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 �