Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2001 Minutes POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -April 10, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Watson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Leah Cohen, Paul Hoffey, Loren Horton, John Stratton and John Watson. Staff present: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and PCRB Assistant Sandy Bauer. Captain Tom Widmer was also present. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Cohen and seconded by Stratton to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented: a. Minutes of 3/13/01 meetin9 b. ICPD General Order - Performance Evaluations c. ICPD Use of Force Report - February 2001 d. 4/5/01 Memorandum from Marian Karr e. ICPD March Training Report ICPD Training Bulletin 01-47 ICPD Training Bulletin 01-50 h. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-51 ICPD Training Bulletin 01-52 Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL - Recommend re-enactment of the PCRB ordinance. JOINT MEETING All board members indicated they would be present for the joint meeting with City Council on Thursday, April 19, at 8:30 A.M. to discuss the sunset clause and changes that might be made to the present ordinance. The board affirmed that the PCRB is an important function and should be continued. Motion by Stratton and seconded by Cohen to recommend to City Council that the PCRB ordinance be re-enacted. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Ordinance issues/concerns were discussed: · 8-8-2 E: "No findings in the Board's report shall be used in any other legal proceeding." Pugh explained that the PCRB findings or work product could not be used by a defendant to prove innocence in a civil suit. Whether this could be upheld would be up to the court. · The two complaint processes, the PCRB and the ICPD internal process. 8-8-2 K: "Investigation of all formal complaints is a mandatory duty of the Police Chief, and a report of each complaint investigation shall be given to the Board." 8-8-3 B: "Any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police misconduct may file a complaint with the Board or with the Iowa City Police Department." This doesn't indicate two processes, it just says it can be filed in either place. 8-8-3 C: "All complaints filed with the Board or the Iowa City Police Department shall be in writing and on forms provided by the Board." Again, it says all. 8-8- 3 D: "All complaints must be filed with either the Board or the Iowa City Police Department within ninety days of the alleged misconduct." Watson states the above doesn't appear to allow an internal police department complaint process because the ordinance says all complaints, no matter where they are filed, shall be on forms provided by the PCRB. (It does allow for an informal mediation or formal mediation, and that can take place anytime.) The board had requested and has been receiving a report from the Police Chief of the ICPD investigation log. However, the board does not receive copies of the investigations of internal department complaints. Watson questions if the intent in the ordinance is that all complaints (unless settled through mediation) be investigated through the PCRB process. To-date the board has decided that "all" means all complaints that the complainant chose to go through the PCRB process. Watson said the ordinance should be changed to conform with actual practice, or the current internal process should be changed to conform with the ordinance. 2 · 8-8-7 B.2: This section has been a source of discussion since the board began. Watson defined his problem as the restrictive standard of the terms "unsupported by substantial evidence, and unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious." Such a restriction on the board prevents it from forming its own conclusion about a situation unless it can demonstrate gross error of judgment by the Chief. The board's view of a situation may be different, but also supported by substantial evidence. The board should be able to recommend a different finding based on a less restrictive standard. Pugh explained that "unsupported by substantial evidence' means more than a preponderance of the evidence; the Chief should have substantial evidence to support whatever conclusion he reaches. "You could read this as saying the Chief did not have substantial evidence to support his conclusion, or you could read this as saying you have to come up with substantial evidence to the contrary to prove that it's unsupported. It's confusing." The Board decided that it's main objective of the joint meeting is to recommend re-enactment of the ordinance. The Chair should briefly comment about the board's concerns regarding recommended changes. The board will address changes more formally and specifically at a later date. Potential changes include: 1. The two complaint process - ordinance makes repeated references to "all" complaints. This needs to be addressed and clarified in the ordinance. 2. Limits on the authority of the PCRB and with the deferential standard of review in the complaint process. The ordinance is worded in a way that leaves little latitude for the board to make its own findings. 3. Change "unsupported" to "not supported" (8-8-7 B.2) and offering different standards or an additional standard. Pugh offered to draft some language to present. Pugh recommended the board confirm 3 whether the Council is interested in entertaining any amendments on this issue. The board reviewed its concerns and issues addressed in its last annual report. The reasons cited for continuing the ordinance were: 1. External accountability - Supporting the citizens' confidence that there is an independent agency that reviews issues of police misconduct. While there is no reason to mistrust the police or to feel they systematically engage in misconduct, it's always reassuring to have an agency there. 2. Encourages the police department to monitor themselves more closely knowing this board exists. 3.Better department today, four years later. 4.Reaffirm the police department when they do well. 5. The board is an avenue to educate the community about the police department. 6. Saves council time by being able to refer complaints to the board. REVIEW OF PRESENTATION BY PROF. BALDUS Traffic Stop Data and Racial Profiling - The Board's role to this point is to encourage the collection of data and talk about ways to look at it. Watson stated the board does not have the expertise or the budget to analyze this data itself. However, it is the consensus of the board that an independent body should review this. This issue is being dealt with all over the country and there must be objective ways to interpret this data. The board can recommend to the Chief or the Council that they contract with an independent body to collect and analyze and report back to the community. Hoffey suggested the board should monitor it very closely but let the Chief make the decision how it will be analyzed professionally, and then monitor that. Watson stated the analysis should be done externally so it is absolutely credible. Hoffey acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Baldus was very good and informative, but was disturbed when Attorney Persaud was invited to speak on a specific case in which he suggested the City was not 4 cooperating in providing information. It was inappropriate and unprofessional for them to have brought this to the board. Chair clarified that he was unable to interrupt Persaud because it wasn't clear that Persaud was referring to an actual case until the end. Other Board members concurred. ICPD PPP Selection of further topics for presentations by ICPD: Two issues have come up involved with a grant, 1) knock and talk, and 2) garbage searches. Both are legal under the right circumstances and the issue is a community standard issue - when should the policies or practices of our police department allow those. Widmer stated the general order on Search and Seizures would come closest to it, There is no general order that covers the knock or talk or the garbage searches. Before selecting further topics for presentations, Hoffey suggested the board see what topics may come up at the community forum on community policing. Carol DeProsse questioned Captain Widmer about the knock and talk. Chair indicated that she could address this issue during Public Discussion. COMMUNITY FORUM Arrangements for the April 18 community forum were confirmed. There will be a time limit of three minutes for people wishing to make comments. Chair will speak with Captain Johnson prior to the forum. SOP The standard operating procedure for reviewing PCRB complaints was reviewed. NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS PCRB Videotape - Bauer reported that Bob Hardy is editing interviews and arranging for further interviews. He would also like to videotape a board meeting, NACOLE - The consensus is the board does not wish to reapply. Bauer was directed to let NACOLE know the board's disappointment in what they received for their membership. 5 PUBLIC DISCUSSION Carol DeProsse suggested to the board that it talk to more than the City Council when it goes before them, that the board is talking to the public as well. The public monitors closely the meetings of the City Council. DeProsse stated this board is important to a very large segment of the Iowa City community and to residents of Johnson County who remember the reason it was formed, coming in the aftermath of the killing of an Iowa City resident by an Iowa City police officer. That is firmly irabedded in many people's mind and that is the reason this board exists. She also recommended that board members read the Edward J. Byrne grant. When the public addresses this, then board members will be familiar with it. Watson stated that he was given a copy of this grant by another citizen and chose not to bring it to the board, It was going before Council and it was his view that it would inappropriately inject the board into a political/administrative process. If board members want to see a copy, Watson will provide it. MEETING SCHEDULE · Community Forum April 18, 2001 Joint Meeting with City Council April 19, 2001, 8:30 A.M. · Regular Meeting May 8, 2001 BOARD INFORMATION Watson: reported he had a meeting with Carol DeProsse about supporting the extension of the board. Cohen: reported a few calls on the sunset. She also reported a couple meetings with staff that were not board related. STAFF INFORMATION None ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Cohen and seconded by Hoffey. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 8:47 P.M. 6 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD COMMUNITY FORUM MINUTES - April 18, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Watson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Leah Cohen, Paul Hoffey, Loren Horton, John Stratton and John Watson. Staff present: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh, PCRB Assistant Sandy Bauer and City Clerk Marian Karr. PRESENTATION Captain Matt Johnson, Commander of Field Operations for the Iowa City Police Department, gave a presentation on community policing in Iowa City. FORUM The presentation was followed by a question/answer session. Individuals appearing included: Caroline Dieterie Pat Meyer Harry Plendl Nathan L. Vance Carol deProsse Matt Blizek Adam Sagert Katherine Chisholm Eric Ostby Bruce Nestor John Robertson ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Cohen and seconded by Hoffey. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.