Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-16-2008 Police Citizens Review Board
MEETING CANCELLED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD December 16, 2008 — 5:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM City Hall 410 E. Washington Street HAS BEEN CANCELLED NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS: January 13, 2009 — 5:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM ITEM NO.1 ITEM NO. 2 AGENDA POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD December 16, 2008 — 5:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM 410 E. Washington Street CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED • Minutes of the meeting on 11/18/08 • ICPD General Order #00 -08 (Weapons) Replacing Pages 1,8, and 15 • ICPD General Order #01 -08 (Criminal Intelligence) ITEM NO. 3 OLD BUSINESS • Complaint Form Update regarding Officer Bill of Rights • Complaint registry/Monitoring System ITEM NO. 4 NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 5 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM NO. 6 BOARD INFORMATION ITEM NO. 7 STAFF INFORMATION ITEM NO. 8 CONSIDER MOTION TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. ITEM NO. 9 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • January 13, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • February 10, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • March 10, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • April 14, 2009, 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: December 12, 2008 TO: PCRB Members FROM: Kellie Tuttle RE: Board Packet for meeting on December 16, 2008 Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting: • Agenda for 12/16/08 • Minutes of the meeting on 11/18/08 • ICPD General Order #00-08 (Weapons) Replacing Pages 1,8, and 15 • ICPD General Order #01 -08 (Criminal Intelligence) • PCRB Complaint Deadlines • PCRB Office Contacts — November • Police Citizens Academy Information • Approved Final Complaint Form Information Sheet • Extension request regarding PCRB 08 -08 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 — November 18, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Donald King, Abbie Yoder MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Roth STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Richard Wyss and Officers David Schwindt and Mike Smithey of the ICPD; and public, Caroline Dieterle RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08 -06 (2) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08 -07 (3) Accept correspondence regarding Community Forum CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by King and seconded by Braverman to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 10/28/08 • ICPD General Order 99 -12 (Field Interviews and "Pat- Down" Searches) • ICPD General Order 00 -08 (Weapons) • ICPD General Order 07 -02 (Detainee Processing) • ICPD SOG 01 -22 (Training, Special Assignments) Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. Braverman wanted to clarify on OPS21.1 Detainee Processing, that Temporary Detention is not the same as Booking. Wyss confirmed it was not. Braverman also asked that Wyss explain what Data Master Testing was. Wyss explained that it is a breathalyzer that measures blood - alcohol content. Yoder asked if race was tracked along with name, age, and the reason for being detained during processing. Wyss stated it was not. SRE05.2 Weapons, Braverman noted a typo under Authorized Automatic Weapons. Braverman also questioned C(3)(a)(vi), wearing off duty weapons in court. Wyss explained that an off duty officer can carry a weapon at any time. This section is regarding the judge's approval for an officer to wear an off duty weapon while attending court. Yoder asked regarding SOG #01 -22, Training & Special Assignments if there is any rule to how many different roles an officer can have. Wyss stated there is not, although the more specific areas that an officer is trained in, the more difficult it is to be specialized. In order to get selected for a specialized position, a supervisor would have to make that first recommendation. OLD BUSINESS Information Sheet for Filing a Complaint — Braverman suggested adding a statement to the Police Department complaint form section stating that the Board would not review unless a PCRB complaint was also filed. Braverman would like to change the wording at the bottom regarding "questions about choosing a form" to "questions November 18, 2008 Page 2 about filing a complaint ". Braverman would also like to leave in the City Clerk contact information for those who do not have access to the internet. Motion by King, seconded by Yoder to approve the Information Sheet with amendments. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. Follow up on Community Forum — Braverman prepared a draft letter to City Council summarizing the Community Forum with recommendations from the Board. After review the Board amended the recommendations for items 1 and 3. Motion by King, seconded by Braverman to approve the letter to City Council summarizing the Community Forum with amendments. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. Complaint Registry /Monitoring System — The Board discussed the possibility of a monitoring system to track by Anonymous Office Number those complaints which are sustained by the PCRB. There was discussion on whether this information would sway the Board in their decision when reviewing a complaint and also of what use the information from this monitoring system would be. The Board agreed that they would like more time to discuss this issue and the topic will be continued at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS Policy regarding Legal Counsel Research — Tuttle asked the Board if there was a need for a policy regarding legal counsel research so that (1) it would be requested by a majority of the Board and (2) any research done would be included in the Board packets and would be filed into the record as to not incur costs later to research the same information. The Board agreed that they did not think a policy was necessary; encouraged members interested in requesting legal counsel research bring it up at a meeting and if more of the Board was interested it would be included in a meeting packet. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Wyss reported back to Braverman regarding the body mics that she had inquired about at the October meeting. Currently the body mics that are being used are the only ones that are sold with the system that the Police Department uses. The problem with having a separate body mics system would be synchronizing it with the current system, and how much equipment they could afford, store, maintain, and carry around. Braverman asked if she could review a non - complaint related in -car recording of a stop. Wyss told her to contact him and he could make that arrangement. Dieterle asked if there was an answer to her question from the October meeting regarding Martial Law. Pugh responded that there was an executive order signed in the fall of 2006 called the Military Commissions Act. It basically expanded the Presidents ability to establish Martial Law. Prior to that time it was just in the case of rebellion, invasion, or public safety. The Military Commissions Act expanded it to the PCRB November 18, 2008 Page 3 event of terrorism, economic crisis, act of war, or natural catastrophe. If Martial Law was established, depending on how it was used it could trump local authority, National Guard, and it could allow military involvement in domestic law enforcement. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle asked Wyss to inform the Board of the change to the Officer Bill of Rights and how it could affect the PCRB Complaint form. Wyss stated that the ICPD complaint form it indicates or makes a person aware that if they knowingly file a false report they are subject to criminal charges. That information is not on the PCRB Complaint form. The question is whether that information should be on the PCRB Complaint form. One of the issues that the Police Officer Bill of Rights specifies is that if the police department identifies a complaint where the person knowingly files a false report on a police officer, the information will be forwarded to the County Attorney's office for determination on whether criminal charges should be filed. Braverman raised the question on whether it is a crime to knowingly file a false report with the PCRB. The Board agreed that Pugh should look into to see if the language is inclusive of a complaint to the PCRB and if additional language needs to be added to the complaint form. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by King and seconded by Braverman to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. Open session adjourned at 6:56 P.M. (BREAK) 7:03 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:53 P.M. Motion by King, seconded by Yoder to request 45 day extension for PCRB Complaint #08 -08 due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. PCRB November 18, 2008 Page 4 Motion by King, seconded by Yoder to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08 -06 to City Council. Motion carried, 3/0, Braverman abstained and Roth absent. Motion by King, seconded by Braverman to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08 -07 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • December 16, 2008, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • January 13, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • February 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • March 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Braverman and seconded by King. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:56 P.M. ' zOO�c zz��b c °ra c "1 fD y y n d z d o� CD 0 b O r I ^�I l l l 1 F� N c 0 o o o c (D CD "" ra o 0 o Oo 0 i i z z z N_ yzy yzy W i i k x 00 O� x x ° N Go H+ 00 y y n d z d o� CD 0 b O r I ^�I l l l 1 F� N c 0 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 November 18, 2008 , c To: City Council - Complainant _ Michael Lombardo, City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint 0 From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08 -06 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08 -06 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ( "Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 21, 2008. As required by Section 8 -8 -5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. 1 The Chiefs Report was due on October 20, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on October 10, 2008. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on October 28, 2008 and November 18, 2008. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation." ALLEGATIONS 1. Officer A slandered the reputation of complainant by calling him a drug dealer. m 2. Officer A harassed complainant by giving him a criminal trespass warning for tl e`$roa&ay ; Street apartment complex. FINDINGS OF FACT Officer A was patrolling area of 1900 Broadway in response to citizen's complaints ari* intelli'Snce of possible drug (controlled substances) activity in the area. Officer A had previously been advised of the possible sales of controlled substances in the area and had physical evidence (Corner Tears — comers of plastic bags torn off to package controlled substances) to corroborate the complaints. As officer A neared the area a group of subjects was seen sitting on the steps. The men yelled "Five -O, Five -O" and ran. At this time Officer A had a reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot. This is supported by the complaints of drug activity in area, the corner tears recently found by Officer A, the possible alarm given ( "Five -O, Five -O" as in Hawaii Five -O — police), and the fleeing of the subjects that had given the possible alarm. Two of the fleeing men ran into apartment B7. The third subject was located outside the apartment door. Officer A spoke with the tenants of apartment B7 and received consent to enter the apartment. A "protective sweep" for the protection of the apartment residents and the officers was constitutional at this time. According to the Call for Service, the officers were dealing with 10 individuals. Officer A located 5 -6 other men in a back bedroom of B7. Officer A recognized the complainant as one of the men in the back bedroom. All the people in the apartment were patted down for weapons. In an investigatory stop, an officer needs a reasonable suspicion a subject is "armed and dangerous" to conduct a" pat - down" search which is a limited patting of the external clothing for weapons. The pat -downs of the people present in the apartment were justified due to the court's repeated recognition of a strong association between illegal drug dealing, violence, and weapons. This is almost a "per se" exception to the warrant requirement. The complainant also stated he gave the officer permission to search his person. Officer B remembered the consent. Officer C could not remember any specifics of the conversation. 2 Officer C performed the search of the Complainant. Any officer present in a situation where consent is given, or there is reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat -down search, can perform the search. Officer C felt a large bulge in the complainant's pants pocket and believed the contents to be contraband. An officer conducting a consent search does not need to believe an item is seizable to take it out of a pocket and examine it. An officer conducting a "pat- down" search for weapons can seize any object if the officer believes its evidentiary value is "immediately apparent ". Officer C retrieved the contents believing it was contraband. It turned out to be a roll of money. In a search, what the object seized actually is, is immaterial. Only the legality of the search matters in regard to the admissibility of the evidence. Officer B later counted the money which was $700 in twenty - dollar bills. The tenants of the apartment gave officers permission to search the apartment. After the search officers exited the apartment and spoke with Complainant. The amount of money found on complainant is discussed and the complainant told the officers the money was pay from his workplace. Officer A tells Complainant before his explanation of the money it looked like he was dealing illegal drugs. Officer A phones a member of SCAT (Special Crimes Attack Team). Officer A tells the Complainant that SCAT believes he is dealing drugs but Officer A does not call the complainant a drug dealer. The Complainant does profess to a history of drug dealing but,,dgmes current dealing. The conversation between Officer A and the Complainant took place in an area where oijT the police and the complainant could hear what was said. - The Complainant also complained about the length of the detention. In an Invegi ator�5&op officers can use the time which is "reasonable" to conduct the investigation. This could i)�Slude, but would not be limited to, the detention of subjects. Officers inform the complainant he will get a receipt for the money. The Complainant declines and by doing this actually increases the time necessary to conduct the investigation at the scene. During the questioning by Officer A, Officer D tells the Complainant that Officer D purchased a car that was seized and forfeited from the Complainant. Officer A stated he discussed this statement with Officer D after the investigation but before the complaint. Officer A told Officer D that the Complainant's reaction to the comment messed up the questioning by Officer A. At no time does any officer threaten to take the complainant's money or phone. Officer A issues the complainant a Criminal Trespass warning and explains it. Officer A tells the Complainant the warning does not prohibit the Complainant from visiting friends but does restrict the Complainant from loitering. The Complainant is then allowed to leave. The Chief's report of the length of detention of the Complainant is "approximately 15 minutes ". The "Call for Service" 3 log shows an officer on scene at 18:23:06 and backup officers arriving on the scene at 18:25:39, 18:25:41 and 18:25.46. The first officer leaves the scene at 18:35:07. All the other offices clear the scene at 19:33:51. Due to the fact the initial officer waited for backup, a search of persons and the apartment was conducted, and the first officer cleared the scene approximately 12 minutes after the first officer was on the scene, there is nothing to make the Board believe the detention was any longer than the Chief's report states. A squad car recording also documents the length of time of the conversation outside the apartment to be approximately 15 minutes. On September 03, 2008, a subject from Southgate Property Management was contacted about officers issuing criminal trespass warnings. The contact stated that Southgate had given officers permission to issue warnings for loitering and other nuisance activities. "Other nuisance activities" was not defined in the Chief's report. The contact for Southgate stated the officers had requested and authorized officers to approach individuals and determine if they lived in the complex and/or were visiting someone who lived there. Southgate Management also requested officers issue criminal trespass warnings to persons that do not live in complex and are involved in questiopable activity. v' On July 21, 2008 the Complainant filed a Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) complaint. CONCLUSIONS 0." ,�. 5 > .J From the evidence provided, nothing suggests that any officer on the scene did anything to dMbage the reputation of the complainant. According to a letter dated 08- 13 -08, the police department repeatedly attempted to contact the complainant. At no time did the complainant come in for an interview and instructed the police to stop calling him. The letter went on to provide the complainant with another opportunity which the Board assumes was turned down due to the lack of complainant interview materials included with the Chiefs Report. The officers did not call the Complainant a drug dealer but stated they suspected he was due to the current situation, past criminal history of Complainant, and money in specific bill denominations. The conversation between Officer A and the Complainant was in an area removed from others except police officers and there was nothing that was said to be publicized about the complainant, the search, the money, and him being called a drug dealer. Allegation # 1 — Officer A slandered the name and reputation of the complainant by calling him a drug dealer. NOT SUSTAINED. 4 A phone call on 09- 03 -08, to Southgate Management Property Management, confirmed that the Broadway Condominiums Association had given permission/authority for Southgate and the police department to actively enforce loitering and other nuisance activities. An Internal Affairs Investigation Report dated 09 -03 -08 documents the. conversation Officer E had with a representative from Southgate Property Management supporting the above information. The officers at the scene were acting within the scope of this authority although in this particular situation it is not totally relevant other than as a basis of intelligence. Allegation # 2 — Officer A harassed the Complainant by issuing the complainant a criminal trespass warning. NOT SUSTAINED. BOARD COMMENTS The Board is concerned about the issuing of a criminal trespass warning without prior written authorization from the property owner. The Board is also concerned with the statement made by Officer D, to the Complainant, about purchasing a car that was seized and forfeited from complainant. This comment was made at the time Officer A appeared to be in charge of the situation. The comments could imply that the money found would be seized and forfeited also. This comment did not appear to further the investigation and the Board feels that Officer D should be spoken with about this behavior. 5 € 11 ?� .� 55 5 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 November 18, 2008 C' To: City Council Complainant Michael Lombardo, City Manager ` ` . Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police a Officer(s) involved in complaint =0 —' 4 CD From: Police Citizen's Review Board > CD Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08 -07 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08 -07 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ( "Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 22, 2008. As required by Section 8 -8 -5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on October 20, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on October 14, 2008. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on October 28, 2008 and November 18, 2008. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation ". FINDINGS OF FACT Iowa City Police Officer A observed a bicyclist (the complainant) in 10 block of N. Clinton Street riding on the sidewalk and weaving in- and out of pedestrians. Officer A stopped the complainant and explained to him that it was illegal to ride on the sidewalk in the downtown area. Officer A also explained that bicyclists are required to operate bikes in the same manner as a motor vehicle and obey all traffic laws. The complainant then rode through the red light for Westbound Iowa Ave. Officer A then observed the complainant go through Clinton and Jefferson and then turn right from Clinton to Market Street. Market Street is a one way street at this location. Officer A proceeded to follow the complainant and stopped him at Dubuque and Market Streets. The complainant is observed riding the wrong way on a one way street. Officer A issued a citation for failure to observe traffic laws. ALLEGATIONS The complainant alleges: _: Allegation #1: Officer A was rude Allegation #2: Officer A was bullish r. Allegation #3: Officer A was unwilling to listen to reason C? 3> v INVESTIGATION: . A review of the in -car recorder from Officer A's vehicle for July 22, 2008 was conducted. The recorder was activated by Officer A at 09:47:28. Officer A makes the traffic stop at 09:48:30. The complainant is recorded riding east in the 100 block of Market. The complainant is going the wrong way on a one way street. Officer A's voice recorder is not working but audio is picked up from .the in -car microphone. At no time during the stop is Officer A bullish or rude to the complainant. The audio does have the complainant trying to make his point about riding against traffic. Officer A's interview advised the incident started when he observed a subject riding on the sidewalk. Officer A stated that he stopped the cyclist and explained the rules of the rode for bicycles (same as for cars) and they were prohibited from the sidewalks in the downtown area. Officer A stated he was unsure if the complainant turned through a no right turn on red posting at Jefferson and Dubuque Streets as his vision was blocked. Officer A stated that he did observe the complainant turn right onto Market Street and go the wrong way on a one way street. Officer A issued the complainant a citation for Observation of Traffic Rules. Officer A recalled the complainant trying to make his 2 point about being safer for him to ride facing traffic. Officer A replied that he did not agree with him and the law did not allow for his actions. Four telephone calls and a certified letter were sent to the complainant with no response. CONCLUSION Audio /video recordings of the incident do not show -any bullish or rude behavior on Officer A's part. The complainant was upset and not acting in an appropriate manner during the incident. The complainant's complainant of not listening to reason involves the issue of going the wrong way on a one way street. The complainant argues that he feels safer going towards traffic than with the traffic. Officer A disagreed and stated it was not allowed by law. FINDINGS Allegation #1: NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #2: NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #3: NOT SUSTAINED C:. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 -1826 (319)356 -5041 November 19, 2008 Iowa City City Council City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 To Whom It May Concern: On September 16, 2008, the Police Citizens Review Board held its first formal community forum. Loren Horton (former member of the PCRB) presented a History and Summary of the PCRB. Greg Roth (current member of the PCRB) presented the PCRB Complaint Filing Process. Captain Rick Wyss (Iowa City Police Department) presented the ICPD Complaint Process. The PCRB then heard numerous citizen comments. One of the most notable occurrences at the forum was the support of the public for both the ICPD and the PCRB. We commend the ICPD for its continuing efforts to foster its good relationship with the public and are pleased to be a part of that effort. While a transcript of the community forum is available on the City website, the PCRB would like to summarize comments made by the public and to add its recommendations to the City Council. The public comments fell into three general categories. Tracking of Complaints. There was a fairly lengthy discussion of the process by which the PCRB tracks complaints, in which the public asked questions and members of the PCRB responded. The main concerns appeared to be whether the PCRB knows the identity of complainants (we do), whether the PCRB knows the identity of officers who are the subject of complaints (we know them only by Anonymous Officer Number unless a complaint is sustained), and whether the PCRB tracks that information (we do not, although ICPD does). Chief of Police Sam Hargadine also responded, in his letter dated September 22, 2008 (a copy of which is enclosed), that ICPD does have a Personnel Early Warning System that tracks this information. Pursuant to 8 -8 -2 D.1., the PCRB is charged with overseeing "a monitoring system for tracking receipt of formal complaints lodged against sworn police officers with either the board or the Iowa City police department." PCRB Recommendation: The PCRB is examining the issue of a monitoring system to track by Anonymous Officer Number those complaints which are sustained by the PCRB. The PCRB may make additional recommendations to the Chief of Police and /or the City Council regarding this matter. 2. Reduction of Arrests. Multiple members of the public commented, from different perspectives, on: the perceived need for anew jail; the need to reduce demand for a new jail (and to reduce the need for space in the current jail) by reducing arrests; a request to refocus ICPD attention from so- called victimless crimes (such as PAULA or simple possession of marijuana) to crimes against persons and property; proactive police work in arrests of those too intoxicated or otherwise impaired to be safe; and whether the ICPD targets or harasses particular bars in downtown Iowa City. Chief Hargadine's letter addresses those concerns: correcting a misperception that Ames, Iowa, has no arrests for Public Intoxication; explaining "indictable offenses" and the state law requirement that the offenders be arrested; citing Iowa State Code and public safety as reasons for transporting certain defendants to jail; and explaining that booking (i.e., fingerprinting and taking mug shots) occurs presently only at the jail. Chief Hargadine went on to say that he supports a "'Cite and Release' policy that would allow for an officer to release an arrestee on his or her signature promising to appear in court for some offenses." PCRB Recommendation: The PCRB also supports a "Cite and Release" policy. The PCRB would also support any appropriate alternative site and process for booking that would help to alleviate the overcrowding at the current jail site. 3. Pedestrian Safety. The PCRB received a letter, which was read into the record, suggesting that the ICPD undertake a public information and enforcement campaign regarding State law on pedestrian rights, with imposition of fines for violations. PCRB Recommendation: The PCRB supports the recommendation that the ICPD undertake an enforcement campaign, including imposition of fines for violations. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, KT (UL i aka. "J I Michael Larson, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: Chief Sam Hargadine, ICPD encl: Police Chief's letter dated 09/22/08 September 22, 2008 Mr. Michael Larson Chair, Police Citizens Review Board City of Iowa City Dear Mr. Larson and PCRB members, All of the citizens that spoke at Tuesday's hearing time you and the board take out of your busy sc sentiments and thank each of you for your service Iowa City. 410 E. WASHINGTON IOWA CITY, IA 52240 -1826 PH: 319 - 356 -5275 FAX: 319- 356 -5449 �l J ,' ry w made comments appreciative of the hedule. I would like to echo those and commitment to the citizen's of Recently the Iowa City Police Department was CALEA reaccredited for the Td straight time. Our policies & procedures meet the "Best Practices Standard" of all of the departments from across the nation. This in part is because of the role you play on the Police Citizen's Review Board. An investigative team traveled to Iowa City to inspect the ICPD and each policy is reviewed. Just having the policy isn't enough, we have to prove and document that we comply with our own policies. The accreditation committee that reviewed the inspection report was very supportive and complimentary of Iowa City's Police Citizen's Review Board. Your mere existence helped the reaccreditation process. would also like to thank the citizens that spoke at the hearing. It is important that the citizens have a trusting relationship with their police department and I heard nothing at the hearing that can't be worked out and discussed. I felt it very rewarding that even those that have philosophical differences with certain policies still spoke appreciatively of the Iowa City Police Department. Time and space prohibits me from commenting on all that was discussed but I would like to comment on a few of the highlights. Some concern was mentioned that the PCRB does not track the number of complaints against one particular officer. The ICPD does have a PEWS system or Personnel Early Warning System. This is a requirement of CALEA accreditation and a subsystem of our Internal Affairs process. The PEWS system is complex but it does track the behaviors, complaints and incidents that allow supervisors to intervene when possible triggering events occur that do not reach the level of a complaint. It was suggested that ICPD does not cooperate with `jail alternative initiatives' and that Ames PD had 0 arrests for Public Intoxication. Neither of these assertions is correct. There was a reporting glitch to the FBI that ICPD staff caught in time and corrected however Ames did not. If you check with Ames directly you will find that Ames has many Public Intoxication cases and is no better or worse than Iowa City. The assertion that ICPD takes too many people to jail is also incorrect and actually is a statement of perception. The fact of the matter is that cases like simple possession of marijuana are "indictable offenses." All Iowa peace officers are required by state law to book offenders of indictable offenses. To book means to fingerprint and mug shot and this occurs presently only at the jail. Some arrestees go to jail because their condition makes it unsafe to release them on their signature. I am very supportive of a "Cite and Release" policy that would allow for an officer to release an arrestee on his or her signature promising to appear in court for some offenses. It is not by ICPD policy that we transport these types of cases to jail. It is because of Iowa Code or public safety that we transport these types of defendants to jail and I would be the first to agree with you that many arrestees do not need to be incarcerated any longer than it takes to book them, assign a court date and if necessary take their bond. Lastly, it was asserted that ICPD harasses certain bars. The level of alcohol enforcement conducted by ICPD in the downtown area is a controversial issue. I frequently hear from both sides, that we're down there too much or we're not down there at all. The Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division abdicates all enforcement to the local level retaining administrative licensing authority. This puts local police departments and city code inspectors in the position of ensuring compliance with every law and ordinance on the books. This is a monumental task that would keep a team of full time inspectors busy. At the same time we have responsibility for keeping the peace throughout the rest of Iowa City. We receive tips on establishment abuses from a variety of sources and many times the complaints come from other liquor establishments. We have to take those tips where they lead and if an establishment is found to be violating state law then the next time there is an inspection they are likely to be re- inspected. The department tries to balance time spent in the downtown business district with the needs of the rest of the City. It is a vibrant area and when we are not present violent unprovoked assaults frequently occur along with vandalism and property damage. In closing I would like to reiterate that issues brought up in the forum are ofter6imes issues that I and my staff agree with however you have to look deeper at why3ae,do r . what we do. It's dialog and openness that creates public trust and on behalf 5,,afl of rt ,he a officers I appreciate your service and assistance with building that trust. �= nn Sincerely," '- r > sv S muel E. adine Chief of Police PLEASE REPLACE PAGES 1, 81 AND 15 OF THE WEAPONS GENERAL ORDER. SER -05.1 WEAPONS Date of Issue General Order Number October 4, 2000 100-08 Effective Date Section Code November 26, 2008 SER -05 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels October 2009 C.A.L.E.A. 1.2.2, Reference. 1.3.4,1.3.9 -11, 22.2.7, 33.1.5, 33.4.1 Use of Force / Training INDEX AS: Firearms Munitions Off -duty weapons Weapons Special Response Team Use of Force Less Lethal p Training" Field Training > Conducted Energy Devices C1� a. I. PURPOSE The purpose of this order is to identify those positions responsible for training officers in the use of various types of weapons and the minimum requirements for officers to carry certain weapons. In addition this order identifies minimum specifications handguns and munitions must meet to be authorized by the Iowa City Police Department. II. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to equip its officers with weapons and ammunition which are safe and reliable. It also the policy of the Department to require officers to demonstrate at least annually, proficiency in the use of all firearms, and intermediate weapons utilized under color of official duty. The Iowa City Police Department recognizes that combative, armed and /or violent subjects create handling and control problems requiring special training and equipment. "r .�A SER -05.8 All modifications or repairs shall be conducted by the manufacturer, manufacturer authorized service center, or department approved armorer. Exception: Officers may personally install a slip -on grip on their department issued or personally owned handgun. All other grip changes or modifications shall be conducted per section i. above. ii. The Lead Range Officer shall be notified in writing of all modifications or repairs. Documentation shall be kept on file with the Lead Range Officer. 10. Firearms Maintenance a. Officers shall maintain all firearms issued to them, or approved for use by the Department, in proper working order. Officers shall not disassemble any Department issued firearm beyond field stripping, as per the manufacturer recommendations for proper maintenance and cleaning. All other disassembly shall be conducted by the manufacturer, manufacturer authorized center, or department approved armorer. b. Each repair or service transaction shall be documented and recorded as required in section 9. ii. above. 11.Ammunition a. Officers shall carry all department issued firearms or personally owned firearms approved for duty use loaded with department approved ammunition. (see Appendix 1) This ammunition shall not be modified in any way. b. The Lead Range Officer shall be responsible for issuing all duty and training ammunition for all officers of the Department. i. All ammunition shall be produced by a major commercial manufacturer of such product. ii. All issued duty ammunition shall be rotated at least on an annual basis. © l iii. All issued duty and training ammunition shall be appra*5d by, Chief of Police or designee. `= iv. All ammunition carried in a department approved, personally ovied off -duty firearm shall be approved by the Chief of.-- "Police or designee. -- "j 12. Firearms Proficiency, Training and Testing > Courses of fire and tests designed to require the officer demonstrate accuracy, safety, functionality and maintenance of the firearms the officer carries or uses and knowledge of laws and departmental regulations concerning the use of force and weapons shall be required on an annual basis. a. All persons utilizing range facilities shall follow the direction of the Lead Range Officer /Range Instructor at all times. Rifle: SER -05.15 Federal .223 Rem 55 gr. BTHP Federal .223 Rem 69 gr. Sierra Matchking BTHP Gold Medal Federal .308 Win 165 gr. Tactical load Federal .308 Win 168 gr. BTHP CCI .22 LR .22 cal long rifle Hollow Point Mini Mag Winchester .22 LR .22 cal Long Rifle Hollow Point high velocity Remington .22 LR .22 cal Long Rifle Std. Velocity Solid bullet Chemical Munitions: Defense Technologies #40 T -14 37mm — OC Defense Technologies #40 T -14 37mm — CS Defense Technologies #23 12g Shotgun — OC Defense Technologies #23 12g Shotgun — CS > qq V � gg CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE Date of Issue General Order Number NOVEMBER 29, 2001 101-08 Effective Date Section Code DECEMBER 10, 2008 INV -03 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels December 2010 C.A.L. E.A. Reference _ 42.1.6, 46.3.1, 46.3.2, 82.3.5 INDEX AS: Criminal Intelligence Intelligence Intelligence Reliability Inspections INV -03.1 f oof` , I. PURPOSE The purpose of this order is to identify the purposes for which criminal intelligence may be obtained, the purpose for which it may be used, who may access the information and methods for identifying the reliability of the information. In addition the order identifies the security and maintenance requirements for housing intelligence files and procedures for the dissemination of information contained in the files. II. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to identify those types of criminal activity, which require intelligence information beyond the normal practices of the department. All information submitted to Intelligence files shall be obtained in legal manner, verified to the extent practical and reviewed on a regularly scheduled basis and disseminated only to serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose. INV -03.2 III. DEFINITIONS Criminal Intelligence - Information compiled, analyzed and /or disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor criminal activity. Reasonable Suspicion - is established when information exists which establishes sufficient facts to give a trained law enforcement or criminal investigative agency officer, investigator or employee a basis to believe that there is a reasonable possibility that an individual or organization is involved in a definable criminal activity or enterprise. Strategic Intelligence - Information concerning existing patterns or emerging trends of criminal activity designed to assist in criminal apprehension and crirr?e control strategies, for both short and long - term investigative goals. Tactical Intelligence - Information regarding a specific criminal event that can be used immediately by operational units to further a criminal investigation, plan tactical operations and provide for officer safety. IV. PROCEDURES All agency personnel have a role in criminal intelligence and the sharing of information. While the collection of intelligence is necessary to successfully combat criminal activity, the collection of this type of information must conform to federal, state and local requirements. The collection of intelligence data is only permitted to fulfill a criminal investigation purpose and intelligence data shall be purged from the system when it no longer serves a useful purpose. Access to intelligence files shall be limited to the Chief of Police or designee, Commander of Field Operations, Commander of the Investigative Section and others as determined by the Commander of the Investigative Section on a case by case basis. Personnel submitting information to the intelligence system will be allowed access to the file associated with the information as needed. The commander of the Investigative Section is responsible for the evaluation, housing, maintenance, security, and dissemination /re- dissemination of strategic intelligence information. Only those personnel specifically mentioned above will have direct access to strategic intelligence files. Any officer or outside agency requesting intelligence information from the system shall direct their request to the Commander of the Investigative Section. The inclusion of information obtained from organizations, i.e. LEIN, or through participation in multi - jurisdictional task force shall comply with these requirements. The Commander of Investigations in consultation with the Chief of Police or designee will determine the need for gathering criminal intelligence and the means by which this information will be obtained. Personnel used in obtaining intelligence information will be familiar with the techniques and devices to be used for the collection of intelligence. INV -03.3 FOCUS OF STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES Members of the Iowa City Police Department shall only collect strategic intelligence information concerning an individual where there is "reasonable suspicion" that theindividual is involved in criminal conduct or activity and the information is relevant to that criminal conduct or activity. The collection of Strategic Criminal Intelligence shall be for the purpose of suppressing criminal activity in the Iowa City area. The types of incidents for which intelligence information may be obtained include, but are not limited to: 1. Narcotics manufacturing and /or trafficking; 2. Unlawful gambling; 3. Extortion; 4. Vice and pornography; 5. Infiltration of businesses for illegitimate purposes; 6. Bribery; 7. Major crime including homicide, burglary, auto theft, kidnapping, destruction of property, robbery, fraud, forgery, fencing of stolen property and arson; 8. Manufacture, use, or possession of explosive devices for fraud, intimidation or political reasons; 9. Organized crime; 10. Corruption of pubic officials; 11. Threats to public officials and private citizens; 12. Traveling criminals; 13. Gang activities; 14. Other designated multi - jurisdictional activities. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION Information submitted for inclusion in strategic intelligence files shall clearly identify the focus of the investigation. This shall include but not be limited to as many of the following identifiers that are available: 1. Full name; 2. Date of Birth; , 3. Address; 5 4. Aliases; 5. Social Security number; 6. Drivers License number; _ -- 7. Physical Description; (height, weight, eye and hair color) -� 8. Place of birth; 9. Citizenship (if alien, Identification Number) 10. Distinguishing scars, marks, or tattoos; r L� 11. Violence potential; 12. Criminal identification number; 13. Criminal associates; 14. Modus Operandi. INV -03.4 The collection of strategic intelligence information about the political, religious, or social views, associations, or activities of any individual or any group, association, corporation, business, partnership, or other organization, is prohibited unless such information directly relates to criminal conduct or activity and there is reasonable suspicion that the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct or activity. a Submitted information shall include: 1. Date of submittal; 2. Name of submitting officer; -- 3. Name of submitting agency /organization. i EVALUATION OF INFORMATION Prior to entry in to the strategic intelligence system, the Commander of the Investigative Section shall evaluate the information. The evaluation shall include the reliability of the source of the information and the strength /validity of the information. Only information whose reliability and validity had been evaluated will be entered in the system. Le. if reliability is unknown and the validity cannot be judged, it will not go in the system, as it would not meet the reasonable suspicion standard. Reliability shall be evaluated as follows: 1. Reliable - the reliability of the source is unquestioned or has been well tested in the past. 2. Usually reliable - the reliability of the source can usually be relied upon. 3. Unreliable- the reliability of the source has been sporadic in the past. 4. Unknown - the reliability of the source cannot be judged; authenticity or trustworthiness has not yet been determined by either experience or investigation. Validity shall be evaluated as follows: 1. Confirmed - the information has been corroborated by an investigator or another reliable independent source. 2. Probable - the information is consistent with past accounts. 3. Doubtful - the information is inconsistent with past accounts. 4. Cannot be judged - the information cannot be judged. Its authenticity has not yet been determined by either experience or investigation. DISSEMINATION /RE- DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION Request for information from strategic intelligence files shall be directed to the commander of the investigative section. The request shall contain the name of the person requesting the information, the date, time and purpose of the request. In addition the request should identify specific identifying information on the person for whom the information is being requested. INV -03.5 The Chief of Police or designee, Commander of Field Operations, Commander of Administrative Services or Commander of Investigations may distribute information contained in intelligence files to members of the Iowa City Police Department or other law enforcement agencies. Information disseminated from intelligence files shall be designated as such. Members of this department are prohibited from forwarding or re- disseminating information from intelligence files to persons outside the Iowa City Police Department without the express permission of the Chief of Police or designee, or Commander of Field Operations, or Commander of Administrative Services or Commander of Investigations. When information from strategic intelligence files is disseminated, the Commander of Investigations shall record the following information within the file: 1. The date of dissemination of the information; 2. The name of the individual requesting the information; 3. The name of the agency /organization requesting the information; 4. The reason for the release of information; (need to know /right to know) 5. The information provided to the requester; 6. The name of the person disseminating the information. 7. The submission of intelligence information to regional or national criminal intelligence databases shall be in conformance with 28 CFR. TERRORISM RELATED INFORMATION The Iowa City Police Department shall maintain a liaison with other organizations for the exchange of information related to terrorism. This liaison may be in the form of direct contact with specific departments and /or through such organizations as MOCIC, Iowa Homeland Security, United States Homeland Security, LEIN and the Iowa Fusion Network. The Commander of Field Operations or designee shall be responsible for the dissemination of terrorist related information within the department and shall approve the re- dissemination of terrorist related information to other organizations. When appropriate, such information shall be in the form of a written report accorti p inieft' supporting documentation. REVIEW AND PURGING PROCEDURES Review and purging of intelligence information should be an ongoing pro ss. - maximum retention period for intelligence information is five (5) years. If 'he information has not been updated and /or validated within the past 5 years, the information shall be purged from the intelligence files. IF information has been updated within the past five years, the file may be retained for a period of five (5) years from the most recent entry. Material purged from intelligence files shall be thoroughly deleted from any electronic storage devices and /or hard copies shall be shredded or otherwise made unusable. A record of the purge may be maintained containing the date and reason of the purge, as well as the name of the person completing the purge. INV -03.6 The Chief of Police or designee may periodically inspect the intelligence file system to ensure that safeguards and requirements are being met. On an annual basis the Commander of Investigations shall review the policy and procedures of the criminal intelligence function to ensure compliance and effectiveness. Agency personnel shall receive initial training in the criminal intelligence function and refresher training at least once every three years. 1 o� 4 Samuel Hargadi , 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. V ] December 16, 2008 Mtg Packet PCRB COMPLAINT DEADLINES PCRB Complaint #08 -08 Filed: 07/22/08 Chief's Report due (90days): 10/20/08 Chief's Report filed: 10/16/08 CM Report filed: 10/16/08 PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) 10/28/08 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review Draft Report) 11/18/08 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PCRB Report due (45days): 12/03/08 45 day Extension Request: 01/20/09 PCRB Complaint #08 -09 Filed: 10/10/08 Chief's Report due (90days): 01/08/09 Chief's Report filed: PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) ? ?/ ? ?/09 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review Draft Report) ? ?/ ? ?/09 PCRB Report due (45days): ? ?/ ? ?/09 PCRB MEETING SCHEDULE January 13, 2009 February 10, 2009 March 10, 2009 April 14, 2009 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD OFFICE CONTACTS November 2008 Date Description None POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 November 18, 2008 C _F To: City Council Complainant _ Michael Lombardo, City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police r;;> Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08 -06 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08 -06 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ( "Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 21, 2008. As required by Section 8 -8 -5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. 1 The Chiefs Report was due on October 20, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on October 10, 2008. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on October 28, 2008 and November 18, 2008. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation." ALLEGATIONS 1. Officer A slandered the reputation of complainant by calling him a drug dealer. 2. Officer A harassed complainant by giving him a criminal trespass warning for tWProa Way Street apartment complex. FINDINGS OF FACT Officer A was patrolling area of 1900 Broadway in response to citizen's complaints ai intelliesnce of possible drug (controlled substances) activity in the area. Officer A had previously been advised of the possible sales of controlled substances in the area and had physical evidence (Corner Tears — comers of plastic bags torn off to package controlled substances) to corroborate the complaints. As officer A neared the area a group of subjects was seen sitting on the steps. The men yelled "Five -O, Five -O" and ran. At this time Officer A had a reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot. This is supported by the complaints of drug activity in area, the corner tears recently found by Officer A, the possible alarm given ( "Five -O, Five -O" as in Hawaii Five -O — police), and the fleeing of the subjects that had given the possible alarm. Two of the fleeing men ran into apartment B7. The third subject was located outside the apartment door. Officer A spoke with the tenants of apartment B7 and received consent to enter the apartment. A "protective sweep" for the protection of the apartment residents and the officers was constitutional at this time. According to the Call for Service, the officers were dealing with 10 individuals. Officer A located 5 -6 other men in a back bedroom of B7. Officer A recognized the complainant as one of the men in the back bedroom. All the people in the apartment were patted down for weapons. In an investigatory stop, an officer needs a reasonable suspicion a subject is "armed and dangerous" to conduct a" pat - down" search which is a limited patting of the external clothing for weapons. The pat -downs of the people present in the apartment were justified due to the court's repeated recognition of a strong association between illegal drug dealing, violence, and weapons. This is almost a "per se" exception to the warrant requirement. The complainant also stated he gave the officer permission to search his person. Officer B remembered the consent. Officer C could not remember any specifics of the conversation. 2 Officer C performed the search of the Complainant. Any officer present in a situation where consent is given, or there is reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat -down search, can perform the search. Officer C felt a large bulge in the complainant's pants pocket and believed the contents to be contraband. An officer conducting a consent search does not need to believe an item is seizable to take it out of a pocket and examine it. An officer conducting a "pat- down" search for weapons can seize any object if the officer believes its evidentiary value is "immediately apparent ". Officer C retrieved the contents believing it was contraband. It turned out to be a roll of money. In a search, what the object seized actually is, is immaterial. Only the legality of the search matters in regard to the admissibility of the evidence. Officer B later counted the money which was $700 in twenty - dollar bills. The tenants of the apartment gave officers permission to search the apartment. After the search officers exited the apartment and spoke with Complainant. The amount of money found on complainant is discussed and the complainant told the officers the money was pay from his workplace. Officer A tells Complainant before his explanation of the money it looked like he was dealing illegal drugs. Officer A phones a member of SCAT (Special Crimes Attack Team). Officer A tells the Complainant that SCAT believes he is dealing drugs but Officer A does not call the complainant a drug dealer. The Complainant does profess to a history of drug dealing but- 4pnies current dealing. �7 The conversation between Officer A and the Complainant took place in an area where oil the— police and the complainant could hear what was said. The Complainant also complained about the length of the detention. In an Invegli tor�Stop ==3° officers can use the time which is "reasonable" to conduct the investigation. This could i Slude, but would not be limited to, the detention of subjects. Officers inform the complainant he wi* get a receipt for the money. The Complainant declines and by doing this actually increases the time necessary to conduct the investigation at the scene. During the questioning by Officer A, Officer D tells the Complainant that Officer D purchased a car that was seized and forfeited from the Complainant. Officer A stated he discussed this statement with Officer D after the investigation but before the complaint. Officer A told Officer D that the Complainant's reaction to the comment messed up the questioning by Officer A. At no time does any officer threaten to take the complainant's money or phone. Officer A issues the complainant a Criminal Trespass warning and explains it. Officer A tells the Complainant the warning does not prohibit the Complainant from visiting friends but does restrict the Complainant from loitering. The Complainant is then allowed to leave. The Chief's report of the length of detention of the Complainant is "approximately 15 minutes ". The "Call for Service" 3 log shows an officer on scene at 18:23:06 and backup officers arriving on the scene at 18:25:39, 18:25:41 and 18:25.46. The first officer leaves the scene at 18:35:07. All the other offices clear the scene at 19:33:51. Due to the fact the initial officer waited for backup, a search of persons and the apartment was conducted, and the first officer cleared the scene approximately 12 minutes after the first officer was on the scene, there is nothing to make the Board believe the detention was any longer than the Chief s report states. A squad car recording also documents the length of time of the conversation outside the apartment to be approximately 15 minutes. On September 03, 2008, a subject from Southgate Property Management was contacted about officers issuing criminal trespass warnings. The contact stated that Southgate had given officers permission to issue warnings for loitering and other nuisance activities. "Other nuisance activities" was not defined in the Chief's report. The contact for Southgate stated the officers had requested and authorized officers to approach individuals and determine if they lived in the complex and/or were visiting someone who lived there. Southgate Management also requested officers issue criminal trespass warnings to persons that do not live in complex and are involved in_questiopable activity.' On July 21, 2008 the Complainant filed a Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) complaint.. 4 3-CONCLUSIONS o:; J > ^J From the evidence provided, nothing suggests that any officer on the scene did anything to damage the reputation of the complainant. According to a letter dated 08- 13 -08, the police department repeatedly attempted to contact the complainant. At no time did the complainant come in for an interview and instructed the police to stop calling him. The letter went on to provide the complainant with another opportunity which the Board assumes was turned down due to the lack of complainant interview materials included with the Chief s Report. The officers did not call the Complainant a drug dealer but stated they suspected he was due to the current situation, past criminal history of Complainant, and money in specific bill denominations. The conversation between Officer A and the Complainant was in an area removed from others except police officers and there was nothing that was said to be publicized about the complainant, the search, the money, and him being called a drug dealer. Allegation # 1 — Officer A slandered the name and reputation of the complainant by calling him a drug dealer. NOT SUSTAINED. 4 A phone call on 09- 03 -08, to Southgate Management Property Management, confirmed that the Broadway Condominiums Association had given permission/authority for Southgate and the police department to actively enforce loitering and other nuisance activities. An Internal Affairs Investigation Report dated 09 -03 -08 documents the. conversation Officer E had with a representative from Southgate Property Management supporting the above information. The officers at the scene were acting within the scope of this authority although in this particular situation it is not totally relevant other than as a basis of intelligence. Allegation # 2 — Officer A harassed the Complainant by issuing the complainant a criminal trespass warning. NOT SUSTAINED. BOARD COMMENTS The Board is concerned about the issuing of a criminal trespass warning without prior written authorization from the property owner. The Board is also concerned with the statement made by Officer D, to the Complainant, about purchasing a car that was seized and forfeited from complainant. This comment was made at the time Officer A appeared to be in charge of the situation. The comments could imply that the money found would be seized and forfeited also. This comment did not appear to further the investigation and the Board feels that Officer D should be spoken with about this behavior. 5 �0, 5 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 November 18, 2008 C To: City Council Complainant - Michael Lombardo, City Manager"` Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police a Officer(s) involved in complaints From: Police Citizen's Review Board ' ` " D c Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08 -07 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08 -07 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ( "Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief s professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 22, 2008. As required by Section 8 -8 -5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on October 20, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on October 14, 2008. 1 The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on October 28, 2008 and November 18, 2008. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation ". FINDINGS OF FACT Iowa City Police Officer A observed a bicyclist (the complainant) in 10 block of N. Clinton Street riding on the sidewalk and weaving in- and out of pedestrians. Officer A stopped the complainant and explained to him that it was illegal to ride on the sidewalk in the downtown area. Officer A also explained that bicyclists are required to operate bikes in the same manner as a motor vehicle and obey all traffic laws. The complainant then rode through the red light for Westbound Iowa Ave. Officer A then observed the complainant go through Clinton and Jefferson and then turn right from Clinton to Market Street. Market Street is a one way street at this location. Officer A proceeded to follow the complainant and stopped him at Dubuque and Market Streets. The complainant is observed riding the wrong way on a one way street. Officer A issued a citation for failure to observe traffic laws. ALLEGATIONS The complainant alleges: `7 Allegation #1: Officer A was rude Allegation #2: Officer A was bullish Allegation #3: Officer A was unwilling to listen to reason �? > v INVESTIGATION: A review of the in -car recorder from Officer A's vehicle for July 22, 2008 was conducted. The recorder was activated by Officer A at 09:47:28. Officer A makes the traffic stop at 09:48:30. The complainant is recorded riding east in the 100 block of Market. The complainant is going the wrong way on a one way street. Officer A's voice recorder is not working but audio is picked up from .the in -car microphone. At no time during the stop is Officer A bullish or rude to the complainant. The audio does have the complainant trying to make his point about riding against traffic. Officer A's interview advised the incident started when he observed a subject riding on the sidewalk. Officer A stated that he stopped the cyclist and explained the rules of the rode for bicycles (same as for cars) and they were prohibited from the sidewalks in the downtown area. Officer A stated he was unsure if the complainant turned through a no right turn on red posting at Jefferson and Dubuque Streets as his vision was blocked. Officer A stated that he did observe the complainant turn right onto Market Street and go the wrong way on a one way street. Officer A issued the complainant a citation for Observation of Traffic Rules. Officer A recalled the complainant trying to make his point about being safer for him to ride facing traffic. Officer A replied that he did not agree with him and the law did not allow for his actions. Four telephone calls and a certified letter were sent to the complainant with no response. CONCLUSION Audio /video recordings of the incident do not show -any bullish or rude behavior on Officer A's part. The complainant was upset and not acting in an appropriate manner during the incident. The complainant's complainant of not listening to reason involves the issue of going the wrong way on a one way street. The complainant argues that he feels safer going towards traffic than with the traffic. Officer A disagreed and stated it was not allowed by law. FINDINGS Allegation #1: NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #2: NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #3: NOT SUSTAINED Page 1 of 1 Kellie Tuttle From: City of Iowa City [web @iowa - city.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:57 AM To: Kellie Tuttle Subject: Twelfth Annual Citizen's Police Academy Twelfth Annual Citizen's Police Academy Posted by: Police Mailing List: Police & Fire Originally Posted 11/25/2008 9:56:41 AM Applications to attend the "Citizen's Police Academy" are now being accepted through 7:00 AM Friday, January 9th, 2009. Class size is limited so early registration is encouraged. Application forms are available at the Iowa City Police Department, Coralville Police Department, Johnson County Sheriff's Department, and the University of Iowa Police Department, during normal business hours. The "Citizen's Police Academy" (CPA) meets once a week for 10 weeks, beginning January 14, 2009, from 6:30 PM to 9:30 PM. Each week covers a different topic and is meant to promote a better relationship between law enforcement and the community it serves. The CPA is sponsored jointly by the four area law enforcement agencies. Meetings will take place at the University of Iowa Police Department located at 808 University Capitol Centre. Contact: Sgt..Troy_Kelsay Contact Phone: (319) 356 -5293 Training includes department tours and ride - alongs, defensive tactics, evidence collection, drug investigation, and many other areas of enforcement and operations. For more information, contact: Sgt. Mike Lord or Sgt. Kevin Hurd — Iowa City Police Department 356 -5286 Officer Meleah Droll — Coralville Police Department 248 -1800 Lt. Gary Kramer — Johnson County Sheriff's Department 356 -6020 Officer Brad Allison — University of Iowa Police Department 335 -5043 • View and edit your subscription details. • Visit our jobs page for em�loyment opportunities. • View, more news from the City of Iowa City. Do not reply directly to this e-mail! It is produced from an automated system, and is not monitored for replies. If you have a question or comment about this information, please contact the originating department of this message, or by using our feedback form. For technical questions regarding the website, please contact our_web. team. 11/25/2008 Information Sheet for Filing a Complaint About an Iowa City Police Officer There are two kinds of complaint forms. The form you choose determines how your complaint will be handled. Iowa City Police Department Complaint Form If you use the Police Department form, Iowa City Police Department Policy will determine the level of investigation into your complaint. You can choose to limit your involvement to a discussion between you and the officer's supervisor, or you can choose to participate in an internal investigation which means that you, the officer, and witnesses will be interviewed by Police Department investigators and a written report on the department's findings and conclusions will be prepared. Generally, investigations and any officer discipline that may result from them are considered nonpublic, confidential records. By law, the Police Chief decides if and how an officer will be disciplined. When you use the Police Department complaint form, the Police Citizens Review Board will not review your complaint, unless you also file a PCRB complaint form. It usually takes from one week to three months to receive a final response from the department. Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) Complaint Form If you use the PCRB form, the Police Department will conduct an internal investigation. As soon as you file your form, the PCRB will also receive a copy of it, so they know your complaint is being investigated. All complaints to the Board must be filed with the City Clerk within ninety (90) days of the alleged misconduct. When the internal investigation is completed, the Police Chief will prepare a written report and send copies to the PCRB, to you, and to the officers involved. The PCRB then reviews the Chief's Report and may conduct its own investigation. The PCRB decides whether the Chief's conclusions are reasonable and issues a public report to the City Council. You will be notified of the outcome of the PCRB's review. The PCRB has no authority to discipline police officers. The PCRB handles its work with complaints confidentially and generally does not include information identifying you or the officer in its reports. However, if a complaint is upheld, the PCRB does have the right to include the names of complainants and officers in its reports. When you use the PCRB complaint form, it usually takes ninety (90) days for the Board to receive the Chief's Report on the internal investigation and an additional one to two months for the Board to complete its work. If you have questions about filing a complaint, contact the Police Department (356 -5275) or the Police Citizens Review Board (356 -5041) For more information about the PCRB, consult the city ordinance that established it (Iowa City Code Chapter 8 -8). The City Code is available on -line at www.icgov.org or for review in the City Clerk's office at the City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street (356 - 5043). Information Sheet 11/08 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 -1826 (319)356 -5041 November 19, 2008 Mayor Regenia Bailey 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At the November 18, 2008 meeting, the PCRB voted in open session to request a 45 -day , extension regarding the reporting deadline for the Public Report according to the City Code for PCRB Complaint #08 -08 for the following reasons: • Due to timelines, and scheduling • Public Report presently due December 3, 2008 45 -day Extension request — Report would be due on January 20, 2009 The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, �r Michael Larson, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: City Attorney