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.