Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-2007 Police Citizens Review BoardAGENDA POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD April 10, 2007 — 5:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM 410 E. Washington Street ITEM NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED • Minutes of the meeting on 03/13/07 • Minutes of the meeting on 03/29/07 • ICPD Use of Force Report — January 2007 • ICPD Use of Force Report — February 2007 • ICPD Department Memo — In -Car Video Recordings • ICPD General Order 01 -03 (Performance Evaluations) • ICPD Standard Operating Guideline 01 -11 (Evidence /Seized Property) • ICPD Quarterly /Summary Report (Quarter 1) — IAIR/PCRB, 2007 ITEM NO. 3 OLD BUSINESS ITEM NO. 4 NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 5 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM NO. 6 BOARD INFORMATION ITEM NO.7 STAFF INFORMATION ITEM NO. 8 CONSIDER MOTION TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. ITEM NO. 9 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • May 8, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • June 12, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • July 10, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • August 14, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room ITEM NO. 10 ADJOURNMENT MEMORANDUM POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City DATE: April 6, 2007 TO: PCRB Members FROM: Kellie Tuttle RE: Board Packet for meeting on April 10, 2007 Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting: • Agenda for 04/10/07 • Minutes of the meeting on 03/13/07 • Minutes of the meeting on 03/29/07 • ICPD Use of Force Report — January 2007 • ICPD Use of Force Report — February 2007 • ICPD Department Memo — In -Car Video Recordings • ICPD General Order 01 -03 (Performance Evaluations) • ICPD Standard Operating Guideline 01 -11 (Evidence /Seized Property) • ICPD Quarterly /Summary Report (Quarter 1) — IAIR /PCRB, 2007 • PCRB Complaint Deadlines • PCRB Office Contacts — March 2007 Other resources available: National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement NACOLE provides information regarding civilian oversight in law enforcement nation wide. For more information see: www.NACOLE.org DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — March 13, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Loren Horton, Greg Roth MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Engel STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle, Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD; and public, Dean Abel RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #06 -05. (2) Recommend change to City Code section 8- 8 -6(E) CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Barnhill and seconded by Horton to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 02/22/07 • ICPD General Order 99 -02 (Alarm -Open Door Response) • ICPD General Order 01 -05 (Officer Involved Shootings /Lethal Incident Investigations) • ICPD General Order 01 -05 (Officer Involved Shootings /Lethal Incident Investigations) • ICPD General Order 04 -01 (Personnel Early Warning System) • ICPD SOG 01 -15 (Criminal Investigations) • ICPD Department Memo 07 -08 Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. Horton stated that on the February 22nd minutes, Horton's name should be changed under Executive Session. Barnhill asked Widmer regarding General Order 99 -02 (Alarm -Open Door Response) the difference between a key holder, business representative, building representative, and a property representative. Widmer said they would take a look at property representative, business representative and a building representative. He believes that they were meant to mean the same thing, but would look in to it. Widmer explained a key holder can be a property owner, maintenance person or a tenant. Barnhill also suggested looking at General Order 04 -01 (Personnel Early Warning System). Under purpose, the first sentence has "outline identify ". She would like to see the wording cleaned up. Also under Procedures (IV), Personnel Early Warning Review (D), Barnhill wanted clarification when the supervisor prepares a written PCRB March 13, 2007 Page 2 summary of the meeting. Widmer confirmed that the written summary is done post meeting. Barnhill asked the Board to recap the discussion from the February 22nd meeting regarding in -car recording devices. Larson reported that Chief Hargadine had contacted him regarding requests for in -car recordings. There was concern due to the amount of time it takes to mask the officer's identity and the process is extremely problematic, in the end it rendered the in -car recording unusable. The Board had discussed that it generally does not request the in -car recordings and shouldn't be an issue. Barnhill wanted to make sure that audio would still be available to the Board. Barnhill was concerned that the Board was giving up the right to request the in -car recordings. Larson stated that the Board was not giving up the option to request the in car recordings, but that it would be on an as- needed basis. The Board asked Widmer to follow up with the Chief to be sure everyone was on the same page and that the Board still has the option to request audio and /or video. Widmer said he would discuss it with the Chief and follow up with a memo to the Board. OLD BUSINESS City Code Section 8- 8 -6(E) / Policy & Procedure for extension requests — Barnhill would like to have the wording changed in Section V. (E) where it says, "The Board may grant extensions from this deadline for good cause shown." to "The Board will grant extensions from this deadline for good cause shown." Pugh stated she could not think of anytime an extension would not be granted by the Board with good cause shown by the Police Department. After Board discussion, it was recommended to request the change to Council. Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Roth to recommend the change wording in City Code Section 8 -8 -6 (E) from "may" to "will" to the City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Abel asked what the ICPD General Orders were. Widmer explained that the General Orders are the orders issued to the officers. They are different from the rules and regulations which are thou shalt. The General Orders are guidelines. Because of the accreditation process the General Orders are to be reviewed in a timely fashion. After Police reviews the General Orders they are furnished to the Review Board so that they can see the current guidelines that the officers are following. Abel also asked about executive session audio tapes and minutes and if any minutes are taken for executive sessions. Tuttle explained that no minutes are taken for executive session and the audio tapes are kept for one year from the date of the meeting. Pugh stated for the record that the Board does not have any power or authority over the Police Department in terms of the writing of the general orders. Any comments or recommendations by the Board are just that, which any citizen could also do. March 13, 2007 Page 3 Abel also asked about the meeting packet items and where they could be found. Tuttle explained that the items are available for review on the City website and to call if he had questions. Abel inquired about the report that the Board makes regarding a complaint and who gets to see the report. Horton responded that the report is a public document that goes to the City Council after the Board finalizes it. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Barnhill to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. Open session adjourned at 6:05 P.M. (Roth left the meeting due to a conflict of interest regarding #06 -05.) (Larson left the meeting due to a conflict of interest regarding #06 -03.) REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:44 P.M. Motion by Horton, seconded by Barnhill to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #06 -03 to City Council pending the name clearing hearing or waiver there of. Motion carried, 3/0, Engel absent, Larson abstaining. Motion by Horton, seconded by Barnhill to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #06 -05 to City Council. Motion carried, 3/0, Engel absent, Roth abstaining PCRB March 13, 2007 Page 4 Motion by Horton, seconded by Barnhill to set a name clearing hearing for PCRB Complaint #06 -03 on March 29`h, 2007 at 5:30 P.M. Motion carried, 3/0, Engel absent, Larson abstaining. MEETING SCHEDULE • March 29, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • April 10, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • May 8, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • June 12, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • July 10, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Barnhill will not be available for the April 10th meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Barnhill and seconded by Horton. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:49 P.M. § � § /o* ®ƒ�$7 �' § §§ , E � 2 �\ / &\ _ ®t \2 n 0 § \ 8 [ ) g k / 2 § k * * x x x $ -TTx * x x $ § � 2 �\ / &\ _ ®t \2 n 0 § \ 8 [ ) g k / 2 § k DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — March 29, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Elizabeth Engel called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Loren Horton MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Larson, Greg Roth STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle, Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #06 -03. NAME CLEARING HEARING Tuttle announced that the Chief indicated the Officers had waived the hearing and would not be held. However, there was a need to go into executive session. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Barnhill to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 3/0, Larson and Roth absent. Open session adjourned at 5:37 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:33 P.M. Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Horton to forward letter to the Chief of Police. Motion carried, 3/0, Larson and Roth absent. Motion by Horton, seconded by Barnhill to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #06 -03 to City Council. Motion carried, 3/0, Larson and Roth absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Barnhill and seconded by Horton. Motion carried, 3/0, Larson and Roth absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:34 P.M. § .§§ox 2 /#¢» �® § §k } \}�� « e , m � � / qd _ ®m \q n 0 § 3 \ \ j § ( � q 0 g « 2 ? ? })§ ? $ * x x { x * x * $ § * k * $ x § 2 c * x x & � � / qd _ ®m \q n 0 § 3 \ \ j § ( � q 0 g PER — 03.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS Date of Issue General Order Number March 13, 2001 01-03 Effective Date Section Code March 21, 2007 PER - 03 Reevaluation Date Amends /Cancels March 2010 C.A.L.E.A. Reference 35.1.1 - 35.1.14 INDEX AS: Employee Evaluations Evaluations Performance Evaluations I. PURPOSE The purpose of this order is to identify and set out the performance evaluatiokguidel4s of the Iowa City Police Department and its employees. PER — 03.2 III. PROCEDURES A. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS 1. Evaluation interviews shall be conducted by supervisors a minimum of once each year. 2. Supervisors shall utilize the Performance Evaluation Form approved by the Human Resources Department of the City of Iowa City. These forms will be forwarded to the rated employee's supervisor prior to the date of the annual evaluation. The form does not utilize a numerical scoring system, instead progressive behavioral descriptions for each dimension are presented. The supervisor selects the most accurate description. a. Supervisors shall receive training in performance appraisal. b. In completing the Performance Evaluation Form, supervisors shall comply with the instructions relating to the form. c. The designated Performance Evaluation form is only a tool used in performing the evaluation function. It should not interfere with the process. If additional information pertinent to employee performance is warranted, the rating supervisor will attach a descriptive memorandum to the Performance Evaluation Form. d. In the field designated "Rating Date" the rating supervisor shall write in the date beginning the rating period and the last date of the rating period, generally denoting one year. (Le. 1/6/00 - 1/5/01) 3. The form will be completed in legible form by the employee's supervisor, indicating the appropriate trait level exhibited by the employee during the evaluation period. Examples of the traits to be evaluated are as follows: a. Work Quality b. Productivity c. Planning /Organization d. Decision Making /Problem Solving - e. Internal /External Customer Service Relations f. Innovation ` = 71 g. Oral Communication Skills ry — h. Written Communication Skills i. Safety Awareness (non- supervisory) s -Fj j. Attendance o -' k. Equipment and Tool Utilization I. Supervisory Skills (if employee is performing in a supervisory capac�§ or has during the rating period) 1) Supervisory Ability 2) Leadership 3) Safety Awareness 4) Productivity of Unit 5) Development/Empowerment of Staff 6) Rating Subordinates' Performance a. Supervisors shall be rated in part based on their ability to effectively evaluate employees assigned them. The ability to fairly, impartially, accurately, and completely evaluate the performance of staff is a fundamental supervisory skill and demands daily preparation. PER - 03.3 b. Supervisors shall insure that ratings are applied uniformly to other employees performing the same functions. c. Supervisors shall only evaluate an employee against those dimensions pertinent to their specific job requirements The narrative report accompanying the form shall also be completed. It shall contain an evaluation of other behavior /skill traits or tasks evaluated by the supervisors, which are not indicated on the form. These additional ratings shall be specifically related to the assignment of the employee. Any rated area where performance is categorized as outstanding or unsatisfactory shall be supported by the narrative comments. To this end, supervisors shall maintain documentation on each employee under his /her supervision a. This documentation, which may be kept in the supervisor's records for that employee, shall include: 1. The date and time of the incident 2. A brief description of the incident 3. Any resultant award /recognition or disciplinary action b. Incidents of both positive and negative actions shall be recorded in this documentation. 6. Performance Resources - Each supervisor shall thoroughly know and observe employee behavior before an effective performance evaluatiftcan be conducted. Additional indications of performance shall be thered4rom review of: = C a. Attendance records b. Reports written by the employee c. Inspection Records d. Commendations —' -- e. Complaints f. Training records o g. Personnel file Other indications of performance may be used (ie: observations from peers) to complete the evaluation. 7. When an employee's performance is deemed to be unacceptable they shall be notified of such in written format. This should occur as soon as the supervisor becomes aware of the problem. When overall performance is unacceptable, the employee should be notified in writing at least ninety (90) days prior to the end of the rating period. 8. The evaluator shall be prepared to substantiate ratings at the unsatisfactory level, to advise the employee of unsatisfactory performance, and to define actions that should be taken to improve performance. If unsatisfactory performance continues, this information shall be included in the evaluation report at the end of the 90 -day period. Flexibility concerning the 90 -day period is permitted. B. ERRORS AND PROBLEMS COMMON IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS The immediate supervisor of the evaluated employee may seek to measure the wrong qualities or fail to look at each quality separately and independently from PER — 03.4 others. In evaluating performance, supervisors should be aware of the following evaluation errors and seek to avoid them. 1. Misidentification - May result from attempting to apply different values to various components of performance. For example: a. It is easy to confuse Quality of work with Volume of work when in reality, each should be considered separately. b. Improper, inaccurate, or irregular documentation of observed behavior throughout the evaluation period must be avoided by the immediate supervisor. 2. Prejudice of the rater - Evaluations must be based on objective observations and compared, as much as possible, against objective performance expectations. For example, these questions should be considered: a. How much of this trait does the employee exhibit? Is it constant or rare? b. What does Command expect? What level of performance is typical for the unit or section? 3. Halo Effect - The halo effect is the tendency to allow one highly favorable or unfavorable trait to color judgement of all other traits. For this reason, each evaluation shall be limited to observations made only during the specific rating period. 4. Inadequate Knowledge - The first job of an immediate supervisor is to know their employees. He /she should learn their needs, career goals, problems, interests, and other aspects of behavior which make that person an individual and which may impact upon their performance. 5. Error of Central Tendency - This error is common among raters who feel they have inadequate information on which to base their evaluation and who seek to avoid the extremes of the rating scale being used. Instead, the supervisor tends to keep their evaluation "safe" in the "middle of the road." Such errors of central tendency are due to a fear on the part of the rater to have to defend a "high" or "low" rating to their subordinate or to their supervisor who would review the evaluation report. 6. Leniency - Some supervisors seek to avoid hostilities by over - rating their employees. Another motive is to attempt to divert attention of supervisors from what would otherwise be a reflection on the supervisor's ability to direct, train, and discipline his /her subordinates. 7. Severity - Some supervisors are too severe in the expectations they have of their subordinates. The qualities they seek are much greater than that expected by Command and are unrealistic, in light of the actual ! uiremppts of the job. C. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INTERVIEW _ l The evaluation interview is an extremely important part of the : fgrmaace evaluation process. Properly conducted, the interview sets the tone, "Jibr future ; .l_f development of the employee. The interview must be properly primed =end executed by the supervisor, it is a high priority supervisory function% M out5Ide interruptions should be avoided. Adequate time should be alloe'ated to\#he interview to permit intensive, meaningful discussion between the employee9nd the supervisor. This interview should never be hastily completed nor "fit in where fill time is available ". 1. Objectives of the Evaluation Interview - The supervisor shall plan and execute the interview with the following discussion objectives in mind: a. Results of the performance evaluation just completed; PER - 03.5 b. Level of performance expected, rating criteria or establishing objectives and goals for the new reporting period; c. Career counseling relative to such topics as advancement, specialization, or training appropriate for the employee's position; and d. Voluntary program of continuing education or training for development of employee skills or knowledge. Does not have to be related to employment. 2. Setting - The location of the evaluation interview should be in a quiet, business -like atmosphere. Privacy is extremely important so that the employee does not feel as if the supervisor is opening the records to examination by third parties. Though business -like, the setting should establish a rapport between the supervisor and the employee conducive to constructive discussion. 3. At the conclusion of the interview the employee will be afforded the opportunity to sign and date the evaluation form. They will be allowed to make written comments that shall become a permanent part of the evaluation report. a. The employee's signature is not required as an indication of agreement with the evaluation. The signature indicates the employee was given an opportunity to both view and discuss their evaluation as prepared by the evaluator. 1. If an employee refuses to sign the evaluation report, the supervisor shall write, "refused to sign" on the evaluation form. The supervisor shall then prepare a narrative report detailing the reasons, If given, the employee refused to sign. 4. Distribution of forms - At the conclusion of the interview, the evaluator will distribute the evaluation reports as follows: a. Copy to the employee b. Copy to the supervisor's file - c. Copy sent up the chain of command for inclusion in the )employees personnel file - ry d. The supervisor of the person performing the evaluation should- review d ` - -- sign the evaluation 5. Grievance of Performance Evaluations - Appeals of performanc(- valuations are to be made through the employee's chain of command. n 6. Retention of evaluation forms - Copies of the Performance Evaluation shall be retained in the employee's personnel file located in the office of Chief of Police throughout the tenure of that employee. The original record shall be forwarded to the Human Resources Department of the City of Iowa City and retained in that department for a minimum of five (5) years following the termination, resignation, or retirement of the employee. D. PROBATION PERIODS 1. All employees on a probationary status shall be evaluated as determined by Chief of Police, or designee. Probationary periods will be the period of time consistent with departmental policy, city policy and state statute. E. SPECIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORTS 1. Performance evaluation for entry- level, probationary employees. a. An in depth evaluation of an employee's job performance during their probationary period shall be conducted on at least a bi- monthly basis. PER — 03.6 (Every two months). Probationary officers shall be evaluated it accordance with departmental Field Training procedures. Such evaluation should include the following issues and observations: a) Specific examples of job performance b) Current level of development c) Work attitude d) Quality of work e) Volume of work f) Judgement g) Other appropriate indicators of performance applicable to the position. Sam el Hargadine,Zxief of Po ice N -I -, J 6.= O Iowa City Police Department Standard Operating Guideline SOG #. Effective date: 01 -11 March 8, 2007 Subject: Reference: EVIDENCE /SEIZED PROPERTY Section: Issue #: SUPPO SERV CES 2 Comm d g ure: Original Issue: SEPTEMBER 29, 1999 Lei Purpose: The purpose of this guideline is to identify those procedures to be used to document, secure, and maintain the integrity of property which comes under the.- control of the Iowa City Police Department. Definitions: v Procedures: - - This guideline will make the assumption that officers are knowledgeable anq;: proficient with the proper evidence gathering techniques. 1) All items submitted as evidence will be documented; a) on the "Property Control Inventory" and b) referred to in the "Incident Report" c) blood kits are the exception as they contain their own documentation 2) The submitted items will be accompanied by the original of the "Property Control Inventory" and secured in one of the following ways; a) turned directly over to the Property Custodian b) placed in the evidence submission lockers, secured and the key deposited in the designated secured box c) placed in the Records Sgt.'s office by a supervisor d) as directed by the Property Custodian or Commander of Administrative Services. 3) At no time will evidence be left unsecured or stored in personal areas. 4) If the evidence is to be sent to the lab (for any reason), it will be the officer's responsibility to fill out the lab request sheet and submit it with the evidence. 5) All drugs must be weighed and /or counted prior to securing them in the evidence locker. 6) All items taken subject to search, arrest or safekeeping are required to have receipts issued to the person it is taken from. This is most efficiently handled with the "Property Control Inventory" form. 7) Do not bring into the Police Department any potentially hazardous materials I _J 8) All property must be submitted into evidence prior to the officer ending theft; r tour of duty. , Property Custodian Intake 1) Empty evidence lockers daily, Monday through Friday 2) Verify the documentation with the submitted evidence ' a) weigh and /or count drugs b) count money c) match description listed on "Property Control Inventory" with item(s) 3) Enter the items into the property computer system 4) Place the evidence in proper containers and mark the incident number clearly on the outside of the container 5) Store the evidence in its designated secure area a) Drugs - safe or designated cabinet b) Money - turn over to administrative clerk for bank deposit. If storage is necessary, secure in safe c) Guns - gun storage area d) Articles subject to spoilage /deterioration - refrigerator e) All other -metal shelf area or secured storage area located off site. Off -site storage will have the same storage guidelines as those items stored in the on -site evidence room. f) Exceptional items -items that are deemed more sensitive or valuable in nature should be stored in the safe within the evidence room. 6) The evidence storage location will be noted on the "Property Control Inventory". The original stays in file in the evidence room and pink copy is forwarded to the case file in Records. 7) Evidence that is to be sent to the lab must have proper documentation. a) original "Property Control Inventory" and "Lab Request' will be packaged with the evidence and sent by Registered Mail, Return Receipt Requested. b) copy of "Property Control Inventory" and "Lab Request' will be held in file in the evidence room. A computer entry noting the sending of the evidence will be made in the property control system c) copy of 'Property Control Inventory" and "Lab Request' will be forwarded to Records d) lab results shall be confirmed in writing. e) all evidence will be properly packaged in accordance to the DCI recommendations. 8) When evidence is returned from the lab; a) evidence shall be matched with the evidence form(s) in the evidence room files b) the date of return should be filled in on the original evidence sheet and a copy forwarded to records. C) The evidence is properly stored and d) documentation of the original Inventory sheet returns to the evidence room files and noted by an entry in the property control system. Disposal (Chapter 809.5, Iowa Code) Evidence will be disposed of under one of the following conditions; 1) notice of final disposition of case 2) no charge filed and expiration of the statute of limitations 3) at the direction of the Johnson County Attorney (in writing) 4) at the determination that no charges will be filed & property has no evidentiary value The timing for disposal of evidence will be primarily governed by the disposition of the case. The Clerk of Court provides "Final Disposition Reports" for all cases, other than citations where a signature release is utilized. The Property Custodian will receive copies of the completed "Final Disposition Reports" and returned citations noting dispositions. The Property Custodian will then match the finalized disposition with any evidence pertaining to that case. It should be noted that cases under appeal will have evidence held as long as the County Attorney directs. It is the responsibility of the County Attorney to notify the property manager to hold evidence once an appeal is filed. Seized property which is no longer required as evidence or for use in an investigation may be returned to the owner without the requirement of a hearing, provided that the person's possession of the property is not prohibited by law and there is no forfeiture claim on behalf of the state. 1) The owner /possessor of the property will be notified by certified mail (last known address) that they have 30 days to respond to the Police Department to claim the items. 2) If there are more than one owner /possessor making claim to the property, the matter will be turned over to the clerk of court. 3) If there is no claim made to the property within the 30 days, the property will be deemed as abandoned and disposed of under the guidelines as set out for "Found Property ". 4) All drug items will be documented and disposed of in the manner set forth per agreement with the Johnson County Attorney. 5) All property and the request for disposal will be presented to the Commander of Administrative Services for approval. 6) Disposition will be noted on the property form. All documentation concerning the property will be submitted to Records. 7) The disposal process will take place within six months after the final disposition. Seized and forfeited controlled substances, weapons or explosives may be used for training, investigative or operational purposes. Prior to such use, the following conditions must apply: 1) The associated case which, if criminal, is already adjudicated and is past any potential appeal 2) There must be a direct relevance to Police Operations 3) Use of such items must be approved by the Department Commander with authority over the Division intending to use the property. 4) Information must be included in the case file or the Property Control Inventory form must be clearly marked to reflect utilization of the property by the Police Department. This documentation must be retained for the life of the use of the property. 5) Any firearm utilized for training or investigative purposes must pass inspection by a qualified Department Armorer. The Armorer will document and sign -off on the proper working nature of that firearm. At the conclusion of the training or investigative activity, any remaining property will be returned to the Property Custodian and disposed of in the normal fashion. Property which is not returned will have documentation reflecting its final disposition. IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT January 2007 OFC # DATE INC # INCIDENT FORCE USED 60 01 /01 00015 Intoxicated Officer used hands -on control techniques to 01/23 04076 Intoxicated Officer used hands -on control techniques to Subject restrain arrest & transport a combative person. 95 01 /01 00029 Disorderly Officer used hands -on control techniques to 88/16/ 01/27 04847 Welfare Check Conduct restrain arrest, & transport a combative person. 95 01 /01 00033 Assault Officer used hands -on control techniques to domestic offender after unsuccessful attempts by restrain, arrest, & transport a combative person. 58 01 /01 00045 Motor Vehicle Officer used hands -on control techniques to U Collision restrain, arrest, & transport an uncooperative 12/24/ 01/02 00189 ATL Robbery Officers displayed sidearms while arresting an 35/51 Suspect armed (displayed handgun) robber following a 03 01/02 00189 Vehicle Pursuit Officer displayed sidearm while securing a (Re: Robbery) passenger that exited [armed robbery] suspect vehicle during a pursuit. 26 01/05 00756 Trespass Officer used hands -on control techniques to arrest & transport an uncooperative person. 29/31 01/06 00870 Fight Officers used hands -on control techniques & OC to restrain, arrest, & transport a combative 05111 01/15 02394 Trespass Officers used hands -on control techniques to restrain, arrest, & transport an uncooperative person. 19 01/23 04076 Intoxicated Officer used hands -on control techniques to Subject restrain, arrest, & transport an uncooperative person. 88/16/ 01/27 04847 Welfare Check Officers displayed less- lethal weapons, shotgun, 24/33/ (Domestic) & sidearm while entering residence & arresting 47/52 domestic offender after unsuccessful attempts by officers to contact victim. h^ U IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT February 2007 Ofc # Date Inc # Incident Force Used 29 02 -01 05718 Juvenile Officer used hands -on control techniques to Complaint restrain arrest & transport a combative person. 27 02 -02 05959 Patrol Standby Officer used hands -on control techniques to for restrain, arrest, & transport an uncooperative Investigation person. 51 02 -06 06505 Warrant Service Officer displayed sidearm while entering residence & arresting a person [outstanding warrant] that refused to come to the door. 38 02 -09 07121 Committal Officer used hands -on control techniques to restrain & transport an uncooperative person. 06/55/ 02 -13 07970 Domestic Officers used hands -on control techniques, OC, 59/60 Assault & displayed a sidearm to restrain, arrest, & transport an uncooperative person with a knife. 56 02 -15 08270 Domestic Fight Officer displayed a sidearm while entering residence of reported domestic assault after no one immediately came to the door. 09 02 -16 08360 Bar Check Officer used hands -on control techniques to (PAULA) restrain, arrest, & transport an uncooperative person that attempted to flee. 50 02 -17 08577 Assist Other Officer entered building with shotgun in hand Agency (armed while responding to report of armed person subject) threatening another. 12 02 -17 08579 Assault Officer used hands -on control techniques to restrain arrest, & transport a combative person. 60 02 -17 08584 Fight Officers used hands -on control techniques, & OC to restrain, arrest, & transport a combative 16/24/ 02 -17 08634 Assist Other 26/56 Agency (vehicle pursuit) 95 02 -28 10535 Criminal Mischief Officers engaged in a vehicle pursuit, foot pursuit, & displayed sidearm(s) while assisting another agency in apprehending & arresting a fleeing felon. Officer used hands -on control techniques to restrain, arrest, & transport an uncogperative: person that attempted to flee. DEPARTMENT A TO: PCRB FROM: Captain T.D.Widmer REF: In -Car Video Recordings DATE: March 14, 2007 I made contact with Chief Hargadine and asked him about his understanding and intent regarding furnishing in -car recordings as a part of the PCRB report. Due to the difficulty we had in attempting to mask the identity of the officer, his understanding was that a modified copy of the recording would not automatically be furnished with the report. He recognizes that the PCRB has the right to request a copy of any recording and we would furnish it if the identity of the officer could be kept hidden. Upon request, each recording or incident will have to be evaluated and a decision made. An "audio only" copy of a requested in -car recording should be much easier to produce and would be made available upon request. J� j'a MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Captain Johnson, Field Operations RE: uarterl /Summary Report (Quarter 1)- IAIR/PCRB, 2007 DATE: April 2, 2007 Attached you will find the 2007 Quarterly Report, (Quarter 1) , for the Iowa City Police Department Internal Affairs/Police Citizen's Review Board investigative file. cc: PCRB Chief Hargadine T�1 Y _ co Year: 2007 IAIR/PCRB Quarterl - Summary Report- (Quarter 1) I.A.I. #:07 -01 PCRB #: none Incident Date :01 -28 -07 Incident Time: 8 :30PM Location: 410 East Washin ton St Date Assigned: 01 -28 -07 Reason for Allegation: 1) Violation of Rules/Regulations Disposition: 1 Sustained _ — r� April 10, 2007 Mtg Packet PCRB COMPLAINT DEADLINES PCRB Complaint #06 -06 Filed: 12/14/06 Chief's Report due (90days): 03/14/07 Chiefs Report filed: 03/13/07 PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) 04/10/07 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review Draft Report) 05/08/07 PCRB Report due (45days): 04127107 Options for Ext: 30 -day Ext Request: 05/28/07 45 -day Ext Request: 06/12/07 PCRB MEETING SCHEDULE May 8, 2007 June 12, 2007 July 10, 2007 Auqust 14, 2007 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD OFFICE CONTACTS March 2007 Date Description None POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 March 7, 2007 To: City Council CID Complainant - Stephen Atkins, City Manager = Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #06 -05 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #06 -05 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -76 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ( "Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on November 3, 2006. As required by Section 8 -8 -5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on February 1, 2007, and was filed with the City Clerk on January 25, 2007. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on February 22, 2007 and March 13, 2007. The Board, by a vote of 3 -0 with two members absent, voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with section 8 -8 -7, B (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation." FINDINGS OF FACT The Complainant was stopped on August 18, 2006 by Officer A for a traffic violation on Interstate 80. Subsequently, the stance of the K -9 Officer led the officer to a non- consensual search of the vehicle driven by the Complainant. All incidents relating to the stop, the search, and other issues brought forward in the Complaint, were recorded on the Officer's in -car camera. The Complainant accused Officer A of taking too long to accomplish the ticketing, of using a harsh tone of voice, of whistling during the encounter, of glaring at her and the other occupant of the vehicle, and of using disrespectful language on at least two occasions. The Complainant also accused Officer A of taking too long to search the vehicle, of a delay before a Supervisor arrived, of questioning the other person in the vehicle, and "completely insulted, degraded, and took the job beyond reasonable limits for no reason ", as well as showing prejudice. CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Complaint, and the Chiefs Report, the Board concluded that the complaints were not substantiated. The evidence per the Chiefs report from the in -car camera recording did not uphold the Complainant's version of events. It is difficult to list all of the allegations made by the Complainant in this case, because they were so numerous and overlapping. Therefore we take the Chiefs Report numbering of thirteen (13) separate Complaints, and consolidate them into two (2) inclusive and general allegations, for purposes of our Report. Allegation # 1 - Unwarrantable delay in accomplishing the ticketing and searching tasks. NOT SUSTAINED. The evidence per the Chiefs report does not support the accusations of any delays in performing these duties. O Y Allegation # 2 - Use of harsh tone of voice, of glaring at the Complainant; of using - disrespectful language, of insulting and degrading the Complainant, - `showing prejudice- NOT SUSTAINED. The evidence per the Chiefs report does not support the:. -, -i accusations of any inappropriate words or actions by Officer A. `- COMMENTS s We commend the Officer involved in this case for activating the in -car camera. The evidence from the recorded video made it possible for the investigating officers to compare the accusations received from the Complainant with what was captured by the in -car camera. This Complaint demonstrates the value of consistent use of the in -car cameras when there is need for later review of actions. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 To: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #06 -03 Date: March 29, 2007 C This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of the Complaint PCRB #06 -03 (the "Complaint "). Board's Responsibility 0 Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8- 8- 7- B -(2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ( "Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's professional expertise ", Section 8- 8- 7- B -(2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence ", are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or Local law ", Section 8- 8-7-B- (2)- (a)-(b) -(c)• Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on August 4, 2006. As required by Section 8- 8 -5 -(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was due November 2, 2006; the Report was filed with the City Clerk on October 19, 2006. The Board met to consider the Chief's Report on November 14, 2006. The Board voted to review the Chief's Report in accordance with Sections 8- 8- 7- (B)- (1) -(b); 8- 8- 7- (B)- (1) -(c); 8-8-7 - (B)-(1)-(d); 8-8- 7- (B)- (1)-(e)• The Board met December 5, 2006; December 18, 2006, January 9, 2007, March 13, 2007, and March 29, 2007 to consider the Chief's Report. Due to the complexity of this incident which included conflicting information provided by the on -scene officers as reported in the Internal Investigation; the Board's desire to adequately review and comprehend the thorough Chief's Report; and the possibility of the Board either requesting additional investigation by the Chief or performing its own additional investigation, the Board had requested a 60 -day extension. Findings of Fact The complainant alleges that her 17 -year old son was stopped, handcuffed, told that he was under arrest, and subjected to discourteous remarks. Interviews were conducted with the juvenile, his father, officers present at the initial scene, and officers directly involved with the juveniles. A second juvenile who was also detained, handcuffed, searched, field interviewed, given an "eye test" and a PBT, placed in a squad car, and ultimately released, declined to participate in the Chief's investigation as did his father. The in car camera system was checked and found to be functional however none of the officers either at the scene or involved in the detention of the juveniles had activated their in car recording devices. The report of the incident, dispatch logs and dispatch tape were reviewed. The ICPD received a report of a vacant house possibly being burglarized. Five patrol officers, the Watch Supervisor, the Watch Commander and two SCAT officers responded. An individual was seen fleeing the area by an officer but was not pursued or apprehended. Two juvenile males walking in the area were detained, field interviewed together and separately, given PBT tests, searched, handcuffed and ultimately released. Conclusion — C Board concluded that the findings of the Chiefs Report are not unreasonable,— rbifFOry or capricious. See Comment section. c•� CD Allegation #1: Personal Conduct — Not sustained. ±l Allegation #2: General Conduct on Duty — Not sustained. a Comment The Board wishes that the Chief had addressed formally the allegations of handcuffing and alleged arrest of a juvenile as listed by the complainant and as stated by the Chief in his cover letter and his Report to the Board. The Report included investigation regarding these allegations but did not issue Findings. Handcuffing and Arrests of Juveniles: The Board recommends a review of OPS -19.1, Juvenile Procedures, with emphasis on handcuffing of juveniles and arrests of juveniles. In Car Recording Device Activation: The Board does not concur with the internal investigation conclusion that no policy violation occurred when no officer activated an in car recording device. OPS -12, In Car Recording Devices [effective 8/4/1999], section IV, states, "In addition to traffic stops, officers should manually activate the recording equipment on calls for service and on self initiated field activity." According to Merriam - Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 11"' Edition the operant, "should ", is "used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory' and placed an obligation on the officer(s) at the scene and involved in the field investigation to activate their recording device(s). The existence of a visual /audio documentary of the events which transpired during the detention of the juvenile(s) would have been an invaluable tool for the resolution of PCRB #06 -03, if after viewing the recording of the incident, a complaint had transpired at all. Disrespectful Commentary: The Board suggests that consideration be given to additional training and a review of Leg -01, Civil Rights, III- (D) -(2), "Act, speak and conduct themselves in such manner as to treat all persons with courtesy and with that respect due to every person as a human being." In the Investigator's Report, it was acknowledged by officers at the scene that certain officer(s) did not exhibit the consummate level of professionalism that is typically exhibited by the members of the ICPD. Officer Communication at the Scene: The Investigator's Report documented conflicting information among the officers who had direct contact with the juveniles. The Investigator's report detailed multiple incorrect assumptions made by officers at the scene due to a lack of communication between the lead officer and those detaining the juvenile(s). i.e.: "Officer II said he had assumed that Juvenile 2 (Juvenile 1) had been arrested by Officer 1, and he searched him incident to the arrest." Incident Documentation: The Board concurs with the Chiefs assessment that a review of reporting requirements is necessary. The Board suggests a review of OPS V., Reporting Use of Force, and review of LEG -03, Field Interviews and Pat Down Searches, be included in the additional training. O 7-i Y 7 �