is a part of a larger system — a system that, in its entirety, has been held up as a model of accountability around the nation. Drawing broad conclusions from singular cases in the name of sensationalism inappropriately tarnishes the reputation of thousands of dedicated law enforcement professionals in this State and the work they do on a daily basis; it does nothing to advance the discussion surrounding law enforcement service for our communities.


The Oregon Coalition of Police & Sheriffs (ORCOPS) is a non-partisan organization that advocates on behalf of police officers, deputy sheriffs and other individuals in Oregon law enforcement agencies. ORCOPS serves as a source of leadership within the law enforcement community and aims to build trust between law enforcement officers and the communities we serve.

Download the Press Release >>> 12152017 In Response to The Oregonians DPSST Report

Fairview Police Officers Association on Consolidation with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office


Open Letter from the Fairview Police Officers Association on Consolidation with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office
By Fairview Police Officers Association President Brad Robertson

On Thursday, June 8th at 6pm at Fairview City Hall there will be the third public forum on discussions regarding the consolidation of Fairview police services into the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office.  I’d like to encourage all those with interest about this possible change in public safety services to attend.

The consolidation of the Fairview Police Department into the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office is a change that the Fairview Police Officers Association (FPOA) UNANIMOUSLY supports.  It is imperative for our officer safety, and the safety of the public that the economy of scale of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office is brought to the City of Fairview.  The FPOA applauds the vision and dedication to public safety of City of Fairview Mayor Tosterud and Multnomah County Sheriff Reese with the analysis of the consolidation process and its benefits for the public and officers.

Quite simply, the size of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office and its resources expands the service levels for Fairview citizens and provides the sorely needed vast public safety services required in this day and age.  The size of the Sheriff’s Office optimizes public safety services by being able to provide so much more, and for close to the same cost that the City of Fairview is paying now, or quite likely at a lesser cost.

The Fairview police force consists of only 15 officers.  In a metropolitan, densely populated area this amount of personnel is not a staffing level that can support growing crime rates (specifically a 167% increase in violent crime since 2010), let alone the needs of the community it serves.  Crime spreads across municipal borders quite swiftly in East Multnomah County.  Ask Fairview Officers about the multiple officer involved shootings or the critical incidents to which they’ve responded in the past few years.  I guarantee you’ll hear a once in a lifetime story.  But, the FPOA officers live it all too often without the protections of a more robust support structure in a larger public safety agency.

A public safety contract with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office provides enhanced public safety with superior staffing levels, comprehensive supervision twenty-four hours a day, immensely improved investigative services, and various other supplemental law enforcement capacities- and again- all for close to the same cost, or less, as the City of Fairview is paying now for current public safety services.

The FPOA believes unanimously that consolidation is what’s right for public safety and for officer safety, especially considering the lack of financial impact, and more likely the financial gain to the City of Fairview.  As an Army veteran, I see it in these terms: the City of Fairview can spend the same amount for public safety, or likely less, and receive either a squad or a battalion sized element to protect the public around the clock.  When there’s a critical incident, I think everyone affected would feel safer with the battalion.  Safety in numbers, always.

The Fairview Police Officers Association looks forward to your support of consolidation with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office and your attendance to the upcoming public form at Fairview City Hall on Thursday June 8th at 6pm.


Brad Robertson
FPOA President

Support of HB 4087

ORCOPS Members:

We’re almost to the end of the 2016 Legislative Session, but a key piece of legislation has stalled in the Senate – the bill to allow a judge to shield an officer’s name from public release for 90 days if there is a credible threat against the officer or their family.

Click to View >>>  HB 4087

Our lobbyist in Salem is on top of the issue, but Legislators need to hear from you, too!

Please take a few moments and write a quick e-mail expressing your personal SUPPORT of HB 4087, so that the Legislature knows that there are scores of real officers standing behind our organization.

We want to email (or call) the Senate President and the legislators on the Senate Rules Committee:

Senator Peter Courtney, Senate President: / 503-986-1600
Senator Ginny Burdick, Chair: / 503-986-1718
Senator Ted Ferrioli:
Senator Lee Beyer:
Senator Brian Boquist:
Senator Diane Rosenbaum:

Your e-mail can be written personally, or you can draw from our previous testimony on the bill. Here’s an example:

Dear Legislators,

As a law enforcement officer, I am writing to let you know of my strong support of HB 4087, which allows a judge to shield an officer’s name from public release for 90 days if there is a credible threat against the officer or their family.

As a law enforcement officer, I put my life on the line every day. But doing my job shouldn’t put my family at risk, too. The protections in HB 4087 would occur only in the event that a judge found a credible threat to exist – on par with many other public records protections currently in statute.

The House of Representatives passed this bill on a resounding 55-3 vote. I hope that you will join them in helping to protect law enforcement officers — and their families – from harm.

Thank you,

(Your name, City of residence)

Be aware that any e-mail will become a public record, and please do not take time to email while on the clock! Remember to always be respectful, and to not resort to name-calling or accusations. For example, It’s OK to say that you feel endangered, but not OK to suggest that a legislator is trying to endanger you.

Thanks! Get those e-mails and phone calls in!

Daryl Turner
Oregon Coalition of Police and Sheriffs

Mourning the Loss of Sergeant Jason Goodding

The perils of law enforcement are evident everyday. The men and women who wear the badge and serve the communities of America give much to keep them safe 24-7. As we grieve for our brother lost in Seaside our hearts are heavy knowing that he leaves behind a wife and children, family, loved ones, friends, and a community.

Daryl Turner, President

What is a Policeman? By Paul Harvey (1918-2009)

What is a Policeman?

By Paul Harvey (1918-2009)

A policeman is a composite of what all men are, I guess; a mingling of saint and sinner, dust, and deity. Culled statistics wave the fan over stinkers, underscore instances of dishonesty and brutality because they are news. What that really means is that they are exceptional. They are unusual. They are not commonplace. Buried under the froth is the fact, and the fact is that less than one half of one percent of policemen misfit that uniform. And that is a better average than you’d find among clergymen.

What is a policeman? He, of all men, is at once the most needed, and the most wanted; a strangely nameless creature who is “sir” to his face and “pig” or worse behind his back. He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won. But, if a policeman is neat, he’s conceited; if he’s careless, he’s a bum; if he’s pleasant, he’s a flirt; if he’s not, he’s a grouch.

He must make instant decisions which would require months for a lawyer. But, if he hurries, he’s careless; if he’s deliberate, he’s lazy.

He must be first to an accident, infallible with a diagnosis. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints, and, above all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp. Or, expect to be sued.

The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run, and hit where it doesn’t hurt.

He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform and without being brutal.

If you hit him, he’s a coward; if he hits you, he’s a bully.

A policeman must know everything and not tell. He must know where all of the sin is and not partake.

The policeman, from a single human hair, must be able to describe the crime, the weapon, the criminal, and tell you where the criminal is hiding. But, if he catches the criminal, he’s lucky; if he doesn’t, he’s a dunce.

If he gets promoted, he has political pull if he doesn’t he’s a dullard.

The policeman must chase bum leads to a dead end; stake out ten nights to tag one witness who saw it happen but refuses to remember. He runs files and writes reports until his eyes ache, to build a case against some felon who will get dealt out by a shameless shamus or an honorable who isn’t honorable.

The policeman must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy, and a gentle man. And of course, he’ll have to be a genius, because he’ll have to feed a family on a policeman’s salary.

Bridging The Divide

What is it that police associations can do to reconnect with citizens and communities

By Daryl Turner

apb daryl turner

As the national discussion over law enforcement has grown constant and at times divisive, we noticed a huge void in the discussion – the voices of the men and women of law enforcement.

Law enforcement officers don’t just work to protect and serve our communities, we also live and raise our families in those communities.

We coach little league. We shop at the same grocery stores and pick up our kids from the local schools. We’re just like everybody else – we’re black and white, Hispanic and Asian, women and men, gay and straight.

The livability and safety of these communities matters to us because it’s where we’re buying our homes and raising our families.

We formed the Oregon Coalition of Police & Sheriffs (known as ORCOPS) in January to develop a greater bond between the communities where we live and serve, and the officers who put their lives on the line every day.

ORCOPS advocates on behalf of over 2,500 individuals in Oregon law enforcement agencies, making it one of the largest organizations of its kind. The organization is non-partisan and serves as a source of leadership within the law enforcement community.

ORCOPS is comprised of the members of the Portland Police Association, Multnomah County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, Clackamas County Peace Officers’ Association, Washington County Police Officers Association, Troutdale Police Officers Association, and Oregon State Police Officers Association. The coalition is open to any Oregon law enforcement officer association.

We formed the coalition because there was a need for a unified law enforcement voice speaking about legislative affairs and community engagement. Since ORCOPS formed, we’ve had great success working with elected officials on legislative issues. Our focus is not just on narrow law enforcement issues such as profiling or body worn cameras.

We’ve also provided public support on broader legislative issues like expanding mental health services, providing resources for homeless youth, and facilitating cleanup and development of unused urban lots. This approach helps legislators and other stakeholders view ORCOPS in a broader context, which significantly changes the dynamic when we advocate directly for our members.

By sharing the day-to-day stories of officers with lawmakers, we shed light on the experiences and perspective of our members. Our communications effort is built on an online presence that allows us to directly share with the public in ways that increase understanding and trust. We told the story of Officer Nick Bohrer, who after recovering from cancer decided to become a “cancer buddy” at a local children’s cancer hospital.

Officer Bohrer goes to doctor visits and chemotherapy appointments, helping his “buddy” by simply being there for him as he goes through the process. He’s even helping out the family with a fundraiser to offset some of their medical expenses. It’s that kind of commitment to community that helps build trust between officers and the public.

We told the story of Officer Parik Singh, who received the Medal of Valor and Police Star after being shot in the line of duty in 2011.

One day, after returning to work, Officer Singh encountered a polite, funny man walking barefoot near the courthouse. Realizing that the man was homeless and cold, Officer Singh gave the socks and boots off his own feet to the man.

That simple act captured the kindness and generosity of our members that often goes unnoticed. We’ve also told numerous stories about officers who have faced dangerous circumstances with inspiring amounts of courage and calm resolve.

By directly engaging with the community, we’re showing our legislators and our neighbors who we are. By engaging with the communities we serve, we’re building understanding. And from that comes trust.

We believe that by telling our members’ stories, our communities will develop a greater understanding of the work we do, our commitment to serve and the sacrifices we make.

Understanding our communities’ needs and building strong relationships with the people we serve are key to good police work. In the end, telling our stories is one more way to build community.

Daryl Turner is the president of the Portland Police Association and the Oregon Coalition of Police & Sheriffs.

Reprinted with permission from American Police Beat.

New Legislation Spearheaded by ORCOPS


Several weeks ago, ORCOPS was made aware of a concerning development regarding the disclosure of officers’ personal information. A local paper submitted a public records request for officer information, including dates of birth and social security information. Ordinarily, this material would be protected from disclosure, but the request was made to the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), and there was ambiguity over whether the information was exempt from the request. The Department of Justice ordered (some of) the material released, but DPSST is currently fighting that order in court.

In the meantime, ORCOPS jumped into action in Salem in order to close this loophole. Because the Legislative Session was already in full swing, ORCOPS’ staff and lobbyist worked to identify several bills that could be amended with a simple fix to closing the loophole. We then worked through the State House and Senate Judiciary Committees to amend House Bill 2208.  That bill passed the Legislative process yesterday, along with our amendments. It will become effective once it is signed by Governor Brown.

ORCOPS took action immediately because this loophole would have potentially allowed individuals to obtain officer dates of birth. That information could then be used to obtain an officer’s home address and household information from the voter registration database. Our quick efforts means this loophole was closed in about a month.


Under existing laws, counties of residence shield public safety officers’ home addresses and telephone information from public records requests, but this can only be done at the request of the officer. In addition to our work in Salem, ORCOPS urges officers to use these existing tools to protect their information. Ask your local county Assessor and Clerk to protect your personal information in voter registration and property records.

To find your county contact information, go to >>> ORCOPS: Protect Your Personal Information

Daryl Turner, President

Protect Your Personal Information

Under existing laws, counties of residence shield public safety officers’ home addresses and telephone information from public records requests, but this can only be done at the request of the officer. ORCOPS urges officers to use these existing tools to protect their information. Ask your local county Assessor and Clerk to protect your personal information in voter registration and property records.

Contact your county with the following request:

“I am a public safety officer requesting that my personal information be protected from public records requests as described in ORS 192.501, subsection 31.”


​Assessor ​541-523-8203 ​541-523-8352
Collector ​541-523-8222 ​541-523-8240
​Clerk ​541-523-8207 ​541-523-8240
​Assessor ​541-766-6665 ​541-766-6848
​Collector ​541-766-6767 ​541-766-6848
​Clerk ​541-766-6831 ​541-766-6675
​Assessor ​503-655-8671 ​503-655-8313
​Collector ​503-655-8671 ​503-655-8313
​Clerk ​503-650-5686 ​503-650-5687
​Assessor ​503-325-8522 ​503-338-3638
​Collector ​503-325-8561 ​503-338-3638
​Clerk ​503-325-8511 ​503-325-9307
​Assessor ​503-397-2240 ​503-397-5153
​Collector ​503-397-7252 ​503-397-7252
​Clerk ​503-397-3796 ​503-397-7266
​Assessor ​541-396-7901 ​541-396-1027
​Collector ​541-396-7725 ​541-396-1027
​Clerk ​541-396-7601 ​541-396-1013
​Assessor ​541-447-4133 ​541-447-1051
​Collector ​541-447-6554 ​541-416-2140
​Clerk ​541-447-6553 ​541-416-2145
​Assessor ​541-247-3294 ​541-247-9361
​Collector ​541-247-3294 541-247-3436​
​Clerk ​541-247-3295 ​541-247-6440
​Assessor ​541-388-6508 ​541-382-1692
​Collector ​541-388-6559 ​541-385-3248
​Clerk ​541-388-6544 ​541-383-4424
​Assessor ​541-440-4225 ​541-957-2091
​Collector ​541-440-4519 ​541-440-4338
​Clerk ​541-440-4324 ​541-440-4408
​Assessor ​541-384-3781 ​541-384-3304
​Collector ​541-384-3781 ​541-384-2166
​Clerk ​541-384-2721 x 151 ​541-384-3304
​Assessor ​541-575-0107 ​541-575-2248
​Collector ​541-575-0189 ​541-575-2248
​Clerk ​541-575-1675 ​541-575-2248
​Assessor ​541-573-2246 ​541-573-8193
​Collector ​541-573-8365 ​541-573-8193
​Clerk ​541-573-6641 ​541-573-8370
​Assessor ​541-386-4522 ​541-387-6864
​Collector ​541-387-6824 ​541-387-6894
​Clerk ​541-386-1442 ​541-387-6864
​Assessor ​541-774-6059 ​541-774-6701
​Collector ​541-774-6535 ​541-776-6735
​Clerk ​541-774-6147 ​541-774-6714
​Assessor ​541-475-2443 ​541-325-5504
​Collector ​541-475-4458 ​541-475-4454
​Clerk 541-475-4451​ ​541-325-5018
​Assessor ​541-474-5260 ​541-474-5261
​Collector ​541-474-5175 ​541-474-5176
​Clerk ​541-474-5243 ​541-474-5246
​Assessor ​541-883-5111 ​541-885-6757
​Collector 541-883-4269​ ​541-883-5165
​Clerk ​541-883-5134 ​541-885-6757
​Assessor ​541-947-6000 ​541-947-7012
​Collector ​541-947-6000 ​541-947-7012
​Clerk ​541-947-0905 ​541-947-6015
​Assessor ​541-682-4321 ​541-682-3819
​Collector ​541-682-4321 ​541-682-3819
​Clerk ​541-682-4328 ​541-682-2303
​Assessor ​541-265-4102 ​541-265-4148
​Collector ​541-265-4139 ​541-265-5466
​Clerk ​541-265-4131 ​541-265-4950
​Assessor ​541-967-3808 ​541-917-7448
​Collector ​541-967-3808 ​541-917-7448
​Clerk ​541-967-3831 ​541-926-5109
​Assessor ​541-473-5117 ​541-473-5109
​Collector ​541-473-5148 ​541-473-5164
​Clerk ​541-473-5151 ​541-473-5523
​Assessor ​503-588-5144 ​503-588-7985
​Collector 503-588-5144​ ​503-566-3911
​Clerk 503-588-5225​ ​503-373-4408
​Assessor ​541-676-5607 ​541-676-5610
​Collector ​541-676-5607 ​541-676-5610
​Clerk ​541-676-5601 ​541-676-9876
​Assessor ​503-988-3326 ​503-988-3356
​Collector ​503-988-3326 ​503-988-3330
​Clerk ​503-988-3326 ​503-988-3330
​Assessor ​503-623-8391 ​503-831-3015
​Collector ​503-623-9264 x 1387 ​503-623-0721
​Clerk 503-623-9217 x 1250​ ​503-623-0717
​Assessor ​541-565-3505 ​541-565-3312
​Collector ​541-565-3623 ​541-565-3312
​Clerk ​541-565-3606 ​541-565-3312
​Assessor ​503-842-3400 ​503-842-3448
​Collector ​503-842-3400 ​503-842-3448
​Clerk ​503-842-3402 ​503-842-1599
​Assessor ​541-276-1111 ​541-278-6375
​Collector ​541-276-1111 ​541-278-6375
​Clerk ​541-278-6236 503-278-5463​
​Assessor ​541-963-1002 ​541-963-1039
​Collector ​541-963-1002 ​541-963-1039
​Clerk ​541-963-1006 ​541-963-1013
​Assessor ​541-426-4543 ​541-426-5901
​Collector ​541-426-4543 x 153 ​541-426-5901
​Clerk ​541-426-4543 x 158 ​541-426-5901
​Assessor ​541-506-2510 ​541-506-2511
​Collector ​541-506-2540 ​541-506-2511
​Clerk ​541-506-2530 ​541-506-2531
​Assessor ​503-846-8741 ​503-846-3908
​Collector ​503-846-8741 ​503-846-3909
​Clerk ​503-846-8741 ​503-846-3909
​Assessor ​541-763-4266 ​541-763-2026
​Collector ​541-763-2078 ​541-763-2026
​Clerk ​541-763-2400 ​541-763-2026
​Assessor ​503-434-7521 ​503-434-7352
​Collector ​503-434-7521 ​503-434-7352
​Clerk ​503-434-7518 ​503-434-7520

3 Big Issues for ORCOPS

The second half of the Legislative Session in Salem is either picking up steam or circling the drain, depending on which bills you’re watching. Earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed House Bill 2571, which establishes minimum standards for when local agencies opt to use body cameras. There is now a provision in the bill that ensures that footage is released to the public only in very narrow circumstances, and that all faces are blurred in whatever footage is released given privacy and safety concerns for officers and their families.

In terms of ORCOPS’s priorities, there are three big issues still up in the air for us:

1.  Senate Bill 316 was a simple bill about privacy of data on electronic devices for most of the session, but was suddenly amended into a bill that allows for polygraph examinations of new police officer applicants. The bill now heads to the House Judiciary committee, and ORCOPS is confident about stopping this invasive provision.

2.  Senate Bill 822 and Senate Bill 871 attempt to address grand jury and investigation processes.  SB 822 would call for the recording of grand jury proceedings, and provide those recordings to defense attorneys. However, the bill also contains special provisions for releasing those records only when “public servants” (police officers) are not indicted. Aside from being an unproductive and sensational provision, this sets a precedent of creating a separate justice system for police officers. Along those lines SB 871 includes a provision that would remove District Attorney discretion in cases where a police officer used deadly force, and mandates such cases are presented to grand juries. Alone, these provisions in SB 822 and 871 are bad enough, but combined it creates a media circus atmosphere around police work.  ORCOPS is working hard to ensure that these provisions don’t move forward.
​ ​ ​
​ 3.  Senate Bill 87 is pitched as a “clarification,” but in reality chips away at veterans’ preferences by giving broad discretion to employers in order to apply or not apply preferences as they see fit. ORCOPS is working with ​the Bureau of Labor and Industries to lobby hard against this bill, and change it to an actual clarification of existing law by adopting the 87-1 amendments.

Other bills are moving forward – both ORCOPS’ own priorities and various compromises. House Bill 2357, allowing officers to carry their weapons when off-duty, passed the House and has its (hopefully) final hearing on Thursday May 14. Senate Bill 943 will prevent counties from charging an extra vehicle registration fee to non-residents who register their personal vehicle at a precinct address.

Additionally, many other bills that ORCOPS had strong concerns about are no longer viable. This list includes bills that would require the Attorney General to investigate use of force complaints, capping PERS final salaries at $100,000, impeding officers’ ability to conduct consent searches, and a dangerous revision of use of force standards.

Contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding our ORCOPS activities.

Daryl Turner, President

What’s In Front of Us Right Now

Now that the Oregon Legislature’s first major deadline has passed, many bills introduced this session are no longer moving forward. Several that ORCOPS have been working on are still in the mix, however. We’re keeping an eye on a number of important measures that are still under consideration and as you’ll see, some of them have changed dramatically over the course of session.

Here’s what’s in front of us right now:

HB 2571 (facilitating local bodycam policies) passed out of the House Judiciary Committee with an amendment that ensures that all faces will be blurred in the event that footage ever finds its way to the public. No footage would be made public until all associated legal proceedings are concluded and if a judge says that its release is in the public interest. Rep. Jennifer Williamson (D – Portland) specifically noted that mere conversation was not intended to be recorded and that local agencies were expected to develop their own use and exception policies.

HB 2002 (prohibiting profiling) was amended with ORCOPS recommendations and has passed out of committee as well. Our amendments protect the ability of officers to pursue suspects based on descriptions and other information, and allow latitude for non-coercive encounters. We also secured additional public record protections around complaints, data, and adjustments to the charge of a workgroup to be formed around this issue.This measure has come a long way from the initial concept which established a broad prohibition and gave the Attorney General investigation and enforcement responsibilities.

SB 822 (requiring grand jury recordings) and SB 871 (various provisions around use of force investigations) were passed out of Senate Judiciary to Ways & Means. These bills still contain provisions ORCOPS finds harmful, such as specific carve-outs for when proceedings for police officers may be released. The Senate Judiciary Committee understood our concerns and there’s a commitment to work out those issues in the Ways & Means Committee. We have already had discussions with Rep. Jeff Barker (D – Aloha) and Williamson, who are both on the subcommittee.

HB 2704 (allowing the filming of police officers) was amended to be very simple and passed to the House floor on a 7-2 vote. As amended, the bill adds an exception to the surreptitious filming prohibitions if a person is “openly” filming officers while the officers are on duty and in a public place.  Some cleanup amendments are expected in the House to ensure prohibitions against things like long-range microphones.

SB 629 (“Right to Rest Act” – allowing homeless persons the ability to rest in public places) did not advance before the first deadline and will not be moving forward. ORCOPS participated in a workgroup and described several elements of the bill that would have to be adjusted or eliminated to earn our support, but at that point the advocates chose not to move forward.

A number of other bills did not move – many of these in ORCOPS’ favor. Others are still alive (such as carrying firearms while off duty), and will now be considered in the second legislative chamber.

Contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding our ORCOPS activities.

Daryl Turner, President