A federal judge has dismissed a request from the Department of Justice to obtain body‑camera footage and internal records related to protests outside Portland’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility.
The court, led by Judge Michael H. Simon, denied a motion that would have required the Portland Police Bureau to produce 29 documents, including footage, incident reports, complaints and internal communications.
The records were sought in connection with two incidents involving conservative journalists. In October, journalist Nick Sortor was arrested after claiming he had been assaulted by left‑wing demonstrators. A separate incident saw journalist Katie Daviscourt struck in the face with a flagpole during a protest.
The DOJ’s request, sent in early October, listed unredacted body‑camera footage, arrest and force reports, and communications about police responses to demonstrations at the ICE facility.
It argued that the documents were necessary to examine whether the police had violated a consent decree that requires uniform application of policies and accountability for officers.
The decree dates back to a 2012 lawsuit that alleged excessive force against individuals experiencing mental‑health crises. The judge noted that the case had never addressed viewpoint discrimination or First Amendment issues.
Judge Simon described the DOJ’s action as “bad faith and with unclean hands,” suggesting the agency’s motives were a pretext to intimidate the police bureau.
He highlighted the timing of the DOJ’s demand letter, which coincided with a separate lawsuit in which Portland officials had supported a federal request to block a National Guard deployment.
The judge also referenced a social‑media post that threatened the DOJ’s investigation, calling it a form of intimidation rather than a good‑faith inquiry.
While the ruling does not resolve whether the police treated the journalists differently from other protestors, it bars the DOJ from using the existing consent decree to compel the records.
The decision leaves unanswered questions about the police’s conduct during the arrests and the subsequent handling of the incidents.
Judge Simon had previously issued an order restricting federal officers from using certain crowd‑control munitions at the ICE facility, demonstrating his active role in the city’s ongoing legal disputes.
The court’s order focuses on contractual interpretation and the alleged improper purpose behind the DOJ’s requests.
By denying the motion, the judge reinforced the need for evidence to be pursued in good faith and for agencies to respect the boundaries of established agreements.
The case underscores the broader tensions between federal oversight and local law‑enforcement practices in the context of political protests.
