Police auditor releases preliminary results, will monitor internal investigation

from Eugene Police Auditor Craig Renetzky

This memo addresses our preliminary independent review of evidence provided by the Eugene Police Department (EPD), community members, and the FBI of incidents that occurred around the Eugene Federal Building on Jan. 30, 2026.

The independent police auditor’s office is governed by Eugene Charter Section 15-A which created an independent police auditor to oversee investigations of complaints involving police employees.

Section 2.450 states that the auditor’s office shall be headed by a full-time professional police auditor who is hired by and accountable to the City Council. As a result, the office is independent of the EPD, and no employee of the auditor’s office works for or has ever worked for EPD. The auditor is independent and reports to the Eugene City Council, and not to the city manager or EPD. EPD has no authority or oversight in regard to the auditor’s intake of complaints, preliminary investigations, classifications, or adjudication recommendations.

The auditor’s office has the authority to monitor investigations involving current EPD employees. Therefore, it does not have any authority to oversee similar investigations of law enforcement employees from other jurisdictions like Springfield or federal employees including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Federal Protective Services (FPS), or the Border Patrol. As a result, the preliminary investigation conducted by this office solely focused on actions of the Eugene Police Department.

Review of Jan. 30, 2026

Our office received complaints and commendations about the Eugene Police Department’s response to the events on Jan. 30, 2026, around the Federal Building in downtown Eugene. In compliance with policy, I received timely notification about the incident from the Police Department on the evening of Jan. 30, 2026, at 9:45 p.m.

Based on that notification I began to monitor the incident and requested updates of any crucial developments. The first complaint was submitted to our office via the auditor’s public portal at 8:27 p.m.

Upon notification of the events and subsequent complaints, I initiated a preliminary investigation and, in collaboration with the associate auditors, reviewed media reports, social media, and community generated videos of the incident. We requested and received body-worn video, radio communications recordings, dispatch reports, police reports, drone footage, and dash camera recordings from EPD. We further submitted a freedom of information request for federal video footage. Though this request has not yet been fulfilled, we reviewed the limited video footage released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation showing camera views from the lobby and exterior of the building which captured glass breaking and individuals striking the windows of the federal building from the outside of the building.

In total we have reviewed over 200 body-worn and drone-generated videos, more than four hours of radio traffic, and all available dispatch and police reports in addition to video external to the police department made available by the FBI and by complainants. The focus of this review was to identify any actions by EPD officers that violated any laws, ordinances, regulations, policies, or procedures. As indicated previously, we did not review any of the materials for purposes of determining any misconduct of federal employees or Springfield Police Department, since this is outside our jurisdiction. The findings of the preliminary review of all materials available at this time are as follows:

The first issue we examined was the declaration of a riot by EPD. A riot is discussed in Oregon Revised Statute 166.015 and says that:

“A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.”

Review of the evidence showed numerous individuals as part of a large crowd surrounded the Federal Building and were pounding on the building’s windows. Further evidence showed that there were federal staff inside that building with no safe way to egress from the building. There is also evidence that some windows were broken in various locations around the building, adding to the alarm of those inside the location. We did not see evidence of any protesters actually entering the building, but this is not required by the statute. We therefore determined that the declaration of a riot was reasonable given the circumstances.

Our focus then shifted to an examination of the response by EPD. The police department may not under Sanctuary Promise Act (HB 3265), use money, equipment, or personnel to detect or apprehend persons for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. (ORS 181A.820(2)). There was no evidence that the EPD took any of these actions. Further, there was no evidence discovered that there was any immigration enforcement taking place at the time of this incident.

All of these sections, while prohibiting the police department from assisting in the enforcement of immigration laws, do not divest the police department from their public duties. Public safety includes the wellbeing of protesters, federal employees and visitors of the federal building.

Our review of the hundreds of videos both internal and external to EPD did not reveal evidence to indicate that EPD utilized any force, including non-lethal munitions, during their involvement in this event. Video from body-worn cameras and drones clearly showed that various munitions such as pepper spray, flash-bang devices, smoke, and other chemical irritants were utilized by federal agency employees upon their arrival to the scene at 7:23 p.m. However, we do not have the jurisdiction to review the federal agency’s use of these items. Our review also concluded that EPD officers interacting with the public had their body-worn cameras activated appropriately and in accordance with department policy.

Preliminary findings

Our preliminary independent review has concluded that the Eugene Police Department did not violate any laws, ordinances, regulations, policies, or procedures by their actions on Jan. 30, 2026. Based on this information, we have not leveled any allegations of misconduct at this time. However, due to the serious nature of the incident and the ongoing collection of evidence, I have classified the complaints related to these events as an “incident review.” This classification ensures that a complete investigation and more thorough documentation will be completed by EPD internal affairs and monitored by the auditor’s office. If misconduct is discovered during the process of this complete investigation, I have the authority to re-classify and proceed accordingly. We will follow-up with public communication upon the completion of the incident review investigation.

Additional information

I encourage anyone with first-hand information or evidence of the events on that night to submit them to our office so that they can be included in the investigation. You may submit them in person, over the phone, by mail, or via our online portal.

I appreciate the community bringing forth their concerns about this incident. It is through this process that the city of Eugene has a robust independent oversight of the EPD.

For further information, please contact Independent Police Auditor Craig Renetzky at 541-682-5016.