Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-2002 Minutes POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - April 15, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Bill Hoeft, Loren Horton, John Stratton and John Watson; board members absent: Bev Smith. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (7:05 p.m.), Staff Kellie Turtle and Cherice Wyckoff present. Also in attendance was Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD. CONSENT CALENDAR The Board discussed an article from the Press Citizen that incorrectly reported an increase in police misconduct complaints. A correction was reported Tuesday March 26th that the complaints had actually decreased. Horton had a question about the minutes regarding a motion by Hoeft, seconded by Smith to accept the "public" report. Horton thought that this may appear that there was also a private report. Tuttle informed Horton that it is standard to refer to the reports as "public." Hoeft had a concern about the two items that were added to their packets by Councilman Pfab. Hoeft felt that items should not be added to their packets by Council Members because of impartiality issues. Stratton said that he will look at them carefully in the future before placing items in the packets and may only list items as being available in the Clerk's'office. Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. · Minutes of the meeting on 03/12/02 · ICPD Department Memorandum 02-17 · ICPD Quarterly/Summary Report- IAIR/PCRB, 2002 ICPD Use of Force Report- February 2002 Motion carried, 4/0, Smith absent. OLD BUSINESS · PCRBVideo The Board discussed the PCRB video. Tuttle stated that editing the reference to "problem" from the racial profiling comments may not be able to be done without cutting the entire discussion. The Board did not want to lose the whole discussion on racial profiling and decided that if it could be edited without damaging it in any other way to do so. If this is not possible, then the video should be left as it is. · Age of Consent The Board discussed the policy of using the age of 12 as the cut off point for officers accepting permission to enter a house from a juvenile. The age of 12 was selected because the State of Iowa defines under the age of 12 as children and above 12 as juveniles. Pugh commented on distinctions. A warrantless search is never okay unless it is with consent, a search incident to arrest or exigent circumstances exist. There is no in between - it's either exigent or it's not. The three things that define exigency are 1.) There is a danger of violence or injury; 2.) There is risk of the subject's escape; and 3.) There is a probability, unless taken on the spot, evidence will be concealed or destroyed. Furthermore, the considerations on which an officer could move in case of an exigent circumstance are: whether there is a grave offense involved, whether a suspect is reasonably believed to be armed, whether there is probable cause that the subject committed a crime, whether there is strong reason to believe that the subject is on the premises, a strong likelihood of escape if not apprehended and that entry, although not consented to, is peaceful. When deciding on the age of consent, the circumstances should not be taken into consideration because if there is exigency, the officer can enter no matter what - with or without consent and regardless of the age of the people at issue. The age of consent consideration is for non-exigency situations. Previously the case law decided this matter, so there is no clear statutory law about this. The rule has been that minority age alone doesn't mean that an officer can't ask for consent. There have been case by case considerations of the maturity, responsibility and level of control of the minor. A community standard can be narrower, but there's still overriding common law that says it is not illegal to ask a minor for consent to search. Pugh informed that the fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. So the question is: What is reasonable? Most jurisdictions have not set an age. Instead the analysis considers whether the person has control over the premises, understands why the officer is there, and understands that they have a right to say "no." Iowa City is trying to create stronger criteria for the officers to follow by adopting this policy. Hoeft informed the Board that this situation happens very infrequently. Hoeft said the court has ruled on the subject and has not come up with any better solution. So he is comfortable with that unless the court makes any decision to change it. He is comfortable with the Police Chief and the City attorneys to make that decision. He will choose to vote to keep the situation the same at 12 years of age. Horton stated he felt a community standard was hard to define because there is no objective way to poll the citizenry about the matter, which would bring about a meaningful result. It is unclear about how the age of 12 can be accurately determined. He felt that any age picked is arbitrary because the capacity for giving consent is different from person to person. Therefore, he felt that the present policy (General Order Number 01-06) is a reasonable one and he will not agree to any change. Pugh said that no matter what the City adopts, the test will still be case law. Even if they follow the policy, it still may be unreasonable. Watson stated that he thinks it is reasonable to ask for consent of a minor. However, he has a problem with the age of 12. He feels more comfortable with the age of 14. A fourteen-year-old can work, drive with supervision, and has some discretion about deciding where to live (they can talk to the court). They are treated as someone with judgment. Furthermore, a 14-year-old is well into junior high and is much more street smart. Stratton stated that he believed the policy should be 18 years old. He feels that most young teenagers would accede to authority. The Board had considerable division within itself. After a thorough discussion, there was no recommendation. The Board decided that Stratton would write a letter to the City Manager to summarize the thoughts from the PCRB. Stratton will also call board member Smith to get her opinion as well. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed their speaking experiences at eight MATS training programs. They discussed some of the reactions from police officers such as: · Creation of the Board · Being Supervised in a special way by the Board · Board Members being biased because of occupation Hoeft informed the Board that this situation happens very infrequently. Hoeft said the court has ruled on the subject and has not come up with any better solution. So he is comfortable with that unless the court makes any to change it. He is comfortable with the Police the City attorneys to make that decision. He will ch¢ ~e to vote to keep the situation the same at 12 years of a Horton stated he felt a community standard hard to define because there is no o1: ~oll the citizenry about the matter, which would bring abo meaningful result. It is unclear about how the age, can be accurately determined. He felt that a~ picked is arbitrary because the capacity for gi consent is different from person to person, present policy (General Order Number 01 is a reasonable one and he will not agree to any ch~ :e. h said that no matter wh. the test will law. Even if th ~ follow the policy, it still may be he' it is reasonable to ask for minor. , he has a problem with the age of 12. comfortable with the age of 14. A drive with supervision, and has some discretion g where to live (they can talk to the court). 'e treated as someone with judgment. Furthermore into junior high and is much more Stratton that he policy should be 18 years teenagers would authority. had considerable within itself. After a ,rough discussion there was no The ~oard decided that ~ a letter to the City ,f Manager to summarize the thou¢ the PCRB. ~ Stratton will also call board memberto get her opinion , as well. NEW BU,~NE$$ The Board discussed their speaking ~s at eight ,' MATS training programs. They discussed of the / reactions from police officers such as: jJ · Creation of the Board · Being Supervised in a special way by the · Board Members being biased because of occul · Low number of complaints · Attendance of Police Department at PCRB Meetings · Board viewed as irrelevant because they have no power or sanction. Stratton reconfirmed that the Board members do not know, nor have any interest in knowing, the particular officer that was the subject of a complaint. Watson thought that the theme he was most disappointed in was a general lack of appreciation for the advantages of accountability to the Department. He felt it could be looked at from a positive standpoint that there is an independent review board, and with the Board the Department comes out looking pretty good most of the time. Captain Widmer felt that it was very good that the Board spoke at the MATS training. He thinks the Board adds credibility to the Department, however, he understands why the officers do not appreciate the Board because it is another layer of oversight on them. He stated that the Board was doing just what they should be doing, but don't expect the officers to like the oversight. The officers do feel good when a complaint goes through the Chiefs process and then on to the Board, and the Board agrees with what the Chief did. Stratton mentioned some officers challenged the competence of the Board to judge them since most of the Board members don't have the experiences of a being police officer. Stratton said that this is irrelevant because it is not necessary to understand completely the officers nor the complainant's feelings when looking at the facts of the complaints and the law. Judges just look at facts and apply them to principles. The Board would like to come back to speak at the training in the future if they are invited. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion MEETING SCHEDULE · May 14, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · June 11,2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · July 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · August 13, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room 4 · Low number of complaints · Attendance of Police Department at PCRB Meetings · Board viewed as irrelevant because they have no power or sanction. Stratton reconfirmed that the Board members do not know, nor have any interest in knowing, the particular officer that was the subject of a complaint. Watson thought that the theme he was most disappointed in was a general lack of appreciation in the advantages of accountability to the Department. He felt it could be looked at from a that there is an independent review board the Board the Department comes out looking pr most of the time. felt that it was very good spoke e MATS training. He thinks the credibility Department, however, he ur why the officers c~ot appreciate the Board be it is another ' ht on them. He the Board was doing just they should be doin but don't expect the officers to .~ oversight. The do feel good when a complaint !through the process and then on to the Board Board with what the Chief did. Stratton mentioned challenged the competence of the Board t, since most of the Board members don't being police officer. Stratton is irrelevant because it is not necessary to L ~ the officers nor the complainant's s when at the facts of the complaints and law. Judges just : at facts and apply them to princ~r The Board like to come back to .. g in the if they are invited. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Nc discussion MEETING SCHED[ ~ · May 14, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · June 11,2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · July 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · August 13, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room BOARD INFORMATION Horton mentioned an article in the Daily Iowan about the age of consent issue. The article contained two errors. First, it · incorrectly said that an 11-year-old girl gave police permission and secondly, the quote that Watson made was attributed to Horton. STAFF INFORMATION · PCRB Staffing The Board introduced themselves to the new minute taker, Cherice Wyckoff. ·Summer Schedule/Absences Tuttle requested summer schedules from the Board members so that she would be able to reschedule meetings if necessary. The Board members are to call the Clerk's office with any updates of their summer schedule. Pugh mentioned being contacted by a person asking her the "skinny" on an officer. The person was incredulous when she explained to him that the Board members do not know who the officers are. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Hoeft. Motion carried, 4/0, Smith absent. Meeting adjourned at $:30.