Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2009 Police Citizens Review BoardAGENDA POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD February 10, 2009 — 5:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM 410 E. Washington Street ITEM NO.1 CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED • Minutes of the meeting on 01/13/09 • ICPD General Order 99 -02 (Alarm -Open Door Response) • ICPD General Order 01 -01 (Racial Profiling) • ICPD General Order 01 -06 (Juvenile Procedures) • ICPD Department Memo #09 -04 (Oct -Nov 2008 Use of Force Review) 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 • March 10, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • April 14, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • May 12, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • June 9, 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: February 6, 2009 TO: PCRB Members FROM: Kellie Tuttle RE: Board Packet for meeting on February 10, 2009 Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting: • Agenda for 02/10/09 • Minutes of the meeting on 01/13/09 • ICPD General Order 99 -02 (Alarm -Open Door Response) • ICPD General Order 01 -01 (Racial Profiling) • ICPD General Order 01 -06 (Juvenile Procedures) • ICPD Department Memo #09 -04 (Oct -Nov 2008 Use of Force Review) • Complaint Deadlines • PCRB Office Contacts — January • Extension request regarding PCRB 08 -09 • Draft of Sustained Allegation Report • City Charter Information regarding hiring of Police Chief 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 — January 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Donald King, Greg Roth, Abbie Yoder MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Richard Wyss and Officers David Schwindt of the ICPD; and public, Caroline Dieterle RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08 -08 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Yoder and seconded by Braverman to adopt the 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) • ICPD Quarterly Summary Report (All quarters) — IAIR /PCRB, 2008 Braverman confirmed that within General order #01 -08 (Criminal Intelligence) page 3, Focus of Strategic Intelligence Activities, number 7 listing "Major crime including" is actually "including but not limited to ". Also on page 4, Evaluation of Information, Braverman verified that the only information that will not be entered into the system is when reliability is unknown and validity cannot be judged. OLD BUSINESS Complaint Form Update regarding Officer Bill of Rights — Pugh researched false reports. Iowa Criminal Code section 718.6 (False reports to communications with public safety entities) refers to false reports to fire departments, law enforcement authorities, or other public safety entities. Pugh does not believe the PCRB would qualify as other public safety entities. If through the investigation the complainant makes a false report to the investigating officers, it may quantify as a false report. Iowa Criminal Code section 720.2 (Perjury, contradictory statements, and retraction) deals with when a person is under oath or in an affidavit makes a false statement. Pugh's question was if the complaint form rises to the same level as an affidavit. Pugh does not believe it does. The signature is not notarized and does not state that they swear the information is true and /or accurate. There is a statement that they certify to the best of their knowledge that the statements on the form are true. Pugh will draft some general language regarding false statements for the next meeting to include on the information sheet and the complaint form. Complaint Registry /Monitoring System — The Board requested that the officer identifiers in the Chief's report to the Board be changed to alpha only (ie, Officer A, Officer B, etc). Captain Wyss will speak to the Chief regarding this request. The Board then agreed to keep a registry of sustained allegations only. The report will include incident date, officer identifier #, and the sustained allegation. When there is a sustained allegation, the Board will request an identifying # for the officer from the Police Chief, and then enter the information on the report. Captain Wyss will look January 13, 2009 Page 2 into identifier numbers for the officers. From this point forward the Board will review the report quarterly and in the event of multiple sustained complaints against a particular officer, the Board would forward the report to the City Council. Motion by Braverman, seconded by King to start a complaint registry /monitoring system for sustained complaints only as described. Motion carried 4/1, Roth no. The Board will revisit this item at the February meeting to discuss the draft report and the additional details Captain Wyss is checking on. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Schwindt confirmed that it was the Police Department that would be providing the officer identifier # for the sustained complaint report. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by King and seconded by Yoder 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, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 6:34 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:47 P.M. Motion by King, seconded by Braverman to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08 -08 to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. January 13, 2009 Page 3 Motion by Yoder, seconded by Braverman to request 45 day extension for PCRB Complaint #08 -09 due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 5/0. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • February 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • March 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • April 14, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • May 12, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Roth and seconded by King. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M. �7 zz��ro y y r y� z d o� 0 b 0 r r� r� 0 z o t7' � o �� N O O N y y r y� z d o� 0 b 0 r r� r� 0 z POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 January 13, 2009 To: City Council _. Complainant Michael Lombardo, City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint L. From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08 -08 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the: "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08 -08 (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 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 Chief s Report was due on October 20, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on October 16, 2008. The Board met to consider the Chief s Report on October 28, 2008, November 18, 2008 and January 13, 2009. At the November 18`h meeting, a 45 day extension was requested until January 1 20, 2009. 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 On July 22, 2008, the complainant filed a Police Citizen's Review Board Complaint alleging that Iowa City Police Officers had harassed her and were rude to her in contacts with her and her service dog. The complainant feels that on July 7, 2008 a citation was not issued to a driver she claims hit her service dog because she had complained to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office about the police department. ALLEGATION# 1: A few years ago an unknown officer approached her and her service dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. The officer failed to recognize that the dog was a service dog despite wearing a vest. The complainant stated the officer harassed her and was not trained in regards to service dog laws. CONCLUSION: The mention of an incident from several years ago with a current incident is not within the PG,RB's complaint review process. (PCRB complaints are accepted within 90 days of an inci gjjt) NOT ADDRESSED ALLEGATION #2: On an unknown date in May of 2008, the complainant says that Officer A approached `'-e �n `^ Y p Y pp E ,� g g having her dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. She states, Officer A failed to recogze thatier dog was a service dog despite wearing a service dog's vest. The complainant states that Off.6i? A was rude to her and harassed her. CONCLUSION: The complainant picked out Officer A's picture from a department picture in the department's lobby. Officer A remembers dealing with the complainant, but.recalls meeting her on July 2, 2008. There is no substantial evidence to support the allegation that Officer A harassed her, was .rude, or not trained to proficiency regarding service dogs. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #3: On July 2, 2008, Officer B approached the complainant regarding her having a dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. The complainant stated Officer B harassed her, was rude to her and failed to recognize her dog was a service dog, even though it was wearing a service dog vest. 2 CONCLUSION: There is no substantial evidence to support the allegation that Officer B harassed her, was rude to her, or was not trained to proficiency regarding service dog laws. City ordinance does not allow dogs in the downtown pedestrian plaza unless they are service dogs. Officers are expected to approach persons with dogs in the downtown pedestrian plaza for enforcement of this ordinance. The complainant stated that once Officer B was informed that the dog was a service dog, no further conversation took place. The complainant could not describe any specific act or recount any words or phrases used by Officer B used to suggest he was rude and/or harassed her. A review of Officer B's in -car video was done of the interaction with the complainant however; the listener was unable to hear any conversation between the complainant and Officer B - _ NOT SUSTAINED r ALLEGATION #4: - --f LZ On July 7, 2008 Officer C covered a call involving complainant's dog and a vehicle. ¢OfficerI did not issue the driver of the vehicle a citation. The complainant believed this was in retaliation for her complaining to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office about the police department. The complainant did not make any allegations that Officer C was rude to her, that he harassed her, or made any comments about her complaining about the Iowa City Police Department. CONCLUSION: Officer C responded to a call about a vehicle hitting the complainant's dog while in the crosswalk on the southwest corner of Linn and Washington Streets. The complainant stated that she was about half way into the crosswalk when a vehicle turning left onto Linn Street from westbound Washington Street struck her dog. The complainant stated that she kept her dog at the location it had been struck and she did not allow the driver to move his vehicle. To issue a citation an Officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. Officer C talked with three independent witnesses who stated that complainant's dog was not struck by the vehicle. The complainant stated that she did not allow the vehicle driver to move his vehicle before Officer C arrived on scene. Officer C stated that when he arrived the vehicle had stopped prior to and out of the crosswalk. Officer C's in -car video also showed the vehicle out of the crosswalk. Officer C's in -car video also showed the vehicle out of the crosswalk. Officer C denies knowing anything about complainant's complaint to Congressman Loebsack's office. NOT SUSTAINED ADDITIONAL FACTS: On July 22, 2008 the complainant also filed a PCRB Complaint making several allegations concerning the Police Chief's conduct. This Internal Investigation was conducted by the City Manager and the City Attorney's Office as the Chief of Police was the subject of the complaint. The Police Chief, Officers A, B, C, and D and the complainant were interviewed. All reports and audio /video tapes were also reviewed. 3 ALLEGATION# 1: The complainant alleged that the Police Chief refused to direct Officer C to issue a citation in retaliation for her complaint to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office. CONCLUSION: The Chief made no attempt to influence Officer C's decision to issue a citation after learning about the incident and the relevant facts, and supported Officer C's decision. His decision was reasonable and not based on an attempt to harass or retaliate against the complainant. The Chief did not recall being aware of the complainant prior to receiving the letter from Congressman Loebsack's office on July 8, 2008 and therefore had no motive or opportunity to retaliate against her or even encourage other members of the police department to retaliate or harass her at the time of the crosswalk incident which had happened on July 7, 2008. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #2: Complainant alleges that the Chief told her that she had no authority to go to Congressman Loebsack's office because she had not been harassed by the police department. CONCLUSION: The Chief recalled, during his interview, that he merely mentioned that he had received a letter from Congressman Loebsack's office and that the police department was not interested in hiring her to educate them on service dogs. The Chief stated that he had no reason to be concerned about the complainant's complaint to Congressman Loebsacks' office, as Congressman Loebsack has no authority over the Chief or the police department. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #3: The complainant alleges that the Chief lied to her when he allegedly stated he had spoken with her service dog's vet, who felt that the dog was not hit in the crosswalk. CONCLUSION: The Chief's statements regarding the service dog's condition after, the July 7, 2008 crosswalk incident were based not on a personal conversation between him and the vet, but rather based on representations made to him by Officer D and an examination of the veterinary bill, which had been provided to him by Officer D. NOT SUSTAINED -- 4 .. DEPARTMENT MEMO #09 -04 TO: Chief Hargadine FROM: Captain R. D. Wyss RE: October - November 2008 Use of Force Review DATE: 3 February, 2009 The "Use of Force Review Committee" met on January 30th, 2009. It was composed of Captain Wyss, Sgt. Hurd and Sgt. Kelsay. The review of submitted reports for October (16 incidents -24 reports) and November (14 incidents -22 reports) were completed. Of the 30 incidents, 5 were for a drawn sidearm (building search or felony stop) and 0 were for the destruction of animals. All personnel continue doing a good job in their documentation and review of the reports. Please contact me if you have any questions. Copy: City Manager, PCRB, Watch Commanders, Review Committee 3 V Copy: City Manager, PCRB, Watch Commanders, Review Committee OPS -08.1 ALARM - OPEN DOOR RESPONSE Date of Issue General Order Number February 9, 1999 199-02 Effective Date Section Code February 5, 2009 OPS -08 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels February 2010 1 Department Memo 96 -56 C.A.L. E.A. Reference 1.2.4, 1.3.6, 81.2.13 ISeeindex INDEX AS: Use of Force -, - Supervisory Responsibility f Building Search Alarm / Open Door Response Canine Procedure I. PURPOSE r vD The purpose of this policy is to define the responsibilities and duties of officers when they respond to burglar alarms, bank alarms or "open door" calls. II. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to respond to burglar alarms, bank alarms and open door calls in a safe and efficient manner. When responding to these types of calls, they shall be handled in manner which provides maximum safety for the officer and the public. The decision to search a building in these circumstances will be made only after attempting to contact a representative of the building, or when a representative is unavailable, after considering all of the circumstances surrounding the incident. Warrantless searches shall be conducted only if circumstances justifying a warrantless search are present. M OPS -08.2 DEFINITIONS PROCEDURES rT A. BURGLAR ALARMS =F' When a member of this department responds to a burglar alarm tf e officer should respond in a safe and reasonable manner. When approaching the location of the alarm the officer should consider the deactivation of emergency lights and siren if applicable. The officer should be observant for vehicles and /or persons leaving the immediate area. Upon arrival at the scene the officer should not park directly in front of the location from which the alarm is coming, instead they should park down the street from the alarm. The officer should approach the address from as concealed a position as possible. Upon reaching the exterior of the building, the officer should: 1. Check the exterior of the building for possible signs of a break -in. The officer should also check for .open doors and monitor the interior of the building for suspicious activity. 2. If there are no obvious signs of forcible entry, the officer should notify communications. The alarm company is responsible for contacting a business representative. Upon receiving notification from the alarm company of the key holder response, the ECO should advise the officer if a representative is going to respond. If the representative requests that an officer accompany them into the building, the officer may do so. When a representative requests an officer to accompany them to inspect a building, a CAD entry shall be made listing the name of the representative as well as their relationship with the property in question. This will not constitute a search. 3. If there are signs of forced entry or attempted entry, officers should secure the perimeter of the building. When available, back -up officer(s) should check the immediate area for possible suspects or other buildings which may have been entered. Communications will contact a representative of the building at the officer's request. The representative shall be requested to come to the location before an officer enters the building. The contact will allow officers the opportunity to determine if anyone would be expected to be in the building. A supervisor should respond to the scene before entry is made. 4. If a building representative can not be contacted, a supervisor will make the determination whether: 1) officers will enter the building to conduct a search; 2) the building will not be entered and "extra OPS -08.3 patrol" initiated for the building; and /or, 3) a search warrant will be requested. Extra patrol requests will be forwarded to subsequent watches as applicable. Regardless of the decision to enter or secure the building, the supervisor of the day watch or designee will attempt to contact a building representative the next business day. The building representative will be informed of the date, time and pertinent details of the incident and be asked for updated business contact information. 5. In instances where the building representative declines to come to the scene, a watch supervisor may authorize a search of the building if the building representative requests and consents to a search. 6. In instances where there is forced or attempted entry, the lead officer shall complete an incident report and required supplemental reports. , 01 :w 6. OPEN DOORS AND WINDOWS When an officer comes upon or is made aware of an open - door, the following guidelines should be adhered-to: " E 1. The officer(s) will secure the perimeter. At the officer' requf��t, communications will contact a building representative to come -to the location before any officer enters the building. 2. If the building representative cannot be contacted or does not desire to come to the location, the officer(s) will secure the building to the extent possible and initiate an "extra patrol" request for the duration of the watch and subsequent watches as applicable. The day watch commander will contact the building representative the next business day. The business representative will be advised of the date and time of the incident and be asked for updated business contact information. C. SEARCH PROCEDURES If a property representative is not available and there is a reasonable basis on which to conclude that an emergency threat to persons and /or property exists, a supervisor may authorize warrantless entry and search by officers. In the absence of such circumstances, any search must be pursuant to warrant. 2. In instances where the building representative declines to come to the scene, the watch supervisor may authorize a search of the building if the building representative requests and consents to a search. This does not require that the building be searched. OPS -08.4 3. When a determination to search is made, with or without the contacting of a property representative, a supervisor should be present at the scene. 4. If a determination is made to search the property, officers should consider requesting an available canine team in assisting with the search. All use of canine teams shall comply with canine policies and procedures. 5. If it is determined that a search will be conducted, officers shall verbally identify themselves as members of the Iowa City Police Department prior to entry. If exigent circumstances exist, this notification may be waived by the supervisor on the scene. When assisting an outside agency, members of this department will be guided by this policy. Prior to the search of the building, a watch supervisor should be present. The watch supervisor should confirm that the person requesting the search has authority to authorize the search. When the building to be searched is a public building under the control of the City of Iowa City, an attempt to contact the appropriate department head should be made prior to authorizing the search of the building. When a determination is made that an officer will search a building, the officer will make the determination as to whether he /she will draw his /her weapon. If the officer decides to draw his /her weapon, a use of force report will be required only if an individual other than other police officers are encountered. In instances where multiple officers are involved in the search of a building and an individual is encountered, the on -scene supervisor may authorize one Use of Force report for all units present. IN ALL INSTANCES, ALL OFFICERS SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL USE OF FORCE POLICY. D. BANK ALARMS -o Officers responding to bank alarms or other financial institu'tians shall utilize the authorized departmental protocol as identified:, in -Ahe Department's Field Training Manual. :mm , Sami I Hargadine 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 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 PROFILING Date of Issue General Order Number January 10, 2001 01 -01 Effective Date Section Code January 21st, 2009 OPS -17 OPS -17.1 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels January 2010` C.A.L.E.A. Reference 1.2.9 INDEX AS: Racial Profiling Search and Seizure Complaints Traffic Stops Supervisor Responsibilities Arrests Warrants Discipline �°r��t` � © '� 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this order is to unequivocally state that racial and ethnic profiling by members of this department in the discharge of their duties is unacceptable, to provide guidelines for officers to prevent such occurrences, and to protect officers from unfounded accusations when they act within the parameters of the law and departmental policy. II. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to patrol in a proactive manner, to investigate suspicious persons and circumstances, and to actively enforce the laws, while insisting that citizens will only be detained when there exists reasonable suspicion (i.e. articulable objective facts) to believe they have committed, are committing, are about to commit an infraction of the law, or there is a valid articulable reason for contact. Additionally, the seizure and request for forfeiture of property shall be based solely on the facts of the case and without regard to race, ethnicity or sex. OPS -17.2 III. DEFINITIONS Racial profiling - The detention, interdiction, exercise of discretion or use of authority against any person on the basis of their racial or ethnic status or characteristics. Reasonable suspicion - Suspicion that is more than a "mere hunch" or curiosity, but is based on a set of articulable facts and circumstances that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an infraction of the law has been committed, is about to be committed or is in the process of being committed, by the person or persons under suspicion. ( "Specific and articulable cause to reasonably believe criminal activity is afoot. ") IV. PROCEDURES The department's enforcement efforts will be directed toward assigning officers to those areas where there is the highest likelihood that vehicle crashes will be reduced, complaints effectively investigated or addressed, and /or crimes prevented through proactive patrol. A. In the absence of a specific, credible report containing a physical description, a person's race, ethnicity, or gender, or any combination of these shall not be a factor in determining probable cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for a stop. B. Traffic enforcement shall be accompanied by consistent, ongoing supervisory oversight to ensure that officers do not go beyond the parameters of reasonablenes�-)n conducting such activities. 1. Officers shall cause accurate statistical information to be recorded in ardarwe with departmental guidelines. 2. The deliberate recording of any inaccurate information regarding a person stopped for investigative or enforcement purposes is prohibited and a cause for disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. C. Motorists and pedestrians shall only be subjected to investigatory stops or brief detentions upon reasonable suspicion that they have committed, are committing, or are about to commit an infraction of the law. Each time a motorist is stopped or detained, the officer shall radio to the dispatcher the location of the stop and any pertinent descriptors relevant or unique to that stop. The exception to this procedure is when officers are taking part in safety checkpoints and are working with other officers. D. If the police vehicle is equipped with a video camera, the video and sound shall be activated prior to the stop to record the circumstances surrounding the stop, and shall remain activated until the person is released. E. No motorist, once cited or warned, shall be detained beyond the point where there exists no reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity. OPS -17.3 F. No person or vehicle shall be searched in the absence of a warrant, a legally recognized exception to the warrant requirement as identified in General Order 00 -01, Search and Seizure, or the person's voluntary consent. 1. In each case where a search is conducted, information shall be recorded, including the legal basis for the search, and the results thereof. 2. A cursory "sniff' of the exterior of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation by a police canine may be recorded on the department's canine action report form. TRAINING Officers shall receive initial and ongoing training in proactive enforcement tactics, including training in officer safety, courtesy, cultural diversity, the laws governing search and seizure, and interpersonal communications skills. 1. Training programs will emphasize the need to respect the rights of all citizens to be free from unreasonable government intrusion or police action. COMPLAINTS OF RACIAUETHNIC PROFILING Any person may file a complaint with the department if they feel they have been stopped or searched based on racial, ethnic, or gender -based profiling. No person shall be discouraged or intimidated from filing such a complaint, or discriminated against because they have filed such a complaint. 1. Any member of the department contacted by a person, who wishes to file such a complaint, shall refer the complainant to a Watch Supervisor who shall provide them with a departmental or PCRB complaint form when requested. The supervisor shall provide information on how to complete the departmental complaint form and shall record the complainants name, address and telephone number. 2. Complaints which result in the initiation of an investigation shall be conducted as directed by General Order 99 -06, Internal Affairs Investigations. 3. Supervisors should periodically review a sample of in -car video of stops made by officers under their command. Additionally, supervisors, hall review reports relating to stops by officers under their command;„ aRnd respond at random to assist or observe officers on vehicle stops. i `d 4. Supervisors shall take appropriate action whenever it appears that iihis policy is being violated. wo REVIEW OPS -17.4 1. On an annual basis or as requested by the Chief of Police, the Commanding Officer Administrative Services, or designee, shall provide reports to the Chief of Police with a summary of the sex, race, and /or ethnicity of persons stopped. 2. If it reasonably appears that the number of self- initiated traffic contacts by officers has unduly resulted in disproportionate contacts with members of a racial or ethnic minority, a determination shall be made as to whether such disproportionality appears department wide, or is related to a specific unit, section, or individual. The commander of the affected unit, section, or officer shall provide written notice to the Chief of Police of any reasons or grounds for the disproportionate rate of contacts. 3. Upon review of the written notice, the Chief of Police may direct additional training towards the affected units /sections or to individual officers. 4. On an annual basis, the department may make public a statistical summary of the race, ethnicity, and sex of persons stopped for traffic violations. 5. On an annual basis, the department may make public a statistical summary of all profiling complaints for the year, including the findings as to whether they were sustained, not sustained, or exonerated. 6. If evidence supports a finding of a continued ongoing pattern of racial or ethnic profiling, the Chief of Police may institute disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment of any involved individual officer(s) and /or their supervisors. 7 e� . % Sa uel Hargadi 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 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. "q Y �T OPS -19.1 or Go ocv- JUVENILE �� PROCEDURES r Date of Issue General Order Number NOVEMBER 20, 2001 01 -06 Effective Date Section Code January 19, 2009 OPS -19 Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels JANUARY 2010 C.A.L. E.A. Reference 1.2.5, Chapter ", 82.1.2 c� INDEX AS: = :; Arrest Investigation Procedures Searches I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for members of the Iowa City Police Department when dealing with juveniles in enforcement, custody, and child welfare situations. II. POLICY The Iowa City Police Department is committed to the reduction of juvenile delinquency and committed to the development and continuation of programs designed to prevent and control juvenile delinquency. The Departments juvenile function is the equal responsibility of all members, units and functions within the department. It is the responsibility of all members of the Iowa City Police Department to familiarize themselves with juvenile problems and established procedures for handling both criminal and non - criminal juvenile incidents as defined in this policy. Officers should bear in mind that only a small percentage of juveniles commit the majority of juvenile crimes. While this small percentage may require secure custody, the vast majority of juvenile offenders are likely candidates for non - secure custody and positive diversion and intervention strategies. With this in mind, officers should, when reasonable and justified under this policy, take those measures necessary to effect positive changes in juvenile offenders that are consistent with state law and the safety and security interests of the community. OPS -19.2 III. DEFINITIONS Status Offender: A juvenile who is charged with an offense that would not be a crime if committed by an adult. Responsible Adult: In the absence of a juvenile's parents or legal guardian, a responsible adult is one who is responsible for the physical custody of a juvenile or who is another adult acquaintance of the juvenile's parents or legal guardian who agrees and reasonably demonstrates the ability to provide supervision for the juvenile until parents, guardians or next of kin can assume responsibility. Non - Secure Custody: A condition under which a juvenile's freedom of movement is controlled by members of this agency and, during such time, the juvenile 1. is held in an unlocked, multi - purpose area that is in no way designed for residential use, such as a report writing room or an office or; 2. is at no time handcuffed to any stationary object or; 3. is held only long enough to complete identification, investigation and processing and then released to a parent, guardian or responsible adult or transferred to a juvenile facility or court; or 4. is under continuous visual supervision until released. Secure Custody: A condition in which a juvenile is physically detained or confined in a locked room, set of rooms or a cell that is designated, set aside or used for the specific purpose of securely detaining persons who are in law enforcement custody or when the juvenile is physically. secured to a stationary object. IV. PROCEDURES A. Enforcement Alternatives Officers dealing with juveniles in enforcement capacities may exercise reasonable discretion as outlined in this policy in deciding on appropriate actions. Alternatives that may be considered include, but are not limited to; 1. release without further action; _ 2. informal counseling to inform the youth of the consequences of his actions;- 3. informal referrals to community services; t 4. referral to parents or responsible adult; 5. informal counseling of parents or responsible adult; 6. limited non - secure custody and warning at the PD; 7. issuance of summons or complaint; c ' �- `J 8. arrest under non - secure custody; and 9. arrest under secure custody. y v Upon deciding on an appropriate course of action, officers should abide by any notification requirements, consistent with state law and other departmental directives. OPS -19.3 B. Enforcement Criteria The following general guidelines may be used in determining appropriate enforcement and related actions that may be taken when dealing with juvenile incidents: I. Release without further action following informal counseling may be appropriate in certain minor incidents. II. When in the officers opinion, more than informal counseling needs to occur, the officer may elect to do one or more of the following: Make contact with the juvenile's parent(s), guardian or other responsible adult; make a delinquency referral to an appropriate community service agency with or without follow -up; detain the juvenile at the PD until he /she can be released to a parent or guardian. These actions may be appropriate when: A. the incident is of a more serious nature; or B. the attitude conveyed by the juvenile demonstrates a lack of realizing the seriousness of the incident; or C. the juvenile has received prior warning, referrals, or has engaged in previous delinquent acts; or D. the juvenile's parent, guardian or responsible adult fails to provide appropriate control or supervision III. Officers may make a delinquency referral when the circumstances surroyagding the incident meet or exceed the seriousness mentioned above. Officers should :makop - -a } criminal referral against juveniles when they commit: —' A. Acts that if committed by an adult would be serious misdemeanor'or higWer level charge. B. acts involving weapons; C. gang related offenses; > D. acts which are assaultive in nature; = E. acts committed while on probation or when they have charges pending against them; F. acts as repeat offenders or when they have refused to participate in diversion or intervention programs; or G. When it has been determined that parental or other adult supervision is ineffective. When a juvenile is taken into custody and when circumstances warrant, he /she should be transported to the police department or the detention facility as soon as reasonably practical, after being taken in to custody. IV. An officer may also take a juvenile into custody if the juvenile is in imminent danger to life or health, seriously endangered or is a runaway, or in violation of an order of disposition. In all such cases these juveniles shall be held in non - secure custody and officers should contact the juvenile's parent(s) or guardian as soon as reasonably possible. When the parent(s) or guardian cannot be contacted or refuse to accept custody, the officer should contact the Youth Shelter for placement. OPS -19.4 V. In cases of alleged child abuse or endangerment, first insure the safety of the child(ren) / juvenile involved. The watch supervisor should be contacted and a determination made as to if an investigator should be called or whether the responding officer should make telephonic contact with the Department of Human Services and finish the initial report and forward the report before the end of his /her watch to the investigations section. Copies of all reports shall also be forwarded to the Department of Human Services. Where probable cause exists to support a criminal charge of child abuse, an arrest is justified and the suspect should be taken into custody. If there is insufficient information available at the time to make a determination as to the existence of child abuse, the officer shall, in consultation with the Department of Human Services, take steps to ensure the safety of the child(ren) /juvenile: C. Status Offenses I. Based on the seriousness of and circumstances surrounding the offense, the background and demeanor of the juvenile and other relevant factors, an officer may release a juvenile to his parents, guardian or other responsible adult. Prior to releasing a juvenile to someone other than the parent, the officer shall make reasonable steps to contact the parents for approval of the release.. When the juvenile is released to someone other than a parent, the officer shall identify and document the person taking custody prior to the release of the juvenile. II. Juveniles taken into custody for status offenses may be frisked for weapons prior to being transported. III. Handcuffs or .other restraints will only be used when: the juvenile being taken into custody physically resists; threatens physical violence when being taken into custody; is being taken into custody for an alleged delinquent act of violence against a person;,.pr when in the judgment of the officer, the juvenile presents a risk of injury to tR mselvQs or others. ria IV. Officers shall pay particular attention to juveniles under the influence of 1cohoLor drugs to determine whether emergency medical services are warranted. V., Juveniles taken into custody for status offenses shall be held in non- securCE&St6ay, for the purposes of identification, investigation, and related processing requir 'ments�o facilitate their release to a parent or responsible adult or transport to a juvenile shelter facility. VI. Transportation of a juvenile in a "caged" vehicle is not considered secure custody. VII. Status offenders and other juveniles taken into custody should not be placed in an area with adult suspects and shall also be: 1. under constant observation; 2. .afforded reasonable access to toilets and washing facilities; 3. provided with access to water or other nourishment as needed; 4. allowed reasonable access to a telephone. OPS -19.5 D. Criminal Offenses I. Juveniles taken into custody for criminal type offenses may be placed in restraints if the juvenile physically resists; threatens physical violence when being taken into custody; is being taken into custody for an alleged delinquent act of violence against a person; or when, in the reasonable judgment of the officer, the juvenile presents a risk of injury to themselves or others. The parent, guardian, or custodian shall be notified as soon as reasonably possible once a juvenile is taken into custody. II. Unless the juvenile is placed in shelter care or detention, the juvenile shall be released to their parent, guardian, custodian, responsible adult relative, or other adult approved by the court. III. Fingerprints and photographs of juveniles shall be taken and used in conformance with the Code of Iowa chapter 232.148. IV. Juveniles in custody should be questioned in conformance with the Departmental Juvenile Waiver form. When practical, juveniles should be allowed to consult with their parent(s). To the extent practical, parents should be allowed to be present during the interrogation of juveniles. Questioning of juveniles should be limited in duration, preferably one hour or less, and questioning limited to two officers. V. Prior to terminating an interrogation, the questioning officer shall advise the juvenile and /or his /her legal guardian or responsible adult of the procedures to be used in making contact with the juvenile court office, in addition to information relating to applicable court appearances or other means of dealing with criminal charges. VI. Prior to requesting consent to search from a juvenile, officers should attempt to contact the person in actual control of the property to be searched. When requesting consent to search from a juvenile, officers shall consider the age of the juvenile. Officers should not request consent to search from juveniles appearing to be under the age of fourteen. When requesting consent to search from a juvenile, the requesting officer shall clearly explain the voluntary nature of the request and the right of the juvenile to refuse the request. A. When officers are unable to contact the person in actual control of the property to be searched, and the search is based on the consent of -a juvenile fourteen years of age or older, the officer shall request a supervisor respond'to the scene to determine how to proceed. This section does not apply when the property to be searched is a motor vehicle find under the control of a juvenile. E. Reporting I. Officers shall document contacts with juveniles on the Departmental Juvenile Complaint form. The form shall be filled out as completely as possible. Juvenile contacts include but are not limited to: j..y OPS -19.6 A. When a charge is filed or contemplated, other than the exceptions contained in chapter 232.8 of the Code of Iowa. (cite and release exceptions) B. transport of juveniles; C. Field Interview (FI) contacts with juveniles (for juveniles this will be used in lieu of FI cards), in these type situations officers should note on the complaint that it was a FI contact. D. juveniles in the company of others at the proximate time an offense was committed; E. Other circumstances as determined by watch supervisors or the Report Review Officer. II. Officers shall fill out the Incident Report form consistent with those categories in which one is required for adult suspects. III. On an annual basis the Sergeant of Planning and. Research shall analyze, evaluate and report on the enforcement and prevention actions taken by the department. The report shall include both a quantitative and qualitative component. The report should contain recommendations for the continuance and /or modification of current departmental efforts and or directives. Samuel arga _ e, 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. February 10, 2009 Mtg Packet PCRB COMPLAINT DEADLINES PCRB Complaint #08 -09 Filed: 10/10/08 Chief's Report due (90days): 01/08/09 Chief's Report filed: 01/05/09 PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) 02/10/09 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review Draft Report) 03/10/09 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PCRB Report due (45days): 02/19/09 45 day Extension Request: 04/05/09 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- PCRB MEETING SCHEDULE March 10, 2009 April 14, 2009 May 12, 2009 June 9, 2009 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD OFFICE CONTACTS January 2009 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 January 14, 2009 Mayor Regenia Bailey 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At the January 13, 2009 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 -09 for the following reasons: • Due to timelines, and scheduling • Public Report presently due February 19, 2009 45 -day Extension request — Report would be due on Apri 5, 2009 The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, �r �l'1 cG,a e f La Michael Larson, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: City Attorney Updated 99/99/99 DRAFT SAMPLE POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD SUSTAINED ALLEGATION REPORT INCIDENT DATE OFFICER IDENTIFIER # SUSTAINED ALLEGATION 99/99/99 123456 Officer was rude and harassed complainant. 99/99/99 456789 Officer was rude and harassed complainant. 99/99/99 123456 Officer was rude and harassed complainant. Page 1 of I Kellie Tuttle From: Kellie Tuttle Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:32 AM To: caroline- dieterle @uiowa.edu' Subject: information request Caroline, Here's the information per the City Charter. City Charter Section 2.08. Appointments. A. The council shall appoint the city manager. B. The council shall appoint the city clerk. (Ord. 85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985) C. The council shall appoint the city attorney. (Ord. 95 -3671, 3 -28 -1995) Section 4.04. Duties Of City Manager. A. The city manager shall be chief administrative officer of the city and shall: (3) Appoint the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire department with the approval of the city council. Kellie Tuttle City of Iowa City City Clerk's Office 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Ph (319) 356 -5043 Fax (319) 356 -5497 1/14/2009