Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2001 Communication MEMO Date: May 3, 2001 To: Members of Police Citizen's Review Board From: Catherine A. Pugh, Legal Counsel RE: Sunset Clause Issues and Potential Changes to Ordinance Upon attendance at the joint meeting of the Police Citizen's Review Board and the Iowa City, City Council, I had several thoughts concerning issues raised at that meeting and some things that have not yet been discussed. 1. The Board received confirmation from the council that the ordinance will continue to authorize a police citizen's review board in some form. Four of the councilors were supportive of shifting the structure of the Board to an Ad Hoc Board and the Board of Adjustment was mentioned by more than one council as a model. Upon review of the powers and procedures of the Board of Adjustment it is clear to me that the Board of Adjustment operates in a very different manner than the Police Citizen's Review Board and in fact is quasi judicial in nature. The Board of Adjustment specifically hears and decides appeals from decisions made by the City Manager or his designee in the enforcement of the zoning ordinances of Iowa City or hears and decides applications for special exceptions from these zoning ordinances. The Board hears all applicable evidence and decides 1) whether there is evidence to support an error in a decision by the City or 2) whether a special exception is appropriate given the standard set forth in the ordinance. The ordinance concerning the Board of Adjustment requires no deference to decisions made by City Officials. A decision of the Board of Adjustment may commence a suit in District Court under a writ of certiorari. The powers of the Board of Adjustment compared to the powers of the Police Citizen's Review Board is vast and binding. 2. One of the issues raised by Councilperson Vanderhoft was specifically with regard to the cost of the PCRB. It was ambiguous whether her concern regarding the cost related to the cost of a staff person and legal counsel for the Board or whether it related to the internal cost of investigating complaints and having the city legal counsel review those complaints. It appears to me that regardless of whether the Board is reduced to an Ad Hoc Board the internal cost will remain unchanged as those expenses are only generated when a complaint is filed. With regard to the direct cost expended by the City for staff time I am convinced after speaking with Ms. Bauer that the damage control done by the Board's staff person saves the City a great deal. On several occasions a potential complainant has taken the opportunity to "vent" with Ms, Bauer which resulted in no complaint being filed. Sometimes all it took was a sympathetic ear to listen and to explain options before the potential complainant decided that they did not wish to go forward and had the benefit of a sounding board. I will not extend myself to defend the Board's expense regarding legal fees since that may appear to be self-interested. My counsel is however that the cost savings by eliminating the number of meetings the Board holds would not necessarily produce a great degree of dollar for dollar savings. Although the regular meetings of the Board do not always deal directly with resolution of some complaint against a Police Officer the Board is always educating itself about the policies and procedures of the Police Department. This knowledge in turn allows the Board to streamline its procedure in dealing with actual complaints. If the Board were to meet on an "Ad Hoc" basis, each new complaint would bring a myriad of issues that the Board may or may not be versed in. It may require additional education and additional attorney time in educating the Board in such issues as high speed chases, search and seizure, appropriate use of force and the many other questions that the Board has dealt with. 3. John had asked me to provide some alternate language with regard to the deferential review standard required by the ordinance. The type of language which would direct the level of your review would depend upon how the Board wants to present this option. If the Board were to request that no deference be given to the findings of the Police Chief the level of review would be "de novo" and basically the Board would review the results of the investigation and reach its own conclusions as to whether a complaint would be sustained or not. This level of review would be implemented with difficulty considering the limited information the Board is provided with regard to the Police Officer's response and defense to complaints. Perhaps we could speak more at the meeting with regard to this issue and if the Board wishes me to draft optional language we may want to examine other parts of the procedure to review. The primary problem as you know is the Garrit¥ and Gardner dicta which prevents the Board from independent access to the statements of the police officers if they invoke that right. These precedents make it very difficult for the Board to actively investigate complaints. I would be happy to respond to any other questions you might have concerning these issues at our meeting on May 8% Respectfully submitted STEIN, PUGH & MORELAND Catherine A. Pugh Attorney for the Police Citizen's Review Board _ City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marjan K. Karr, City Clerk RE: Spec. Work Session, April 19, 2001, 8:30 AM in Council Chambers Council present: Champion, Karmer (an:tved 8:55), Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilbum PCRB Present: Cohen, Hoffey, Horton, Stratton, Watson Staff: Arkins, Helling, Holecek, Karr, Bauer Other: PCRB Legal Counsel Pugh Tape: 01-44, Both Sides A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office. Joint Meetin~ with PCRB PCRB Chairperson Watson presented a summary of PCRB responsibiiities, possible ordinance changes and the reasons for continuing the Board. Materials were distributed. Watson noted the August 1,2001 sunset clause contained in the ordinance and reported that the Board had voted unanimously to reenact the ordinance at their previous meeting. Majority of Council agreed to: · Recognize the value of PCRB · Continue the PCRB in some form · Recommended a change to the first line of the second paragraph of the PCRB educational brochure to read "The PCRB reviews reports prepared after investigation of complaints about alleged police misconduct." · Schedule April 30 work session discussion on the future scope of the Board · Acknowledged 2 vacancies on the Board for September 1 (advertising to begin in June) STAFF ACTION: Schedule discussion for April 30 work session. (Karr) Meeting adjourned 9:30 AM.