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.