Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-2007 Police Citizens Review BoardAGENDA POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD September 11, 2007 — 5:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM 410 E. Washington Street ITEM NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL ITEM NO. 2 INTRODUCTION OF NEW BOARD MEMBER ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED • Minutes of the meeting on 07/10/07 • ICPD General Order 95 -04 (Administration of Department Training) • ICPD General Order 98 -02 (Policy and Operating Procedures Manual) • ICPD General Order 99 -07 (Traffic) • ICPD General Order 00 -04 (Body Armor) • ICPD General Order 00 -05 (Off -Duty Conduct: Powers of Arrest) • ICPD General Order 01 -04 (Bomb Threats /Emergencies) ICPD General Order 01 -05 (Officer Involved Shootings /Lethal Incident Investigations) • ICPD General Order 07 -01 (Patrol Rifle) • ICPD SOG 07 -01 (All Hazards Plan) • ICPD Department Memo 07 -31 • ICPD Use of Force Report (May 2007) • ICPD Use of Force Report (June 2007) • ICPD Use of Force Report (July 2007) ITEM NO. 4 OLD BUSINESS ITEM NO. 5 NEW BUSINESS • Update on addition of PCRB Charter Amendment to November ballot • Select Nominating Committee ITEM NO. 6 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM NO. 7 BOARD INFORMATION ITEM NO. 8 STAFF INFORMATION ITEM NO. 9 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • October 9, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • November 13, 2007,5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • December 11, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • January 8, 2008, 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: September 7, 2007 TO: PCRB Members FROM: Kellie Tuttle RE: Board Packet for meeting on September 11, 2007 Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting: • Minutes of the meeting on 07/10/07 • ICPD General Order 95 -04 (Administration of Department Training) • ICPD General Order 98 -02 (Policy and Operating Procedures Manual) • ICPD General Order 99 -07 (Traffic) • ICPD General Order 00 -04 (Body Armor) • ICPD General Order 00 -05 (Off -Duty Conduct: Powers of Arrest) • ICPD General Order 01 -04 (Bomb Threats /Emergencies) • ICPD General Order 01 -05 (Officer Involved Shootings /Lethal Incident Investigations) • ICPD General Order 07 -01 (Patrol Rifle) • ICPD SOG 07 -01 (All Hazards Plan) • ICPD Department Memo 07 -31 • ICPD Use of Force Report (May 2007) • ICPD Use of Force Report (June 2007) • ICPD Use of Force Report (July 2007) • PCRB Office Contacts — July 2007 • PCRB Office Contacts — August 2007 • Memorandum from staff regarding Posting of Board and Commission Meetings 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 — July 10, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Engel, Loren Horton, Greg Roth MEMBERS ABSENT: Candy Barnhill STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle, Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (5:36 p.m.) STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD; and public, Dean Abel RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by Engel to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 05/07/07 • ICPD General Order 89 -04 (Civil Rights) • ICPD General Order 99 -09 (Vehicle Crashes) • ICPD General Order 00 -02 (Harassment and Sexual Harassment) • ICPD General Order 00 -03 (Less Lethal Impact Munitions) • ICPD SOG 01 -03 (Emergency Communications) • ICPD Use of Force Report — March 2007 • ICPD Use of Force Report — April 2007 Motion carried, 4/0, Barnhill absent. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Draft of PCRB 06 -07 Annual Report - The Board reviewed and made changes to the draft of the annual report. Motion by Horton and seconded by Engel to approve the PCRB FY07 Annual Report as amended. Motion carried, 4/0, Barnhill absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Abel had concerns regarding the posting, rescheduling, and cancellation of meetings. Tuttle briefly explained the policy and said she would confirm with the City Clerk and report back in the next meeting packet. Abel also had questions regarding the General Orders and the Boards role. Larson stated that the Board reviews the General Orders and provides feedback to the Police Department. Widmer also explained the review process according to the accreditation process /coding system. BOARD INFORMATION None. PCRB July 10, 2007 Page 2 STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Not Needed. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • August 14,2007,5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room (CANCELLED) • September 11, 2007,5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • October 9, 2007, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • November 13, 2007,5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Engel announced that she would be absent for the August meeting. Larson announced that he would be absent for the October meeting. Motion by Roth, seconded by Engel to cancel the August meeting due to the lack of Board business. Motion carried, 4/0, Barnhill absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Roth. Motion carried, 4/0, Barnhill absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:03 P.M. 71 d O P� W W w U W U W O a O � A W N � .r za � A� w � H Fy d .0 G� iw V � YE GA � y w��zz �coOZ z z z z z all DC �C DC yC O N fi] D'C yS' �C DC N O z z z z z ti ti W �o 0 0 0 0 w z N W Ica ww ax � �a .0 G� iw V � YE GA � y w��zz �coOZ ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT TRAINING Date of Issue General Order Number August 14, 2001 195-04 Effective Date Section Code July 16, 2007 TRN -01 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels Au ust 2010 C.A.L. E. A. Reference Chapter 33 INDEX AS: Authority and Responsibility, Department Training Career Specialty In- Service Training, Definition Department Training Administration Department Training Authority and Responsibility Department Training Committee Department Training Goals Department Training Policy Education and Training Record TRN -01.1 .s� 1 Lodging Reimbursement, Training Meal Reimbursement, Training Reimbursement, Training Training Committee, Department Training Course Critique Training Expense Reimbursement Training Goals, Department Training Policy Statement Travel Costs, Training I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish the policies and procedures for the administration of the Department Training function. II. POLICY It is essential that all Department personnel are properly trained to fulfill the Department responsibility to provide professional law enforcement service to the Iowa City community. Training stimulates, develops, and improves the skills, knowledge and abilities necessary for individuals to stay competent in the duties and responsibilities of their respective .positions. The dynamic nature of the law enforcement profession dictates that training be a continuous ,process of personal and professional growth and development. While the Department bears the primary responsibility for personnel training, all supervisors, officers, civilian employees, and designated Field Training officers have the responsibility to acquire for themselves and to teach those with whom they work, the skills, knowledge and abilities necessary to perform their tasks and duties. TRN -01.2 111. DEFINITIONS A. Proficiency In- Service Training - A training process designed to stimulate, develop, and improve the skills, knowledge, and abilities necessary to stay competent in the duties and responsibilities of the position. Proficiency and responsibilities of the job presently being performed enhances the employee's skills beyond the minimum level and increases the potential for career advancement. B. Career Specialty In- Service Training - A training process used to provide an advance level of instruction in an area of interest and specialization that enhances the overall potential for job satisfaction and career development. IV. PROCEDURES The training goals of the Iowa City Police Department are: A. To stimulate, develop, and improve the skills, knowledge, and abilities of all Department personnel. B. To provide new officers with the legally mandated basic training and with the necessary Department field training. C. To provide annual in- service training to all officers for purposes of updating and enhancing their knowledge, skills and abilities. D. To present career specialty in- service training on an as needed and /or as requested basis so as to provide advanced levels of instruction in areas of specialization necessary to carry out the Department mission and enhance career development. E. To identify and utilize the most cost- effective means for providipg basig and in- service training to all personnel. F. To develop as necessary, in -house training programs designed - to rrteety! unique Department training needs. DEPARTMENT TRAINING FUNCTION —; C-) Authority and Responsibility A. Unit and Section Supervisors - Each supervisor will assess, on a continual basis, the skills, knowledge, and abilities of their personnel so as to improve upon performance levels and to identify potential areas of career interest and specialization. Whenever a supervisor identifies a specific need for proficiency in- service training or career specialty in- service training, they must notify their Division Commander, in writing, of that need or interest. B. Division Commander - Each Division Commander is responsible for updating minimum proficiency in- service training needs (i.e. CPR, Firearm) and career specialty training interests in order to assign those individuals to the proper training courses, when they become available. C. Chief of Police - The Chief of Police makes the final decisions about the development of in -house training programs and the assignment of personnel to particular training courses. These decisions are made based upon the recommendation and requests of the various division commanders, TRN -01.3 supervisors, officers, and civilian employees. In addition to the previously mentioned responsibilities, the Chief, or his /her designee is responsible for the overall coordination of the Department training function, to include, but not limited to: 1. identification of individual, unit and /or Department training needs; 2. assignment of personnel to appropriate and /or necessary training programs; 3. development and implementation of in -house training programs- 4. maintenance of an inventory of the programs and resources available to provide in- service training; ` =- 5. maintenance of Department training records; 6. review and evaluation of training programs; - 7. development of an annual Department training plan. D. Department Training Committee - On an annual basis, the Chief of Pplice shall appoint representatives from the Department and the departmental training officer to serve on a Department Training Committee. The purpose of this committee is to review, evaluate, and recommend revisions for the Department training effort and to identify areas in which training is lacking. At the conclusion of their review, the department training officer will prepare a written report summarizing their findings. This annual training review report will be submitted to the Chief of Police for review. The department training officer may use this report as a basis for the development of on -going training. E. Department Training Officer - The department training officer is responsible for ensuring that members of the department receive the minimum mandatory training as required by law. Additionally, he /she shall continually develop, implement and evaluate departmental training and assist in assessing the training needs of the department. He /she shall maintain records of the training provided "in- house" and records /documentation of training received outside the department. Education and Traininq Record Officers assigned to attend a training session shall arrive at the designated training at the specified time and with any required equipment. Officers shall attend the assigned training in its entirety. In those instances where the officer is required to miss part of the scheduled training for court or other duty related circumstances, the officer shall notify the instructor of the course at the beginning of the session. To the extent possible, officers shall complete any make up assignments as directed by the instructor. The instructor shall be provided the reason for the absence and the anticipated time of return. In situations where the officer is absent for other than a duty related reason, the officer shall notify his /her supervisor of the absence as soon as possible. Officers missing mandatory training for which they have been scheduled may be required to make up the training. Officers assigned to a training session shall be considered on duty for that day(s). The officer will be reimbursed consistent with city policy for expenses incurred and related to TRN -01.4 the training. All materials obtained at training are the property of the Iowa City Police Department and the officer may be required to submit the materials for review or to a departmental library. For all departmental training conducted by members of the Iowa City Police Department, the person assigned to conduct the training shall submit a lesson plan or outline to the training officer for review and approval three (3) business days prior to the training. The lesson plan or outline shall include the following: A. a statement of performance and job - related objectives; B. the content of the training and specification of the instructional techniques to be used; C. identification of any tests or evaluations used in the training process. The departmental training officer shall maintain a record of all departmental training. These records shall include lesson plans /outline, name of attendees, and the performance of individual attendees as measured by any applicable tests or performance evaluations. Personnel assigned to the training function should receive training as available, in -the following areas: A. lesson plan development; B. performance objective development; C. instructional techniques; D. testing and evaluation techniques; E. resource availability and use. For training in which officers are tested or evaluated, officers failing to satisfactorily complete the training may be required to repeat the training or attend a remedial training session as directed by their watch commander. In addition watch supervisors shall note any training deficiencies or needs when completing the employees annual evaluation. Upon the completion of a training session the employee shall provide the departmental training officer copies of any certificates and test scores. The training officer shall document the completion of the training in the employee's departmental training file. RECRUIT OFFICER TRAINING The Iowa City Police Department shall maintain contact with all personnel attending basic training classes. In addition, the departmental training officer shall periodically review the contents of the training received at any outside basic training academies and forward any concerns to the Commander of Administrative Services for review. All expenses incurred in the attendance of the academy will be born by the Iowa City Police Department. All recruit officers attending the academy are full time employees of the Iowa City Police Department and receive all applicable benefits and protections provided as such. When requested and to the extent possible the Iowa City Police Department will provide instructors to outside academies. TRN -01.5 Upon completion of basic training, officers shall receive training relating to departmental Rules and Regulations and Departmental Orders. This training will be part of the Field Training and Evaluation process and may be conducted by FTOs or others knowledgeable in this area. Sworn personnel who have not completed the basic training academy shall not carry a weapon or be placed in a position where there is a likelihood of having to take any type of official action. Recruit officer training will include training of those tasks most frequently associated with the duties of a patrol officer. Evaluation of these tasks shall be based on and consistent with the evaluation system used in the Field Training and Evaluation Process. The evaluation should assess the recruit officer's knowledge of the topic as well as the recruit officers abilities and skills when performing the requisite bask. INSERVICE TRAINING On a regular basis, officers shall receive update /refresher training as well as'training in.___i new areas. As they become available officers shall receive training in new or changes_.._% in the law. This training may be in the form of Watch Training, the training bull6tin, Department -wide training or other formats as determined best suited for the training, In order to keep officers updated on current trends, techniques, policies, laws etc. and to address areas of concern, the departmental training officer shall provide regularly scheduled watch training. Watch training will be conducted by watch supervisors in conjunction with the regularly scheduled watch meeting. As needed, the department will provide specialized training to personnel who perform specialized functions. These shall include but is not limited to crime scene technicians, accident investigators, canine units, hazardous device technicians, special response team personnel, and others. Agency employees assigned to the position of accreditation manager shall receive specialized accreditation manager training within one year of being appointed. Newly hired or appointed civilian personnel shall be provided information on the Departments role, purpose goals, policies and procedures; working conditions and regulations; and responsibilities and rights of the employee. Prior to being assigned regular duties as an Emergency Communications Operator, the person shall receive training in the operation, procedures and duties of the position. In addition they shall receive regular in- service training in this area. All promoted personnel shall receive training in their new duties and responsibilities within the first year of their promotion. TRN -01.6 Personnel shall receive training in the following areas on an annual basis. A. firearms B. defensive tactics C. motor vehicle operations D. biased based contacts E. hazardous materials / critical incidents F. CPR G. bloodborne pathogens H. legal issues Samu 1 Har`g"aajMe, Chief of Police WARNING This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil. proceeding. The department policy should not be _construed as a creation of higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party claims.. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative sanctions. ADM 02.1 POLICY AND OPERATING PROCEDURES MANUAL Date of Issue General Order Number /Section Code March 17, 1998 98 -02 Effective Date Section Code July 31, 2007 1 ADM -02 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels July 2010 1 89 -03 ADM -02 C. A. L. E. A. Reference 12.1.1 - 12.2.2 61.2.3, 33.4.4, 33.5.1, 33.7.1 INDEX AS: _ Index, General Orders - Manual, Policy & Procedures Policy & Procedures Manual J I. PURPOSE The purpose of this order is to implement the policy and procedures manual and to explain its features, organization, and use. This manual contains all General Orders in a codified form. All sworn members are responsible for knowing and carrying out the provisions of all General Orders. II. COMPOSITION OF MANUAL A. Alphabetical Index - An extensive alphabetical cross -index system has been included to facilitate locating any order or subject in the manual. B. Numerical Index - The numerical index lists each order in the manual consecutively according to its number of publication. (Example: 98 -1, 98 -2, etc.) This will usually be a chronological listing by date of publication. ADM -02.2 C. Lettered Section Code 1. General Orders will be placed in the manual by the lettered section code in order to maintain related orders in close proximity to each other under major functional topics. 2. A lettered section code abbreviation will appear near the upper right -hand corner of each General order, indicating the following manual sections: CODE LETTER ADM -Administration OPS - Operations SER - Support Services INV - Investigations LEG - Legal PER - Personnel TRN - Training 3. Lettered section code letters will be followed by consecutive numbers to denote the proper location of the orders within each section. (Example: ADM -01, ADM -02, ADM -03, etc.) III. FORMAT OF GENERAL ORDERS A. General Order Heading Sheet 1. Page One of the General Order heading sheet will identify the orders as an Iowa City Police Department General Order and will contain the following information: a) Subject b) General Order Number C) Date of Issue 0 _ d) Effective Date `- e) Section Code f) Reevaluation Date g) Amends / Cancels = - h) C.A.L.E.A. — =, i) Distribution B. Indexing Information a 1. A list of indexing information will appear beneath the General Order heading under the words, "Index As ". This list will indicate the varied means by which the order will be listed in the General Order alphabetical index. C IC E. ADM -02.3 Purpose The purpose and provisions of the order will appear below the indexing information on each General Order. 2. This will give the reader a composite view of the contents of the order and will aid in quickly locating desired information. Paragraphing Sample format and paragraph numbering information for General Orders contained on Table A of General Order 83 -2: Subject:: Written Directives. Color Code General Orders are categorized and color -coded in three orders of priority. 2. Red orders (distinguished by a red heading) are those orders which affect officers on a daily basis or are related to safety issues. Officers are expected to be thoroughly familiar with the red orders. The red orders are evaluated a minimum of once a year. 3. Green orders (distinguished by a green heading) are those orders which regularly pertain to the officer's duties but are not closely related to safety issues. Green orders are re- evaluated at least every second year. Officers are expected to be familiar with the content of these orders, but if they are unfamiliar with the exact content of the order, they have the ability to check on how to proceed without endangering the public or their safety. 4. Black orders (distinguished by a black heading) pertain primarily with administrative functions and do not affect the manner in which officers regularly perform their duties. While they are important to the operation of the department, they do not necessarily affect the day to day manner in which officers interact with the public. Black orders are re- evaluated at least every three years. C) _ IV. EFFECTIVE DATE The original effective date of this order is March 20, I F... � j Samuel Harg'ai, Chief of Police ADM -02.4 WARNING This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party claims. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative sanctions. O _ J`? k'-J OPS -11.1 TRAFFIC Date of Issue General Order Number July 30, 1999 199-07 Effective Date Section Code August 21, 2007 OPS -11 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels Au ust 2009 C.A.L.E.A. 1.1.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,1.2.7, Chapter 61 INDEX AS: -= Arrests Traffic Stops Traffic Enforcement Citations -' Parking Enforcement Traffic Exemptions Alcohol Enforcement I. PURPOSE The ultimate goal of traffic enforcement is to reduce the number and severity of vehicle crashes. Motor vehicle crashes continue to be a health and safety issue facing our community; these crashes can result in significant injuries and death to persons of all ages, along with a significant amount of property damage. Creating a safe motoring community can be achieved through education to citizens, liaisons and partnerships with other agencies within the community to promote safe driving, and preventative patrol combined with aggressive enforcement by officers. II. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department that motor vehicle stops will be performed professionally and courteously, and with a view towards educating the public about proper driving procedures while consistently recognizing and taking the necessary steps to minimize the dangers involved in this activity for the officer, the motorist and other users of the roadway. It is the purpose of the Iowa City Police Department to establish guidelines for stopping and approaching motorists in a manner that promotes the safety of the officer and motorist. OPS -11.2 III. PROCEDURES The Iowa City Police Department does not use a "quota" system for the evaluation of an officer's traffic enforcement activities. All officers assigned to patrol are expected to exercise traffic enforcement as a part of their normal duties and take those steps necessary to obtain compliance with traffic laws and will determine the appropriate action when dealing with violators. The emphasis will be on qualitative not quantitative enforcement activities. When deciding on the appropriate enforcement action officers should consider the seriousness of the violation and the circumstances surrounding the violation. In instances where the violation is a simple misdemeanor officers may opt to warn or cite the violator. In deciding to arrest a person for a "citeable" offense the officer should have an articulable reason for this action. The reasons may include but are not limited to, an expressed intent by the violator to miss a court date, prior knowledge on the part of the officer of the offender missing previous court dates, absence of an identifiable residence address, non -local residency. Acceptable reasons do not include a contrary attitude, alone, on the part of the offender. Warnings may either be verbal or written in nature. In instances where the offense is a serious misdemeanor or higher, officers should take the violator into physical custody. Arrests of all types should conform with departmental requirements pertaining to arrests. When a traffic citation is issued, the officer shall request the incident number for the stop and write the incid" number on the citation. Officers shall include the incident number on all related = "rges. and documents.' Enforcement of Traffic Laws All officers are responsible for maintaining an up -to -date know e oowa traffic laws and local ordinances. Consistency is an essential partbfany4raffic enforcement program. The guidelines in Appendix II are to assist officers in deciding what type(s) of action to take when encountering these situa`ti'ons. These guidelines will assist officers in taking fair, appropriate, and consistent enforcement action. Enforcement Techniques The Iowa City Police Department utilizes varied and diversified techniques in traffic law enforcement. Many variables must be considered when evaluating tactics to be used on a specific problem. It will be the responsibility of the officer, in consultation with the watch supervisor, to determine the tactics to be used. The tactics or techniques that may be used include but are not limited to: 1. Visible traffic observation. Stationary observation in which the observer officer is in full view but so located as to require effort on the part of traffic to discover the observer. OPS -11.3 2. Concealed traffic observation. Stationary observation in which the observer is not visible to persons using ordinary powers of observation from the roadway. 3. Conspicuous traffic observation. Stationary observation in which the observer is positioned in such a way as to "attract" attention by keeping in full view of traffic. 4. Area traffic control. Moving or stationary patrol observation in an area which includes a particular number of streets, roads or sections of highways. 5. Line traffic patrol. Moving or stationary observation on a specified route between two points, usually on one street or section of highway. Directed enforcement will be utilized /assigned on an "as needed" or "as available" basis. Directed patrol may be used for a specific violation identified in a particular area or at a specific time, or in response to an anticipated traffic pattern for a particular event. Directed patrol also includes the tactic of "Saturation" patrol in a specific area for either a specific violation(s) or for all violations. The watch supervisor has authority to determine the type and number of vehicles to be used for a specific type of traffic patrol. The use of an unmarked vehicle for traffic patrol will be used only upon authorization of the watch supervisor. The Iowa City Police Department will only use equipment which meets or exceeds requirements of the FCC and /or. the NHTSA. Officers may use only those speed measuring devices approved by the department and in which the individual officer has been trained, and where applicable, certified. Said training will include instruction on the set up, testing, operational use and reading of the device. Officers shall set up and use speed- measuring devices in a manner which is consistent with their training and the manufacturer's specifications. All training will meet or exceed the requirements of the NHTSA. Prior to the use of a speed- measuring device the officer shall check the equipment according to the manufacturer's specifications. If any discrepancy exists the officer shall not use the equipment. The officer shall make note of the problem and forward an equipment repair sheet to the watch supervisor. It is the responsibility of all officers to see that attached speed measuring devices are properly cared for. The Commander of Field Operations or his /her designee will see that all equipment is maintained and calibrated according to manufacturers specifications and will maintain the records for the duration of the lifetime of the speed measuring device with the department plus two years. The sergeant in charge of vehicle inspections or his /her de nee \,W ill be responsible to ensure that all video - recording units are operatio l - -pnd- :Pave been properly maintained. C:J OPS -11.4 ALCOHOLENFORCEMENT The Iowa City Police Department will create special enforcement programs aimed at the enforcement of Operating While Intoxicated laws. These programs may be in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies within the area. In an effort to minimize the damage done by drivers who are intoxicated or drugged, the Iowa City Police Department places a high priority on the training of officers in the detection and apprehension of intoxicated or drugged drivers. The department will actively pursue state and federal grants pertaining to alcohol enforcement. The Department may also use directed patrol in areas or engage in traffic safety checkpoints that could result in the identification of intoxicated or drugged drivers. When available, an officer is to be assigned to the traffic function for each watch. This assignment is to concentrate on, but not limited to; speed violations, child restraint violations, seat belts and OWI enforcement. All officers, whether on general patrol or directed enforcement duties, should be alert for driving behavior which may indicate that a driver is operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or on drugs. When such an observation is noted the officer should: 1. note unsafe or erratic driving sufficient to establish enough reasonable suspicion for a traffic contact to be made but should not let it continue so as to endanger the public or the operator of the vehicle. Officers should attempt to stop the vehicle in an area that will not interfere with or endanger traffic; 2. prior to the initiation of field sobriety tests, note the demeanor, actions and signs of intoxication. These indicators should be noted in the OWI packet; 3. attempt to administer field sobriety tests on all drivers suspected of driving while impaired. The information gathered during the administr "on of 4-hese tests should be recorded in the OWI packet. Field sobriety , s stiould include but are not limited to: HGN, Walk and Turn and Orate g stand. -- +; The administration of a Preliminary Breath Test should becdone atuthe= completion of the field sobriety tests; 4. if the operator refuses to submit to field sobriety tests, or is impaired to the point it is unsafe to administer the tests, or is otherwise unablj�;to perform the tests, base the decision of whether to take the person into custody on other observations of the operator's condition. This may include the statement of witnesses if applicable. If the person refuses to submit to preliminary breath test they may be transported to the police department for further testing. If based on the officer's observation of the operator and the circumstances surrounding the incident the officer believes the person is intoxicated, the person may be arrested for suspicion of Operating While Intoxicated; OPS -11.5 5. if the person is arrested for suspicion of OWI, a search of the person and vehicle maybe made incident to arrest. The vehicle may be either parked, towed, or turned over to a sober driver; at the officer's discretion and depending on the circumstances. 6. The administration of Implied Consent, and the breath or other chemical test, shall be pursuant to state code, guidelines from the Department of Transportation, and Department of Criminal Investigation. In instances where the operator of the vehicle is involved in a crash resulting in death or serious injury and the operator refuses to provide a specimen for chemical testing, contact the on -call County Attorney for assistance. In instances where the operator is unable to consent or refuse, use the request for chemical test forms pertaining to intoxicated drivers who are in that circumstance; 7. In instances where the officer believes the operator is impaired but chemical testing indicates a BAC of less than .08, the officer may contact a departmental Drug Recognition Expert for testing. If a DRE is not immediately available, officers should consult with a watch supervisor to determine whether to call in a DRE; 8. In instances where the operator of a vehicle is under 21 years of age and there are indications that their BAC is in excess of .02, transport the person to the police department for administration of chemical testing. If the result is in excess of .02 but less than .08 follow Department of Transportation guidelines pertaining to .02 revocations, and offer to assist in making safe travel arrangements for the individual from the - olice department. This would include the officer offering to �anspd the individual to a reasonable location. PARKING ENFORCEMENT t; Officers or Community Service Officers will respond to parklh�' caag as ; available. All officers are responsible for enforcement of parki�=iiolons when brought to their attention or observed. Officers will be reponsiblee for the enforcement of parking regulations on city streets and alleys as w6fl as handicapped and fire lane violations on private property. The parking department has enforcement responsibilities for overtime parking. When called to a private property parking call, the officer or community service officer will make a determination if the complainant has the authority to request a vehicle be ticketed or impounded. When a vehicle is to be impounded, the officer shall follow departmental directives pertaining to vehicle impounds. Sa uel arga e, Chief of Police OPS-1 1.6 I WARNING I This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of a higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third-party claims. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative I sanctions. I OPS -11.7 APPENDIX I While engaged in traffic enforcement, officers may encounter persons who are at times granted exemptions to laws. When encountering these situations officers may follow these guidelines or if still unsure of the appropriate action, should contact a watch supervisor for further guidance. Legislators are granted limited immunity from prosecution under Chapter 3 of the Iowa Constitution which states "Privileged from arrest. SEC. 11. Senators and representatives, in all cases, except treason, felony, or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during the session of the general assembly, and in going to and returning from the same." Members of the National Guard are regulated under chapter 29A.41 of the code of Iowa. The code states," A member of the national guard shall not be arrested, or served with a summons, order, warrant or other civil process after having been ordered to any duty, or while going to, attending, or returning from, any place to which the officer or enlisted person is required to go for military duty. This section does not prevent the officer's or enlisted person's arrest by order of a military officer or for a felony or breach of the peace committed while not in the actual performance of the officer's or enlisted person's duty." Other members of the military, including members of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and reservists who are on active duties are likewise granted limited protection. When an occasion arises that requires the issuance of a traffic citation, a physical arrest or investigation of a motor vehicle crash involving a member of the armed services who is operating under conditions which offer this limited protection, the officer will notify a watch supervisor of the circumstance surrounding the incident. The watch supervisor will contact the office of the commanding officer of the military member involved and advise them of the incident. Foreign diplomats and consular officials may be granted immunity. In these cases the officer should advise the person of the nature of the stop and make a determination as to if the person is able to safely continue on their way. In instances where the ability of the operator of the vehicle is in doubt the officer should take steps to insure the person safely gets to their destination. These steps may include but are not limited to; locating another driver, contacting a cab, or contacting the consulate of the person involved or the United States Department of State for further assistance. Foreign nationals are subject to the laws of the State of Iowa, however there may be consular notification requirements. If a foreign national is stopped for a traffic violation, or is involved in a motor vehicle crash which requires no special investigation, there are no notification requirements. If a foreign national is physically arrested or detained for a substantial period of time there may be notification requirements. U In tl use circumstances, refer to the Consular Notification and Access booklet iri ;Jhe w61,ch commander's office for guidance. �i 1 OPS -11.8 APPENDIX I (continued) Juveniles may be issued citations for traffic violations without notification of their parents. In instances where a juvenile is being taken into custody the applicable juvenile procedures should be followed. If a juvenile is arrested for OWI, the officer shall attempt to contact the parent(s) or other responsible adult prior to initiating Implied Consent. Non Iowa residents will be treated the same as Iowa residents with regard to the issuance of traffic citations. In instances where an officer has an articulable reason for believing that a person is unlikely to appear for the scheduled court appearance, the officer may require that a cash bond be posted or the person may be taken before the nearest magistrate for arraignment. The Iowa City Police Department encourages the practice of cite and release whenever possible. C• „_� 0 � I CD OPS -11.9 APPENDIX II Enforcement of Traffic Laws All officers are responsible for maintaining an up -to -date knowledge of Iowa traffic laws and local ordinances. Consistency is an essential part of any traffic enforcement program. The following guidelines are to assist officers in deciding what type(s) of action to take when encountering these situations. These guidelines will assist officers in taking fair, appropriate, and consistent enforcement action. 1. Operating While Intoxicated: Recognizing that intoxicated individuals who choose to operate a motor vehicle pose a significant threat to the safety of themselves and others in Iowa City, the Iowa City Police Department will strictly enforce violations when a person operates a vehicle while intoxicated or drugged. Officers are also encouraged to strictly enforce Iowa's .02 Zero tolerance law pertaining to underage drinking and driving. 2. Operating while suspended, revoked, or barred. Operating a motor vehicle while a license is suspended, revoked or barred shows a disregard for the law and members of this department will enforce all such violations. Upon confirmation from DOT of the suspension, revocation or barment, officers are to file the applicable charge. Officers should check for the registered owner of the vehicle being operated by the subject, and if the operator is listed as a registered owner, the officer should check to see if the operator is eligible to have vehicles registered in his /her name. If the operator is not so entitled, pursuant to Iowa law the officer shall take custody of the license plates and, if available, the registration and, drivers license and send them to the Department of Transportation. Officers should also check for any unserved suspensions on the operator and, if present, serve such susp "ion oRAhe operator. 3. Speed enforcement. A driver who operates a vehicle in disrQ40 fc5 the posted speed limit is one who can and does cause a large number of motor— vehicle crashes. Officers of the Iowa City Police Department , ,i to--1ake - enforcement action when speed violations are observed. Sinc -:, stopping " distance of a vehicle is directly related to its speed, particular eff cats should be made in and around areas which have significant numbers of children or Y eavy concentrations of pedestrian traffic. 4. Hazardous violations. There are many violations of the traffic code that may be considered hazardous. These violations are those that could, under the right circumstances, result in a vehicle crash. Some types of violations considered hazardous are disregard of a traffic control device, failure to yield, reckless driving, and improper lane change /usage. Since the before mentioned violations are involved in large number of the motor vehicle crashes in Iowa City, officers are expected to take aggressive action when these violations occur. OPS -11.10 APPENDIX II (continued) 5. Off -Road vehicle violations. Members of this department will take appropriate action when they observe illegal on -road use of an off road vehicle. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcement of equipment, registration and licensing requirements. In instances where a vehicle is being operated off the roadway, officers need to determine if the operation is on property where the operator is entitled to be. If the vehicle is operated on private property without the permission of the controlling party, the officer may pursue appropriate criminal charges. In instances where the vehicle is being operated on public property, the officer will make a determination as to if the particular area allows the operation of motorized vehicles. 6. Vehicles operated on private property. When a vehicle is being operated on private property with the permission of the controlling party, the officer may enforce the OWI, reckless driving and accident reporting sections of the Iowa code. 7. Equipment violations. In order for a vehicle to be safely operated on a roadway it must be equipped pursuant to state code. In many cases, the operator of a vehicle may not be aware that a piece of equipment is not operating, i.e., taillight, brake light. A warning by an officer may be all that is required to insure the defect is corrected. In those situations where a motorist is aware of a problem and has failed to correct it in a reasonable amount of time, or the violation is such that it could result in a crash, other action may be required: i.e. citation, or parking of the vehicle. 8. Commercial vehicle violations. All public and commercial vehicle regulations will be enforced; however, the officer's discretion, training and knowledge will determine the action to be taken for violations of public and /or commercial vehicle regulations. The officer may call a department member trained in commercial motor vehicles or contact the Iowa Department of Transportation for assistance. In all instances where a commercial carrier is involved in a motor vehicle crash involving serious personal injury or death, the officer should contact a trained commercial vehicle inspector for assistance in the investigation. 9. Less - Hazardous violations. The officer should take notice of less serious violations and may make contact with the violator. The circumstances surrounding the violation should be taken into consideration when determiping the enforcement action to be taken. 10. Multiple violations. While the "stacking" of violations is not encouraged,; the circumstances and seriousness of the violations should guide ife- __officer in -- deciding the appropriate enforcement action. OPS -11.11 APPENDIX II (continued) 11. Newly enacted laws and /or regulations. When newly enacted laws or regulations are passed and become applicable to the motoring public, the enforcement guidelines prescribed in the text of the new law will be followed. The enforcement date of new laws /regulations will be determined by the Chief of Police or his /her designee in consultation with the city or county attorney. 12. Enforcement guidelines for motor vehicle crashes. Officers will take enforcement action when their motor vehicle crash investigation or reporting activities provide probable cause to believe that a law or ordinance has been violated. If a citation is not issued, the officer may be required to justify his /her action. 13. Pedestrian and bicycle violations. Officers should use discretion and take appropriate enforcement action for violations committed by pedestrians and bicycles on public property. Consideration should be given to the age of the violator and the seriousness, location, and time of day of the violation. 14. When an officer encounters an operator whom he /she feels should be referred to the Department of Transportation for re- examination, the officer shall complete an incident report pertaining to the incident. The report shall contain the circumstances surrounding the incident, including time of day, weather and street conditions, and the operator's information. The report shall also include the reason(s) why the officer believes the person should be re- examined. The report along with the DOT driver's referral form should be submitted to the watch supervisor for review prior to submission to DOT. (note: age alone is not a reason for re- examination) a y _- BODY ARMOR Date of Issue General Order Number July 19, 2000 100-04 Effective Date Section Code August 21, 2007 ADM -07 Reevaluation Date ends /Cancels July 2010 Am C.A.L. E. A. Reference 41.3.5, 41.3.6 INDEX AS: Body Armor Inspections Warrant Service Bicycle Operations ADM -07.1 U W I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide sworn members of the Iowa City Police Department with guidelines for the proper use and care of body armor. II. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to maximize officer safety through the use of body armor in combination with prescribed safety procedures. While body armor provides a significant level of protection, it is not a substitute for the observance of officer safety procedures. ADM -07.2 III. DEFINITIONS Field Activities - Duty assignments and /or tasks that place or could reasonably be expected to place officers in situations where they would be required to act in enforcement rather than administrative or support capacities. IV. PROCEDURE A. Issuance of Body Armor 1. All body armor issued shall comply with protective and related requirements prescribed under current standards of the National Institute of Justice. _ ,-13 Ot. 2. All officers shall be issued body armor pursuant to existing labogntracf. 3. Body armor that is worn or damaged shall be replaced by the attmery rtt. B. Use of Body Armor `� h 1. Officers shall wear only body armor approved by the Departme %. Y_ 2. Officers that are assigned to uniformed function and non - uniformed sworn officers should wear body armor while engaged in field activities both on regular and during extra duty employment unless exempt as follows: a. When there is a documented medical condition, which would preclude the wearing of body armor. b. When the officer is engaged in undercover or plain - clothes work that his /her supervisor determines could be compromised by wearing body armor. c. Officers choosing to not wear their body armor shall have their body armor readily available in the officer's assigned vehicle. This includes officers assigned to the investigative section. 1) Bicycle officers electing not to wear their body armor are not required to carry their body armor on their bicycle. d. Body armor shall be worn when serving warrants that indicate the suspect has resisted police in the past, is being arrested for a weapons offense, or other circumstances as determined by a watch supervisor. 3. Care, Maintenance and Replacement of Body Armor a. Officers shall routinely inspect personal body armor for signs of damage and for general cleanliness. b. On an annual basis, officers shall inspect their body armor for fit, cleanliness, and signs of damage, abuse and wear. c. As dirt and perspiration may erode ballistic panels, each officer shall be responsible for cleaning personal body armor in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. R ADM -07.3 d. Officers are responsible for the proper storage, maintenance and care of body armor in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. e. Officers are responsible for reporting damage or excessive wear to the ballistic panels or cover to their supervisor and the Commander of Administrative Services. f. Body armor will be replaced in accordance with guidelines and protocols established by the National Institute for Justice. g. The Commanding Officer Administrative Services shall monitor technological advances in body armor that may necessitate a change in body armor. h. The Commanding Officer Field Operations shall continually assess weapons and ammunition currently in use and the suitability of approved body armor to protect against those threats. 4. Acknowledgement of Risk a. An officer electing not to wear the body armor provided by the Department acknowledges the increased risk to their safety. Officers shall not be excluded or excused from the performance of any duty because of the officer's decision not to wear body armor. Officers choosing not to wear body armor are not precluded from responding to the scene of emergency situations immediately. Officers electing not wear or to carry their body armor with them acknowledge that they will not be able to retrieve their body armor prior to responding to any call. Samuel HairgadU, Chief of Police WARNING This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of a higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party claims. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative sanctions. ti 1 _ ,y> LEG -05.1 OFF -DUTY CONDUCT: POWERS OF ARREST Date of Issue General Order Number July 21, 2000 100-05 Effective Date Section Code July 30, 2007 LEG -05 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels July 2008 C. A. L. E. A. Reference 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7 _T- INDEX AS: Use of Force Weapons Arrests Y I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines to police officers regarding acceptable criteria for effecting an off -duty arrest. 11. POLICY Off -duty officers are often faced with situations involving criminal conduct that they are neither equipped for nor prepared to handle in the same manner as if they were on duty. This may lead to unnecessary injuries to off -duty officers, and confusion for those on -duty officers arriving at the scene. In order to promote safety and efficiency, it is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to determine and regulate those situations and locations within which a sworn member is permitted to effect an arrest while off- duty. LEG -05.2 III. DEFINITIONS Personally involved: An officer is deemed personally involved where the off -duty officer, a family member, or a friend becomes engaged in a dispute or incident involving a personal matter with the person to be arrested or any other person connected with the incident. This policy specifically cautions off -duty officers from using their designation as a police officer in situations where they are personally involved. Officers should remove themselves from any involvement in such a situation and immediately contact on -duty personnel to handle. IV. PROCEDURES A. Liability Protection Officers of the Iowa City Police Department have liability protection for the on and off -duty performance of official duties. This protection does not extend to acts intended to cause injury or damage, to willful or wanton acts or omissions, or to those actions that the officer knew, or reasonably should have known, were in conflict with the law or established policies of the Iowa City Police Department. B. Permitted Off -Duty Arrests When off -duty and within the legal jurisdiction of the City of Iowa City, an officer may make an arrest only when: 1. There is an immediate need to prevent a crime or apprehend a suspect; and 2. The crime would require a full custodial arrest; and 3. The arresting officer has in his /her possession, approp"le police identification. 4. The officer is not personally involved in the incident underlying the arrest or the opportunity and /or means to have on -duty officers safely respond and handle were not reasonable. C. Off -Duty Responsibilities 1. While off -duty, the police officer is responsible for immediately reporting any suspected or observed criminal activity, qualifying a serious misdemeanor or higher, to on -duty personnel. 2. Despite the fact that a police officer has police powers 24 hours a day throughout the jurisdiction, except as allowed by this policy, off -duty officers should not enforce minor violations such as disorderly conduct, public intoxication, minor traffic violations or other nuisance offenses. On -duty personnel should be contacted to respond to the situation where an off -duty officer becomes aware of such violations and believes police intervention is necessary. LEG -05.3 3. Where an arrest is necessary, the off - duty- arresting officer shall abide by all departmental policies and procedures. D. Prohibited Off -Duty Arrests: When off -duty, an officer shall not make an arrest: 1. When the arresting officer is personally involved in the incident underlying the arrest and the handling by on -duty personnel is reasonable or 2. When engaged in off -duty employment of a non - police nature, and the officer's actions are only in furtherance of the interests of the private employer. E. Carrying of Weapons Officers are prohibited from carrying off -duty weapons when the officer has consumed alcoholic or intoxicating beverages. a. Officers are prohibited from carrying off -duty weapons when they expect to consume any alcoholic or intoxicating beverage regardless of amount. b. If an officer decides to consume an alcoholic or intoxicating beverage, he /she shall secure their weapon in a securable area off the premises in which the alcohol is going to be consumed. If the officer is at his /her personal residence, he /she shall secure all department issued and department approved weapons prior to consuming alcohol. F. Review of Off -Duty Arrests Any officer conducting an off -duty arrest shall complete a report detailing the circumstances surrounding the arrest. This report shall include the name of the suspect, witnesses and other involved parties. This report shall be submitted to the on -duty watch commander, at the time of the incident, with a copy being forwarded to the Watch Commander of the officer initiating the arrest-for review. S muel ar wine, C ief _of Police WARNING This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of a higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party claims. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative sanctions. OPS 05.1 BOMB THREATS/ EMERGENCIES Date of Issue General Order Number JUNE 26, 2001 01 -04 Effective Date Section Code JULY 17, 2007 OPS -05 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels JULY 2009 C.A.L. E.A. Reference 46.1.5 r� INDEX AS: __ _ 7-1 Building Searches _ -_ co Communications Media - r- I. PURPOSE The purpose of this order is to provide officers with procedures for dealing with actual or threatened bomb incidents to include response, deployment, search, evacuation and assistance to specialized units. II. POLICY While many bomb threats are later determined to be hoaxes, they all present particularly serious response requirements for law enforcement agencies. It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department that all responses to bomb threats or emergencies be conducted systematically, efficiently and in a manner that gives primary consideration to the protection of human life. OPS 05.2 III. DEFINITIONS Bomb Threat: A bomb threat condition exists when an explosive device has been reported or is suspected to be at a given location. Bomb Emergency: A bomb emergency exists when a suspected or actual explosive device has been located or detonated. - -- Bomb Disposal Commander: Current Bomb Team Commander. CID IV. PROCEDURES A. COMMUNICATIONS RESPONSIBILITIES R) 1. Communications personnel receiving bomb threats or warnings from* callers shall, to the degree possible: a. Keep the reporting party on the line. b. Identify the location of the device with as much precision as possible and determine when it will be or if it has been detonated. c. Attempt to determine; 1. What the device looks like; 2. The type of explosive device which is involved; 3. What will make it detonate, (e.g., radio signal, time delay, fuse; 4. Why was it placed? 2. Communications personnel receiving reports from individuals or organizations that have received bomb threats shall: a. Alert the supervisor in charge; b. Determine the location, time of detonation, appearance and any other available information concerning the nature of the threat or identity of the perpetrators; c. If no explosive device has been identified, ask the caller to check with employees and others for the presence of unusual parcels or items on the premises; d. Dispatch requisite patrol units and emergency personnel; and e. Ensure that the watch commander is notified as soon as practical. 3. Based on the nature of the threat, the supervisor in charge will, as required, make certain the following are alerted: a. Commander of Field Operations or designee; b. Chief of Police or designee; c. Fire, rescue and ambulance units; d. Bomb disposal personnel; e. Emergency rooms of local hospitals; OPS 05.3 f. Public Information officer; g. Local utility companies; h. Determine the need for an incident command center. When a bomb threat is received, the supervisor in charge may cause bomb disposal personnel to be notified for informational purposes. If a suspected or actual device is located, bomb disposal personnel shall respond to the scene and the Bomb Disposal Commander shall have control of the bomb scene, with the Incident Commander maintaining overall control of the incident. 4. When a bomb threat is received in writing, every effort shall be- to preserve the notice as evidence. B. RESPONDING OFFICERS RESPONSIBILITIES _ +' ti ✓r 1. Responding patrol units should not use any electronic traniijiiissiorik, device within 300 feet of the reported location. This includes car and` portable radios, MDTs, Cell phones etc. 2. If applicable, responding officers will contact the individual who received the threat to obtain additional information, including: a. Whether previous threats have been received; b. Possible motives and /or suspects; c. Vulnerabilities of equipment and personnel; and d. Exploration of any basic information provided to communications. 3. In bomb emergencies, responding officers shall establish and secure a suitable perimeter. C. SEARCHING FOR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES 1. If an explosive device is alleged to be within a building but has not been located, the supervisor in charge will contact building owners and /or management to determine if a search of the facility is desired. 2. The decision to search, evacuate or to reenter a structure /location during a bomb threat will be the responsibility of the individual in charge of the property. a. The supervisor in charge at the scene shall provide information, as available, to responsible parties in order to assist them in making decisions on searching, evacuation or reentry. b. If building management and /or the responsible party does not wish that a search be conducted, no further action by the Iowa City Police Department is warranted pertaining to a search of the premises. The Iowa City Police Department will follow -up on all L97 OPS 05.4 leads pertaining to the call and complete all reporting requirements. c. In cases where a real or suspected explosive device, as determined by bomb disposal personnel, has been detected, the officer in charge shall cause the evacuation of the property regardless of the desires of the responsible party and /or property management. 3. Searches of target buildings /properties shall be conducted only with the direct assistance of employees or others knowledgeable of the contents and layout of the building. a. The supervisor in charge may request the assistance of a bomb detection canine and /or bomb disposal personnel in order to assist in conducting the search. b. A search plan shall be developed identifying the extent of the search, depending upon the type of establishment, the motivation of the perpetrator and accessibility of the building. c. Whenever practical, a floor plan shall be obtained and a systematic search organized by the supervisor in charge. The search plan shall establish communications within the search area. d. In no case will a member of this department declare that no bomb is present or in any way make the representation that the building is safe to enter or occupy; regardless of the thoroughness of the search. 4. When conducting a search without the assistance of bomb disposal personnel, officers should be particularly alert to the following items as indicators that there may be explosives at the location. Officers should be cautioned that the absence of these items does not assure the absence of an explosive device: a. Explosive - related pamphlets, periodicals and books; b. Excessive amounts of galvanized or PVC pipe nipples, and end caps, especially if they have drill holes in the nipple or cap; c. Low - explosive powders or other incendiary mixtures; d. Fuses of any type to include homemade burning fuses, �-Uch ass'- string soaked in a burning powder; f e. Electrical switches; and f. Electrical matches, blasting caps or similar'initiators. _ LOCATED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES 1. If a real or suspicious device has been located or explosive[*-'-- paraphernalia identified, officers should: a. Not attempt to move or otherwise disturb the device(s); b. Not use devices which transmit an electronic signal; OPS 05.5 c. Proceed with immediate evacuation of the structure and /or the area to a point consistent with the threat but not less than 300 feet from the device(s); d. Define and secure the perimeter; e. Notify communications of the discovery of the device; f. Notify the bomb disposal unit. 2. The supervisor in charge is responsible for the briefing of investigators and ordnance specialists as appropriate. 3. The bomb disposal commander shall have functional authority at any bomb emergency to direct departmental personnel in a manner necessary to accomplish its mission in a safe and efficient manner. 4. In situations where explosive or suspicious devices are found, the watch commander shall notify bomb disposal personnel. This includes situations where citizens wish to surrender explosive devices and /or military ordnance. E. POST - INCIDENT INVESTIGATION The Department's Investigative Section shall have primary responsibility for investigating bomb incidents. During the investigation of bomb incidents, the department's bomb disposal personnel will work under the direction of the Investigative Supervisor or designee. The investigation is to include: 1. Checking the site for undetonated explosives or secondary devices; 2. Coordinating evidence recovery; 3. Requesting the assistance of other agencies to determine the nature and construction of explosives and identification of suspects; 4. Coordinating with intelligence operations of this department, and those of state and federal sources; and 5. Assisting in the evaluation procedures, area and perimeter ! e urity,� l the availability of emergency services and coordination w th �)the�= incident commander. 6. Completion of all state and federal reporting requirements. co -- - i F. MONTHLY REPORTING On a monthly basis, bomb disposal personnel shall forward a report to the' Commander of Field Operations. This report shall, at a minimum contain: 1. The number and summary of calls received during the month; 2. The number and summary of bomb threats received during the month; 3. The number and summary of bomb emergencies during the month; OPS 05.6 4. The actual number of explosive devices located during the month; a. Description of actual devices. 5. Number of hours of explosive related training during the month; a. Summary of Training. SamuEfl Hargadine, hief of Police WARNING This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of l a higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third- party claims. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative sanctions. _ E INV -02.1 OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS 1 LETHAL INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS Date of Issue General Order Number AUGUST 1, 2001 01 -05 Effective Date Section Code AUGUST 27, 2007 1 INV-02 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels AUGUST, 2009 1 Re -Issue C.A.L.E.A. Reference 1.3.5, 1.3.8, 11.4.5, 22.2.3, 22.2.4 r� INDEX AS: Use of Force Deadly Force ; Shootings Internal Affairs �` -� I. PURPOSE It is the purposed of this policy to provide guidelines for the investigation of oer- involved shootings or incidents resulting in the death or serious injury of person possibly resulting from police actions. II. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department that officer - involved shooting incidents and incidents resulting in serious injury or death be investigated with the utmost thoroughness, professionalism and impartiality to determine if officer actions conform with the law and departmental guidelines and directives. Further, the Iowa City Police Department will provide necessary assistance to officers involved in these type incidents. III. DEFINITIONS INV -02.2 IV. PROCEDURES A. OFFICER ON SCENE RESPONSIBILITIES Officers involved at the scene of a shooting or other incident resulting in the death or serious injury of a person resulting from the actions or involvement of a member of the Iowa City Police Department, shall take those measures that are reasonably possible and appropriate to protect their safety, the safety of others, and to preserve evidence essential to the investigation of the incident. This includes but is not limited to the following actions as appropriate: ,a c _ 1. Ensure that the threats to officer safety and the safety other are addressed. _ _.n 2. Secure and separate suspects. = c. 3. Relay information on fleeing suspects to communicatioF;i�;yPgd field units and work with them to establish a containme�-:area. w 4. Request a supervisor and additional backup, emergency medical service and any other assistance immediately required. 5. If injured, administer emergency first aid to oneself if possible, then administer basic medical aid to suspects and others as necessary, pending arrival of emergency medical assistance. 6. Secure any suspect weapons as evidence. DO NOT open, reload, remove shell casings or in any other manner alter the weapons involved other than taking those steps required to make the weapon and scene safe. (After the scene is secure) 7. As time and capabilities permit before supervisory and other assistance arrives: a. Secure the area, establish a perimeter with crime scene tape and limit access to authorized personnel necessary to investigate the incident and assist the injured. b. Note time, survey the entire area for relevant facts, individuals who are present and who departs /departed the scene, witnesses, potential suspects and suspect vehicles. c. Protect evidence from loss, destruction or damage that is likely to occur before backup can arrive. Ensure that evidentiary items are not moved, note original location and position of persons, weapons, and other relevant objects and evidence. d. Record the names, addresses and phone number of all witnesses and other persons present at the scene and request that they remain on hand in order to make a brief statement whether or not they saw the incident. B. SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE SCENE 1 2 3 INV -02.3 Ensure the safety and determine the condition of the officer(s), suspect(s) and third parties. If the officer has been shot or otherwise injured in the incident: a. Ensure that an officer accompanies and remains with the officer at the hospital. b. Ensure that the officer's family is notified on a priority basis and in person by a Watch Commander or Supervisor when possible. Ensure that they are assigned transportation to the hospital or other location where they are needed as soon as possible. Watch Supervisors should refer to the officer's Emergency Notification form prior to making the notification. c. Do not release the officer's name to the media or unauthorized parities. d. Summon Crime Scene Technicians to the scene. e. Assign an officer to the family for security, support, control of the press and visitors, establishment of communications and related matters. f. Ensure that the clothing of officers and other injured persons is collected for potential evidentiary purposes and that related equipment of the officers is safeguarded. If the officer is not injured, move him /her away from the center of activity accompanied by another officer. 4. Secure the officer(s) weapons as evidence. This shall be done in as discreet manner as possible and away from the immediate scene. The weapon shall be replaced as soon as reasonably practical, preferably immediately upon removal of the involved weapon. DO NOT open, reload, remove shell casings or in any other manner alter the weapons involved other than taking those steps required to make the weapon and scene safe. (After the scene is secure) 5. Confirm that the preliminary steps in item IV -A have been adequately addressed and, if not, take appropriate action to ensure that necessary actions are taken. 6. Ensure that the immediate area is contained and detain any suspects therein. r- FD 7. To the extent necessary, ensure notifications are m e -`to O #:her. - agency personnel, to include: a. Lieutenants and above — c' b. Public Information Officer = s c. Medical Examiner d. Chaplain r� INV -02.4 8. Establish a command post if necessary. 9. Appoint a recorder to make a chronological record of activities at the scene, to include: persons present, actions taken by police personnel and the identity of any personnel who entered the incident/crime scene, to include emergency medical and fire personnel. 10. Diagram the scene and photograph it as soon as possible. 11. Establish a media staging area as time permits unless the Public Information Officer assumes this responsibility. 12. Begin the following: a. Locate and secure -or secure in place - the officer's weapon(s) and ammunition casings. Check the weapons of all officers present, for discharge and secure the weapon when evidence of discharge exists. b. Locate the suspect's weapon(s) ammunition and expended cartridges. c. Collect information about the suspect, including name, physical description, domicile and other pertinent information. d. Locate and secure as evidence any clothing that may have been removed from the suspect by emergency medical personnel or others. e. Determine the original position of the officer(s)and flit suspadt(s) at the time of the shooting or use of force. C. POST - SHOOTING TRAUMA _ F`-' - 1. Sworn and non -sworn personnel shall be familiar wi and fellow" the provisions established by the Iowa City Police Dt- drtment in post- shooting /use of deadly force emotional traun44 in Mice personnel. a. The Officer in Charge shall ensure that those involved in the incident are allowed to contact family members as soon as practical after the incident. In the event the officer is injured and unable to contact family members, the Commanding Officer Field Operations or designee shall ensure that immediate family members are notified in person as soon as reasonably practical after the incident. b. The name of the officer(s) involved in the incident shall not be released. c. The Commanding Officer Field Operations or designee shall make contact with all involved officers within 24 hours of the incident and explain Employee Assistance Programs that are available to the employee. d. Within 72 hours of the incident, the Commanding Officer Field Operations or designee shall contact a traumatic stress INV -02.5 professional. He /she shall arrange for private appointments for the officer(s) determined to be directly involved in the incident and as requested, for their immediate family members. e. Upon request, agency personnel will be provided counseling services, for post incident stress. Counseling services will be available for families of personnel, either through Departmentally sponsored programs or via the City's Employee Assistance Program. 2. All personnel should be familiar with available mental health services and avail themselves of these services following officer - involved shooting /use of deadly force incidents. 3. The Chief of Police shall place an employee involved in an incident resulting in death or serious injury on administrative leave or remove him /her from field duty consistent with the departments Use of Force Order. Prior to returning to field duty, employees involved in the incident shall be required undergo a fitness for duty evaluation. D. INVESTIGATOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES Investigation of officer - involved shootings /use of deadly force shall be the responsibility of the Commanding Officer Field Operations. Appointment of an investigator who will be responsible for conducting an Internal Affairs investigation into officer involved shootings /use of force incidents will be made by the Chief of Police. In cases where the force is used by the Commanding Officer Field Operations, the investigation shall be assumed by the Chief of Police or designee. The Commanding Officer Field Operations may appoint an Officer in Charge (at the rank of sergeant or above) who shall be responsible for ensuring that the following tasks are adequately addressed in the order deemed necessary and appropriate. 1. Ensure that tasks itemized in sections IVA and IVB of this policy have been appropriately and adequately completed. Take measures to ensure that any deficiencies in completing tasks are immediately remedied. . 2. Receive a general briefing and walk- through by the supers%i`y officer regarding the circumstances surrounding the shooting /uS� of d�_Odly__ force. 3. Ensure that the overall scene and evidentiary items are p�oteraphed and videotaped. Videotape all persons present at the s6�rie. Color photographs of the officer as he /she appears at the scene shaCbe taken, to include any injuries sustained. INV -02.6 4. Ensure thorough inspection of the scene and proper collection of all items and substances of evidentiary value. 5. Obtain taped statements from the suspects. 6. Ensure that notification is provided to next -of -kin of injured or deceased suspects, preferably by someone of the rank of sergeant or above. 7. Locate and identify witnesses and conduct initial tape- recorded interviews. 8. Tape record interviews with fire department personnel, emergency medical service providers and other first responders to the scene. 9. Conduct separate tape- recorded interviews with each officer involved. a. Conduct the interview in a private location away from sight and hearing of agency members and others who do not have a need and a right to the information. b. Advise the officer(s) not to discuss the incident with anyone except a personal attorney or attorney representing the city, union representative, family member, health care professional, outside agency investigator (Division of Criminal Investigation) assigned to investigate the incident, or departmental investigator until the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. c. Be cognizant of symptoms of post- traumatic stress, to include time and space distortions, confusion, hearing and visual distortion and emotional impairment, including shock. (Defer tape- recorded interviews if these symptoms are evident) 10.Take any weapon used by the officer(s) into custody and handle it as evidence. The officer shall be provided a replacement weapon when practical after collection of his /her weapon. Firearms shMI be taken from officers in a discrete manner. 11. Where an officer has died, the Officer in Charge shall: -ensureAhat procedures established for line -of -duty deaths and death_aQtificatrons are followed. - 12. Contact the medical examiner and attend the autopsy of gfficer ai /or suspect. Determine entrance and exit wounds, estimates of the shooter's position, the presence of controlled substances in the decedent's blood, or other related evidence. 13.Obtain search warrants as necessary for searches of vehicles, containers, homes and vehicles. INV -02.7 14. Develop a statement of preliminary basic facts for the media to be delivered by the agency spokesperson in conformance with the department's media policy. 15. Other investigative procedures as determined by the Officer in Charge or Commander of Field Operations. 16. Complete a report detailing the finding of the investigation. E. CHIEF OF POLICE The Chief of Police will coordinate the activities of responding commanders. The Chief of Police will determine the appropriate time to release names of involved officers to the media. The Chief of Police or designee may request the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation to conduct an independent investigation of all incidents resulting in the death of an officer or citizen, resulting from or in the performance of their duties. The Chief of Police shall cause an Internal Affairs investigation to be initiated in incidents resulting in death or serious injury of an officer or citizen, resulting from or in the performance of the officer's duties. The Chief of Police may require a Critical Incident Debriefing upon completion of the investigation. The debriefing will include all officers involved with the incident. Sarhuel Harga . e, Chi f of Police This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of a higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party claims. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative sanctions. OPS -20.1 PATROL RIFLE Date of Issue General Order Number August 28, 2007 107-01 Effective Date Section Code August 28, 2007 OPS -20 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels August 2008 C.A.L.E.A. Reference 1.3.9, 1.3.10, 1.3.11 To provide guidelines for the proper use of semi - automatic rifles in the performance of police duties. II. POLICY The Iowa City Police Department issues semi - automatic rifles to specifically selected patrol officers for unconventional situations where the police may face heavily armed and /or ballistically protected criminal suspects or armed mentally unstable subjects. These rifles are a tool to allow the potential resolution of these incidents by allowing a tactical advantage not available with more conventional police firearms. r-.:) _ U INDEX AS: Ammunition Training Firearms Weapons Munitions Use of Force co SRT v� I. PURPOSE To provide guidelines for the proper use of semi - automatic rifles in the performance of police duties. II. POLICY The Iowa City Police Department issues semi - automatic rifles to specifically selected patrol officers for unconventional situations where the police may face heavily armed and /or ballistically protected criminal suspects or armed mentally unstable subjects. These rifles are a tool to allow the potential resolution of these incidents by allowing a tactical advantage not available with more conventional police firearms. OPS -20.2 III. DEFINITIONS SEMI - AUTOMATIC RIFLE - For the purposes of this instruction, the ICPD issue rifle is the Rock River Arms CAR A4- a semi - automatic rifle in .223 caliber with 16 inch barrel and 30 round capacity box magazine. PATROL RIFLE OPERATOR (PRO) - A specially selected and trained officer of the patrol division currently issued one of the above rifles. Operators are selected based on guidelines established by the Commander of Field Operations. IV. RULES A. Patrol rifles are only to be deployed under guidelines established by this order. y� B. The decision to fire the rifle shall be in accordance with State Law and the ICPD Use of Force General Order 99 -05. -� V. PROCEDURES �- A. Deployment of Patrol Rifles 1. Patrol Rifles shall be deployed only in situations that the officer may reasonably believe that the tactical advantage afforded by the rifle would be necessary. They are not to be used for routine calls where the deployment of a shoulder arm might otherwise be appropriate, or for calls where the information dispatched is not matched by a clear threat to public safety in actuality. This order does not seek to articulate the only situations where rifle deployment is appropriate. Officer /supervisor judgment is the first indicator of appropriate deployment. 2. The patrol rifle may be deployed in situations: a. Where the officer believes a suspect he /she may encounter is wearing protective body armor or. b. Is believed to be armed with or has immediate access to high powered or shoulder fired weapons or C. Is believed to be armed and situated in a distant or fortified location which affords the suspect a tactically superior position. d. Other situations where approval for deployment of patrol rifle is authorized by the Watch Supervisor. OPS -20.3 B. Department Guidelines for Patrol Deployment 1. The patrol rifle is issued to individual officers specially trained in their use. The rifles are issued in protective cases with 60 rounds of department approved and issued ammunition. a. Rifles are to be stored in the trunk of the assigned officer's patrol car during his /her tour of duty. It is to be secured in the officer's locker at the end of tour. Rifles shall not be left in pool patrol car trunks. b. Officers are responsible for the safe and secure storage of their issued rifles at all times. 2. Physical readiness of the rifle. a. The rifle shall be stored in the case with magazine inserted in rifle, chamber empty. Safety shall be engaged, hammer down. b. Rifle magazines will be fully loaded to capacity of 20 or 30 rounds for duty use. C. The rifle should be inspected frequently and adequately maintained. 3. Qualification a. PRO's shall qualify with the rifle quarterly in accordance with standards established by the Department's Rifle Instructors. b. Failure to fire a passing score on the first attempt will result in a second attempt approximately one month later. Failure to fire a passing score at that time will result in the officer being suspended from the rifle program for a period of not less than three months. C. Personally Owned Patrol Rifles: The Iowa City Police Department shall allow individual officers purchase and carry their own patrol rifles, on duty, within th-4 `' parameters of this policy. 1. Qualifications for Individually Owned Patrol Rifles z� , a. The officer must have successfully completed his /her probationary period. b. The officer must submit a request to the Commander or Field Operations, via the Chain of Command. C. The officer's immediate supervisor and the 2 OPS -20.4 Commander of Field Operations must approve the officer and weapon before a personally owned rifle can be used on duty. Training a. Officers desiring to purchase and carry their own rifle must complete the same training and qualification as PRO's using Department owned weapons. b. The Department Rifle Instructors shall track and keep records of both department owned and personally owned rifles being used by Patrol Rifle Operators. C. The officers approved to carry personally owned rifles must successfully complete quarterly department rifle qualifications. Qualification rules as outlined in Section 3b apply to personally owned rifles as well. 3. Weapon Qualifications a. Rifle shall be a gas- operated, semi - automatic, .223 - caliber rifle or the type commonly known as AR -15, but with various designations depending upon manufacturer. b. Rifle shall be of Commander of Field Operations approved manufacturer. C. The rifle barrel must be between 16 and 20 inches in length and may have either a fixed or collapsible stock. Officers who wish to carry a National Firearms Act registered short barreled rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches may do so with proof of registration submitted at time of application. Barrels of less than 10 inches will not be allowed. d. Rifle must be equipped with an appropriate tactical sling, not just a carry strap. e. Rifle must have an attached light with illumination capabilities at least equivalent to a 6 -volt light, or 65 Lumens. f. The rifle must have either fixed or flip -up iron sights. g. An optical sighting device may be used. Common examples of acceptable optics would be Aimpoint or EOTech holographic sights. h. Officers can use either 20 or 30 round magazines. i. Officers must have an appropriate case to protect the rifle in the patrol car. j. Rifle must be deployed using only .223 ammuni" approved and supplied by the Iowa City Pour, Department. 1 Ci' -, OPS -20.5 D. Special Response Team Members Trained SRT members may carry their assigned shoulder weapon while on duty and on their patrol watch. SRT members carrying their assigned weapon must follow the rules outlined in this policy. E. Each Watch Commander will have assigned to their watch four (4) Patrol Rifle Operators. If an officer is a designated PRO and desires to transfer to another watch, that officer will be removed from the Patrol Rifle program and the rifle will be surrendered to the Watch Commander. The Watch Commander will secure the weapon and designate another officer as a PRO. The new PRO will complete the minimum course for Patrol Rifle operators and supply a qualifying range score to the Training and Accreditation Sergeant. Samuel Hargad' , Chi f of Police WARNING This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party claims. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative sanctions. 0 �l c� Iowa City Police Department Standard Operating Guideline SOG #: Effective date: 07 -01 January 2, 2007 Subject: Reference: ALL HAZARDS PLAN DISASTER, COMMUNICATIONS, INCIDENT COMMAND Section: Issue #: OPERATIONS 2 (August 29, 2007 Comma Signature: Replaces: 0 -a . SOG 01 -21 UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES v Purpose: The purpose of this guideline is to identify and plan for those situations which ma? require a response above that which is readily available with normally available resources. This policy will set out the positions responsible for command and management of the situation and the possible response of the Iowa City Police Department. Policy: It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to respond to calls for service as professionally and efficiently as possible. Members of this department will take those actions necessary to maintain the safety and security of members of the community. In recognition that situations occur that are beyond the normal day to day operations of the Iowa City Police Department, it is incumbent that the initial steps required to contain or manage a situation are taken in as safe and timely fashion as possible. It is further recognized that there is no one scenario which can be planned for; because of this, it is necessary that the initial plans be basic, flexible and subject to modification. The following directive identifies those positions and components of the department that are responsible for the planning and organization of contingency plans for special occurrences or operations. Definitions: INCIDENT ACTION PLAN (IAP) — A plan containing objectives reflecting the overall incident strategy and specific tactical actions and supporting information for the next operational period. The plan may be oral or written. INCIDENT COMMAND POST (ICP) — A centralized base of operation established near the site of an incident at which primary command functions are executed. w,f - INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM (ICS) — A system for command, control, and coordination of a response that provides a means to coordinate the efforts of individual persons and agencies as they work toward the common goal of stabilizing an incident while protecting life, property and the environment. INCIDENT COMMANDER — An officer who is responsible for the planning, exercising, execution and facilitation of the emergency management plans. During the activation of the Incident Command System (ICS), the incident commander serves as liaison to other governmental organizations or agencies. UNIFIED COMMAND — A multi- agency command incorporating officials and personnel from agencies with jurisdictional responsibilities at an incident scene. When an incident's magnitude exceeds the capabilities, resources or jurisdiction of one agency, the ICS of an agency can evolve into and participate in an established Unified Command structure. UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE — Those situations which are beyond the "normal" day to day operations of the police department. These situations may require additional personnel, special equipment, and /or joint operations with other agencies. Unusual occurrence includes but is not limited to any natural or man made event, civil disturbance, or any occurrence of unusual or severe nature which threatens to cause or causes the loss of life or injury to persons and /or severe damage to property, and requires extraordinary measures to protect lives, meet human needs, and achieve recovery. Procedures: Due to the large number of variables affecting /involved in disaster situations, emergencies, or "unusual" occurrences, the development of specific orders for dealing with these type situations cannot be reliably formulated. The Incident Command System provides a flexible framework from which to work when responding to unusual occurrences. This order addresses the administrative and operational measures to be taken in developing plans to respond effectively to emergency or unusual situations. The Commander of Field Operations or designee is responsible for the planning for and the administration of plans relating to "unusual occurrences ". These include but are not limited to natural or man made disasters, special tactical operations, mass arrest situations, VIP security, or special events. These plans shall include guidelines for responding to the following types of situations; 1. Disasters; A. natural, B. manmade, ' - --1 2. Civil Disturbances; { =? 7 3. Special Threat Situations; - -- 4. Mass Arrests. The Commander of Field Operations or designee will be responsible for the view and updating of written departmental Emergency /Unusual Occurrence plans. This review a development should include coordination with other City departments and appropriate outside entities. The Incident Command System shall be used as a guide in the development of such plans. Incident Command System: The Incident Command System (ICS) is the model tool for command, control, and coordination of a response and provides a means to coordinate the efforts of individual agencies as they work toward the common goal of stabilizing the incident and protecting life, property, and the environment. ICS uses principles that have been proven to improve efficiency and effectiveness in a business setting and applies the principles to emergency response. Many incidents — whether major accidents (such as HazMat spills), minor incidents (such as house fires and utility outages), or emergencies and major disasters (such as tornadoes)— require a response from a number of different agencies. Regardless of the size of the incident or the number of agencies involved in the response, all incidents require a coordinated effort to ensure an effective response and the efficient, safe use of resources. The ICS organization is built around five major components: ■ Command '} • Planning • Operations -1 • Logistics • Finance /Administration These five major components are the foundation upon which the ICS organization develops. They apply during a routine emergency, when preparing for a major event, or when managing a response to a major disaster. In small -scale incidents, one person, the Incident Commander, may manage all of the components. Large -scale incidents usually require that each component, or section, be set up separately. 1. Command The command function is directed by the Incident Commander, who is the person in charge at the incident, and who must be fully qualified to manage the response. Initially, the Incident Commander will be the senior first - responder to arrive at the scene. As additional responders arrive, command will transfer on the basis of who has primary authority for overall control of the incident. As incidents grow in size or become more complex, the responsible jurisdiction or agency may assign a more highly qualified Incident Commander. At transfer of command, the outgoing Incident Commander must give the incoming Incident Commander a full briefing and notify all staff of the change in command. The Incident Commander's first priority is always the life and safety of the emergency responders and the public. Other major responsibilities for the Incident Commander may include: A. Activating the incident command system The Incident Command System shall be activated at all major emergencies or disasters, including, but not limited to: a. Major fires or explosions b. Major rescue operations c. Hostage / barricaded persons situations d. Civil disturbances e. Natural disasters f. Other unusual occurrences The Incident Command System would be implemented to coincide with the degree of seriousness of the incident. A large, major incident may require an entire Incident Command Organization. Only those functions that are required for the successful and efficient conclusion of an incident shall be activated. A small incident will more likely require only an Incident Commander. B. Establishing a command post The proper location and organization of a Command Post is essential to incident management. The Incident Commander will select a location for a Command Post that is positioned outside of the present and potential hazard zone but close enough to the incident to maintain control. The site may change if an incident escalates or the problem shifts to another location. C. Initiating the notification and mobilization of additional agency personnel The Emergency Communications Center will notify the Chief, the Watch Commander, Commander of Field Operations, patrol units, fire department and emergency medical personnel. Additional notifications will be made pursuant to; the Special Order 06 -03 call matrix. If additional personnel are requested -by the. Incident Commander, the Watch Commander or higher authority will-make the, " decision as to the extent of any call back, hold over, or "alert' of dep.`artmentaf, personnel. D. Obtaining support from other agencies In the event that the situation requires personnel beyond that which is---' from within the Department, the Watch Commander or higher auttil ity m4, request the assistance of outside law enforcement agencies. The Chief of Police:; or designee, will maintain command of law enforcement personnel operating on behalf of the city. E. Establishing a staging area During the initial response phase, the Incident Commander may designate a location for responding units to standby until needed. This staging area shall be in a secure area but close enough to the scene for rapid response. F. Providing public information and maintaining media relations All public information and media relations shall be in accordance with General Order 01 -07, G. Preparing a documented after action report The Incident Commander will compile an after - action report. The report will include the following information that is applicable to the particular incident being reported: a. Date and time of initial notification of the disaster or incident b. Establishment of a field command post, including its location, composition of staff, communications capabilities, and liaison personnel (to include other law enforcement, city staff, and other agencies) c. Significant adverse events, and corrective or reactive measures taken to include: (1) Deployment of personnel and equipment (2) Life - saving efforts (3) Evacuation and other relocation efforts (4) Restoration of utilities / right of way (5) Casualty figures (6) Location and estimate of property damage d. Recommendations for future responses As incidents grow, the Incident Commander may delegate authority for performing some of these activities to others, as required. These Command Staff positions may include an Information Officer who will handle all media inquiries and coordinates the release of information to the media. A Safety Officer monitors safety conditions and develop$ measures for ensuring the safety of all assigned personnel. A Liaison Officer�uill be the on -scene contact for other agencies assigned to the incident. 2. Planning In smaller events, the Incident Commander is responsible for planning, but_when tFie incident is of larger scale, the Incident Commander establishes the Plannir Sectigtn, The Planning Section's responsibilities include: A. Preparing a documented incident action plan (IAP) Every incident must have an oral or written action plan. The purpose of the plan is to provide supervisory personnel with clear direction for future actions. Action plans must include the measurable tactical operations to be achieved. The Incident Commander has direct responsibility for the creation of incident action plans. While the creation of this plan can be delegated to staff personnel, the Incident Commander has sole authority to approve and implement any incident action plan. Action plans shall be prepared around an operational period. Operational periods can be of various lengths, but should be no longer than twenty -four hours. The length of an operational period will be based on the needs of the incident, and these can change over the course of the incident. B. Gathering and disseminating information and intelligence Information shall be collected on all aspects of the incident by the use of investigators, undercover officers, video teams and other assets. Undercover officers may be used to infiltrate crowds and provide on -view, real time intelligence; identify instigators, agitators or suspects; and to affect covert apprehensions and questioning. Video teams will make recordings from various vantage points of affected areas and / or property destruction, and record persons displaying suspicious or unlawful activity in the incident area. Information shall be disseminated by briefings, radio broadcast, Mobile Data Terminal Message, teletype, etc., as appropriate. C. Planning post- incident demobilization All emergency operations shall continue as necessary until the situation returns to normal. When an incident concludes, an orderly method of ending operations and shutting down activities must be employed. Mutual aid and private resources, if utilized, shall be released at the earliest opportunity. Regard for public and officer / employee safety shall be of primary concern. Designated perimeters should be adjusted as de- escalation occurs. Traffic control for the return of evacuees shall be provided as necessary. The news media shall be utilized to broadcast or publish pertinent information to the public regarding the restoration of normal operations, as deemed necessary. 3. Operations The Operations Section is responsible for carrying out the response activities described in the incident action plan. The Operations Section's responsibilities may include : - A. Establishment of inner and outer perimeters When appropriate an inner perimeter shall be established. As nanpower becomes available, an outer perimeter will be established to prevent-entry by--, - non -law enforcement personnel in order to create a safe area in which to operate as well as ensure the safety of the public. B. Delegating personnel to conduct evacuations Should the circumstances of an incident require the evacuation of residents or other persons from a particular area, officers will conduct such action with the safety of the citizens as the primary concern, giving consideration to their personal needs and concerns as well. Department vehicles and other city vehicles may be used for transporting persons during such evacuations. C. Maintaining command post and scene security Access to the command post as well as the scene shall be limited to essential personnel only. D. Providing for detainee transportation, processing and confinement Input regarding whether prisoners should be cited or taken into custody should be obtained from the Johnson County Attorney's Office. Factors to consider include the number of detainees involved, the seriousness of offenses and the existence of violent contacts. Coordination with the Johnson County Sheriff's Department should take place to determine if detainees are to be transported to the County Jail or to an alternate location. If detainees are transported to another location, cited and then released, the location chosen should be one where the detainee is not likely to return to the original site of arrest. Depending on the extent of the incident, detainees shall be transported in squad cars equipped with cages. As incidents become larger, the Department's prisoner transport vehicle shall be utilized. This may be in conjunction with the Johnson County prisoner transport vehicle. In those situations involving large numbers of non - violent detainees, consideration should be given to using Iowa City Transit buses. E. Delegating personnel to direct and control traffic The Iowa City Police Department will be responsible for the safe and effective flow of traffic. If all on -duty personnel are needed at the scene of an incident, then additional personnel should be called in or assisting agency personnel shall be used for traffic control. Only uniformed personnel will be utilized for traffic control functions. Routes to and from designated staging areas shall be a priority. When possible, movable barricades should be used to block streets or other appropriate locations. F. Conducting a post incident investigation The Commander of the Operations Section will make the determination as to the extent and nature of any evidence to be collected by members of this department. If the determination is made that there are grounds to believe that a criminal act was responsible for the incident, the Incident Commander or designee will notify the Johnson County Attorneys office for consultation. 4. Logistics The Logistics Section is responsible for providing facilities, services, and materials, including personnel to operate the requested equipment for the incident. This section takes on great significance in long -term or extended operations. It is important to note that the Logistics Section functions are geared to support the incident responders, not civilians. The Logistics Section's responsibilities include: A. Communications The Logistics Section is responsible for managing all communications required during an incident. The Department's dispatch center shall be utilized as the- primary radio, computerized system, and telephone communications. area- whenever possible. Should the Departmental dispatch services = tecom`e" inoperable, another law enforcement agency should be utilized to provid'_ primary communications services. Circumstances shall dictate radio frequency utilization, both within and with outside agencies. Factors affecting frequency usage may include: incident size and duration; radio tower availability; access by other agencies; and primary agency jurisdiction. Additional personnel may be assigned as needed to assist with management and supervision of the communications function. Communications personnel shall be assigned to support the Command Post as required. B. Transportation All available Department vehicles will be utilized for transportation of officers, employees and equipment to and from the scene of an incident. If additional transportation is required, the City Equipment Division and Transit Division shall be contacted as needed. C. Medical support The Johnson County Ambulance Service is the primary source of medical support for incidents taking place in Iowa City. The Iowa City Fire Department supplements the Ambulance Service with trained personnel. Medical resources shall be called to incidents where injuries are present or where the potential for injury is present. In those situations where an incident is still developing, medical support may be staged until an area is secure to enter without causing additional injury. Additional resources may be obtained from surrounding cities and counties as incidents become larger. D. Supplies All officers and employees utilized will report to the incident location with appropriate issued equipment. The on scene commander will immediately assess all equipment needs and will arrange for additional equipment to be supplied through the Commander of Administrative Services. Necessary equipment shall be distributed at or near designated assembly areas whenever possible. Examples of necessary equipment and supplies includes, but is not limited to: spare radios, flashlights, food, beverages, eating utensils, first aid and bloodborne pathogen supplies, crowd control gear, vehicles and surveillance apparatus. E. Specialized team and equipment needs Department equipment shall be maintained in a state of operational readiness at all times. This includes but is not limited to equipment assigned to the Special Response Team. The Special Response Team Commander or designee shall inspect all SRT emergency equipment on a monthly basis and report on any equipment that is not operationally ready for emergency use. Other Department emergency equipment in need of repair or replacement shall be reported to the Commander of Administrative Services. 5. Finance / Administration The Finance / Administration Section is critical for tracking incident costs and reimbursement accounting. Unless costs and financial operations are carefully recorded and justified, reimbursement of costs is difficult, if not impossible. The Finance / Administration Section is especially important when the incident is of a magnitude that may result in a disaster declaration at the State and /or Federal level. The Finance / Administration Section's responsibilities may include: A. Recording personnel time All duty logs, assignment sheets and overtime forms related to the incident shall be collected. When appropriate, documentation of overtime shall be submitted for reimbursement in declared disaster situations. B. Procuring additional resources In the event of an emergency, supplies, services or construction may be purchased without regard to normal purchase selection procedures to protect the health and welfare of the public. C. Recording expenses At the conclusion of an incident, all reports of damage to police equipment and a list of all expended supplies that need to be replaced shall be forwarded to the Commander of Administrative Services. D. Documenting injuries and liability issues At the conclusion of an incident, all related use of force reports, citizen complaints and casualties to law enforcement personnel and civilians shall be collected. In the event that the incident involves potential litigation against or on behalf of the City of Iowa City, the Incident Commander or designee, if an Iowa City Police Officer, will notify the City Attorneys office. If the Incident Command,egr or designee is of another agency, then the senior Iowa City Police OffccQr present shall notify the City Attorney's office. FEMA Incident Command publications should be referred to for idenfir'rcationc -,of additional specific component responsibilities. Disaster Response: -- When the first member(s) of this department arrives at a disaster scene, he /she shdU- d identify the nature and if possible, scope of the problem. This information should immediately be relayed to Communications along with any immediate requests for additional units including fire and medical. After the initial assessment the officer should assess the stability of the situation before entry into the scene. If a supervisor is not present at the scene, the senior officer shall be the Incident Commander until relieved by higher authority. If the situation is stabilized the officer should, to the extent possible, render aid to injured parties. Upon the arrival of medical and rescue units, members of this department should take those steps necessary to secure the scene. Upon receipt of notification of a major incident, The Emergency Communications Center will notify the Chief, the Watch Commander, Commander of Field Operations, patrol units, fire department and emergency medical personnel. Additional notifications will be made pursuant to the Special Order 06 -03 call matrix. Depending on the situation, the Watch Commander or higher authority may elect to respond to the scene of the event and assume the position of Incident Commander or remain at the Police Department and coordinate support activities. The Communications Supervisor may call in additional communications personnel as needed. The Incident Commander in consultation with the Communications Supervisor will determine the communications protocol, i.e. frequency assignments and protocols for communicating with other agencies, departments and of organizations, for the duration of the incident. If additional personnel are requested by the Incident Commander, the Watch Commander or higher authority will make the decision as to the extent of any call back, hold over, or "alert" of departmental personnel. In the event that the situation requires personnel beyond that which is available from within the department, the Watch Commander or higher authority may request the assistance of outside law enforcement agencies. In these situations a unified command system will be established. The Chief of Police, or designee, will maintain command of law enforcement personnel operating on behalf of the city. The Incident Commander or designated liaison officer will advise the ranking member of an outside agency of their assignment. With incidents involving other agencies, a written incident action plan is preferred. In situations where another agency, i.e. Johnson County Emergency Management is in overall direction of the incident, the Incident Commander will arrange the response of departmental resources in conjunction with the overall plan. In these cases, the Incident Commander shall assign a liaison officer with Johnson County Emergency Management. In incidents which occur or initiate within a jurisdiction contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Iowa City, the Watch Commander may authorize members of this department to respond to assist at the request of the outside agency. In these situations the Watch Commander shall notify the Commander of Field Operations who shall cause notification of the Chief of Police or designee. The Chief of Police or Commander of Field Operations may authorize the call in of off duty personnel to assist in handling the situation. For incidents which occur outside the corporate limits of Iowa City the Chief of Police or his / her designee will retain command and control of all members of the Iowa City Police Department. A liaison officer shall be appointed to the outside agency and assignments relayed through the liaison to members of the Iowa City Police DO' eartment If a situation arises that requires immediate action, members of this departh ent may take those steps necessary to control the situation without further authorization. The incident and action taken should be reported to the liaison officer as soon as: practical. possible. If in the course of responding to an emergency situation, an officer is led to IjOtieve that the incident involved a human act, the officer(s) shall to the extent possible, taste steps-to maintain the integrity of a possible crime scene. Upon arriving at this decision the responding officer should notify the Incident Commander as soon as practically possible. The Incident Commander shall notify the Commander of the Operations Section if that section has been established. The Commander of the Operations Section or his /her designee will be responsible for the investigation of the incident. The Commander of the Operations Section will make the determination as to the extent and nature of any evidence to be collected by members of this department. If the determination is made that there are grounds to believe that a criminal act was responsible for the incident, the Incident Commander or designee will notify the Johnson County Attorneys office for consultation. In the event that the incident involves potential litigation against or on behalf of the City of Iowa City, the Incident Commander or designee will notify the City Attorneys office. The mayor is responsible for requesting assistance from the Iowa National Guard. These requests will be made pursuant to the Code of Iowa chapter 29C. In the event the Governor of the State of Iowa finds a state of emergency exists, he /she may prohibit any activities which he /she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help maintain life, health, property or public peace. The mayor has additional authority under chapters 8 -1 -1 and 8 -1 -2 of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City. As the need for the special response is controlled and /or de- escalated, the Incident Commander will arrange for the organized phasing out of the police emergency response personnel. When practically possible, the Incident Commander will release mutual aid agencies after insuring the safety of the community and officers. Members of this department will be phased out of the operation as determined by the Incident Commander or when applicable the supervisor in charge of a particular area. The Incident Commander will make a determination as to the return of normal operations. The Iowa City Police Department will to the extent possible, continue to provide support for other agencies or services during or upon de- escalation. Upon cessation of the emergency situation, the Incident Commander will conduct a post - incident debriefing. The purpose of the debriefing will be to obtain pertinent information for after action reports and to identify problems which should be addressed in the planning and operation of subsequent emergency plans. Post incident responsibilities also include the return and maintenance of equipment, and replenishing of supplies. Under normal circumstances, equipment used in support of emergency operations shall be inspected at least quarterly. The Incident Commander shall complete an after action report. This report is to include the duration of the incident, extent of any emergency callout, extent of any law enforcement mutual aid response, and summarization of the actions of the police department. The report shall include a chronological summary of the involvement/actions of the Iowa City Police Department. If Area Commanders were, assigned, they will complete a report of the activities within their area. The�Incident; Commander may require after action reports from other involved parties, 4'-$- `he /she deems necessary. All reports will be forwarded to the Chief of Police for review. Training: Members of the Iowa City Police Department will participate in documented.lead i net$ evaluations, reviews, rehearsals and /or training exercises annually to ensure the effectiveness of the department when responding to major occurrences. Periodically tWe ICPD Training Committee will review and evaluate training effectiveness. IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT 1" May 2007 J, Ofc # Date Inc # Incident Fie >rTsed 2007- 50 05 -03 21556 Subject with Officer displayed his sidearm, used hands -on gun control techniques, & deployed OC to control & arrest an uncooperative suspect that was reportedly armed with a gun. 32/35/ 05 -03 21578 Trespass Officers used hands -on control techniques to 44 control, arrest, & transport an uncooperative 35 05 -04 21749 Intoxicated Officer used hands -on control techniques to subject control & transport a resistive prisoner. 55 05 -04 21752 Fight Officer used hands -on control techniques to detain & control a fleeing suspect. 57/60 05 -06 22258 PAULA Officers used hands -on control techniques & counter strikes to control, arrest, & transport a fleeing & combative prisoner. 81 05 -06 22263 Disturbance Officer used hands -on control techniques to arrest & transport an uncooperative person. 34 05 -06 22315 Injured animal Officer used the department's .22 cal rifle to destroy a seriously injured raccoon. 06/55/ 05 -06 22414 Domestic Officers used hands -on control techniques to 59 assault control, arrest, & transport a combative person. 05/08/ 05 -08 22653 Burglary Officers used hands -on control techniques to 18 control & arrest an uncooperative person. 51 05 -11 23423 Warrant (other Officer used hands -on control techniques to agency) arrest complete transport & processing of an uncooperative prisoner. 55 05 -11 23620 Traffic stop Officer used hands -on control techniques to stop & arrest an uncooperative person attempting to walk away from officer. 95 05 -11 23625 Hit & run Officer used hands -on control techniques to accident control & process an uncooperative prisoner. 51 05 -12 23685 Criminal Officer used hands -on control techniques to mischief capture & arrest a fleeing suspect. 04 05 -12 23807 Sick animal ^ Officer used sidearm to destroy a sick raccoon. 09/30/ 05 -14 24055 Disturbance Officers used hands -on control techniques, 31/32/ empty- handed strikes, & OC while trying to 55 control & arrest numerous (6) combative individuals. 19 05 -15 24283 Stolen vehicle Officer displayed a firearm at the occupants of a stolen vehicle while conducting a high risk stop. 37 05 -16 24378 Injured animal Officer used sidearm to destroy an injured deer. 55 05 -20 25140 Fight Officer used hands -on control techniques to capture & arrest a fleeing suspect. 20 05 -20 25161 Suspicious Officer used hands -on control techniques to activity control & arrest an uncooperative person trying 57 05 -21 25379 Injured animal 18/31 05 -23 25590 Traffic stop 52 05 -23 25647 Stolen vehicle 32 05 -26 26174 Car /deer accident 36 05 -26 26247 Injured deer 03/35 05 -28 26438 Domestic argument 60 05 -29 26720 Injured animal to flee. Officer used sidearm to destroy an injured deer. Officer ( #31) attempted to make a traffic stop (12:58am). Suspect refused to stop. Officer briefly pursued but terminated due to safety concerns. Another officer ( #18) attempted to stop the same vehicle (1:05am). The suspect again refused to stop & another brief pursuit occurred. It was also terminated for safety reasons. The original officer ( #31) confronted the suspect when he returned home (1:27hrs). Officer displayed his sidearm during arrest. Officer displayed his sidearm while arresting a wanted person known to be armed & dangerous. Suspect had fled after he was stopped driving a stolen vehicle. Officer used sidearm to destroy a deer critically injured in an accident. Officer used sidearm to destroy an injured deer. Officers used hands -on control techniques to control & arrest an uncooperative person. Officer used sidearm to destroy an injured deer. - -- .. 7 C3"+ IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT 1 i. Ef June 2007 Ofc # Date Inc # Incident Force UI�`;:' r 2007- 60 06 -02 27380 Noise complaint 96/38 06 -03 27667 Welfare check 19 06 -03 27690 Domestic assault 19 06 -04 27866 Injure animal 60 06 -07 28356 Fight 19/22 06 -08 28485 Suspicious person 08 06 -12 29024 Injured animal 95 06 -12 30701 Medical assist 08/09/ 11 06 -16 29713 Trespass 84/09 06 -20 30338 Suspicious activity 85/21 06 -21 30676 Medical assist 18 06 -23 30870 Burglary report 55/59 06 -24 31040 Fight 33 06 -24 31112 Sick animal Officer was struck by a dissatisfied complainant. Officer used hands -on control techniques to control & arrest the assailant. Officers used hands -on control techniques & OC to control & transport a combative prisoner. Officer displayed sidearm while entering window, confronting, & arresting a suspect that had barricaded himself in a bedroom. Officer used sidearm to destroy an injured deer. Officer displayed sidearm while arresting a possibly armed suspect fleeing a fight. Officers used hands -on control techniques to control & arrest an uncooperative person. Officer used sidearm to destroy an injured raccoon. Officer used hands -on control techniques to facilitate transport & treatment of an uncooperative person suffering mental /emotional duress. Officers ( #09/11) used hands -on control techniques to control & arrest a combative person seen fighting with bar staff attempting to remove him. After transport to the jail, the prisoner attempted to flee. Transport officer ( #08) had to use hands -on control techniques to capture fleeing prisoner & complete transport. Officers used hands -on control techniques & OC to control & arrest an uncooperative person. Officers used hands -on control techniques to facilitate transport & treatment of a person threatening to harm herself & others. While taking a report, the officer was struck on the back by another person present. Officer used hands -on control techniques to control & arrest two combative assailants. Officers used hands -on control techniques to control, arrest, & transport a combative person. Officer used the department's .22 cal rifle to destroy a sick opossum. 45 06 -25 31284 Welfare check Officer used hands -on control techniques to facilitate transport & treatment of a person threatening to harm/kill himself. 19 06 -25 31326 Traffic stop Officer used OC to control & arrest an uncooperative person that had fled from a traffic 24 06 -25 31327 Dog bite report Officer used hands -on control techniques & OC to control & arrest an agitated, uncooperative erson. 31 06 -27 31538 Disturbance Officer used hands -on control techniques to control & re- handcuff a combative prisoner outside the jail. 51/55 06 -30 32037 Open container Officers used hands -on control techniques to control & arrest an uncooperative person on an outstanding warrant. 04/45 06 -30 32182 Assault Officers used hands -on control techniques to control & arrest a combative 95/05 07 -22 35680 Fight Officers used hands -on control techniques to IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT , USE OF FORCE REPORT July 2007 04 07 -23 36005 Fight (�, r used: Ofc # Date Inc # Incident b#cl 2007- transport a combatant that attempted to flee. 04/30 07 -02 32568 [Domestic] Officers used hands -on control techniques to Fight arrest & transport a resistive person. 06/22 07 -03 32704 Assist other Officers used hands -on control techniques to agency facilitate transport of an uncooperative person. (committal) 35 07 -08 33473 Intoxicated Officer used hands -on control techniques to Person arrest & transport a resistive person that had fled from officers. 03 07 -09 33586 Car /deer Officer used handgun to destroy a seriously accident injured deer. 08 07 -10 33757 Assist other Officer used hands -on control techniques to agency (missing apprehend a fleeing person. juvenile) 11 07 -15 34557 Fight Officer used hands -on control techniques to stop an assault, & then to arrest & transport a combative person. 24 07 -20 35493 Fight Officer used hands -on control techniques to arrest a resistive suspect that attempted to flee. 84/50 07 -21 35557 Criminal Officers used OC to gain compliance & arrest an mischief agitated, uncooperative person using a 2x4 to break store -front windows. 95/05 07 -22 35680 Fight Officers used hands -on control techniques to arrest & transport a combative person that repeatedly attempted to flee. 04 07 -23 36005 Fight Officer used OC & hands -on control techniques to stop an assault & then to apprehend, arrest, & transport a combatant that attempted to flee. 11 07 -27 36538 Intoxicated Officer used hands -on control techniques to subject arrest a combative person. 12/51 07 -28 36711 Suspicious Officers used hands -on control techniques, person counter - measures, & OC to control & arrest a resistive person. 12 07 -30 36966 Domestic Officer used hands -on control techniques to assault apprehend & control a prisoner that attempted to flee during transport (outside the jail). 22 07 -30 37059 Assist other Officer used hands -on control techniques to agency (child removal) 60 07 -30 37113 Fight control & arrest an agitated person that became combative toward a DHS worker. Officer used hands -on control techniques to control, arrest, & transport a combative person. DEPARTMENT MEMO 07 -31 TO: Chief Hargadine, Watch Commanders FROM: Captain Widmer REF: March -April Use of Force Review DATE: July 19, 2007 a CD c� N The "Use of Force Review Committee" met on July 18, 2007. It was composed of Captain Widmer, Sgt. Lord and Sgt. Kelsay and Officer Fortmann. The review of submitted reports for March (17 incidents -21 reports) and April (16 incidents -22 reports) revealed no policy or training concerns. Of the 33 incidents, 7 were for a drawn sidearm (building search or felony stop) and 3 were for destroying an injured animal. One report was returned for not listing "type of incident" During the review, it was discovered that 2 reports in March and 3 in April had not been routed through Sgt. Kelsay. While they were properly filled out and reviewed, they went directly to Captain Johnson. This resulted in Sgt. Kelsay's monthly Use of Force Report being inaccurate. Captain Johnson will consult with Sgt. Kelsay to insure all reports are recorded prior to the bi- monthly review. Supervisors, make sure you state in your review what specific "level of force" you judge the use of force to be. By listing the level, it allows the actions to reviewed more uniformly. Lastly, anytime injuries are received (or may have been received) as a result of the use of force, photos or video must be taken of the injury and that fact noted in the use of force report. Please contact me if you have any questions. Copy: City Manager, PCRB, Watch Commanders, Review Committee POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD OFFICE CONTACTS July 2007 Date Description None POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD OFFICE CONTACTS August 2007 Date Description 8/6/07 Individual called about complaint procedure in general. Would think about it and pick up form if they wished to pursue a complaint. MEMORANDUM POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 -1826 (319)356 -5041 Date: July 12, 2007 To: Members of the Police Citizens Review Board From: Kellie Tuttle RE: Posting of Board and Commission Meetings In response to the discussion at the July 10th meeting, I have reviewed the City practice /policy with the City Clerk in regards to the posting of Board and Commission meeting agendas. The current procedure is as follows: • All board /commission meeting agendas must be posted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the locked bulletin board nearest the front entrance in the City Hall Lobby in order to comply with the notification requirements of the Iowa Open Meetings Law. In addition to hard copy posting, all meeting agendas must also be posted on the City website. • Posted meeting agendas with an amendment or cancellation will be noted as revised or cancelled on the posted agenda and on the City website. There are no meetings without a posted agenda. Therefore, rescheduling or a cancellation of a tentative meeting does not require any postings. Members of the public can view meeting postings on the bulletin board in the City Hall Lobby, on the City website at http: / /www.icgov.org /boardagendas.asp , or they can subscribe to receive Board and Commission agendas via e-mail at http : / /www.icgov.org /subscribe.asp . Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030 RESOLUTION NO. 07 -262 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TO PLACE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S HOME RULE CHARTER TO CREATE A PERMANENT POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD BEFORE THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AT THE NEXT REGULAR CITY ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 6, 2007 WHEREAS, a petition pursuant to Article VIII of the Home Rule Charter of Iowa City and section 372.11 of the Code of Iowa proposing to amend the City's Home Rule Charter by creating a permanent police citizen review board was filed with the City Clerk on August 20, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Iowa Supreme Court ordered that said proposed amendment be placed on the ballot in Berent et al vs City of Iowa City and Objections Committee, No. 46/06 -1382 (Iowa, August 31, 2007). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: . The Johnson County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed to place the following question before the qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa at the next regular city election on November 6, 2007: Shall the following public measure be adopted? Yes No That Article V (Boards, Commissions and Committees), Subsection 5.01 (Establishment) of the Home Rule Charter of Iowa City, Iowa be amended by adding the following underlined words: With the exception of the Police Citizens Review Board, the Council may establish Boards in addition to those required by State law and shall specify the title, duties, length of term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The Council may reduce or increase a Board's duties, transfer duties from one Board to another or dissolve any Board, except as otherwise provided by State law or this Charter. A. 1. 2. 3. The authority to subpoena witnesses. 71 Resolution No. 07 -262 Page 2 Passed and approved thiS__3j st day of August _, 2007. ATTEST: - �i AWC-t'ERK� EleanodresAegalage- measure.doc i FF, a 1� W1 [MINN . App,rqed by City Attorney's Office r 4, r -� �Oz. CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 31, 2007 To: City Council From: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Charter Amendment Litigation Attached is a copy of the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Berent et al v. City of Iowa City. The following is a summary of the Court's decision: The three- person Objections Committee has the authority to consider only whether the petition to amend a city charter contains the requisite number of signatures of eligible electors, including their place of residence and the date on which they signed. In this case, the Objections Committee did not have authority to consider whether the proposed amendments were Charter amendments or the inaccurate references to the current City Charter. 2. The legality of the proposed amendments may be reviewed by the Court prior to an election. The City has "standing" to ask for this review because of the money it must spend on a special election, and the issues are "ripe" for review both because of the cost of an election and because, in the Court's words: In so holding, we are concerned not solely with the cost of a needless special election. ...We believe the time and money citizens are willing to devote to political activity are valuable resources that should not be squandered on charter initiatives that fail to meet even threshold ballot requirements. ...(citations omitted) (Slip Op. No. 46106 -1382 (August 31, 2007) p.22) 3. The proposed amendment subjecting the City Manager and Police Chief to a retention election is invalid because of its conflict with Iowa law regarding the appointment and removal process for city officials. 4. Amendments to a city charter .must, as a matter of law, relate to "form of government ". The Court states: Under this approach, basic structural proposals truly involving the form, not the substance, of government are subject to voter approval through the charter amendment process. Matters of policy or administration, however, are to be processed through the ordinary channels of representative democracy with its Madisonian virtues. 5. The proposed PCRB amendment, which establishes a permanent body to investigate and make recommendations to the City Council regarding police practices is an amendment involving form of government because it "is involved primarily with government processes, not substantive law, and thus is an amendment involving 'form of government. "' Slip Op. at 36 6. The community policing proposal "does not relate to `form of government' but simply seeks to establish executive or administrative policy for the City with respect to law enforcement practices in a narrow category of crimes." Slip Op. at 36 August 31, 2007 Page 2 In light of the Court's decision, it is my recommendation that you place the proposed PCRB amendment on the ballot and that you do so today, the final day for the City to provide ballot questions to the Auditor for the November election, in order to avoid the cost of a special election. The Iowa Supreme Court is the final decision maker on these issues. The petitioners may petition the Supreme Court for rehearing within 14 days. Attachment cc: Interim City Manager w/o attachment City Clerk w/o attachment Department Directors w/o attachment Assistant City Attorneys w/o attachment eleanor/mem /berent8- 31.doc IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 46 / 06 -1382 Filed August 31, 2007 MICHAEL JOSEPH BERENT, MICHAEL STEVEN ROMP, JEFF WAYNE THORNE, PAUL BRYSON INGRAM, NICHELLE ALINE THOMPSON, RODNEY EDWARD SULLIVAN, SARA LILLIS EPSTEIN, SARA CRANE SWISHER, BETTE JAYNE MAYES, CAROLINE M. DIETERLE, MATT BLIZEK, MORI CONSTANTINO, AMANDA COYNE, LOLLY EGGERS, ELLEN HAYWOOD, JON KLINKOWITZ, KAREN KUBBY, BOB THOMPSON, JAMES WALTERS, ROBERTA TILL RETZ and JENNIE LOUISE EMBREE, Appellees, VS. CITY OF IOWA CITY and "OBJECTIONS COMMITTEE" OF IOWA CITY, Appellants. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, William L. Thomas, Judge. The City of Iowa City appeals a district court decision which held the objections committee exceeded its legal authority in refusing to present three proposed charter amendments to public vote and that the City's preelection challenge of the amendments' legality was not ripe for judicial review. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. X Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, and Susan M. Dulek, Assistant City Attorney, for appellants. Bruce D. Nestor of De Leon & Nestor, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellees. 3 APPEL, Justice. In this case, we are asked to determine whether three proposed amendments to the Charter of the City of Iowa City should be placed before the voters. The three proposals called for a retention election for the city manager and the police chief, established a permanent police citizens review board with certain investigative and other powers, and sought to limit police practices with respect to nonviolent misdemeanors. After timely objections were filed, the City's objections committee determined that the proposed amendments were legally flawed and, as a result, the City did not present the amendments to the voters. Citizens challenged the City's refusal in district court. The City, alternatively, sought a declaration that the proposed amendments were unlawful. The district court ruled that the objections committee exceeded its authority, refused to grant the City declaratory relief on the ground that the legal issues raised by the City were not ripe for judicial review, and ordered the City to present the proposed charter amendments to the voters. For the reasons expressed below, the decision of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case remanded with instructions. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. A. Home Rule Framework for Charter Government. In order to put this case, involving city governance, in proper perspective, we begin by reviewing the development of home rule in Iowa. This home rule review will provide an overview of the scope of and limitations on the power of municipalities in Iowa to structure their local governments. In 1868, the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, John F. Dillon, declared that municipalities were creatures of the legislature and had only M those powers expressly granted by the legislature. City of Clinton v. Cedar Rapids & Missouri River R.R., 24 Iowa 455, 475 (1868). For the next hundred years, the General Assembly, through application of what became known as the Dillon Rule, maintained a tight legislative grip over municipal affairs through a combination of inaction and a jungle of code provisions. This tight legislative grip was relaxed, to some extent, in 1968, when Iowa enacted a home rule amendment to the Iowa Constitution. Iowa Const. art. III, § 38A. The Iowa home rule amendment was a compromise between those who desired unlimited home rule and those who favored continued legislative control of municipal affairs. Bechtel v. City of Des Moines, 225 N.W.2d 326, 328 -29 (Iowa 1975). While the Iowa home rule amendment reversed the Dillon Rule, the legislature retained the right to legislate even on matters involving local affairs. The constitutional amendment allocated no areas or subject matter exclusively for municipal control. The continued ability of the legislature after the enactment of the home rule amendment to trump or preempt local law has been repeatedly recognized by this court. Iowa Grocery Indus. Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 712 N.W.2d 675, 678 -79 (Iowa 2006); Bechtel, 225 N.W.2d at 332. Iowa's type of home rule, sometimes referred to as legislative home rule, has been criticized by some as not providing municipalities with sufficient local autonomy. Richard Briffault, Our Localism: Part I - -The Structure of Local Government Law, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 8 -9 (1990). After the enactment of the home rule amendment, the legislature for several years worked on a revision of the substantial state legislative framework in which municipalities were required to operate. After a few years of study, the legislature in 1972 enacted what was known as a home 5 rule bill. While the legislative revision reflected in the home rule bill was in many respects a nip and tuck operation, the legislature also made changes in substantive law. Among other things, the home rule bill authorized Iowa municipalities to adopt a charter form of government. Iowa Code § 372.1(5) (2001). See generally Sam F. Scheidler, Survey of Iowa Law: Implementation of Constitutional Home Rule in Iowa, 22 Drake L. Rev. 294, 316 (1973). By allowing municipalities to adopt a charter form of government, the legislature permitted local governments to engage in some variations from the traditional structure of government. The legislature required, however, that all municipal charters include provisions for a city council of at least five members, a mayor who may be a council member, and staggered elections for the office of mayor and city council. The legislature also required that the powers and duties of the mayor and the council be established and that such provisions be consistent with the city code. Iowa Code § 372.10. B. Method of Adopting and Amending a City Charter. Iowa City has chosen to adopt a charter form of government, which petitioners now seek to amend. The legislature has provided three methods of amending a city charter by: (1) the city council submitting the matter to voters, (2) the city council passing an ordinance with submission to the voters if so requested by petition, and (3) petitioners proposing an amendment to be submitted to voters for approval. Id. § 372.11. It is the third method that is at issue in this case. The legislature has established a substantive and procedural framework with respect to petitions that trigger municipal elections, including elections to consider amendments to a municipal charter. In order to invoke the electoral process by petition, the legislature required the In petition to "include the signatures of the petitioners, a statement of their place of residence, and the date on which they signed the petition." Id. 362.4. The legislature has declared that a petition is "valid" if it is "signed by eligible electors of the city equal in number to ten percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular city election.... " Id. Upon receipt of a petition, the legislature has authorized the city clerk to examine it before accepting it for filing. Id. If upon the clerk's examination the petition "appears valid on its face," the legislature has directed that the petition "shall" be accepted for filing. On the other hand, if the petition lacks the required number of signatures, the clerk is directed to return the petition to the petitioner. Id. Once the clerk has accepted a petition for filing, the petition is deemed "valid" unless written objections are filed with the city clerk within five working days after the petition is received. Id. The receipt of a timely written objection triggers review by an objections committee, consisting of the mayor, the city clerk, and one member of the council chosen by council ballot. Id. § 44.8. The legislature has directed that the city council must present a "valid" petition to amend a city charter to the voters in a special election. Id. § 372.11(3). C. Proposed Charter Amendments. This case involves three petitions to amend the Charter of the City of Iowa City. The first petition related to the appointment and retention of the city manager and the chief of police [hereinafter retention proposal]. As with the current charter, the retention proposal vested authority in the city council to appoint a city manager and chief of police. The retention proposal also directed the city council to conduct an annual performance review for each position. In 7 addition, the retention proposal stated that the city manager and the police chief "shall be subject to" a retention vote every four years. The second petition sought to create a permanent police citizens' review board [hereinafter PCRB proposal]. The PCRB proposal provided that the board would investigate citizen claims of misconduct by sworn police officers, issue reports on these complaints to the city council, hold at least one community forum per year, and make recommendations regarding police practices to the city council. The PCRB proposal clothed the board with subpoena power in order to fulfill its functions. The third petition sought to alter police procedures regarding nonviolent misdemeanor offenses [hereinafter community policing proposal]. The community policing proposal sought to direct the police to issue citations rather than arrest perpetrators of nonviolent misdemeanor offenses, restrict the police's ability to investigate, apprehend, and arrest subjects of misdemeanor crimes, declare that arresting persons in possession of personal -use amounts of marijuana not be a priority of the Iowa City Police Department, and restrain the use of warrants for nonviolent, misdemeanor offenses. D. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings Related• to the Proposed Charter Amendments. The three petitions were submitted to the city clerk in August 2001. Each petition was signed by approximately 1600 electors. The city clerk examined the petitions, found them valid on their face, and accepted them for filing. Seven individuals and the League of Women Voters timely filed objections to each of the three petitions. As a result, an objections committee was formed consisting of the mayor, the city clerk, and a member of the city council. The objections committee held a public hearing at which it entertained a wide range of objections to each of the proposed amendments. The city attorney advised the objections committee that it could not reject a petition on policy grounds, but could only dismiss them for "legal insufficiency." At the hearing, the objections committee refused to sustain a number of challenges that questioned the wisdom, but not the legal validity, of the proposals. The objections committee, however, sustained at least one objection to each of the proposals. With respect to the retention proposal, the objections committee unanimously sustained an objection that the text of the retention petition was "misleading" and therefore "legally insufficient." At the hearing, it was undisputed that the text of the retention proposal petition as circulated and signed by the electors contained erroneous references to the existing charter. The literal language in the petition repealed existing charter provisions related to the city attorney instead of the charter provisions relating to the police chief and city manager. If the retention proposal was enacted as written, the city charter would contain two competing provisions relating to the appointment and retention of the city manager (one in the existing city charter and one contained in the retention proposal) and no charter provision related to the appointment of the city attorney. Objectors argued that under this state of affairs, neither the signators of the petition nor the voters in the election, if held, would understand what was at stake if the retention proposal were adopted. On both the PCRB proposal and the community policing proposal, the objections committee voted 2 -1 to sustain an objection that the proposal was "legally insufficient" because the substance of the proposal was not a proper subject for a city charter and should, instead, be the subject of a city N ordinance. The action was based, at least in part, on advice from the city attorney, who opined that matters related to "form of government" were properly included in a city charter, but that matters related to the operations of a specific department should not be enacted as charter provisions but instead addressed in city ordinances. Plaintiffs filed an application for writ of mandamus in district court, praying that the court order the city council to submit the proposed amendments to the voters of Iowa City at a special election. The district court ruled that mandamus was not the proper remedy and granted the City's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed, but remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to amend to allege a certiorari action. On remand to the district court, the plaintiffs amended their petition to seek a writ of certiorari. The City filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the proposed amendments were contrary to Iowa law and, as a result, no election needed to be held. The district court. granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the objections committee had exceeded its statutory authority. The City sought expanded findings to obtain a ruling on its petition for a declaratory judgment. The district court expanded its ruling and denied the City relief, holding that the issues raised were not ripe for judicial review. The City filed a timely appeal. II. Standard of Review. This is a review of a ruling granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment. Review is for errors at law. Bushby v. Washington County Conservation Bd., 654 N.W.2d 494, 496 (Iowa 2002). 10 III. Discussion. A. Authority of the Objections Committee to Sustain Objections to Charter Proposals on Grounds of "Legal Insufficiency." On appeal, the City first claims that the objections committee acted properly in sustaining objections to each of the three charter proposals, and, as a result, the district court erred in ruling that the proposals should be placed before the voters. The City concedes that under Iowa law the objections committee has no power to reject proposed charter amendments based upon their perceived lack of merit. The City claims, however, that the objections committee is empowered to review proposed charter amendments generated by petition for what it calls "legal sufficiency." As is generally true in law, it is the substance and not the label that is important. "Legal sufficiency," according to the City, includes authority to reject a proposal, like the retention proposal, which is "misleading" in nature. The City further asserts that the objections committee is authorized to reject as "legally insufficient" charter amendments that do not deal with "form of government," but only with the manner in which government power is exercised. The City argues that because the PCRB proposal and the community policing proposal do not deal with "form of government," the objections committee acted lawfully in rejecting the proposals as legally insufficient. We disagree. Iowa Code section 362.4 states that a petition to amend a city charter is "valid" if it has the requisite number of signatures of eligible electors including their place of residence and the date on which they signed. There are no other statutory requirements for validity of a proposed charter amendment. Our legislature, moreover, has plainly directed that if a petition meets these two statutory requirements, it is "valid" under section 11 362.4 and the city council "must" submit the proposed amendment to the voters. Iowa Code § 372.11(3). While there are no Iowa cases directly on point, other courts have repeatedly and routinely limited review by city officials of citizen petitions that trigger election processes based upon the plain language of the applicable law. See, e.g., Farley v. Healey, 431 P.2d 650, 652 (Cal. 1967) (city officials must place on ballot initiative in compliance with formal requirements unless otherwise directed by a court); Gaines U. City of Orlando, 450 So. 2d 1174, 1177 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984) (governing body must place initiative on ballot notwithstanding advice from city attorney as to their substantive validity); Heidtman v. City of Shaker Heights, 119 N.E.2d 644, 652 (Ohio Ct. App. 1954) (city council cannot reject petition meeting all applicable provisions of city charter and statutes); Glass v. Smith, 244 S.W.2d 645, 648 (Tex. 195 1) (city council cannot fail to perform ministerial duties based upon opinion of legal invalidity provided by city attorney); Arenas v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the City of McAllen, 841 S.W.2d 957, 959 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992) (city officials must call an election, despite the advice of the city attorney that initiative was legally insufficient, where all procedural requirements were met and election is the only remaining option). Our holding in this case that city officials cannot engage in substantive review beyond that expressly authorized by applicable statutes is thus well within the mainstream of municipal law. The City seeks to avoid the plain meaning of Iowa Code section 362.4 with a structural argument. The City argues that any approach limiting the authority of the objections committee to the specific criteria in Iowa Code section 362.4 illogically creates a redundant review structure. According to the City, the city clerk reviews the petitions for compliance with Iowa Code 12 section 362.4. The City claims that the legislature could not have intended the objections committee to duplicate the clerk's review by applying the same statutory criteria. We disagree with the City's contention that the statutory structure overrides the plain meaning of the statute for two reasons. First, the two levels of review established by Iowa Code section 362.4 are not redundant, but are in fact quite different. Review by the city clerk for "validity" under Iowa Code section 362.4 is limited to an intrinsic facial review of the four corners of the petition. In contrast, the objections committee could consider extrinsic evidence produced at a public hearing tending to show, for instance, that the addresses listed for electors who purportedly signed the petitions were nonexistent, that the purported electors could be found only in graveyards, or that the electors who signed the petitions no longer resided in the city. Second, to the extent the reviews of the city clerk and the objections committee are similar, it would not be irrational for the legislature to establish a second level of review by a multi- member committee in the event of an objection. Indeed, to the extent there are structural arguments, they cut against the City's position. The objections committee is comprised of the city clerk, the mayor, and a member of the city council. The objections committee is not comprised of members who ordinarily have expertise in the resolution of legal issues. The composition evinces a legislative intent that the objections committee serve as a fact finder, not a court of law. Finally, the City seeks refuge from the plain meaning of Iowa Code section 364.2 by citation to prior authority. None of the cited cases, however, involved a determination by an objections committee of whether a petition is "valid" under the narrow command of Iowa Code section 362.4. 13 Further, all of the cases involved judicial intervention in different statutory and factual contexts. Petersen v. Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 626 N.W.2d 99, 103 -04 (Iowa 2001) (wording of petition allegedly not in compliance with Iowa Code section 257.18(2)); Hinders v. City ofAmes, 329 N.W.2d 654, 655 (Iowa 1983) (question of compliance with Iowa Code section 388.2); Honohan v. United Cmty. Sch. Dist., 258 Iowa 57, 61 -62, 137 N.W.2d 601, 604 (1965) (Iowa Code section 296.2 requires that a petition specify the purpose for which indebtedness is created). In summary, we agree with the district court that the objections committee exceeded its statutory authority when it sustained objections to the charter proposals based on grounds other than "validity" under Iowa Code section 362.4. As a result, the actions of the objections committee did not provide the city council with a lawful basis for refusing to place the proposed charter amendments on the ballot at a special election. B. Ability of City to Mount Preelection Challenge to Substantive Legality of Proposed Charter Amendments. 1. The issues of who and when. The fact that the objections committee and the city council may not prevent a charter amendment petition from being placed before the voters based upon criteria other than that established by Iowa Code section 364.2 does not end this controversy. The City asserts that even if the objections committee exceeded its authority, the City may launch a broadly framed preelection attack in district court challenging the legality of the proposed charter amendments. The City's argument presents two closely related preliminary issues. The first question is whether the City has standing to challenge the potential validity of the proposed charter amendments. The second question is whether the City or any other party may bring a preelection 14 challenge to the legal validity of proposed charter amendments that have not been formally approved or rejected by the voters. This second question has often been characterized as a question of ripeness. Questions of standing and ripeness raise delicate issues regarding the exercise of judicial power. On the one hand, state courts do not want to intervene too soon in legal matters by deciding abstract issues without a fully developed factual record made by parties with a strong motivation to illuminate the issues. On the other hand, state courts do not want to intervene too late, either, after legal rights have been irreparably harmed or where the potential benefits of a timely and authoritative judicial determination have been lost. The questions of who and when are often as important as what and why. See generally Helen Hershkoff, State Courts and the "Passive Virtues ": Rethinking the Judicial Function, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 1833, 1843 -44 (2001); Henry P. Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 Yale L.J. 1363, 1363 -64 (1973). 2. The issue of who: The doctrine of standing. The thrust of the petitioners' standing argument is that that the City has no dog in this fight. Just as no city would be allowed to challenge the validity of an ordinance pending before the city council, the petitioners claim that the City cannot challenge the lawfulness of a proposed charter amendment. In the charter amendment process, the people stand in the shoes of the city council as the source of governing power. As a result, the petitioners claim that the City itself has not suffered an injury in fact and, in effect, that city hall should be a neutral bystander with respect to any legal issues presented in the proposed charter amendments. The City counters that it should not be forced to incur the expense of an election over proposals that are, in its view, unlawful. In addition, the 15 City maintains that the appellants have failed to preserve the issue because the district court did not rule on standing and the appellants did not file a rule 1.944 motion to expand findings of fact and conclusions of law. See generally Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.944. We disagree with the City that plaintiffs have not properly preserved the issue of standing. The City is certainly correct that normally a party must seek expanded findings to preserve an issue or claim submitted for adjudication but not resolved by the district court. Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 539 (Iowa 2002). This court, however, has long recognized "a distinction between successful and unsuccessful parties for purposes of error preservation." Ritz v. Wapello County Bd. of Supervisors, 595 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Iowa 1999). A party would have no motivation to move to expand the findings or appeal a successful verdict. As the successful party, the plaintiffs were therefore not required to file a rule 1.944 motion to obtain a double victory. Finding no error preservation problem, we now turn to the standing issue. We have found no Iowa authority expressly addressing the question of a city's standing to litigate the lawfulness of proposed charter amendments. In Polk County Board of Supervisors v. Polk County Charter Commission, 522 N.W.2d 783 (Iowa 1994) [hereinafter Polk County], this court addressed the merits of a preelection declaratory judgment action brought by the county and the board of supervisors challenging the validity of a proposed Commonwealth Charter. The parties did not raise the issue of the standing of the county or the board. Standing has been defined to mean that a party must have " `sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy.' " Birkhofer ex rel. Johannsen v. Brammeier, 16 610 N.W.2d 844, 847 (Iowa 2000) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1405 (6th ed. 1990)). We have held that in order to have standing a party must (1) have a specific personal or legal interest in -the litigation and (2) be injuriously affected. Id. A number of courts in other jurisdictions have held that the potential expenditure of funds by a municipality in connection with a voter petition is sufficient to allow a city standing to litigate the underlying legality of proposed or existing ordinances or charter provisions. City oflrvine V. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 797, 799 -800 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994); Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So. 2d 604, 605 -06 (Fla. 1994); Kaulakis v. Boyd, 138 So. 2d 505, 506 -07 (Fla. 1962); Housing & Redevelopment Auth. v. City of Minneapolis, 198 N.W.2d 531, 535 (Minn. 1972); City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 79 P.3d 24, 26 -27 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). But see City of Mishawaka v. Mohney, 297 N.E.2d 858, 859 -60 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973); Slama v. Attorney General, 428 N.E.2d 134, 137 (Mass. 1981). While the City's pecuniary interest in this litigation may be comparatively small, it is no less substantial than the injury to an individual taxpayer who challenges the lawfulness of a statute. Taxpayers are almost universally acknowledged as having suffered sufficient injury in fact to confer standing. Alons v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 698 N.W.2d 858, 865 (Iowa 2005) (noting "the well - established rule that `a taxpayer may maintain an action in his own name to prevent unlawful acts by public officers which would increase the amount of taxes he is required to pay....' " (quoting Polk County v. Dist. Ct., 133 Iowa 710, 712, 110 N.W. 1054, 1055 (1907))); see also Comment, Taxpayers' Actions: Public Invocation of the Judiciary, 13 17 Wake Forest L. Rev. 397, 399 -400, 402 -03 (1977) (observing nearly every state confers standing on taxpayers). We find that the City meets the two - pronged standing test of Birkhofer. The test is met because if unsuccessful in this litigation, the City will be required to expend funds on a special election. The expenditure of funds on a special election presents a concrete, tangible financial injury to the City that will result absent judicial intervention, but which will be avoided if the City prevails in this litigation. This potential cost of an unnecessary election is a special injury different and apart from general harm to the public. 3. The issue of when: The doctrine of ripeness. We have recognized that the question of ripeness in the context of an action for declaratory judgment is difficult. Citizens for Responsible Choices v. City of Shenandoah, 686 N.W.2d 470, 474 (Iowa 2004); Wesselink v. State Dep't of Health, 248 Iowa 639, 643, 80 N.W.2d 484, 486 (1957). We have stated that the question is "whether the facts alleged show there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant a declaratory judgment." Citizens, 686 N.W.2d at 474. We have further observed in the municipal law context that rules authorizing declaratory judgments are broad and should be applied liberally. Bechtel, 225 N.W.2d at 330. The key to ripeness in a declaratory judgment setting such as the one before us is an "antagonist assertion and denial of right." Id. (citations omitted). This court, however, has not provided clear guidance on the applicability of the ripeness doctrine in the context of citizen - initiated municipal elections. In Mathews v. Turner, 212 Iowa 424, 426 -27, 236 N.W. 412, 413 (1931), the court considered a preelection attack on a proposed state constitutional amendment, but the issue of ripeness was not raised and was expressly reserved. A similar result occurred in Richardson v. City of Jefferson, 257 Iowa 709, 134 N.W.2d 528 ( 1965), where the district court granted a preelection injunction to prevent the City from presenting to the voters a revenue issue that would extend and improve a swimming pool. This court affirmed, but did not discuss the question of ripeness. More recently, in Polk County, 522 N.W.2d at 783, the court considered the claims that a provision calling for the creation of a commonwealth mayors' commission violated the one person, one vote provisions of the Iowa and United States Constitutions and that other provisions of the proposed commonwealth charter did not comply with the public hearing and content requirements of Iowa law. Id. at 788 -89, 794- 96. In a concurring opinion, Justice Carter emphasized that the issues presented were ripe for review. Id. at 796. Like the Mathews and Richardson matters, however, Polk County has no value as a precedent on the ripeness issue as the issue was not raised in the litigation. The subsequent case of Citizens, 686 N.W.2d at 470, presents a fact situation in the context of municipal government where we held that the controversy was not ripe. In Citizens, a nonprofit corporation brought a declaratory action objecting to a public improvement project that included a recreational lake and a public park. Id. at 472. The project was to. be financed largely through the sale of revenue bonds, which had not yet been approved by the necessary governing bodies. Id. The court, citing ripeness concerns, refused to consider potential legal challenges to the project, emphasizing the contingent status of the project. Id. at 474 -75. 19 The question of whether state courts should entertain facial challenges to ballot measures prior to an election generally raises an issue of judicial propriety, not jurisdiction. It is a question of prudence, not power. Hessey v. Burden, 615 A.2d 562, 574 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Gaines, 450 So. 2d at 1178; Housing & Redevelopment Auth., 198 N.W.2d at 535. Whether to exercise the judicial power to decide preelection challenges to ballot measures has been considered by a number of state courts, with mixed results. Nearly all state courts allow preelection challenges based on procedural compliance with statutory criteria governing the petition process such as validating the required number of signatures, etc. See Herbst Gaming, Inc. v. Heller, 141 P.3d 1224, 1228 n.8 (Nev. 2006) (and cases cited therein). In addition, most state courts allow preelection challenges based upon subject matter or content restrictions for ballot measures established by constitution or statute. Id. at 1228 n.9 (and cases cited therein). The notion that courts engage in process and subject matter review of ballot matters prior to the election has support in the academic commentary. James D. Gordon III & David B. Magleby, Pre- election Judicial Review of Initiatives and Referendums, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. 298, 298 (1989); Michael J. Farrell, The Judiciary and Popular Democracy: Should Courts Review Ballot Measures Prior to Elections?, 53 Fordham L. Rev. 919, 925 (1984). According to the commentary and the applicable cases, the function of the state courts in engaging in threshold legal review is to ensure that the electoral path is not clogged with proposals that fail to meet the basic requirements for gaining ballot access. While state courts routinely serve as gatekeepers on issues of compliance with threshold ballot access requirements related to process 20 and content, many state courts decline to extend the gatekeeping function to include resolution of what are often termed "substantive challenges" to the lawfulness of proposals prior to the election. See, e.g., Winkle V. City of Tucson, 949 P.2d 502, 504 (Ariz. 1997); City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 293 P.2d 974, 976 (Colo. 1956); Coppernoll v. Reed, 119 P.3d 318, 321 -22 (Wash. 2005); State of Wisconsin ex rel. Althouse v. City of Madison, 255 N.W.2d 449, 455 (Wis. 1977). The rationale of these state courts is that because measures are often used to send a message to elected representatives, preelection review even of measures that are subsequently found invalid by a court may unduly infringe on free speech values. Gordon 8v Magleby, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. at 312; M. Sean Radcliffe, Pre- election Judicial Review of Initiative Petitions: An Unreasonable Limitation on Political Speech, 30 Tulsa L.J. 425, 436 -37 (1994). In addition, where facial attacks on constitutional grounds are presented, the doctrine of necessity is implicated. Under the prudential rule of necessity, constitutional issues must not be resolved in advance of a strict necessity for deciding them. Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 937, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 2776 -77, 77 L. Ed. 2d 317, 331 (1983); Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S. Ct. 466, 482, 80 L. Ed. 688, 710 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). On the other hand, a number of state courts have held that substantive, facial challenges to the legality of legislative initiatives are subject to judicial determination prior to their adoption by the electorate under proper circumstances. Many states limit such substantive, facial preelection review to cases where the illegality is "clear," "compelling," or "manifest." Alaska Action Ctr. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 84 P. 3d 989, 992 (Alaska 200 4) (proper where "controlling authority" is present); Legislature v. 21 Deukmejian, 669 P.2d 17, 21 (Cal. 1983) ( "clear showing of invalidity "); In re Initiative Petition No. 360, State Question No. 658, 879 P.2d 810, 814 (Okla. 1994) (discretion to consider substantive review where issues are "clear "). While these courts generally concede that judicial intervention to determine legal issues related to proposals pending, but not finally enacted by a legislative body would be improper, citizen initiatives are distinguished on the ground that, unlike legislative proposals, they are not subject to amendment prior to enactment and involve direct and indirect costs associated with the holding of elections. Whitson v. Anchorage, 608 P.2d 759, 762 n.5 (Alaska 1980); Associated Taxpayers of Idaho U. Cenarrusa, 725 P.2d 526, 532 -33 (Idaho 1986) (Huntley, J., dissenting); Wyoming Nat'l Abortion Rights Action League v. Karpan, 881 P.2d 281, 289 (Wyo. 1994). Some courts, however, reject the notion that there are degrees of illegality that affect the exercise of judicial review of ballot measures prior to the election. As noted by one court, it makes no difference whether a proposal is "clearly illegal" or just "illegal," as under either circumstance, the proposal is invalid. Haumant v. Griffin, 699 N.W.2d 774, 780 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005); see also Citizens for Responsible Behavior v. Superior Ct., 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 648, 653 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). Based on our review of the cases, we adopt the concensus view that a preelection challenge with respect to threshold process and content requirements for proposed municipal charter amendments should generally be considered ripe for adjudication. In this context, the issues do not relate to substantive validity of the proposal, but only to whether a particular proposal qualifies under applicable law for presentation to the voters. Alaska Action Ctr., 84 P.3d at 992. In so holding, we are concerned not solely with the cost of a needless special election. Utz v. City of Newport, 22 252 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Ky. 1952). We believe the time and money citizens are willing to devote to political activity are valuable resources that should not be squandered on charter initiatives that fail to meet even threshold ballot requirements. Am. Fed'n of Labor -Cong. of Indus. Org. V. Eu, 686 P.2d 609, 615 (Cal. 1984). As a result, we hold that the issue of whether the three proposals contain charter material, or are related to "form of government," is ripe for review. We next turn to the more difficult question of whether a preelection challenge to the substantive, facial validity of a proposed city charter amendment may be entertained. Even advocates of judicial restraint recognize that there are some cases where preelection judicial review of the substantive validity of underlying proposals is appropriate. See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 358, State Question No. 658, 870 P.2d 782, 791 (Okla. 1994) (Ovala J., concurring) (noting that preelection judicial review is appropriate where constitutional law is "firmly settled" and "absolutely" condemns the proposal); Gordon & Magleby, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. at 318 (advocating a circuit breaker exception allowing preelection substantive review in exceptional cases). We therefore reject the blanket rule that such challenges may never be considered. We conclude that preelection review of the substantive facial challenge to the retention amendment, namely, that the retention proposal is inconsistent with various provisions of the city code, is ripe for review. In this case, there is no pending election. Where there is no pending election, judicial review may take its ordinary course without the shortcomings associated with an expedited review. Indep. Energy Producers Ass'n v. McPherson, 136 P.3d 178, 181 (Cal. 2006); Brosnahan v. Eu, 641 P.2d 200, 202 (Cal. 1982) (Broussard, J., concurring). Further, because the election 23 has not yet been scheduled, the harm to the political process will be minimal. Early judicial intervention may give the measure's proponents an opportunity to cure defects before time and money is expended on a doomed effort. Douglas C. Michael, Preelection Judicial Review: Taking the Initiative in Voter Protection, 71 Cal. L. Rev. 1216, 1217 (1983). In addition, to timing matters, the substantive nature of the legal challenges does not prevent consideration of the legal issues at this time. The substantive facial challenge in this case presents an issue of law that is clear and not subject to serious dispute. Alaska Action Ctr., 84 P.3d at 992; Deukmejian, 669 P.2d at 21; In re Initiative Petition No. 360, 879 P.2d at 814. Because fundamental and difficult issues of constitutional law are not involved, the rule of necessity lays dormant. As a result, we proceed to address the merits of the claim.' C. Threshold Issues and Substantive Merit of Charter Proposals. 1. Inconsistency with state law. The City attacks the retention proposal as substantively unlawful. The City claims that the retention proposal is contrary to provisions of Iowa law related to the appointment and retention of the city manager and the police chief. In considering this matter, we do not pass on the merits of proposed charter amendment. Our only task in the legislative home rule environment is to determine whether the proposal is consistent with state law. The question of whether the City may determine the method of appointment and removal of city officials free from legislative interference 'Because the district court held that the city's declaratory judgment action was not ripe for review, it did not rule upon the substantive validity of each of the proposed amendments. This court is thus left with the choice of remanding the case back to the district court or deciding the additional issues itself. "Where ... the additional issues have been fully briefed and argued in this court, we conclude that it is in the interest of sound judicial administration to decide these issues here." Barnes v. Iowa Dep't of Transp. Motor Vehicle Div., 385 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Iowa 1986). 24 has been a topic of discussion in municipal governance. As early as 1953, a model constitutional provision advanced by city advocates reserved the right to structure the appointment and retention process to the cities. Am. Mun. Ass'n, Model Const. Provisions for Mun. Home Rule § 6 (1953) (as cited in George D. Vaubel, Toward Principles of State Restraint upon the Exercise of Municipal Power in Home Rule, 20 Stetson L. Rev. 5, app. 1 at 74 (1990)). At least three state constitutions currently have home rule provisions that expressly reserve the right of local governments to structure the appointment and retention process with respect to city officials. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b) ( "It shall be competent in all city charters to provide ... for ... the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees ... shall be elected or appointed.... "); Ill. Const. 1970 art. VII, § 6(f) ( "A home rule municipality shall have the power to provide for its officers, their manner of selection, and terms of office only as approved by referendum or as otherwise authorized by law. ") (as cited in Clarke U. Village of Arlington Heights, 309 N.E.2d 576, 577 (111. 1974)); Ohio Const. art. X, § 3 ( "Every such charter shall provide the form of government of the county and shall determine which of its officers shall be elected and the manner of their election. "). The Iowa home rule amendment, however, does not reserve such power to municipalities. As a result, we turn to the code to determine whether the retention proposal on its face is inconsistent with state law. If so, the proposed charter amendment would be invalid. Goodell U. Humboldt County, 575 N.W.2d 486, 500 (Iowa 1998); Iowa Code § 364.1. The Iowa legislature has allowed the cities a degree of discretion in determining who appoints city officials. For example, Iowa Code section 25 372.13(4) provides that "[e]xcept as provided by state or city law," the city council appoints officers and employees and prescribes their duties, compensation, and terms. Thus, the first sentence of Iowa Code section 372.13(4) allows cities to provide for an appointing body other than the city council. See Flowers v. City of Moline, 622 N.E.2d 38 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (appointment powers distributed between city council and mayor). Regardless of who appoints city officers and employees and prescribes their duties, however, the second sentence of section 372.13(4) contains the unqualified statement that "[t]he appointment of a city manager must be made on the basis of that individual's qualifications and not on the basis of political affiliation." Iowa Code § 372.13(4).2 Similarly, regardless of the appointing authority, the civil service code requires that the selection of all appointed officers and employees of cities must be based upon their "qualifications and fitness and for the good of the public service, and without regard to their political faith or party allegiance." Id. § 400.16. The retention proposal in this case arguably conflicts with the spirit if not the letter of Iowa Code sections 372.13(4) and 400.16. The retention proposal injects an extraneous political process into the employment relations between the city manager and police chief and the appointing authority not related to job qualifications. We doubt that the proposed retention amendment is consistent with the legislative intent behind these Code sections. Goodell, 575 N.W.2d at 500. More importantly, however, the legislature has addressed the issue of how these appointed officials may be terminated. In Iowa Code section 2Iowa Code section 372.13(4) states, "Except as otherwise provided by state or city law, the council may appoint city officers and employees, and prescribe their powers, duties, compensation, and terms. The appointment of a city manager must be made on the basis of that individual's qualifications and not on the basis of political affiliation." Iowa Code § 372.13(4). 26 372.15, the legislature has provided that "(e]xcept as otherwise provided by state and city law," the appointing authority has the power to remove the city officer. Pursuant to this provision, a city has the option of vesting removal authority in an entity or person other than the original appointing authority. Section 372.15, however, is qualified by the provision "but every such removal shall be by written order." The section further provides that the written order "shall give the reasons" for the dismissal. The officer is then entitled to a public hearing before the council on all issues connected with the removal. Iowa Code § 372.15.3 The very specific "but every such removal" language in Iowa Code section 372.15 is designed as a limitation on the city's power to remove public officers. State v. Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d 613, 614 (Ore. 2005) (stating the phrase "but every" describes exceptions or modifications). This statutory removal provision clearly applies to all public officers regardless of the form of government that a city may choose to employ. City of Des Moines v. Civil Service Comm'n, 540 N.W.2d 52, 59 -60 (Iowa 1995); La Peters v. City of Cedar Rapids, 263 N.W.2d 734, 736 -37 (Iowa 1978). While Iowa Code section 372.15 does not require that the appointing authority demonstrate that removal was for cause, Bennett v. City of Redfield, 446 N.W.2d 467, 473 (Iowa 1989), it does mandate that a public officer have 3Iowa Code section 372.15 states, Except as otherwise provided by state or city law, all persons appointed to city office may be removed by the officer or body making the appointment, but every such removal shall be by written order. The order, shall give the reasons, be filed in the office of the city clerk, and a copy shall be sent by certified mail to the person removed who, upon request filed with the clerk within thirty days of the date of mailing the copy, shall be granted a public hearing before the council on all issues connected with the removal. The hearing shall be held within thirty days of the date the request is filed, unless the person removed requests a later date. Iowa Code § 372.15. 27 notice of the reasons for termination and the opportunity to be heard before the appointing authority. The retention proposal provides for removal of the city manager and the police chief through a vote of the people, without written notice, without a statement of reasons, and without a hearing before the city council. These three procedural omissions are fatal to the proposed charter amendment. Iowa Code § 364.6 ( "A city shall substantially comply with a procedure established by state law for exercising a city power. "). Removal under the retention amendment does not involve deliberation of elected representatives that is at the heart of representative democracy which our legislature has chosen to prescribe. State ex rel. Connie V. Hunter, 117 A. 548, 549 (Conn. 1922) (applying referendum to appointment and removal of city manager would defeat system of putting business affairs in hands of trained expert rather than a popular favorite); State ex rel. Becker V. Common Council of City of Milwaukee, 305 N.W.2d 178, 182 -83 (Wis. Ct. App. 198 1) (initiative for removal of police chief violates state statute vesting authority in board). The petitioner's sole defense of the retention proposal is that it might be interpreted in a fashion that would allow the city manager or the police chief to remain in office after a negative vote in a retention election. The defense has two thematic variations. First, the petitioners suggest that a negative retention vote might not require the removal of the official in question, but may be regarded as advisory only. Second, the petitioners suggest that even if the proposal were interpreted as requiring the removal of an officer that failed to prevail in a retention election, the City could simply reappoint the official. We reject the contention that the proposed charter provision may be saved by characterizing the retention election as merely advisory. The retention proposal expressly states that the appointment of the city manager and the police chief "shall be subject to" a "retention" election. The term "shall" is mandatory. Iowa Code § 4.1(30)(a) ( "The word `shall' imposes a duty. "); State v. Klawonn, 609 N.W.2d 515, 521 (Iowa 2000) ( "the word `shall' does not mean 'may'"); State v. Luckett, 387 N.W.2d 298, 301 (Iowa 1986) (use of the word "shall" connotes mandatory action). The phrase "subject to" means "governed by" or "dependent upon." Util. Cost Mgmt. v. Indian Wells Valley Water Dist., 36 P. 3d 2, 7 (Cal. 2001); Mayor of City of Lansing v. Michigan Public Serv. Comm'n, 680 N.W.2d 840, 843 -44 (Mich 2004). Retention means a "state of being kept in place." Webster's Third International Dictionary 1938 (unabr. ed. 2002). Given this unambiguous language, we will not twist the plain meaning of the retention proposal beyond recognition to suggest that it merely authorizes a public opinion poll on the performance of the police chief and city manager. State v. Welton, 300 N.W.2d 157, 160 (Iowa 1981). Similarly, we will not distort the plain meaning of the proposal to allow an officer who was not retained to be immediately rehired, thereby converting the retention election into a straw poll. The retention proposal also contains a provision requiring yearly job evaluations of the city manager and the police chief. The City does not directly attack this aspect of the retention proposal. On the other hand, the retention proposal does not contain a severability clause and the petitioners have not asked us to sever any remaining lawful portions of the retention proposal. Cf. Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C., 684 N.W.2d 168, 174 (Iowa 2004) (in the context of statutory severance, this court has held that severance "is ME appropriate if it does not substantially impair legislative purpose, the enactment remains capable of fulfilling the apparent legislative intent, and the remaining portion of the enactment can be given effect without the invalid provision" (citations omitted)). It is not clear that the doctrine of severance should apply in the context of preelection substantive review of a proposed municipal charter amendment. Compare Bennett v. Drullard, 149 P. 368, 370 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915) (refusing to allow severability as not germane to the will of the electorate); Housing & RedevelopmentAuth., 198 N.W.2d at 538 (severance not appropriate as court cannot determine intent of signators if some portions invalid); State ex rel. Hazelwood Yellow Ribbon Comm. v. Klos, 35 S.W.3d 457 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (rejecting severability because it is impossible for court to determine what petition drafters or signators intended), with McAlpine v. Univ. of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81, 94 (Alaska 1988) (allowing severability because the court's duty in conducting preelection review is akin to review of an enacted statute); City of Colorado Springs v. Bull, 143 P.3d 1127, 1138 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006) (deciding that unlawful portions of proposed initiative should be severed from remainder of ballot initiative) . In any event, even if the doctrine of severance did apply, it would not be the proper approach in this case. Where the main portions of a citizen petition are invalid, the remainder should not be sent to the voters in redacted form. McAlpine, 762 P.2d at 95 n.26; Alexander v. Mitchell, 260 P.2d 261, 268 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953); Fossella v. Dinkins, 485 N.E.2d 1017, 1019 (N.Y. 1985). "[T]o separate the good from the bad and permit the submission to the voters of a maimed and worthless thing would be folly." 30 McCabe v. Voorhis, 153 N.E. 849, 853 (N.Y. 1926). As a result, we hold that no part of the retention proposal should be submitted to the voters. Having found that the retention proposal is invalid because of its conflict with Iowa law regarding the appointment and removal process of city officials, we do not decide the question of whether the erroneous citation to charter provisions in the petition is a basis for legal challenge. 2. Threshold Limitation of Charter Amendments to "Form of Government." The City attacks the PCRB proposal and the community policing proposal on the sole ground that the proposals do not contain proper charter material. The City zealously argues that only matters related to "form of government" may be subject to proposed ballot amendments. According to the City, the content of charter amendments is limited by Iowa Code section 372.9 to amendments that relate to the "form of government." Iowa Code section 372.9 states that "[a] city to be governed by the home rule charter form shall adopt a home rule charter in which its form of government shall be set forth." The City raises no other challenge to the validity of these proposed charter amendments. In considering the meaning of the term "form of government," we must consider relevant legislative history. Prior to 1975, Iowa Code section 372.10 stated that a home rule charter must contain "and is limited to" five specific provisions related to the structure of city councils, the manner of holding elections, and the duties of the city council and city officers. As a result of this strict language, the contents of a city charter prior to 1975 were severely limited. In 1975, however, the legislature opened Iowa Code section 372.10 by deleting the phrase "and is limited to." 1975 Iowa Acts ch. 203, § 22. 31 The City contends that the legislative purpose behind this amendment was modest. According to the City, lifting the strict limitations in charter content was not designed to allow any imaginable law, policy, practice, or procedure to become part of the charter, but only to expand the potential form, of government provisions that cities might choose to employ in light of the passage in 1968 of the home rule amendment to the Iowa Constitution. Iowa Const. art. III, § 38A. The plaintiffs, in contrast, reject the limitation of city charters to content involving "form of government." They argue that the 1975 amendment to Iowa Code section 372.10 dramatically expanded permissible charter content. Further, they note that under Iowa Code section 372.2, the "form of government" of a municipality may be changed only every six years. This provision, appellants argue, implies that charter amendments that do not involve "form of government" may be offered at any other time. There are no Iowa cases dealing with this precise issue. The closest case cited by the parties is City of Clinton v. Sheridan, 530 N.W.2d 690, 692 (Iowa 1995). In this case, however, the issue was whether a proposed referendum dealing with various building codes was consistent with state law. The issue of potential restrictions on charter content arising from the use of the term "form of government" was not presented and, of course, not decided in that case. In dictum, the court suggested that the amendment to Iowa Code section 372.10 was designed to "allow the home rule charters to include the broad powers to determine local affairs and government...." City of Clinton, 530 N.W.2d at 694. When the legislature amended Iowa Code section 372. 10, it did not alter Iowa Code section 372.9, which provides that a city may adopt a home rule charter "in which its form of government is set forth." The legislature's 32 inclusion, moreover, of the phrase "form of government" in Iowa Code section 372.9 was deliberate. Ashby v. School Twp. of Liberty, 250 Iowa 1201, 1214, 98 N.W.2d 848, 858 (1959) ( "A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that, if reasonably possible, effect should be given every part of a statute. "). We view this language as establishing the kind of material or subject matter that may be contained in a city charter. The 1975 amendment was designed to permit more experimentation with respect to form of government, while not abandoning the preexisting "form of government" limitation. In re Barry, 720 A.2d 977, 979 (N.H. 1998) (New Hampshire Constitution allows city charter to include various forms of government, but does not grant municipality unbridled authority to amend its charter to include retirement plan provisions); Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 415 A.2d 255, 261 (Md. 1980) (charter is vehicle for form of government which identifies, distributes, and restricts municipal power). To the extent that dictum in City of Clinton implies that material that does not relate to form of government may be included in the charter, it is disapproved. We do not believe Iowa Code section 372.2 requires a different result. Iowa Code section 372.2 provides that unless otherwise provided by law, a city may not adopt a different "form of government" more often than once in a six -year period. We read Iowa Code section 372.2 to mean that a city may enact a fundamental change in its "form of government" (e.g. from city council /mayor, city council /city manager or commission to another form) every six years, but may tinker with less sweeping amendments at other times. See Clarke, 309 N.E.2d at 579 (distinguishing between amendments and total adoption or repeal of form of government); Kelly v. Laing, 242 N.W. 891, 892 (Mich. 1932) (distinguishing between amendments to charter and redraft of entire document). We do not read this section as authorizing 33 "non -form of government" amendments during the six -year cycle established by Iowa Code section 372.2. Having determined that amendments to city charters must, as a matter of law, relate to "form of government," the next question is what subject matter falls within the ambit of the phrase. In the context of municipal charters, the term "form of government" has been said to refer to "fundamental" provisions that provide "a broad organizational framework establishing the form and structure of government." Cheeks, 415 A.2d at 261. Another formulation suggests that a municipal charter is a plan that establishes the structure of local government and constitutes "nothing more than the machinery by which the powers and responsibilities of government may be executed. ." Holsclaw v. Stephens, 507 S.W.2d 462, 471 (Ky. 1973). These general statements about what constitutes "form of government" are not always helpful, however, and the case law in other jurisdictions suggests that the phrase "form of government" is often defined more by what it does not include than anything else. A number of cases contrast charter provisions with ordinances, noting that a proposal to amend a charter cannot be an ordinance in masquerade. For instance, in Cheeks, 415 A.2d at 255, the court found that a charter' amendment establishing a detailed rent control regulatory regime did not relate to "form of government," but instead amounted to substantive legislation that could not be included in a city charter. See also Mayor & City Council of Ocean City v. Bunting, 895 A.2d 1068, 1075 -76 (Md. Ct. App. 2006) (charter amendment permitting police department employees to engage in collective bargaining held too specific and not related to broad organizational framework of government); In re Initiative Petition No. 1 of Midwest City v. 34 Melton, 465 P.2d 470, 472 (Okla. 1970) (proposed charter amendment requiring voter approval of ordinances affecting sale or transfer of real estate held too specific to be valid charter amendment). Under this line of authority, the more detailed a proposal and the more it establishes substantive policy instead of structure, the greater the likelihood that the proposal does not relate to form of government and does not qualify for inclusion in a city charter. It also is clear that matters that are best characterized as administrative are not the stuff of valid charter proposals. Such matters do not even qualify as municipal ordinances that may be enacted through the initiative process, let alone enshrined as charter provisions. See, e.g., Jones v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local Union No. 936, 601 S.W.2d 454, 455 -56 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1980) (proposal must be legislative in character to qualify as a charter amendment); Save Our Fire Dept Paramedics Comm. v. City of Appleton, 389 N.W.2d 43, 47 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986) (same). The rationale of these cases is that in order to allow for efficient administration of the city, administrative matters without sufficient generality and permanence should not be subjected to popular vote. City of Wichita v. Fitzgerald, 916 P.2d 1301, 1304 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). There is no clear method for determining whether a proposal to be placed before the electorate involves impermissible administrative matters. One test of whether a proposal is administrative in nature is whether it executes law previously established. Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 821 P.2d 146, 150 (Ariz. 1991); City of Lawrence v. McArdle, 522 P.2d 420, 425 (Kan. 1974). Matters that have been found administrative in nature, and thus not subject to being placed on the ballot as initiative measures, are proposals to reorganize special districts, measures concerning the acquisition, 35 construction, and regulation of penal facilities, a proposal regarding the use and placement of speed bumps, and a proposal for increased salaries for city employees. Friends of Mt. Diablo v. County of Contra Costa, 139 Cal. Rptr. 469 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977); Murphy v. Gilman, 204 Iowa 58, 62, 214 N.W. 679, 681 -82 (1927); State ex rel. Hazel v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections, 685 N.E.2d 224 (Ohio 1997); Save Our Fire Dept, 389 N.W.2d at 43. We embrace the general contours of the above cited authorities as consistent with the direction of our legislature. Under this approach, basic structural proposals truly involving the form, not the substance, of government are subject to voter approval through the charter amendment process. Matters of policy or administration, however, are to be processed through the ordinary channels of representative democracy with its Madisonian virtues. The Federalist No. 10 (James Madison) (advocating deliberation by representative bodies). Policy and administrative matters are thus subject to the give and take of the deliberative processes of representative government and are not to be implanted in a city charter by transient majorities. Applying these above concepts, we hold that the PCRB proposal relates to the form of government under Iowa Code section 372.9 and is a permissible charter amendment under Iowa Code section 372.10. The PCRB proposal establishes a permanent body to investigate and make recommendations to the city council regarding police practices. The PCRB proposal does not invade the province of the city council by dictating particular law enforcement practices or by controlling budget priorities. It simply establishes a permanent entity to engage in public hearings, conduct investigations, and make recommendations to the city council. It is m involved primarily with government processes, not substantive law, and thus is an amendment involving "form of government." We believe the PCRB proposal is a model of the kind of measure that the legislature's removal of limitations in Iowa Code section 372.10 was designed to allow. As a result, the district court order requiring this matter to be placed before the voters is affirmed. On the other hand, we hold that the community policing proposal does not relate to form of government and therefore is an impermissible amendment to the charter. The community policing proposal declares that city police officers "shall" issue citations in lieu of arrest for most non- violent misdemeanor offenses, "shall" notify persons of the existence of an arrest warrant unless there is a danger to the community or risk of flight, and "should" not engage in certain activities such as "knock and talks" or going as undercover agents in bars, restaurants, and other public places, and acting on certain anonymous tips. The community policing proposal further declares that enforcement of laws related to the possession of personal -use amounts of marijuana are not a "priority" of the City. As can be seen from the above description, the community policing proposal does not relate to a "form of government," but simply seeks to establish executive or administrative policy for the City with respect to law enforcement practices in a narrow category of crimes. As a result, the community policing proposal does not relate to "form of government" as required by Iowa Code section 372.9. Our holding that a charter is not the place to cement executive and administrative policy for the enforcement of certain criminal laws does not leave the plaintiffs without a remedy. If the plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the manner in which city officials are making executive and administrative 37 decisions regarding the enforcement of nonviolent misdemeanors, they have a remedy through the ballot box when responsible city officials stand for election. For the above reasons, we conclude that the community policing proposal does not involve "form of government." It is, therefore, not a valid charter amendment, and should not be presented to the voters. IV. Conclusion. We find that the objections committee exceeded its statutory authority by rejecting the proposals as legally insufficient. The district court order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is affirmed. We further hold that the City is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the retention and community policing proposals are inconsistent with Iowa law and, as a result, the City is under no obligation to place these matters before the voters. With respect to the PCRB proposal, however, we find that the City is not entitled to a declaratory judgment of invalidity and that the voice of the voters should be heard on this issue. As a result, the district court order, which refused to grant the City declaratory relief on the retention and community policing proposals and granted the appellants relief on these issues is reversed. The district court order denying the City declaratory relief on the PCRB proposal and directing the City to place this proposal on the ballot is affirmed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.