Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-2009 Police Citizens Review BoardAGENDA POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD November 3, 2009 - 5:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM 410 E. Washington Street ITEM N0.1 CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED • Minutes of the meeting on 10/13/09 • ICPD General Order 89-04 (Civil Rights) • ICPD General Order 99-11 (Arrests) • ICPD Department Memo #09-36 (June-July 09 Use of Force Review) ITEM NO. 3 OLD BUSINESS • Community Forum 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 N0.9 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • November 18, 2009 7:00 PM, Harvat Hall (Community Forum) • December 8, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • January 12, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • February 9, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm ITEM N0.10 ADJOURNMENT MEMORANDUM POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City DATE: October 28, 2009 TO: PCRB Members FROM: Kellie Tuttle RE: Board Packet for meeting on November 3, 2009 Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting: • Agenda for 11/03/09 • Minutes of the meeting on 10/13/09 • ICPD General Order 89-04 (Civil Rights) • ICPD General Order 99-11 (Arrests) • ICPD Department Memo #09-36 (June-July 09 Use of Force Review) • Complaint Deadlines • Extension requests to City Council • Correspondence regarding Annual Pursuits Analysis • Draft Items for Community Forum 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.orq DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -October 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Joseph Treloar, Vershawn Young MEMBERS ABSENT: Abigail Yoder STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Richard Wyss and Officer David Schwindt of the ICPD; Emily Busse- UI Journalism Student; and public, Caroline Dieterle, Dean Able RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE King and Braverman were appointed to the nominating committee at the September Stn meeting. King reported that the committee had met and would like to nominate Donald King for Chair and Janie Braverman for Vice-Chair. CONSIDER MOTION TO FIX METHOD OF VOTING Motion by Braverman, seconded by Treloar to prescribe the method of voting by a voice vote and use majority vote for the basis for decision. Motion carried, 4/0. Yoder absent. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF CHAIRPERSON Motion by Braverman, seconded by Treloar to nominate Donald King for office of Chairperson as selected by the nominating committee. MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Braverman, seconded by Young to close nominations. Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. BALLOT OR VOTE Motion carried to elect Donald King for office of Chairperson, 4/0, Yoder absent. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OFVICE-CHAIRPERSON Motion by Treloar, seconded by Young to nominate Janie Braverman for office of Vice-Chairperson as selected by the nominating committee. MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Young, seconded by Treloar to close nominations. Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. BALLOT OR VOTE Motion carried to elect Janie Braverman for office of Vice-Chairperson, 4/0, Yoder absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Braverman and seconded by Young to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. PCRB October 13, 2009 Page 2 • Minutes of the meeting on 09/08/09 • ICPD General Order 99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits) • ICPD General Order 00-06 (Special Purpose Vehicles) • ICPD General Order 07-02 (Detainee Processing) • ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report -August 2009 • ICPD Quarterly/Summary Report (Quarter 3) - IAIR/PCRB, 2009 Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. Braverman inquired what CCH stood for. Wyss responded that CCH was Computerized Criminal History. Braverman also noted General Order 99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits), section VI(E) under Reporting, that it references an annual analysis/report of all pursuits for the past calendar year. Since the analysis is intended to show patterns or trends that indicate training needs and/or policy modifications and the Board's charge is to review policy, she asked if the Board had ever received this report in the past and if this should be something that the Board is reviewing. After discussion the Board agreed to request to receive the annual analysis of pursuits. OLD BUSINESS Community Forum -King reported that the Chief had some concerns regarding the forum and the presentation portion from the ICPD with the Use of Force policy. The concern was that the forum remains a PCRB forum and not an ICPD forum so that when questions from the public are taken after the presentation they are directed to the Board and not the officer. It was also confirmed by the Board that the intention is not for the officer to have to field questions from the public that could be incident specific. The forum topic is based on policy and questions should be regarding the policy and not particular or hypothetical situations. It was agreed that King would call and set up a meeting with the Chief to discuss his concerns and to confirm the Board's intentions during the forum. The Board agreed to Wednesday, November 18'h at 7pm for the forum and also requested staff check into see if it could be broadcast live in addition to taped so it could be ran again at a later date. The Board discussed having some handouts at the forum such as the Use of Force policy, directions for the City website and how to get to the General Orders, and information regarding the Citizens Police Academy. King said he would do the introduction and complaint process presentation for the forum. Braverman volunteered to do the draft summary of the forum as a follow up to City Council. NEW BUSINESS Service Animal Training - At the September 8`h meeting the Board agreed to request any information available regarding Service Animal training for Iowa City police officers. The Board received correspondence from the Police Chief stating that while no specific "Service Animal" training has occurred the topic had been covered in MATS training. Wyss stated that the Chief had contacted Police Legal Sciences which is a training seminar that all officers take once a month and has requested that they incorporate service animals into this training. He did not know how long or where in the process it was for incorporating. Treloar asked if the Board could be notified when the service animal training had been incorporated in to the seminar. Wyss agreed to let them know. Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By-Laws, SOP's -Braverman reaffirmed that she would like the Board go back over and review the ordinance, by- laws, and SOP's to see if any updates, changes, or additions need to be made since PCRB October 13, 2009 Page 3 an overall review has not been done since the Board was formed. Braverman expressed some of her ideas to the Board and suggested having a planning meeting in December to discuss how they would be reviewing the information. The Board could then discuss any ideas they have and if they would have subcommittees or review as a whole Board. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Schwindt clarified his understanding of one of Braverman's suggested changes. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle handed out an updated Board phone number list and a FY2011 budget proposal. The Board discussed the budget and what options they had to help keep costs down. There was discussion of scanning the meeting packets to save on printing and mailing costs, but with concern over using personal a-mail accounts. The Board directed staff to look into the possibility and costs of having City e-mail accounts. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Braverman and seconded by Young 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, Yoder absent. Open session adjourned at 6:42 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:38 P.M. Motion by Braverman, seconded by Young to set the level of review for PCRB Complaint #09-04 to 8-8-7 (B)(1)(a), On the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Young to set the level of review for PCRB Complaint #09-05 to 8-8-7 (B)(1)(d), Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation. PCRB October 13, 2009 Page 4 Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. Motion by Young, seconded by Treloar to request 60-day extension for PCRB Complaint #09-03, a 45-day extension for PCRB Complaint #09-04, and a 60-day extension for PCRB Complaint #09-05 due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • November 3, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • November 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm (Rescheduled to 11/3) • November 18, 2009 7:00 PM, Harvat Hall (Community Forum) • December 8, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • January 12, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm Motion by Braverman, seconded by Treloar to move the November 10th meeting to November 3rd. Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Young and seconded by Treloar. Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. ~~O~C ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ f9 ~p ~' `~' ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ fD Vi 'S f9 ~, C. ~ ~ ~ z ~~ sb ~~ ~+ o~ ~ ;~; ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ r~~ x o o ~ ~ ~ b W W N ~O ~O N i i k ~' ~ ~ ~ i--~ W N C W i i z z z z z A i i ~ ~/ - a ~ 7 ~ y ~ A l h i i i k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x O yC yC ~C yC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w H y ~ ~d ~~ z ~ ~n d o ~ ~ ~ ... n O O ^~ 1 ~ ^~ l y N C~ tc O DEPARTMENT MEMO #09-36 TO: Chief Hargadine FROM: Captain R. D. Wyss RE: June-July 09 Use of Force Review DATE: 23 October, 2009 The "Use of Force Review Committee" met on October 7th`", 2009. It was composed of Captain Wyss, Sgt. Hurd and Sgt. Kelsay. The review of submitted reports for June (11 incidents-16 reports) and July (6 incidents-12 reports) were completed and no policy issues were identified. Of the 17 incidents over the two month period 24 Officers drew their sidearm or displayed a weapon (building search or felony stop) and there were no incidents where a sidearm was used for the destruction of animals. OC was deployed on one occasion, and a Taser was discharged on four separate occasions. Of the 17 incidents reviewed, 7 suspects and 1 Officer had sustained injuries. All personnel continue doing a good job in their documentation and review of the reports. Please contact me if you have any questions. V.4 S xa .... ..+.ti ry . ~.. „ . d ~~ ~.~ °~ ..~~ Co}~y: Iowa City Council. City Manager, PCRB, Watch Commanders, Review Committee LEG-01.1 CIVIL RIGHTS Date of Issue General Order Number Ma 5, 2000 89-04 .~~ ~~~~ ~ C-~ . ~~ ;r ~~ °~, Effective Date Section Code October 16th, 2009 LEG-01 ~ ~ . _ o~ Reevaluation Date Amends /Cancels ~ _ _ Ma 2010 ~= ..,. .~. C.A.L.E.A. Reference ,`'" 1.2.3, 1.2.5 INDEX AS: Civil Rights Rights, Civil Rights, Individual Arrests Warrants Search and Seizure Use of Force PURPOSE The purpose of this order is to consolidate the policy of the Iowa City Police Department on civil rights as already expressed in current Department rules, directives, and other publications. This order will reaffirm the Department's determination to observe, uphold, and enforce all laws pertaining to the individual rights of .each person without regard to age, race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, economic status, marital status, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. II. POLICY It is the policy of the City of Iowa City and the Iowa City Police Department to ensure that the civil rights of the citizens of Iowa City are upheld. Members of the department shall ensure that all constitutional protections are afforded those parties with whom the department is involved. LEG-01.2 III. PROCEDURES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS A. All persons are guaranteed protection against unlawful arrest and unreasonable search or seizure. (see general order 00-01, Search and Seizure) B. Department personnel shall uphold these rights by: 1. Taking a person into custody only when there is reasonable grounds to believe that: ~' ~~ t -; A a. An arrest warrant exists for the person, or _ :~ ~'; ~~ ,~- b. The person has committed or is committing a violation of th~law. ~~ ~"~ ~;. ~ ~~, c. The person may be a harm to themselves or others ~' ~-: ~, 2. Entering a private dwelling only when he/she: c~ a. Has in his/her possession a search warrant authorizing him/her to do so, or b. Has reason to believe that immediate entry is necessary to protect a person within such private dwelling from death or serious injury, or c. Can otherwise legally justify his/her action. 3. Taking from an individual only such property as he/she is legally authorized to take, and recognizing that he/she is responsible and must account for all such property. C. When making an arrest or searching and seizing property, Department personnel shall use only such force which is reasonable and necessary and in compliance with departmental directives pertaining to the use of force. (see general order 99-05, Use of Force) D. At all times Department personnel shall: 1. Never exhibit any bias or prejudice against any group or individual. 2. Act, speak, and conduct themselves in such a manner as to treat all persons with courtesy and with that respect due to every person as a human being. LEG-01.3 CITIZENS GUARANTEE A. All persons of this country are guaranteed the right to seek redress of grievances by: .~ 1. Freedom of speech ,;~; 2. Peaceful assembly - -~ ._.~, 3. Peaceful picketing : _f a =~ i"`=' 4. Distribution of handbills providing such distribution is not in c~m~ftict wt""`th the provisions of any City Ordinance. 6. The rights set out in paragraph A, above, while fundamental in our democratic society, do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may do so at any public place and at any time. The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in excesses of anarchy. The exercise of these rights of free expression must not: 1. Conflict with the governmental responsibility to keep public streets and public facilities open and available for public use. 2. Include the use of inflammatory remarks related to any instance where a clear and present danger of a riot against any person or group of persons exists. C. Resources of the Department will be employed to rapidly and decisively enforce statutes and ordinances which provide for the protection of the rights and property of all persons. 1. To the extent possible, Watch Commanders will assure that adequate staffing is available to control and maintain order in every instance where crowds have formed or are expected to form. 2. Police personnel in command at the scene of any assembly must be aware of their responsibility to afford protection to both participants and non-participants, and will deal with illegal acts promptly, decisively, and impartially. 3. The City of Iowa City and the Iowa City Police Department expressly prohibits any law enforcement agency operating within its jurisdiction from using excessive force against any individuals engaged in non- violent civil rights demonstrations. LEG-01.4 4. The City of Iowa City and the Iowa City Police Department shall enforce any applicable state or local laws against physically barring entrances or exits from a facility or location that is the subject of anon-violent civil rights demonstration within its jurisdiction. 5. The City of Iowa City and the Iowa City Police Department shall enforce this general order within its jurisdiction and will facilitate the filing of a complaint by any individual or group who feels that the City of Iowa City and/or Iowa City Police Department has not complied with this policy. ARRESTED PERSONS A. All persons of this country, in keeping with our democratic processes, are guaranteed certain basic constitutional safeguards. These safeguards will not be denied any person even though he/she has committed, or is suspected of having committed, a criminal act. B. Department personnel will at all times be aware of a prisoner's rights and shall: 1. Permit the prisoner to communicate with his/her attorney and/or a family by making a reasonable number of telephone calls. 2. Expedite all necessary processing so the prisoner will be detained no longer than necessary. 3. Never use force or coercion in seeking admissions of guilt or confessions. 4. Recognize and respect the prisoner's right to refuse to give evidence against him/herself; however, there is no encroachment upon a prisoner's rights if he/she should voluntarily supply such information. RESPONSIBILITY .. ~~ ~, ~; Each officer shall familiarize him/herself with the laws and Department directives ~` pertaining to civil rights to insure his/her. •{~-: ~? u p ~! r~ A. Recognition of each person's civil rights and ~ ~, ~- B. Compliance with all laws and Department directives relating to civil rights. VIOLATIONS :` ~:~- j~`~ 4 1 %~:';:~ Violations of this policy may be the basis of disciplinary action up to and including discharge from the Department. Egregious violations of persons' civil rights may result in individual liability and/or criminal sanctions. LEG-01.5 '' Samuel Hargadine, 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. :,; ~ i.s ~` ''s ~~~ ~~ ~' .1tl ran LEG-02.1 ARRESTS Date of Issue General Order Number October 11, 1999 99-11 Effective Date Section Code October 22, 2009 LEG - 02 Reevaluation Date Amends /Cancels October 2010 C.A.L.E.A. Reference 1.1.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 74.1.3, 74.3.1, 74.3.2 INDEX AS: Use of Force Citations Prisoner Transport I. PURPOSE L.~J Arrests Discretion Domestic Abuse r Go~`~~, ~~~~ ~~ f...a ,, .,, :Sa ::~.~~ :,: The purpose of this policy is to explain the procedures to be used when a person is arrested by members of the Iowa City Police Department. III. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to conform with statutory and judicial requirements pertaining to arrests. The decision to arrest will be based on the facts surrounding the incident. Officers are to use the least restrictive, reasonable method to accomplish their goal. LEG-02.2 III. DEFINITIONS Iowa Code Section 804.5 is as follows: Arrest defined. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody when and in the manner authorized by law, including restraint of the person or the person's submission to custody. IV. PROCEDURES ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT Authorization to arrest is contained in section 804.7 of the Code of Iowa. A Peace Officer is authorized to make an arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to the peace officer, and without a warrant under the following conditions: A. For a public offense committed or attempted in the peace officer's presence. B. Where a public offense has in fact been committed, and the peace officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be arrested has committed it. C. Where the peace officer has reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable public offense has been committed and has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be arrested has committed it. D. Where the peace officer has received from the department of public safety, or from any other peace officer of this state or any other state or the United States an official communication by bulletin, radio, telegraph, telephone, or otherwise, informing the peace officer that a warrant has been issued and is being held for the arrest of the person to be arrested on a designated charge. E. If the peace officer has reasonable grounds for believing that domestic abuse, as defined in section 236.2, has occurred and has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be arrested has committed_it. 1. As required by section 236.12, subsection 2. (Domestic Abuse Assault Provisions) .., a ax .~ m TREATMENT OF PRISONERS ~ _ ~'t~- In making an arrest, officers will use only that amount of force ,re~son~ly `,_-. necessary to effect the arrest. Prisoners shall be treated with a~~rop~ri.~te respect. Officers shall not physically mistreat or verbally harass any, indivis~al that they have taken into custody. Medical treatment will be made avail'a~le when the arrestee is injured or complains of injury or in conformity to other general orders. ARREST/CITATIONS All persons charged for simple misdemeanors should be released on a promise to appear in court at a specified date and time, unless the officer has an articulable reason for a physical arrest of the subject. (Juveniles shall be handled in accordance with departmental directives pertaining to juveniles.) Considerations for a custodial arrest instead of a cite and release are included in section 805.1 of the Code of Iowa. LEG-02.3 Factors to be considered by the agencies in formulating the guidelines relating to the issuance of citations for simple misdemeanors not governed by subsection 2, shall include but shall not be limited to all of the following: (see 805.1(3)(b) Code of Iowa) A. Whether a person refuses or fails to produce means for a satisfactory identification. B. Whether a person refuses to sign the citation. C. Whether detention appears reasonably necessary in order to halt a continuing offense or disturbance or to prevent harm to a person or persons. D. Whether a person appears to be under the influence of intoxicants or drugs and no one is available to take custody of the person and be responsible for the person's safety. E. Whether a person has insufficient ties to the jurisdiction to assure that the person will appear or it reasonably appears that there is a substantial likelihood that the person will refuse to appear in response to a citation. F. Whether a person has previously failed to appear in response to a citation or after release on pretrial release guidelines. Additional factors to be considered relating to the issuance of citations or other offenses for which citations are authorized shall include but shall not be limited to the following concerning the person. (see 805.1(3)(c)Code of Iowa): --~ _ '_. A. Place and length of residence. ~~ B. Family relationships. ~~ ~ °~~ Y C. References. _ ~ ~ ~ ~~' `-,_ J D. Present and past employment. -_ , ~..,,, E. Criminal record. _' __ F. Nature and circumstances of the alleged offense. `~ G. Other facts relevant to the likelihood of the person's response to a citation. Even if a citation is issued, the officer may take the cited person to an appropriate medical facility if it reasonably appears that the person needs medical care. All persons arrested for simple misdemeanor traffic offenses should be released on a uniform traffic citation, scheduled to appear in court on a specified date and time, unless the officer has an articulable reason for the physical detention instead of a traffic citation. INDICTABLE ARRESTS Persons charged with a serious misdemeanor or above, shall be arrested and transported to the Johnson County Jail, unless a supervisor approves of other arrangements. For exceptions, refer to Appendix I. The transport of prisoners shall comply with departmental directives pertaining to prisoner transport. LEG-02.4 TURN IN PROCESS When arrangements have been made for a subject to turn him/herself in at a later date, the charging officer shall: A. notify the Emergency Communications Operator (ECO) or Front Desk Personnel of the date and time that the person will turn him/herself in; B. advise the ECO or Front Desk Personnel of the location of the charge(s); C. fill out an arrest report as completely as possible and leave it with the charge(s). The arresting officer will advise the subject of the charge(s) against him/her and transport him/her to the Johnson County Jail. The arresting officer shall complete the arrest report and check for any un-served warrants. They :shall also record the name of the receiving officer on the arrest report. ARREST WITH A WARRANT ~~{ ~: Authority to arrest persons with a warrant is contained in Chapter 804 of~he ._,a~t Code of Iowa. - w? -- Section 804.6 of the Code of Iowa is as follows: t"~ Persons authorized to make an arrest. ~~ An arrest pursuant to a warrant shall be made only by a peace officer; in other cases, an arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private person as provided in this chapter. Section 804.7(4) of the Code of Iowa authorizes arrests by a peace officer with a warrant. It is as follows: Where the peace officer has received from the department of public safety, or from any other peace officer of this state or any other state or the United States an official communication by bulletin, radio, telegraph, telephone, or otherwise, informing the peace officer that a warrant has been issued and is being held for the arrest of the person to be arrested on a designated charge. SERVICE OF ARREST WARRANTS A. When possible, the Department will attempt to serve a warrant within thirty (30) days of a warrant being received. B. Prior to the service of the warrant an assessment of the risk factors as defined in the SRT policies and procedure manual shall be made. C. Warrants will be prioritized as follow: 1. warrants for persons known to be violent or potentially dangerous; 2. felony warrants 3. warrants for indictable offenses; 4. non-violent misdemeanor warrants. D. The officer serving the warrant shall confirm that the warrant is still active and the pickup limits of the warrant, prior to service of the warrant. E. All warrants shall be served by sworn officers. LEG-02.5 F. At least two (2) officers should be present when serving an arrest warrant. G. Officers shall activate their In Car Recording Device when serving the warrant. H. Officers shall notify the ECO of the pending action and its location. As appropriate other officers may be notified of the activity. I. When notified by another agency that it will be serving a warrant in Iowa City, a supervisor may send officers to assist in the serving of the warrant. J. Upon arresting a subject on a warrant, the officer will transport the subject to the Johnson County Jail unless otherwise specified. K. Prior to serving a warrant outside the corporate limits of Iowa City; the offt~er shall °` 1. obtain the permission of a watch supervisor; ~ "~~ - 2. advise the ECO of the action; .- 3. contact the local agency with jurisdiction and request the presence Qf, a ~~~ local officer during the arrest. ~° ~-' ~, ., USE OF FORCE IN MAKING AN ARREST ~~~' Section 804.8 of the Code of Iowa defines the limits of the force, which may be used when making an arrest. In addition, members of the Iowa City Police Department shall be guided by departmental Use of Force directives when executing an arrest. 804.8 is as follows: USE OF FORCE BY PEACE OFFICER MAKING AN ARREST. A peace officer, while making a lawful arrest, is justified in the use of any force, which the peace officer reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest or to defend any person from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, the use of deadly force is only justified when a person cannot be captured any other way and either: A. The person has used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony or B. The peace officer reasonably believes the person would use deadly force against any person unless immediately apprehended. A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which the peace officer would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless the peace officer knows that the warrant is invalid. DISCRETION The Iowa City Police Department recognizes that there are often alternatives to a custodial arrest. Since it is impossible to anticipate every such circumstance in which action should be taken, it shall be left to the officer at the scene to determine the degree of intervention necessary. When making an arrest, officers should use the least restrictive form necessary to obtain the desired objective. A. It is unrealistic to expect officers to enforce all laws and ordinances, regardless of the circumstances encountered. Officers must make the LEG-02.6 decision to arrest, cite, warn, or use other alternatives, based on applicable law, circumstances of the particular incident and directives from supervisors. B. Members of this department shall always act in accordance with the law and departmental rules and regulations. When discretion is employed it must be reasonable, defensible, and used to accomplish a police purpose. Samuel 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 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. _., - `} ' . ~~~ November 3, 2009 Mtg Packet PCRB COMPLAINT DEADLINES PCRB Complaint #09-03 Filed: 06/09/09 Chief's Report due (90days): 09/08/09 Chief's Report filed: 09/03/09 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) 09/08/09 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review Draft #1 Report) 10/13/09 PCRB Mtg #3 (Review Draft #2 Report) 11 /03/09 PCRB Report due (45days): 10/19/09 PCRB 60-day Ext Request: 12/18/09 PCRB Complaint #09-04 Filed: 06/25/09 Chief's Report due (90days): 09/23/09 Chief's Report filed: 09/18/09 PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) 10/13/09 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review Draft #1 Report) 11/03/09 PCRB Report due (45days): 11/02/09 PCRB 45-day Ext Request: 12/17/09 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PCRB Complaint #09-05 Filed: 06/30/09 Chief's Report due (90days): 09/29/09 Chief's Report filed: 09/23/09 PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) 10/13/09 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review & Assign) 11/03/09 PCRB Mtg #3 (Review Draft Report) ??/??/09 PCRB Report due (45days): 11/09/09 PCRB 60-day Ext Request: 01/08/10 November 3, 2009 Mtg Packet PCRB Complaint #09-06 Filed: 10/26/09 Chief's Report due (90days): 01/25/10 Chief's Report filed: ??/??/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) ??/??/10 PCRB Mtg #3 (Review Draft Report) ??/??/10 PCRB Report due (45days): ??/??/10 PCRB 60-day Ext Request: ??/??/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PCRB MEETING SCHEDULE December 8, 2009 January 12, 2010 February 9, 2010 March 9, 2010 PCRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Re: Investigation of Complaint PCRB #09-06 Complaint PCRB #09-06, filed October 26, 2009, was summarily dismissed as required by the city Code, Section 8-8-3 E, requiring that only those complaints which do not involve the conduct of an Iowa City sworn police officer may be subject to summary dismissal by the board. DATED: November 3, 2009 _~:~..t q ra...~ ~1.i7 :~ ~µa 9 . -"~ ~~ E~ W POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 October 14, 2009 Mayor Regenia Bailey 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At the October 13, 2009 meeting, the PCRB voted in open session to request a 60-day extension regarding the reporting deadline for the Public Report according to the City Code for PCRB Complaint #09-03 for the following reasons: • Due to timelines, and scheduling • Public Report presently due October 19, 2009 60-day Extension request -Report would be due on December 18, 2009 The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ~~ ~ ~/ x r __/C3YLLt-C..r.G~- lam./l~ Donald King, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: City Attorney POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 October 14, 2009 Mayor Regenia Bailey 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At the October 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 #09-04 for the following reasons: • Due to timelines, and scheduling • Public Report presently due November 2, 2009 45-day Extension request -Report would be due on December 17, 2009 The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Ki ~Ci ii_cx_ L--G£ /C i' Donald King, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: City Attorney POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 October 14, 2009 Mayor Regenia Bailey 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At the October 13, 2009 meeting, the PCRB voted in open session to request a 60-day extension regarding the reporting deadline for the Public Report according to the City Code for PCRB Complaint #09-05 for the following reasons: • Due to timelines, and scheduling • Public Report presently due November 9, 2009 60-day Extension request -Report would be due on January 8, 2010 The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, I ,« ~r7a_L~~- ~~i~tc~ Donald King, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: City Attorney POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 October 15, 2009 Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Iowa City Police Department 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Annual Pursuits Analysis At its October 13, 2009 meeting the Board reviewed General Order 99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits). After discussion, the Board would like to request to receive the annual analysis of pursuits referenced in section VI(E). Thank you for your cooperation Sincerely, '' ll K~ .J.~O 1'l.,cz ~_G~ ~~ ~ Donald King PCRB Chair AGENDA POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD COMMUNITY FORUM NOVEMBER 18, 2009, 7:OOPM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL 410 E Washington St ITEM NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL ITEM NO. 2 PRESENTATION BY PCRB MEMBER - INTRODUCTION & COMPLAINT PROCESS ITEM NO. 3 PRESENTATION BY ICPD -USE OF FORCE POLICY ITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH POLLCE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ITEM NO. 5 CONSIDER MOTION TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE AND/OR DOCUMENTS ITEM NO. 6 ADJOURNMENT The City of Iowa City POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD COMMUNITY FORUM WHEN: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 TIME: 7:00 PM WHERE: Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E Washington St Topic: Introduction of the PCRB, Complaint Process and the Use of Force Policy We invite YOU to attend a forum. Presentations will be given, followed by a public discussion with the Police Citizens Review Board. General News Release: The Police Citizens Review Board will be holding a Community Forum on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM in Emma J. Harvat Hall. Topics will include: Introduction of the PCRB, Complaint Process, and a presentation of the Use of Force Policy by the ICPD, followed by Public Discussion with the PCRB. The forum will be broadcast live on the Interactive City Channel 5. The agenda is a~~alable at: http://www.ic~ov.org/default/apps boards/boardList.asp POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD COMMUNITY FORUM November 18, 2009 PLEASE SIGN IN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRE SS THE PCRB DURING PUBLIC DISCUSSION INDIVIDUALS WILL BE CALLED IN THAT ORDER POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD COMMUNITY FORUM November 18, 2009 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PCRB PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE ATTACHED SHEET INDIVIDUALS WILL BE CALLED IN THAT ORDER NAME: ADDRESS: POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD COMMUNITY FORUM November 18, 2009 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND :ADDRESS ON THE ATTACHED SHEET IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY SIGNED IN NAME: ADDRESS: -;gyp ~~/~ Draft Agenda for December 8, 2009 policy review: 1. Overview of the Board's governing documents: a. Ordinance -Chapter 8 b. By-Laws (last revised June 10, 2003) c. Standard Operating (last revised March 11, 2008) d. Mediation Packet 2. Letter from Board Counsel dated October 21, 2008, with enclosures case law open meetings statute (not open for review) 3. Article from Des Moines Register dated October 18, 2009 4. Look to other jurisdictions; quick Google search popped up: Pittsburgh Oakland Chicago Denver NYC Cleveland Erie Albany San Diego Muskegon Orlando Catherine Pugh 4743 Dryden Court Iowa City, IA 52245 October 21.2008 Dear Janie. I wanted to follow up with you before our meeting next week and provide you with some historical information and cases that will help to illustrate where certain policies and procedures of the PCRB were born. With regard to the identification of officers, you will see that this was a subject of negotiation with the City Council and their attorney. I am enclosing the "Hawkeye "case that was relied upon in drafting the current policy. You will also note that the relationship between the PCRB and the City Council was more contentious as the Board wanted more authority and the Council wanted to keep the Board in check. Also enclosed are the Open Meetings and Open Records Chapters of the Iowa Code. I am also enclosing the Colorado case which has been discussed with regard to the Garrity rights exercised by officers. It appears that the main obstacle in the PCRB compelling officer statements will be the Board inability to discipline the officers. After you have had a chance to digest this information, let me know if there is anything you would like to look at further. I look forward to seeing you next week. Yours Truly, ~~,~ Catherine Pugh January 25, 1999 DELIVERED BY FAX AND REGULAR MAIL CITY OF IOWA CITY Douglas S. Russell, Attorney at Law 221'/2 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: PCRB Dear Doug: It is my understanding that at the PCRB's meeting tomorrow it will reconsider its decision to cancel the meeting previously scheduled between you, representatives of the PCRB and myself. This meeting was originally proposed to me as a way to discuss our concerns frankly with the goal being to make the upcoming process "less confrontational". After the meeting was set I, and other staff, gave considerable thought to a number of issues and I was looking forward to the opportunity to discuss the same. In particular, I have spent much time reflecting on the issue of identification of officers. My concerns fall into two categories: 1) confidentiality; and 2) potential misuse of the information in the investigative process. Confidentiality vis-a-vis the public is consistent with the privacy protections generally afforded to employees as recognized by exceptions to the Iowa Open Records and Open Meetings laws. My understanding is that the Board continues to believe that identification of officers to the public is not appropriate. The Board suggests an identification system.which would prevent identification of the officer to the public by the Board/City but allow the Board to identify as m ker the allegations p bl c) c Suph'at number ng sysCtem would the complainant can alway acceptable to me if I can resolve the second issue. As I have told you previously, my concern regarding potential misuse of the officer's identity in the investigative process arose principally as a result of the statements made in tide Fsoaid's report to the City Council on complaints 98-14 and 98-16. You will recall that these were complaints by a husband and wife stopped for a traffic violation. None of the complaints were sustained. The husband and wife had initially claimed that the wife was shoved and threatened but in her interview with the police investigator she denied any use of force. The Board's findings of fact included a finding that the complainant used profanity but there was no such finding of fact with respect to the officer's use of profanity. Nonetheless, in its comments the Board stated: "It should be noted that this is the second incident within asix-week period that an allegation of the use of profanity has been filed against [the officer]." The earlier complaint to which the Board refers included an allegation of profanity, but the allegation was not sustained. The clear implication in the Board's statement is that an accusation, in and of itself, provides evidence of the truth of the accusation. Such an inference is inappropriate and contrary to rules governing the proceedings of other fact finding bodies. For example, I would be surprised to see a similar statement in the investigative summaries prepared by the Human Rights Coordinator. Particularly given the nature of police work, one cannot assume that an unsustained allegation, 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY. IOWA 32240-1826 • (3I9) 336-3000• FAX (319) 336-3009 ~~~:~. ~~ 2 or even two or three, provides such evidence. (Despite the Press-Citizen's conclusion that officers "invite" complaints against themselves). Notwithstanding the above-noted concerns there are a number of factors that weigh in favor of the officer's numerical identity being available to the PCRB during its deliberations. First, I can think of no other fact finder that is blinded to the identity of one of the parties. For example, although the names of complainants and respondents to a human rights complaint are confidential vis-a-vis the public, the Human Rights Investigator and the Human Rights Commission have that information. Second, the PCRB knows the name of the complainant. Finally, additional protection is afforded the officer now that we have clarified that a criticism by the Board, not just a sustained finding, requires a name clearing hearing. I hope the PCRB will reconsider its decision concerning the meeting as I believe it would be helpful to discuss the identification issue as well as others. I look forward to hearing from you after the Board's Tuesday night meeting. Very truly yours, ~,w,z Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney cc: Steve Atkins Marian Karr R.J. Winkelhake Sarah Holecek eleanor\Itr\dr1-25. doc February 25, 1999 Douglas S. Russell, Attorney at Law Stein, Russell and Pugh, LLP PO Box 2416 Iowa City, IA 52244 Re: Police Citizens Review Board Dear Doug: CITY OF IOWA CITY HAND DELIVERED Enclosed yeu :^.~il! fnd drafts of the revisions to the PCRB's standard operating procedures and the PCR6 ordinance. I have not put the changes to the ordinance in ordinance form, but rather, have just redlined the current ordinance as the changes are easier to address that way. The enclosed draft of the SOP concerning summary dismissal does not include an interview of the complainant in executive session. As I told you by phone, because at this stage there will have been no police investigation I am concerned that there is not an exception to the open meetings law that would allow this interview to be held in closed session. Use of Section 21.5(a) in tandem with 22.7(18) (communications not required by law made to a government body when the government body can reasonably believe that the communication would be discouraged if it was subject to public examination) may be applicable in some situations but this would clearly be a case-by-case analysis. For example, if the complainant is speaking to the press it is likely unreasonable to assume they are concerned about the confidentiality of their statement. When we spoke, it was my understanding that you did not think the inability to hold an interview in closed session would be a big problem given that a .subcommittee of the Board can simply interview the complainant. With respect to the changes to the ordinance, I have taken the liberty of including a new section on time computation which is based on Iowa Code Section 4:1, subsection 34. It seems to me that this rule will take care of some of the more obvious time issues. Congratulations again on your judicial appointment. Lawyers and litigants of Johnson County are lucky to have you. As we discussed, given your experience with the Board it might be helpful for you to offer your suggestions concerning the qualifications their counsel should possess before your departure. In addition to identifying the substantive areas that are most important, we may want to consider requiring a mil)irnuill amount or"practice experience. The Council has changed its March 23 meeting to March 30 so I will shoot for putting these revisions on that agenda. I look forward to hearing from you. V truly yours, C. \`i~ Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney Enclosure cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk Sarah Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney RJ Winkelhake, Police Chief Stephen Atkins, City Manager Eleanor\Itr\d 12-24.doc 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 5224.0-1626 •_(319) 356-5000 • FAX (319) 356-3009 r _ ..._ POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5413 February 25, 1999 (~ Mayor Ernest W. Lehman ~O L!- u Iowa City Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 RE: Police Citizens Review Board Dear Mayor: You contacted me on Friday, February 12, 1999, and requested a letter of clarification concerning the request of the Police Citizens Review Board to have officer identifying numbers for a particular complaint before the Board deliberates on that complaint. We understand from our joint meeting with the City Council on February 11`s that the Council agrees we should receive identifying numbers and that when we should receive those numbers is the sole remaining issue. The Board continues to believe that it is important that it receive the identifying numbers of all officers involved in a PCRB complaint, and information about which previous PCRB complairrts named that officer or officers, before it deliberates on the Chief's (or City Manager's) report. The purpose ofthe information is twofold. First, it allows the Board to track the behavior of particular officers over the entire period of the Board's existence. Second, it allows the Board to use the information to assist in its review of the Chief's (or City Manager's) determinations regarding the credibility of a particular officer, where appropriate and relevant to a pending complaint. The first function maybe served by giving the Board the identifying number after the complaint has been decided upon. The second function may be served only if the information is received before the Board deliberates on a pending complaint. In reviewing a report on a citizen complaint, the Board's only role is to review the reasonableness of the determinations made by the Chief of Police (or the City Manager). Imagine a situation in which a complainant's version of the story and the officer's version of the story differ substantially. In reviewing the report prepared on such a complaint, tfie Board must decide wfiether the Cfuef's decision to credit one version over the other was reasonable. In making that assessment, information about the participants --the officer as well as the complainant - is clearly relevant. The Chief certainly knows the officer's history; the Board must have information about the officer's prior involvement to make a fair assessment of the Chief s (or City Manager's) review of the matter. d- ~,.~~ Mayor Ernest Lehman Page 2 The information requested is, in itself, neutral. The fact that an officer was named in a ~~, previous complaint will not prejudice the Board for or against the officer, and the resolution of a prior complaint might reflect positively as well as negatively on an officer's truthfulness. Nor is the information requested so the Board may draw the impermissible inference that an officer complained against in a prior instance is more likely to have committed misconduct. The Board appreciates the airing of the Council's concerns about the proper and improper use of the identifying number of an officer. The Board and the City Attorney are working out guideline language for a new SOP to address the Council's concerns on this issue. Nonetheless, the Board strongly believes that as long as the City Council keeps the Board in existence, it must trust the Board to operate within its standard operating procedwes with all relevant information that may properly affect its decisions. The PCRB was conceived as a response to a community tragedy. Its still-evolving role reflects the importance of protecting the rights of individual officers as well as the community's need for effective police oversight. That balance is reflected in the statutory responsibilities imposed on the PCRB by the City Council. While they confirm the City's commitment to external accountability for the Iowa City Police Department, they also reflect stringent limits on the Board's authority. The Board recognizes the judicious balance incorporated in the PCRB ordinance and has, in turn, sought to be ~, balanced and judicious in its approach to its work. Consistent with this approach, one of the Board's first unanimous decisions was that we did not wish to know the idemity of officers, but would be satisfied to work with a system of unique but anonymous identifiers of the Chiei's own devising. We continue to be willing to work with staffta resolve whatever problems arise with implementing this system. A board like the PCRB can never please everybody. We will be viewed, depending on one's politics and predisposition, as essential to the function of the community or an intrusive annoyance, as having too much power or too little, as presuming and doing too much or showing too little effect. We are prepared to live with that, but feel the need to stress the importance of maintaining the balance that is built into the ordinance. That balance requires that the Board be provided with the information it needs -including the identifying numbers of officers named in complaints - so that it may fulfill its duties under the ordinance and make fully informed decisions. Respectfully, ls~ Leah Cohen, Chair Police Citizens Review Board March 5, 1999 Douglas S. Russell Attorney at Law Stein, Russell & Pugh, LLP P.O. Box 2416 Iowa City, IA 52244 Re: Police Citizens Review Board Dear Doug: CITY OF IOWA CITY I understand from your recent phone call that the .proposed revisions to the Board's SOPs that sent you under cover of February 15, 1999 are acceptable to the Board with two exceptions. First, in light of the provisions regarding redaction of the officers' names from complaints, the Board wishes to have written assurance that it will have access to the police officer's name for the purpose of naming an officer in a sustained complaint pursuant to Section 8-8-7(B) of the City Code. Enclosed you will find a further revision to the SOPs. Section V now states that the Board may obtain the officer's name from the City Clerk for this purpose. With respect to guidelines for release of a name in a sustained complaint, I understand that you will read the Hawk Eve case and we can discuss it on Monday. As I told you by phone, however, I believe that the changes to the SOPs and ordinance should be put in place now rather than waiting for a discussion and codification of such guidelines. I suspect that this discussion would delay and complicate the changes to the SOPs and ordinance that were discussed and tentatively approved by Council at its recent work session. I look forward to hearing from you on Monday. Si erely, ~• Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney Enclosure cc: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Sarah Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney R.J. Winkelhake, Police Chief Steve Atkins, City Manager eleanor\Itr\russel5.doc 410 EASTWASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826• (3I9) 356-3000 • FAX (3P9) J56-5009 ~~~~~V~D MAR ~ 8 19° ~~,~_ 750 Iowa 521 NORTH WESTERN REPO1tTEIt, 2d SERIES [4] II. We have many times emphasized the distinction between jurisdiction and au- thority. See, e.g., State v. Mandici~to, 509 N.W.2d 481, 482 (Iowa 1993). We agree that the trial court lacked authority to proceed in Woodbury County district court with this special statutory remedy. [5, G] As a general rule, contempt is un- available to enforce a money judgment.' See Iowa Code §~ 626.1 (money judgments en- forceable by execution; other commanded acts are to be .coerced by contempt); Iowa Code § 665.2 (generally setting forth con- . tempt grounds). A special statute, involving support orders entered-in dissolution of mar- riage decrees, provides an exception to.this rule. A district court has .authority to hear and determine contempt proceedings in the context of delinquent child support. Iowa Code § 698.23A (1993). [7] But this power is a special one the legislature accorded ~ orily in dissolution of marriage cases. It is not a separate cause of action, but a remedy specifically appended in order to enforce orders already entered. We do not think the legislature intended for bi- furcation of disputes concerning support, modification, or other matters that may arise within a dissolution' of marriage proceeding. We are convinced the legislature intended for these matters to be pursued only within the original proceeding. Because the contempt .proceeding is merely aiE adjunct to the .case in Black Hawk district court, and not an •independent action, we agree that the appro- priate remedy is dismissal, not transfer un- der rule of civil procedure 176. '~ ~ We agree that the Woodbury district court lacked authority to apply the contempt power available in Black Hawk district court.. ArI'IRMED. ~~ . w . O S REY NUMBER SYSTEM T ~• The IIAWI{ EYE and William Mertens, Appellees, v Patrick C. JACI{SON, Appellant, Iowa Department of Public Safety, Intervcuor-Appellant. Nu. 93-GGG. Supreme Court of Iowa. Sept. 21, 1994. Newspaper sought writ of mandamus compelling disclosure of Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) report concerning allega- tion of use of excessive force by police, and the District Court, Des Moines County, John C. Miller, J., granted writ. Division appeal- ed, and the Supreme Court, Neuman, J., Held that any public harm created by disclosure of report was far outweighed by public harm accruing from nondisclosure. • Affirmed. i. Mandamus x187.9(1) Review of mandamus action by Supreme Court is de novo, and Supreme'Court gives weight to district court's fact-findings but is not bound by them. LC.A. § G61.3. 2. Records aG0 Privilege proCE:cting peace officers' in- vestigative reports .End commwTications made to public officersuE official confidence is qual- ified, and official claiming privilege must show that public officer is being examined, communication was made in official coiEfi- dence, and public interest would suffer. by disclosure. .I.C.A. §§.22.7, 622.11. 3. Records x60 Determination of whether public interest would suffer by disclosure of official commu- nications for pw•poses of qualified privilege covering communications requh•es weighing relative merits of interests at stake. LC.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. i; n ~ o ~" s ~' n ,s t' 6 r f~ c P c P 7 t~ c~ 1~ 6 I-IAWK EYE v. JACKSON : Iowa .751 Clle m 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994) 4. Records C=fi~l S. Records a60 Aids to law enforcement of encouraging f di ' Il 'vil d persons to come forward with information, pl•otecting secrecy of informants, and allow- inglaw enforcement officials necessary priva- cy to discuss findings and theories constitute only one factor to be considered by couut in determining if public interest would suffer by disclosure of conditionally privileged commu- nications of law enforcement officials, and factor is not determinative; other case-spe- cific factors, such as nature of investigation and whether it is completed or ongoing, may tip balance in favor of public disclosure. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. Release o con trona y pn age com- munication by public officer does not depend on status of party seeking release. I.C.A. § § 22.7, 622.11. • 9. Records «52, li0 . Newspaper has same right of access as any' member of general public, and it~ is in that representative capacity that newspaper's interest in disclosure of conditionally privi- leged communications by•public officials must be evaluated. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. Bonnie J.'Campbell, Atty. Gen:, and Jef- frey D. Farrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel- lants: .. ...... ~' Gene R. `Krekel'and H: `Craig ~ Miller.' of Hirsch, Adams; I{rekel, Putnam & Cahill, Burlington, for appellees. ~' Susan M. Boe and Michael A. Giudicessi of Faegre & Benson, D.es Moines, for amicus curiae Iowa Freedom of Information Council. Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, LAVORATO, NEUMAN, and TERNUS, JJ. NEUMAN, Justice. • ~ . This appeal concerns ' a county attorney's refusal to produce an Iowa Division of Crimi- nal 'Investigation file for inspection by . a newspaper. After weighing the interests of the public on the issue; the district .court ordered the official.to turn over the file. We affirm. . In the spring of 1991; Steve Sands, a re- porter for the Burlington newspaper, T1ae Hawk Eye, wrote a series of articles aimed at local reaction to the highly publicized beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police offi- cers. As a part of the series, Sands inter- viewed local law enforcerrient officials about whether allegations of excessive force had ever been lodged= 8gainst a member of the Burlington police department. During one of these interviews, Sands learned of a possi- ble civil suit against police officer Michael Swore. Sands approached police chief Wen- dell Patton .for his comment regarding the suit. Patton, previously unaware of the alle- 6. Records «65 Finding that pnblic interest would 'not suffer by disclosw•e of Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) report concerning allega- tion of use of excessive force by police officer was supported by evidence that only two witnesses to investigation expressed concern about giving statements, and witnesses' re- luctance stemmed ;solely from uncerl:ainty about upcoming civil litigation and not from fe:u• of retaliation, no confidential informants were used in investigation, newspaper's in- gtciry into incident arose only alter oflicial investigation had ceased, no showing was made that report contained hearsay, nlmor, or libelous comment, and report contained no sut~jective theories, conclusions, or recom- mendations. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 62`L.11. 6. Records c=fiA Allegations of leniency or cover-up with respect to disciplining of those sworn to en- force the law are matters of great public concern in determining potential harm to pnblic interest to be suffered by disclosure of conditionally privileged statements made by public officers. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, ti22.11. 7. Records ca64 Existence of alternate means of • access to essentially same information is f:lctor to be weighed in determining whether disclosure of conditionally privileged .communications of public officials is warranted. LC.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. f"' _ ~' 1: ~„ ~;~ ~' , i ~ i • ;j 1 jai i ~ ~ 4 i i ~ ;j { • , ~~ 1 r. ,: ~i ~. ~. f ~ 1i • ~ ~ ~i 752 Iowa 521 NORTH WESTERN REPOKTEK, 2d SERIES ;. ,; ,~ ~. ;~ ,';, r;. ~~I ~i i ~;. '~~•~. ~; ~,~. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ gations, viewed the charges as serious and immediately requested an independent inves- tigation by the Iowa Division : of Civninal Investigation (DCI).' Patton sought to deter- mine whether Swore had engaged, in criminal conduct or had violated departmental rules and regulations. ~ ~ ~ ' DCI special agent Wade Kisner took on the assignment. Because the allegations re- lated to an incident that occurred nearly two years earlier, Kisner's report consisted en- . , tir•ely of notes taken in ,connection with wit- ness interviews. It did not include his per- sonal impressions or conclusions regarding whether any official action. should be taken against Swore. _ .. . The report was fortivarded to both Patton and county attorney Patrick Jackson. Based solely on the report, Patton concluded that Swore had breached no. departmental rules or regulations. Jackson agreed and further determined that insufficient evidence existed to' warrant prosecution for assault: ~~After these decisions were made, William Mertens, publisher of The Hawk Eye, re- quested. acopy of the DCI report from Jack- son. Jackson refused to produce it.• ~ The newspaper then sought a '" ~~ o~1~g~c1~.~ ~ r~~,a able. The Iowa Department of Public Safety intervened on Jackson's behalf. ' Prior to hearing on the writ, the civil suit ~~ i,~~ ; ~ against .Swore and the City of Burlington ~ ~ went to trial. Most of the witnesses at trial ~ ~ were the .same persons interviewed ~ by Kis- s • ner for the DCI report. Sands reported I~ ~ ~ daily on the evidence and testimony present- I:~~i ed. During the trial, a second allegation of brutality by Swore surfaced.... The Hawk Eye ~` investigated and reported on this allegation ;~ ; as well; a separate suit on the matter even- ; I' . tually settled without trial. As to the initial. ~! claun, the jury ultimately. returned a verdict for damages against Swore and the city. ~~ ~ At the subsequent hearing on the~o#~ a.. _ :aal3~sr7~ ;i 0,fs~'ar~~lin~~c"~~fL~9°"~1~151'J~ ?~>s~~'h"'~'^Le,Swore with the • ~ jury's arguably contrary 'findings against `,, him. .Without disclosure of the facts upon ;' ~, EI ,~ i ~7~ 1 a ,`.i~ _. which the officials made their decision, the newspaper argued, the potential for a, cover- up existed.. Jackson resisted on the ground that neither this DCI report, nor any other, warranted release in the public interest. His argument rested on a number of DCI con- cerns:.assurirrg informant confidentiality, en- couraging futm•e cooperation with the DCI, protecting persons from speculative or poten- tially libelous revelations, arrd preventing a landslide of disclosure. requests by the media. •The district court found that the DCI re- port was protected by a qualified privilege. It concluded, however, that any har-rn to the public interest caused by the report's disclo- sure was substantially outweil;hed by the public interest in disclosure. Subject to the deletion of certain criminal history data, the court ordered . JacJcson to make the report available to the newspaper. This appeal fol- lowed. • [1) L. Because mandamus is an equitable action, our review on appeal is de novo. Iowa Code § G61.3 (1993); Nowli~t v. S'curr, 331 N.W.2d 394, 39G (Iowa 1983). We give weight to the district court's fact-findings but are.not bound by them. Id II. Jackson and the Department of Public Safety rest their case for• nondisclosure on Iowa Code sections 22.7 and 622.11. Section 22.7 states in pertinent part: ' •~d~•~11~f~'t"i~hli'r~aar'f"s13`~:i~~ 1~eptrr~errll~.~~zs~r~(~, b?~~oa.~~~irias~da~fgf.he r!e~Rx~sauh~r;;pn~tatu~duly~ au~~ rtzed"e~l"s''~'r~~tformatiom S• ~ ~~i~'~~e,,epozrts~ p~~r~ualae~aa~. ~~iaxa±inmara.a~+sn~~(}]~s wlrn.~ex~ir)~iyt~. However, the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding a crime or incident shall not be kept confidential un- der this section, except in those unusual circumstances where disclosure would plairily and seriously jeopar•dizc an investi- gation or pose a clear and present danger to. the safety.of an individual. (Emphasis added.) Section 622.11 reads: A public officer cannot be examined as to communications made to the public offi- ,, ~ . v the er- md er, His on- en- CI, en- > a lia. re- ge. the ~. :lo- r!: the • ~~=, the ~~ the i~ ;~ ort fog- ble vo. ~' ive ~~ iut a. Ilic on ion be j red :he ' ~o- •ts, se- te, ets or ~' m- ual .lld ~'.~ Ill- : ;I ~i ;er ; ;; as Ffl- HAWK EYE v. JACKSON ~ Iowa 758 Clta aa'S21 N.-V.2d 750 (Iowa 1994) cer in official confidence, when the public Jackson's blanket claim of privilege. Appel- interests• would suffer by the disclosure. gaols' reasons for protecting the confidentiali- [2] In State ex rel. Slcanalcan v. Iowa District Court, 356 N.W.2r1 523, 628 (Iowa 1984), we observed that these two statutory provisions express essentially t}le same legis- lative plu•pose with respect to DCI files: suranae~,ttowi~a)i Fprn's~ •allao~~-~wbom~::la~~n- for.-ceme.nlrT.~a~l~; reel.~:;,t,)k~l~.~af~i~ial~eon€>d dentia~~~~~~d~,klsv4ny~~atinaz~a~d3 may~pt~t~#~~f~tm~p~iblie~cc~ess;:~e~of~fleselFs~' rep~~olwh~ai~ikl~thavear~l:~ ItL The privilege cloaking these communications, however, is qualified, not absolute. Id at 627. An official claiming the privilege must satisfy athree-part test: Cl~~~l€I~ is~u~~~.>~~::,a~l~ned; (2) the,Ea>~ISra~ieatriaR was~na,~le~.R~.l;©iall~nfl~~t and (3) tl~ p~~~e~~~.uldsa~lb~~+~lt~sl~. Id at 627; accord Shannon v. Hansen, 969 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1991). [3] Only the i:hil•d part of the test con- cerns us here. ])etermining where the line falls between public harm and public good requires weighing; the relative merits of the interests at stake. We have long recognized that confidentiality encoural;es persons to come forward with information, w}lether sub- stantiated or not, that might he t1sQt1 to solve crimes and deter criminal activity. Shana= ban, 356 N.W.2d at 529. Secrecy is especial- ly vital where reports are based on confiden- tial informants, persons indispensable to suc- cessfill police work but who fi•equently fear intimidation and reprisal. kl. at 529--30. ~lrthermore, nondisclosure permits law en- forcement officials the necessary pl•ivacy to discuss findings and theories about c.•tses un- der investigation. Id :tt 5251. [4] We have also held, however, that these important aids to effective law enforce- ' ment comprise only one factor to be consid- cred by the court and are "not determinative i as to the 'public interest' test" S/cannon, 469 N.W.2d at 41~~. Other case-specific fac- tors, such as the nature of the investigation and whether it is completed or ongoing, may tip the balance in favor of public tli:;closure. • See id. [5] III. Turning to the record before 119, we are convinced the court wisely rejected ty of the DCI report, while not msubstantlal, do not justify nondisclosure under the unique facts of this case. . First, the compelling reasons ordinarily underlying the need for witness confidentiali- ty are absent. ~ Only Swore and one other witness expressed any concern about giving a statement. In each case the reluctance stemmed solely from uncertainty about their upcoming roles in the civil litigation, not con- cern over intimidation or retaliation. Both ultimately testified publicly in the civil trial, • as did ten persons out of the total of fourteen interviewed by Kisner. No confidential in- formants were used in the investigation. Second, ~ the record reflects that the news- paper's inquiry arose only after official inves- tigation into the Swore incident had ceased. I{isner reported that he closed the DCI file following the decision not to prosecute. Jackson expressed his belief that any recon- sideration of his decision would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations for as- sault: ~ He was unaware of any pending fed- eral charges arising out of the same incident. Thus any claim that an on-going investigation might be hindered by disclosure of the report is unsubstantiated. • Third, the appellants made no showing that the DCI report contained hearsay, ru- mor, or libelous comment. Because the focus of the investigation rested solely on Swore, no legitimate concerns exist over named but innocent suspects.: Kisner's report contained no subjective theories, conclusions, or 1•ecom- mendations, thus minimizing the need .for secrecy present in most investigations. The district count properly weighed the foregoing facts against the newspaper's proof that the public interest would be harmed by 'denial of access to the DCI file. See~Shana- han, 356 N.W.2d at 530. The record reveals that community:; interest and concern over allegations of police brutality, already piqued by the events in Los Angeles, was height- ened by the suit against Swore. This inter- est grew upon the filing of a second civil suit against him. Mertens testified that, once the jury reached a verdict in apparent conflict r_ ~:~ ~i ~i ~? i~ i~ ;lFI; ':~~~ ~!{" i'~~ ~. "j:i ig~ I ~i !~~ ~ ~!'IIi i ,III ~,: i i,i . i; ; ~ ~y, f i:, . X754 Iowa 621 NORTH R'ESTERN REPORTER, 2c1 SERIES ~: ~~ nisi . j;~ . i+ l :. I` I ! ~, with city officials' decisions, the newspaper received many more letters to the editor expressing concern over both incidents. [6) There can be little doubt that allega- tions of leniency or cover-up with respect to the disciplining of those sworn to enforce the law are matters of great public . concern. This fact is underscored by Patton and Jack- son's own testimony regarding the.immediate action taken upon hearing Swore was ac- ~cused of using excessive force. [7] Appellants nevertheless claim that the newspaper's need for disclosure is slight because the same information could have been gained from trial testimony or the newspaper's own private interviews. It is true that existence of an alternate means of access to essentially the same information ~is a factor to be weighed in determining wheth- er disclosure is wananted. Id at 631. But motivating the newspaper's claim is its con- cern that the information' contained in the DCI report may not be similar to that re- vealed at trial or secured by reporters out- side the courtroom. That suspicion is only strengthened by the jury's verdict." So long as it is barred from seeing the report, the newspaper is effectively prevented from as- sessing the reasonableness of the official ac- tion. Like the district court, we believe that neither the trial testimony nor independent witnes§ .interviews would ,shed light on that assessment. ~' [8, 9] Finally, we reject appellants' con- tention that the newspapers' interest in the report is lower-and thus less compelling- than the interest of the plaintiff in Shana- han, alitigant seeking discovery relevant to his civil lawsuit. Release of the report does not depend on the. status of the party seeking it.. Northeast Council on Substance Abuse, Inc.. v. Iowa Dept of Public Health, _513 N.W.2d 757, 761 (Iowa 1994). The newspa- per has the same right of access as any .member of the general public.. Sce Head v. Colloton, 331 N.W.2d 870, 874 (Iowa 1983). It is in that representative capacity that its interest in disclosure must be evaluated. In summary, our de novo review of, thi8 record leads us to the same conclusion reached by the district court. Under the unique facts of this case, any public harm created by the disclosure of the DCI investi- gatory report is far outweighed by the public harm accruing from its nondisclosure. The district court's order compelling disclosure is therefore affinnecl. AFFIRMED. w • O 5 KIY NUMBER SYSTEM T In the Interest of C.T., A Minor, • ~ C.T., Appellant. Nu. 94-138. Supreme Court of lows. Sept. 21, 1994. Juvenile was adjudicated in the District Court, Scott County, Gary ll. McKenrick, District Associate Judge, as delinquent after being found to have committed acts of tam- peringwith witness and crimin:El gang partic- ipation, and he appealed. 'Che Supreme Court, Ternus, J., held that:. (1) detennina- tion in prior adjudication that organisation was criminal street gang could not be used to establish that fact in adjudication of juvenile who was not party to or in privity with parlay to earlier proceeding, but (2) evidence sup- ported findings that juvenile had committed acts of delivery of controlled substance and criminal gang participation. Affu-med. 1. Assault and Ilattery a53 One form of asrault is gouig armed with intent to conunit felony. LC.r1. § 708.8. 2. Judgment 0=7117 State conk not use deternihration made in prior adjudication that organization wag "crnninal street gang" within meaning of statute in later adjudication of juvenile mem- ber of organization-for criminal gang partic- ipation where juvenile was nut Marty to prior _ ______.. , ____...___ ~..~..., rage i or 4 ;ntf a la~;~;~;1?G I III ansu~rer~ FindLaw> State Res_ources> Colorado> Prm_arv_Materia.ls> Colorado Court Opinions _ _ _ _ _ (`Q1 .(1R A T~(l f'(11,TRT ClF A PPF A T .C September 3. 1998 Nn, 97rA 1602 City and County of Denver, a Municipal corporation and PublicSafety Review Conunission, a Commission of the City and County ofDenver_ Plaintiffs-Angel lees. Jerome Powell and Scott Blatni7c. Defendants-Appellants. Anneal from the District Court of the Citv and County of Denver Honorable J. Stephen Phillips, Judge Nn, 97('V1Q(,,S Divicinn li :n_TC~C*MFNT RFVFRCFi~ Opinion by JUDGE NEY Criswell and Brides, JJ., concur Daniel E. Muse, City Attorney, Stan M. Sharoff, City Attomev,Denver. Colorado for Plaintiffs-Appellees 1-lamilton and Faatz, P.C., Gregory W. Smith, Michael E. Gurley,Cynthia Treadwell-Miller, Bruno, Bruno & Colin, P.C., David J.Bnmo, Christina M. Habas, Janice H. Hollenbeck, Denver,Colorado, for Defendants-Appellants and Amicus Curiae NationalAssociation of Police Organizations and Amicus Curiae FraternalOrder of Police Stephen R. McSpadden, Washington, D.C.. for Amicus CuriaeNational Association of Police Organizations Defendants, Denver police officers Jerome Powell and ScottBlatnik, appeal the trial court's declaratory judgment holdingthat the Denver Public Safety Review Commission (PSRC) can compeldefendants' statements relating to complaints of use of excessiveforce filed against them by citizens. We reverse. Citizenns filed complaints with the Denver Police Department(department) against defendants in 1995. Defendant Powell wasaccused of wrongfully hitting and pushing into a wall a man beindarrested for drunk driving, and defendant Blatnik was accused ofwrongfully fatally shooting a man while responding to a call forpolice assistance. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/>;etcase.pl?courrco&vo1=1998app%5 Cct090313&i... 10/21 /2008 ra~,c ~ of ~+ The department conducted investigations into both complaintsthrough its internal affairs division. Consistent withdepartment policy, the department also conducted a policeshooting investigation of defendant Blatnik, which included thevideotaping of witness and officer statements just hours afterthe shooting. Based on its internal investigations, thedepartment declined to take any administrative disciplinarvaction against either defendant. The Denver District Attorney's Office also reviewed bothincidents and declined to institute criminal charges againstdefendants. In the case of defendant Blatnik, the DistrictAttornev's Office issued a decision letter stating_ that his useof deadly force was statutorily justified and no criminalprosecution would be undertaken against him. The complaining citizens requested that the PSRC, acitizens' group created by city ordinance to review conduct ofpolice officers upon request, examine defendants' use of force todetermine whether it was justified. The PSRC subpoenaed theofficers to appear for questioning. On January 7, 1997, both defendants appeared before thePSRC. Defendant Blatnik asserted his Fifth Amendment privilegeagainst self-incrimination and declined to answer any questions. Defendant Powell answered some general questions, but alsoasserted his Fifth Amendment privilege and declined to answer anyquestions relating to the excessive f(lr(`P claim. On January 26, 1997, plaintiffs sought a declaratoryjudgment and injunctive relief ordering defendants to testifybefore the PSRC. Defendant Powell responded and filed a motionto dismiss for failure to state a claim, and defendant Blatnikanswered and asserted a counterclaim indemnifying him forattornev fees and costs. Plaintiffs opposed defendant Powell's motion to dismiss, andfiled a motion for summary judgment against defendant Blatnik. Defendant Blatnik sought summary judgment on plaintiffs' claimsand his counterclaim. On August 8, 1997, the trial court granted the plaintiffs'motions and issued its declaratory judgment holding thatdefendants could not refuse to answer questions before the PSRCon the basis of their Fifth Amendment privilege. The trial courtcertified the declaratory judgment for appeal pursuant toC.R.C.P. 54(b). Defendants assert that the trial court erred in finding thatthey could be compelled to answer the PSRC's questions over theassertion of their Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminatethemselves. We agree. Because the issues on appeal are questions of law, we willreview them de novo .See People v. Sapp , 934 P.2d 1367 (Colo.1997). The Fifth Amendment protects an individual not only againstbeing involuntarily called as a witness against him or herself ina criminal prosecution, but also grants a person the privilegenot to answer official questions in any other proceeding, civilor criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might tend tobe self-incriminatory in future criminal proceedings. Lefkowitzv. Turley , 414 U.S. 70, 94 S.Ct. 316, 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973). The Fifth Amendment privilege is not self-executing. If anindividual confronted with questions reasonably expected toelicit incriminating answers chooses to respond voluntarilywithout asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege, the responsesmay be used against such person in a subsequent criminalproceeding. Minnesota v. Murphy , 465 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 1136,79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984). A public employee who is compelled to provide incriminatingstatements by threat of termination for not testifying has notvoluntarily waived the privilege against self-incrimination. Therefore, the compelled statements cannot be used against theindividual in subsequent criminal proceedings. Garrity v. NewJersey , 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). Statements are compelled by threat of discharge ofemployment when: (1) an individual subjectively believes that heor she will be terminated from employment for asserting the FifthAmendment privilege; and (2) that belief is obiectivelvreasonable under the circumstances. People v. Sapp ,supra . For a belief to be objectively reasonable, it must stem fromsome significant coercive action on the part of the state, suchas a statute, policy,-rule, or ordinance requiring the individualto respond to questioning or face termination. The coerciveaction of the state must surpass the general obligation imposedon a witness to give truthful testimony. People v. Sapp., supra . http: //caselaw.lp. findlaw. com/scripts/getcase.pl?courrco&vo1=1998 app%5 Cct090313 &i... 10/21 /2008 1 4f.,~+ J Vl ~ Here, defendants refused to answer the PSRC's questions,asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminatethemselves. They argue that the PSRC cannot compel them totestify in contravention of their privilege against self-incrimination because the PSRC is not their employer and cannotthreaten them with penalties of discharge or sanctions; the PSRChas no power to grant them immunity from prosecution; the PSRC'ssubpoena does not rise to the level of coercive state action; andthe hearing before the PSRC is not an administrative disciplinaryhearing because the PSRC is without power to impose anvdiscipllne. Therefore, defendants argue that their responses to thePSRC's questions would not be considered as compelled, but wouldbe considered as voluntary and, thus, would constitute a waiverof their Fifth Amendment privilege such that those responsescould be used against them in subsequent criminal actions. A Defendants' first argue that the PSRC cannot compelstatements from defendants because it is not their employer, ithas no authority to discipline them for asserting their FifthAmendment privilege, and any statements they give would bevoluntarv and constitute a waiver of their Fifth Amendmentrights. We agree. Statements are compelled by threat of discharge ofemployment when an individual believes that he or she will betenninated for asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege and thatbelief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. For alaw enforcement officer's belief that he or she may be dischargedto be considered objectively reasonable, it must be supported bvsome demonstrable action of the state. Ordinary job pressures,such as the subjective belief that discipline or discharge forinsubordination is possible, are insufficient to support anobjectively reasonable expectation of discharge. People v. Sapp , supra . Public employers may compel statements from their employeeswhen they are narrowly related to the performance of theirduties, do not compel a waiver of their Fifth Amendmentprivilege, and are not used against the employee in latercriminal proceedings. Gardner v. Broderick , 392 U.S. 273, 88S.Ct. 1913, 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968). The PSRC is not defendants' employer. It is a body composedof seven residents of the City and County of Denver appointed bvthe mayor to make recommendations for changes in policy andprocedure after review of citizen complaints. Denver RevisedMunicipal Code §2-248. When a citizen files a complaint with the PSRC, it isempowered to review and investigate that complaint. DenverRevised Municipal Code $$2-248(2) and 2-248(3). If the PSRCfinds the complaint to be unfounded, exonerated, or notsustained, it can make recommendations to the chief of police anddirector of corrections regarding the policies and procedures ofthe police department and the outcome of the complaint. DenverRevised Municipal Code §2-250(k). However, if the PSRC makes a finding that a citizencomplaint is sustained, it may only recommend policy or procedurechanges. It is specifically excluded from the disciplineprocess: "fTjhe fPSRCI shall not provide recommendationsregarding the discipline or penalties imposed on that specificcomplaint to the police department or the sheriffs department." Denver Revised Municipal Code §2-250(k). The authority todischarge, discipline, or impose sanctions on police officers isreserved for the chief of police, director of corrections, andmanager of safety. Denver Revised Municipal Code ~2-251. Plaintiffs rely on Pirozzi v. New York, 950 F. Supp. 90(S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd , 117 F.3d 722 (2d. Cir. 1997), to supporttheir assertions that a police citizen review board not only hasthe authority to compel statements from police officers, but alsoto provide transcripts of that testimony to a district attomeywithout violating the officers' Fifth Amendment privilege. However, the PSRC's lack of involvement in disciplinaryproceedings distinguishes this situation from Pirozzi becausethere the New York police citizen review board is an integralpart of the discipline process and officers are compelled byspecific police department regulations to give a statement tothat review board under threat of termination. Here, defendants properly do not have a subjective beliefthat they could be discharged for not testifying before the PSRC,and there is no objective reason, in the form of coercive stateaction, to imply that they could be discharged for nottestifving. Because the PSRC is not defendants' employer and cannotcompel them to testify, we agree with defendants that anvstatements they might make would be voluntary and would,therefore, effect a waiver of their Fifth Amendment rights suchthat their statements could be used against them in a subsequentcriminal proceeding.B. Defendants also argue that the PSRC cannot compel theirstatements because it does not have the authority to grant useand http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vo1=1998app%SCct090313&i... 10/21 /200$ derivative immunity. We agree. An individual may be compelled to testify as to matters thatmay tend to be self-incriminatory when use and derivative useimmunity has been conferred upon the statements made. Withimmunity. the individual's compelled statements cannot be used inane criminal prosecution. Kastigar v. United States , 406 U.S.441.92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The PSRC does not have authority to grant immunity of any kind to thewitnesses who testify before it. See Denver Revised MunicipalCode §2-240, et seq. Rather, §13-90-118, C.R.S. 1997, ~_ ivesauthority for use and derivative use immunity in specificinstances: where the proceedings are before or ancillary to acourt or grand jury; the immunity is requested by a districtattomev. attorney general, or special prosecutor; and theimmunity is ordered by a district court. Here, the proceedings are before a citizen group; no immunity has beenrequested by a district attorney, attomey general, or specialprosecutor: and the court has not ordered immunity fordefendants' statements. Although the Civil Service Commission, which is theauthority charged with all personnel matters involving policeofficers, may v'ant immunity under the Denver Charter forstatements made to the department during internal investigations,no similar provision exists for the PSRC. See Denver CityCharter §C5.78-1, 78-2. We therefore conclude that, because the PSRC cannot grant useand derivative use immunity to defendants, the PSRC cannot compelthem to make statements when they assert their Fifth Amendmentprivilege. c The PSRC asserts that its subpoena power in and of itself is sufficientto compel statements from defendants. We disagree. The general obligation to appear and answer questions truthfullypursuant to PSRC's subpoena does not convert otherwise voluntarystatements into compelled statements. Minnesota v. Murphy , 465U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984); People v. Sapp ,supra . Although the PSRC is authorized to issue subpoenas and enforce themthrough a county court proceeding for contempt, this authoritvdoes not translate into an ability to coerce a compelledstatement. See People v. Razatos , 699 P.2d 970 (Colo.1985) (county court may punish a witness for contempt only if thewitness exhibits a contumacious failure to comply with an orderof the court, and a valid exercise of the privilege ofself-incrimination does not rise to the level of contempt). DenverCity Charter §C6.12: Denver Revised Municipal Code §2-243; We therefore conclude that in any appearance before the PSRC, defendantsare entitled to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege anddecline to answer questions submitted to them where their answersmight tend to incriminate them. The declaratory iudQment is reversed. JUDGE CRISWELL and JUDGE BRIGGS concur. _ __ _ __ _ _ These opinions are not fmal. They may be modified, changed or withdrawn in accordance with Rules 40 and 49 of the Colorado Appellate Rules. Changes to or modifications of these opinions resulting from any action taken by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court are not, incorporated_here. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ .. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/~etcase.pl?court=co&vo1=1998app%SCct090313 &i... 10/21 /2008 d97 Ol`rICL4L MEETINGS OPEN TO PUBLIC (OPEN MEETINGS), §21.3 SUBTITLE 9 RESTRAINTS ON GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 21 OFFICIAL MEETINGS OPEN TO PUBLIC (OPEN MEETINGS) 'll.l Intent -declaration of policy. 21.7 Rules of conduct at meetings. 21.2 Definitions. 21.8 Electronic meetings. '11.3 Meetings of governmental bodies. 21.9 Employment conditions discussed. 21.4 Public notice. 21.10 Information to be provided. 21.5 Closed session. 21.11 Applicability to nonprofit corporations. , 21.6 Enforcement. 21.1 Intent -declaration of policy. This chapter seeks to assure, through a require- ment of open meetings of governmental bodies, that the basis and rationale of governmental deci- sions, as well as those decisions themselves, are easily accessible to the people. Ambiguity in the construction oi• application of this chapter should be resolved in favor of openness. C85, §21.1 21.2 Definitions. As used in this chapter: 1. "Governmental body" means: a. Aboard, council, commission or other gov- erning body expressly created by the statutes of this state or by executive order. b. Aboard, council, commission, or other gov- erning body of a political subdivision or tax-sup- parted district in this state. c. A multimembered body formally and direct- lycreated by one or more boards, councils, commis- sions, or other governing bodies subject to para- grnphs "a"and `~" of this subsection. ct. Those multimembered bodies to which the state board of regents or a president of a university has delegated the responsibility for the manage- meat nndcontrol ofthe intercollegiate athletic pro- grams nt tl~e state universities. e. An advisory board, advisory commission, or task force created by the governor or the general assembly to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues. A nonprofit corporation other than a county ' or district fair or agricultural society, whose facili- ' des or indebtedness are supported in whole or in :part with property tax revenue and which is li- ansed to conduct parr-mutuel wagering pursuant ~, to chopter 99D or a nonprofit corporation which is a ~'. , successor to the nonprofit corporation which built the facility. g. A nonprofit corporation licensed to conduct gambling games pursuant to chapter 99r h. An advisory board, advisory commission, advisory committee, task force, or other body created by statute or executive order of this state or created by an executive order of a political subdivi- sion of this state to develop and make recommen- dations on public policy issues. 2. "Meeting" means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy- making duties. Meetings shall not include a gath- ering ofinembers of agovernmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no dis- cussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter. 3. "Open session" means a meeting to which all members of the public have access. [C71, 73, 75, 77, §28A.1; C79, 81, §28A.2] C85, §21.2 89 Acts, ch 73, § 1; 90 Acts, ch 1175, §1; 90 Acts, ch 1271, §701; 91 Acts, ch 258, §26; 93 Acts, ch 25, §1 ' 21.3 Meetings of governmental bodies. Meetings of governmental bodies shall be pre- ceded by public notice as provided in section 21.4 and shall be held in open session unless closed ses- sionsare expressly permitted by la~v Except as pro- vided insection 21.5, all actions and discussions at meetings of governmental bodies, whether formal or informal, shall be conducted and executed in open session. Each governmental body shall keep minutes of all its meetings showing the date, time and place, the members present, and the action taken at each meeting. The minutes shall show the results of l 'I L'~; !~' I i I; I! ~i ~iI ~'I ,I ~,,. ;; ~ ;, I, I:;~'~ ~I~ ~~ ~' I;, ;~~';;- i ~' ~' I. I' I ~ I;9 L'. I•~^ II j!, §21.3, OrI'ICIAL MEETINGS OPEN TO PUBLIC (OPEN MEETINGS) each vote taken and informatio res nt 1Thetvot eof cate the vote of resent hal be made public at the each member p ublic records open session. The minutes shall be p open to public inspection. §28A.3] ' ~'~ [C71, 73, 75, 77, §28A.1, 28A.5; C79, 81, C85, §21.3 1 93 Acts, ch 25, §2 r i i r i l I ~I ~i l 1,'~' ,! r I ilia i. ;. i tili I~'; ~, ,,f ,., ~1`;i! j ~•I' 1 ~i : '. ~I~~', ii '~ ~, i i!'.. ~~i jj ~~ 398 ~~~' 21.5 Closed session. hold a closed ses- 1, A governmental body may sion only by affirmative public vote of either two- thirds ofthe members of the bod oo ernmental body tiers present at the meeting. A g may hold a closed sessfor any of l,l a followings ea• session is necessary sons: a, To review or disc st ~rfederal ]awrto be ,~• ' ate o quired or authorized by .j t confidential or to be kept confiden sion or ke ` ~''I ~; p osses dition for that governmental body p . ~~:; continued receipt of federal funds. ; discuss application for letters patent. ~; T ; j ,j ' b, o To discuss strategy with counsel in matters i , y s c. that are presently in litigation or where litigation would be likely to , ~, , f imminent where its disclosure or disadvantage the position of the gov- di f ~, ce preju ernmental body in that litigation. of a licensing ex- t .~ ~. ' s d, To discuss the conten hether to initiate licensee disciplin- ~. °; , amination or w ary investigations or proceedings if the governmen- or examining board. i ~ 1 ng tal body is a licens discuss whether to conduct a hearing or to T ~ ' o ¢. conduct hearings to suspend orexpel astudent, un- ession is requested by the student or n y .' ~, ;~ less an open s ardian of the student if the student is a j; : parent or gu ~; .~ minor. f. To discuss the decision to be rendered in a nducted according to the provi- ` ; :.,+ contested case co sions of chapter 17A. To avoid disclosure of specific law enforce- d roves- , g. ment matters, such as current or propose auditing techniques or ,,1 tigations, inspection or schedules, which if disclosed would enable law vio• f lators to avoid detection. To avoid disclosure of specific law enforce- h ,~~: , ment matters, such as rosecution or settlement of ~ 1[ teria for the selection, p which if disclosed would facilitate disregard cases , of requirements imposed bylaw. luate the professional compete f 1` • i. To eva erfor an individual whose appointment, hiring, p sidered when nec• +~, ~ ~ mance or discharge is being con vent needless and irreparable injury , ~ essary to pre dividual's reputation and that individunl i ~ n to that requests a closed session. ~ the purchase of particular real es- i t ' ,, ~ scuss j. To d where premature disclosure could be sea- onl - t y e ta sonably expected to increase the price the govern for that property. a t i y o p mental body would have d the tap ~ l The minutes an for be available e shaIl closed under this paragr p saction dis- t j 1 ~ ran public examination when the ~ cussed is completed. vote of each member on the question of Th i e 2. holding the closed session and the reason for hold- ed session by reference to a specific ex- l ~ os ing the c emption under this section shall be announced and entered in the min- i ; on publicly at the open sess utes. A governmental body shall not discuss nny n which does not di- i o business during a closed sess 1 e s i 21.4 Public notice. exec t township 1, A governmental body, P trustees, shall give notice of the dine, date, and place of each meeting, and its tentative agenda, in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the public of that information. Reasonable notice ~ shall in- clude advising the news media who have filed a re- quest for notice with the governmental body and posting the notice on a bulletin board or other prominent place which is easily accessiulr ose at public and clearly designated for that p p the principal office of the body holding the meeting, or if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held. wire- . 2, Notice conforming with all of the req ments of subsection 1 of this section shall be given at least twenty-four hours prior to the commence- ment ofany meeting of a governmental body unless for good cause such notice is impossible or imprac- tical, in which case as much notice as ishall be held possible shall be given. Each meeting at a place reasonably accessible to the public, and at a time reasonably convenient to the public, un- - less for good cause such a place or time is impossi- ble or impractical. Special access to the meeting may be granted to persons with disabilities. When it is necessary to hold a meeting on less than twenty-four hours' notice, or at a place that is not reasonably accessible to the public, or at a time that is not reasonably convenient to the public, the nature of the good cause justifying that departure from the normal requirements shall be stated in the minutes. arent 3. A formally consticondu t a meet ng without governmental body may notice as required by this section during a lawful meeting of the parent governmental body, a recess in that meeting, or immediately following that meeting, if the meeting of the subunit is publicly announced at the parent meeting and the subject of the meeting reasonably coi thee arent governmen discussed or acted upon by P . tal body. ' 4. If another section of the Code requihear- manner of giving specific notice of a move nmenta ing, or an intent to take action by a g body, compliance with that section shall constitut compliance with the notice requirements of thi section. 81 28A.4] [C71, 73,.75,77, 79, , § . C85, §21.4 96 Acts, ch 1129, §113 III 1'i ri 399 OFFICIAL MEETINGS OPEN TO PUBLIC (OPEN 141EETING5), §21.G rectly relate to the specific reason announced as justification for the closed session. 3. Final action by any governmental body on any matter shall be taken in an open session unless some other provision of the Code expressly permits such actions to be talten in closed session. 4. A governmental body shall keep detailed minutes of all discussion, persons present, and ac- tion occurring at a closed session, and shall also tape record all of the closed session. The detailed mimites and tape recording of a closed session shall be sealed and shall not be public records open to public inspection. However, upon order of the court in an action to enforce this chapter, the detailed minutes and tape recording shall be unsealed and examined by the court in camera. The court shall then determine what part, if any, of the minutes should be disclosed to the party seeking enforce- ment of this chapter for use in that enforcement proceeding. In determining whether any portion of the minutes or recording shall be disclosed to such a party for this purpose, the court shall weigh the prejudicial effects to the public interest of the dis- closure ofany portion of the minutes or recording in question, against its probative value as evidence in an enforcement proceeding. After such a deter- mination, the court may permit inspection and use of all or portions of the detailed minutes and tape recording by the party seeking enforcement of this chapter. A governmental body shall keep the de- tailedminutes and tape recording of any closed ses- sion for a period of at least one year fromthe date of that meeting. 5. Nothing in this section requires a govern- mental body to hold a closed session to discuss or act upon any matter. [C71, 73, 75, 77, §28A.3; C79, 81, §28A.5] C85, §21.5 21.6 Enforcement. 1. The remedies provided by this section against state governmental bodies shall be in addi- tion to those provided by section 17A.19. Any ag- gnieved person, taxpayer to, or citizen of, the state of Iowa, or the attorney general or county attorney, may seek judicial enforcement of the requirements ~ of this chapter. Suits to enforce this chapter shall be 1 brought in the district court for the county in which j the governmental body has its principal place of business. :I' 2. Once a party seekingjudicial enforcement of ` ~ this chapter demonstrates to the court that the ', body in question is subject to the requirements of !' this chapter and has held a closed session, the bur- den of going forward shall be on the body and its members to demonstrate compliance with the re- ~ quirements of this chapter. ~ 3. Upon a finding by a preponderance of the ev- idence that a governmental body has. violated any ~~ provision of this chapter, a court: a. Shall assess each member of the governmen- talbody wlio participated in its violation damages in the amount of not more than five hundred dol- larsnor less than one hundred dollars. These dam- ages shall be paid by the court imposing it to the state of Iowa, if the body in question is a state gov- ernmental body, or to the local government in- volved ifthe body in question is a local governmen- tal body. A member of a governmental body found to have violated this chapter shall not be assessed such damages if that member proves that the mem- ber did any of the following: (1) Voted against the closed session. (2) Had good reason to believe and in good faith believed facts which, if true, would have indicated compliance with all the requirements of this chap- ter. (3) Reasonably relied upon a decision of a court or a formal opinion of the attorney general or the attorney for the governmental body. b. Shall order the payment of all costs and rea- sonableattorneys fees to any party successfully es- tablishing aviolation of this chapter. The costs and fees shall be paid by those members of the govern= mental body who are assessed damages under paragraph "a" of this subsection. If no such mem- bers exist because they have a lawful defense un- der that paragraph to the imposition of such dam- ages, the costs and fees shall be paid to the successful party from the budget of the offending governmental body or its parent. c. Shall void any action taken in violation of this chapter, if the suit for enforcement of this chap- ter is brought within six months of the violation and the court finds under the facts of the particular case that the public interest in the enforcement of the policy of this chapter outweighs. the public in- terest in sustaining the validity of the action taken in the closed session. This paragraph shall not ap- ply to an action taken regarding the issuance of bonds or other evidence of indebtedness of a gov- ernmentalbody if apublic hearing, election or pub- lic sale has been held regarding the bonds or evi- dence of indebtedness. d. ` Shall issue an order removing a member of a ` governmental body from office if that member has engaged in two prior violations of this chapter for which damages were assessed against the member during the member's term. e. May issue a mandatory injunction punish- able by civil contempt ordering the members of the offending governmental body to refrain for one year from any future violations of this chapter. 4. Ignorance of the legal requirements of this chapter shall be no defense to an enforcement pro- ceedingbrought under this section. A governmen- talbody which is in doubt about the legality of clos- ing aparticular meeting is authorized to bring suit at the expense of that governmental body in the district court of the county of the governmental body's principal place of business to ascertain the 400 ~ 401 §21.6, OFFICIAL MEETINGS OPEN TO PUBLIC (OPEN MEETINGS) propriety of any such action, or seek a formal opin- ion of the attorney general or an attorney for the governmental body. [C71, 73, 75, 77, §28A.7, 28A.8; C79, 81, §28A.6] C85, §21.6 21.7 Rules of conduct at meetings. The public may use cameras or recording devices at any open session. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a governmental body from making and en- foi•cingreasonable ivles for the conduct of its meet- ings to assure those meetings are orderly, and fi•ee from interference or interruption by spectators. C85, §21.7 21.8 Electronic meetings. 1. A governmental body may conduct a meet- ing by electronic means only in circumstances where such a meeting in person is impossible or im- practical and only if the governmental body com- plies with all of the following: a. .The governmental body provides public ac- cess to the conversation of the meeting to the extent reasonably possible. b. The governmental body complies with sec- tion 21.4. For the purpose of this paragraph, the place of the meeting is the place fi•om which the communication originates or where public access is provided to the conversation. c. Minutes are kept of the meeting. The minutes shall include a statement explain- ingwhy ameeting in person was impossible or im- practical 2. A meeting conducted in compliance with this section shall not be considered in violation of this chapter. 3. A meeting by electronic means may be con= ducted without complying with paragraph "a" of subsection 1 if conducted in,accordance with all of the requirements for a closed session contained in section 21.5. C85, §21.8 21.9 Employment conditions discussed. A meeting of a governmental body to discuss strategy in matters relating to employment condi- tions of employees of the governmental body who are not covered by a collective bargaining agree- mentunder chapter 20 is exempt from this chapter. For the purpose of this section, "employment cwidi- tions" mean areas included in the scope of negoti- ations listed in section 20.9. [81 Acts, ch 30, §1] C83, §28A.9 C85, §21.9 21.10 Information to be provided. The authority which appoints members of gov- ernmental bodies shall provide the members with information about this chapter and chapter 22. The appropriate commissioner of elections shall pro- vide that information to members of elected gov- ernmental bodies. 89 Acts, ch 73, §2 21.11 Applicability to nonprofit corpora- tions. This chapter applies to nonprofit corporations which are defined as governmental bodies subject to section 21.2, subsection 1, paragraph "F", only when the meetings conducted by the nonprofit cor- porations relate to the conduct ofpari-mutuel rac- ing and wagering pursuant to chapter 99D. 90 Acts, ch 1175, §2 CHAPTER 22 EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS • (OPEN RECORDS) 22.8 Injunction to restrain examination. 22.1 Definitions. ublic records -exceptions. i 22,g Denial of federal funds -rules. 22.2 ne p Riglit to exam 22 10 Civil enforcement. , 22.3 Supervision. 22 11 Fair information practices. 22.3A Access to data processing software. . 22 12 political subdivisions. 22.4 5 2 'Hours when available. Enforcement of rights. ~ 22.13 Settlements -governmental bodies. funds investment records in custody of bli p . 2 22.6 Penalty. ~ 22 14 c u -third parties. 22.7 Confidential records. 22.1 Definitions. tion, political subdivision, tax-supported district, 1. The term government body" means this .nonprofit corporation other than a county or dis- state, or any county, city, township, school corpora- trict fair or agricultural society, whose facilities or indebtednc with proper conduct par 99D, or oth~ partment, committee, or any ems implementi 2. The 1 ernment bu the public r in the physi ernment boy record. The public fiord: sponsible fn body shall c ployees of th for impleme and shall pu or employee menting the delegated. "~ automated d the data pros the agent of unit which 1~ solely for stn 3. As use eludes all sec oration, store belonging to ship, school c profit corpor fair or agric~ debtedness a property tax duct pari-mi 99D, or tax-s branch, depa council, or co `Public sere to the invests limited to im ing orders, or the public boc fiduciary or o [C71, 73, 7; 84 Acts, c11 C85, §22.1 90 Acts, ch Acts, ch 1156 22.2 Ri gl exceptions. 1. Every F and copy a pt wise dissemin contained in a vided for by 1~ §21.G, OFFICIAL MEETINGS OPEN TO PUBLIC (OPEN 114EETINGS) propriety of any such action, or seek a formal opin- ion of the attorney general or an attorney for the governmental body. - [C71, 73, 75, 77, §28A.7, 28A.8; C79, 81, §28A.6] C85, §21.6 21,7 Rules of conduct at meetings. The public may use cameras or recording devices at any open session. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a governmental body from making and en- forcingreasonable rules for the conduct of its meet- ings to assure those meetings are orderly, and free from interference or interruption by spectators. [C79, 81, §28A.7] C85, §21.7 . 21.8 Electronic meetings. 1. A governmental body may conduct a meet- ing by electronic means only in circumstances where such a meetingin person is impossible or im- practical and only if the governmental body com- plies with all of the following: . a. ,The governmental body provides public ac- cess tothe conversation of the meeting to the extent reasonably possible. b.' The governmental body complies with sec- tion 21.4. P'or the purpose of this paragraph, the place of the meeting is the place from which the communication originates or where public access is provided to the conversation. c. Minutes are kept of the meeting. The minutes shall include a statement explain- ingwhy ameeting in person was impossible or im- practical. ' 2.' A meeting conducted in compliance with this section shall not be considered in violation of this chapter. ~ ' 3.' ~ A meeting by electronic means may be con- ducted without complying with paragraph "a" of i 400 subsection 1 if conducted in accordance with all of the requirements for a closed session contained in section 21.5. C85, §21.8 21.9 Employment cw~ditions discussed. A meeting of a governmental body to discuss strategy in matters relating to employment condi- tions of employees of the governmental body who are not covered by a collective bargaining agree- mentunder chapter 20 is exempt fi•om this chapter. I'or the purpose of this section, "employmertit corcdi- tioras" mean areas included in the scope of negoti- ations listed in section 20.9. [81 Acts, ch 30, §1] C83, §28A.9 C85, §21.9 21.10 Information to be provided. The authority which appoints members of gov- ernmental bodies shall provide the members with information about this chapter and chapter 22. The appropriate commissioner of elections shall pro- vide that information to members of elected gov- ernmental bodies. 89 Acts, ch 73, §2 21.11 Applicability to nonprofit corpora- tions. This chapter applies to nonprofit corporations which are defined as governmental bodies subject to section 21.2, subsection 1, paragraph ' f", only when the meetings conducted by the nonprofit cor- porations relate to the conduct of pari-mutucl rac- ing and wagering pursuant to chapter 99D. 90 Acts, ch 1175, §2 CHAPTER 22 ,EXAMINATION OP' PUBLIC RECORDS ' ' ~ ~ (OPEN RECORDS) • 22.8 Injunction to restrain examination. 22.1 2 22 Definitions. ht to examine public records -exceptions. Ri 22:9 unds -rules. e D vn , . g nforcement l Ci 22.3 ~ 3A 22 Supervision. Access to data processing software. 22.11 rair information practices. i i . 22.4 Hours when available. 22,12 22 13 ons. s Political subdiv Settlements -governmental bodies. 22.5 Enforcement of rights. ,' . 22,14 Public funds investment records in custody of 22.6 Penalty. third parties. 22.7 Confidential records. . •22.1 Definitions. tion, political subdivision, tax-supported district, {! IK,, • 1. The term `goucrnment body" means this nonprofit corporation other than a cowity or dis- fii. .;i state, or airy county, city, township, school corpora- trio fair or agricultural society, whose facilities or l ~~4 ~~ t, ;. ,..~. i i..~b j EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RECOIIDS (OPEN RECORDS), §22.3 401 00 of indebtedness are supported in whole or in part nue and which is licensed to in with property tax reve conduct pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter or any branch, de- f this state i , ty o 99D, or other ent partment, board, bureau, commission,• council, i ng committee, official or officer, of any of the forego or any employee delegated the responsibility for I• ss implementing the requirements of this chapter. term "lawful custodian"means the gov- Th u tdi- e 2, ernment body currently in physical possession of dian of a public record t vh° ree" o the public record. The cus in the physical possession of persons outside a gov- ~ter. di ernment body is the government body owning that to the investment of tin l d - 'i ;oti- g a s re record. The recor ublic funds are the property of the public body re- p sponsible for the public funds. Each government body shall delegate to particular officials or ein- ent body the responsibility ployees of that governm for implementing the requirements of this chapter ~ and shall publicly announce the particular officials onsibility for imple- res h p om ,} or employees to w ~ menting the requirements of this chapter has been gov- with ~ ~ delegated. "Lawful custodian" does not mean an cessing unit of a public body if ~ The ' automated data pro unit holds the records solely as in pro_ g f. the data process ~ the agent of another public body, nor does it mean a gov- ;;; !,j; unit which holds the records of other public bodies solely for storage. As used in this chapter, `public records" in- ~ ~ 3 . ', eludes all records, documents, tape, or other infor- ` ~ora- , mation, stored or preserved in any medium, of or town- city county n tions , , y !i belonging to this state or a school corporation, political subdivision, non- ~ ship ibject only , •',•`' profit corporation other than a county or district ~~A ~ fair or agricultural society, whose facilities or in- t cor- ~1 rac- debtedness are supported in whole or in part with :~~.> e and which is licensed to con- property tax revenu ;: ~[ duct pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter or tax-supported district in this state, or any ~' ' 99D ' ` , ~ , ~~ s' branch, department, board, bureau, commission, i ' ng. ~~~ ' council, or committee of any of the forego " "Public records" also includes all records relating `~:~ to the investment of public funds including but not trad- tructions i ~ , ns ''`' ' limited to investment policies, . ,,.I whether in the custody o t s, ~:¢ ing orders, or contrac ~. the public body responsible for the public funds or a I fiduciary or other third party. ~ • , `E ~' •, f 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.1] ~ •' i~ [C71 ; !~ , 84 Acts, ch 1145, §1; 84 Acts, ch 1185, §1 ~., • '.~~~ C85, §22.1 . . '3'"'. ,i 90 Acts, ch 1271, §702; 91 Acts, ch 258, §27; 92 ,~. I~ `,I '~ Acts, ch 115G, §6, 7 :.1:~~ i': , , ~dy of i':;~ .. ; ,(ly> ~~.: ~ t 22.2 ILight to examine public records - ~~~ ' exceptions. ,;"~ ~ 1. Every person shall have the right to examine j ~. ~, and copy a public record and to publish or other- iistrict, ~ ~' :' wise disseminate a public record or the information or dis- ~ " contained in a public record. Unless otherwise pro- lities or ~ ~ ~ ~.~ vided for by law,-the right to examine a public rec- '~ x ~` 1~. ~ ord shall include the right to examine a public rec- ord without charge while the public record is in the physical possession of the custodian of the public record. The right to copy a public record shall in- clude the right to make photographs or photo- graphiccopies while the public record is in the pos- session of the custodian of the public record. All rights under this section are in addition to the right to obtain a certified copy of a public record under section 622.46. • `' '" 2. A government body shall not prevent the ex- amination or copying of a public record by contract- ingwith a nongovernment body to perform any of its duties or functions. 3. ~ • However, notwithstanding subsections 1 and 2, a government body is not required to permit access to or use of the following: ~ • a. A geographic computer data base by any per- son except upon terms and conditions acceptable to the governing body. The governing body shall es- tablish reasonable rates and procedures for the re- trieval of specified records, which are not confiden- tial records, stored in the data base upon the request of any person. b. Data processing software developed by the government body, as provided in section 22.3A. [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81', §68A.2] i 84 Acts, ch 1185, §2 ~ ' , C85, §22.2 89 Acts, ch 189, §1; 96 Acts, ch 1099, §14; 98 Acts, ch 1224, §17 ~ ; Subsection 1 omended 22.3 Supervision. ` '' Such examination and copying shall be done un- der the supervision of the lawful custodian of the records or the custodian's authorized deputy. The lawful custodian may adopt and enforce reasonable rules regarding such work and the protection of the records against damage or disorganization. The lawful custodian shall provide a suitable place for such work, but if it is impracticable to do such work in the office of the lawful custodian, the person de- siring to examine or copy shall pay any necessary expenses of providing a place for such work. All ex= penses of such work shall be paid by the person de- siring to examine or copy. The lawful custodian may charge a reasonable fee for the services of the lawful custodian or the custodian's authorized dep- uty in supervising the records during such work. If copy equipment is available at the office of the law- ful custodian of any public records, the lawful cus- todian shall provide any person a reasonable num- ber of copies of any public record in the custody of the office upon the payment of a fee. The fee for the copying service as determined by the lawful custo- dian shall not exceed the cost of providing the ser- vice. ~....,, [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.3] C85, §22.3. .. 1 I ~I !. i i I~ I I,1 ,: I,'14, ~~ 1 ~~II. ~~ 1I' i~~~., 1I ~ 11i 1'C J;'; ~~~ ~: III ~1 ~M ~,~j ill III, lie., p l l r ~, ~' Ii 402 §22.3A, EXAMINATION Or PUBLIC RECORDS (OPEN RECORDS) f se aration of . 22.3A Access to data processing software• e11 th 1, As used in this section: a, 'Access" means the instruction of, commu- ~'1' nication with, storage of data in, or retrieval of data ab from a computer. ' . b, ; "Computer" means an' electronic device s and memory a which performs logical, arithmetical, s functions by manipulations of electronic or m og- c netic impulses, andand udommunpcationtpfaeil ties P essing, storage, uterin- t which arc connected or related to the comp ara- cluding acomputer network. As used in this p d ~apli, "computer" includes any central processing s unit, front-end processing unit, miniprocesso lend i microprocessor, and related peripheral equip such as data storage devices, document scanners, data entry terminal controllers, acted networks. al equipment and systems for comp c, "Ca».puter network" means a set of related, remotely connected devices and co ute s withapa- cilitiesincluding two or more co hPm through com- bility to transmit data among munication facilities. d. "Data" means a representation of informa- tion, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions that has been prepared or is being prepared in a formalized manner and has been processed, or is intended to be processed, in a computer. Data may be stored in any form, including but not limcompact printout, magnetic storage media, disk, disc, punched card, or as memory of a computer. e. "Data processing software" means awhen dered set of instructions or statements thatuter to executed by a computer, causes the comp process data, and includes any program or set of programs, procedures, or routines used to employ and control capabilities of computer hardware. As used in this paragraph "data processing software" includes but is not limited to an operating system, compiler, assembler, utility, library resource, main- tenanceroutine, application, or computer network- ingprogram. may provide, restrict, or 2,. Agovernmentbodrocessing software devel- prohibit access to data P ~ re ardless of wheth- oped by the government body, g er the data processing software is separated or combined with a public record. A government body shall establish policies and procedures to provide access to public records which a ublicnrecord sha 1 its data processing software. A p not be withheld from the public because it is com- bined with data processing software. A govern- ment body shall not acquire any electronic data processing system for the storage, manipulation, or retrieval of public records that would impair the government body's ability to permit the examina- tion of a public record and the copying of a public record in either written orublic record f omf dats necessary to separate a P ermit the ex processing softwa n of the public pecord, the gov amination or copyi g invent body shall bear the cost °rocessing soft- y e public record fro ubhc record shall be made ,j are. The electronic p ;: ailable in a format useable with commonly avail- rocessing or data base management '~ le data p erson receiving ~ ftware. The cost chargeable to a P rocessing public record separated from data p oftware under this subsection slial~e °unless the ess of the charg the public record requests that erson receiving rocessed. A govern- he public record be specially pent rates and proce- mentbodymay establish paym rocessing ures required to provide access to data P rocess- oftware, regardless of whether the data p ng software is separated from or ermbmay be clon- publicrecord. Proceeds from' as defined in section sidered repayment receip 8.2. The payment amount shall be calculated as fol- lows: rocessing software is a. If access to the data p ur ose of ac- provided to a person solely for the p P cessing a public record, the amount shall be not more than that required to recover direct publica- tioncosts, includingbut not limited to editing, com- pilation, and media production costs, incurred by the government body in developing the dro essing essing software, and preparing the data p software for transfer to the person. The amount shall be in addition to any other fee required to be paid under this• chapter for the examination and copying of a public record. If a Person requests the reproduction of a public record stored in an elec- tronic format tlilind tosre roducelthef p blic recd editing, or comp g P roduced public ord, the charge for providing the rep record shall not exceed the ~ha~ PublicCOecordeThe ducing and transmitting rovide docu- governmentbody shall, if requested, p mentation which explains and justifies thl amoany charged. This paragraph shall not app Y publication for which a price has been established pursuant to another section, including section 7A.22. rocessing software is b. If access to the data ur ose other than pro• provided to a person for a p P be estab• vided in paragraph "a", the amount may lished according to the discretion of the govern- ment body, and may be based upon competitive market considerations as determined by the gov- ernment body. anted and may ap- g, A government body is gr ply for and receive any legal protection necessary to secure a right to or an interest in data processing software developed by the government body, in- cludingbutnot limited to federal copyright, patent, and trademark protections, and any trade secret protection available under chapter 550. The gov ernment body may enter into agreements for the a sale or distribution ofits-data processing eements. including marketing .and licensing agr The government body may impose conditions upon 41? th of e' h• e~ al SI o~ f~ h ri ti 402 ~~' ` ~`! 403 ~» . lion of ' ; soft- F mado • avail- ' ement :eiving i essing +,,£ in ex- ,; ass tho •~ s that ~• worn- proco- ;essing rocess- with a be con- section l as fol- vare is ':'~ of ac- ;. be not ~' ublica-' `I~; g, com- ' i •red by `, a proc- ' Messing amount .d to bo ~~~ on and gists tho . ul clec- fatting, ~lic rec- Ipublic t f repro- ~d. Thcf e docu- '' nnount , to any bushed ~ section ~ ware ~e an pros estab• governs, petitivo he gov- nay ap- ssary to ~cessing ody, in- patent, :secret 'he gov- for the >ftwaro, ements, ns upon >;XAMINATION OF PUBLIC R>;CORDS (OP>;N RhCORDS), §22.7 tl~e use of the data processing software that is otherwise consistent with state and federal law 96 Acts, ch 1099, §15; 98 Acts, ch 1224, §18 Subsection 2, paragraph a emended . 22.4 Hours when available. The rights of persons under this chapter maybe exercised at any time during the customary office hours of the lawful custodian of the records. How- ever, ifthe lawful custodian does not have custom- ary office hours of at ]east thirty hours per week, such right may be exercised at any time from nine o'clock a.m. to noon and from one o'clock p.m. to four o'cloclt p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, unless the person exercising such right and the lawful custodian agree on a different time. [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.4] • 84 Acts, ch 1185, §3 •' , C85, §22.4 .~ ~. ,, 22.5 enforcement of rights. ' • The provisions of this chapter and all rights of persons under this chapter. may be enforced by mandamus or injunction, whether or not any other remedy is also available. In the alternative, rights under this chapter also maybe enforced by an ac- tion for judicial review according.to the provisions of the Iowa administrative procedure Act, if the records involved are records of an "agency" as de- fined in that Act. ' (C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.5] 84 Acts, ch 1185, §4 ' C85, §22.5 ' n 1 ' ~ 22.G Penalty. ' ''' , ' ' ~ It shall be unlawful for any person to deny or i•e- ' ~ fuse any citizen of Iowa any right under this chap- .. ter, or to cause any such right to be denied or re- ' fused. Any person knowingly violating or attempting to violate any provision of this chapter I' . where no other penalty is provided shall be guilty of ~~ a simple misdemeanor. - '~` ! [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.6] "' ' ! ,E! ' ~4 C85, §22.6 ~~.., ;, .. , 22.7 Confidential records: ' The following public records shall be kept confi- dential,unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another per- son duly authorized to release such information: ' ~ 1. Personal information in records regarding a student, prospective student, or former student maintained, created, collected or assembled by or for a school corporation or educational institution maintaining such records. 2.~ Hospital records, medical records, and pro- fessional counselor records of the condition, diag- nosis, care, or treatment of a patient or former pa- tient or acounselee or former counselee, including outpatient. However, confidential communications lx:tween a crime victim and the victim's counselor are not subject to disclosure except as provided in section 915.20A. However, the Iowa department of public health shall adopt rules which provide for the sharing of information among agencies and providers concerning the maternal and child health program including but not limited to the statewide child immunization information system, while maintaining an individual's confidentiality., 3. Trade secrets which are recognized and pro- tected as such by law. • ~~ . ; : , ~. ~ , .:. 4. Records which represent and constitute the work product of an attorney, which are related to litigation or claim made by or against a public body. 5. Peace officers' investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in this Code. However, the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surround- ing acrime or incident shall not be kept confiden- tialunder this section, except in those unusual cir- cumstances where disclosure would plainly and seriously jeopardize an investigation or pose a clear and present danger to the safety of an individual. 6. Reports to governmental agencies which, if released, would give advantage to competitors and serve no public purpose. ,. . 7. Appraisals or appraisal information ,con- cerning the purchase of real or personal property for public purposes, prior to public announcement of a project. , 8. Iowa department of economic development information on an industrial prospect with which the department is currently negotiating. '. 9. ~ Criminal identification files of law enforce- ment agencies. However, records of current and prior arrests and criminal History data shall be public records.. • 10." ""Personal information in confidential per- sonnel records of the military division of the de- partment of public defense of the state. 11. Personal information in confidential per- sonnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts. ' 12. Financial statements submitted to the de- partment of agriculture and land stewardship pur- suant to chapter 203 or chapter 203C, by or on be= half of a licensed grain dealer or' warehouse operator or by an applicant for a grain dealer li= cease or warehouse license. , 13. The records of a library which, by them- selves or when examined with other public records, would reveal the identity of the library patron checking out or requesting an item or information from the library. The records shall be released to a criminal or juvenile justice agency only pursuant to an investigation of a particular person or organiza- tion suspected of committing a known crime. The records shall be released only upon a judicial deter- mination that a rational connection exists between the requested release of information and a legiti- mate end and that the need for the information is cogent and compelling.: 1!l:~ ~' i pp d:! + I I:;: 'il:i, ~''; '' ~ ~~I'~ jj~ i ~ I ;,ii ~ ;i i ~' ~!~''I ~ I i!I ' ~I~li I ~ ~ ''III ~~~,~ ~ (I~ !!I, I, !~'I ~' ! ~ ~!: ! ~,l ~~~~i~ ~Ij1 I, t II ,I .Ili i I,,~~ ~ ~ is ~ i~. I,'I i~ II ~' 1 i ~~I'iji' ;';I;,., I~'!I :~ t ,I ii ~~; ,• ~~~ I '~ I~ ,I i; i~ i i 'I 4 j 'i i ~' ~' i ; I'' ~' S ~ ~I','i ~I1'! I,'~I: hit ~i ~' ~; I ', ~~ II, tw :.'I I~ !II"'l ,'', ~ I1, '~~'. i' ~ ~ . ,lip. ~` ~ 'i ~' §22.7, EXAMINATION Or PUBLIC RECORDS (OPEN RECORDS) 14. The material of a library, museum or ar- chivewhich has been contributed by a private per- son to the extent of any limitation that is a condi- tion of the contribution. 15. Information concerning the procedures to be used to control disturbances at adult correction- al institutions. Such information shall also be ex- empt from public inspection under section 17A.3. As used in this subsection disturbance means a riot or a condition that can reasonably be expected to cause a riot. 16. Information in a report to the Iowa depart- ment of public health, to a local board of health, or to a local health department, which identifies a person infected with a reportable disease. 17. Records of identity of owners of public bonds or obligations maintained as provided in sec- tion 76.10 or by the issuer of the publicbonds or ob- ligations.However, the issuer of the public bonds or obligations and a state or federal agency shall have the right of access to the records. 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 out- side of government, to the extent that the govern- ment body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reason- ably believe that those persons would be discour- aged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Notwithstanding this provision: a. The communication is a public record to the extent that the person outside of government mak- ing that communication consents to its treatment as a public record. b. Information contained in the communica- tion is a public record to the extent that it can be disclosed without directly or indirectly indicating the identity of the person outside of government making it or enabling others to ascertain the iden- tity of that person. c. Information contained in the communica- tion is apublic record to the extent that it indicates the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the occur- rence of acrime orother illegal act, except to the ex- tent that its disclosure would plainly and seriously jeopardize a continuing investigation or pose a clear and present danger to the safety of any per- son. In any action challenging the failure of the lawful custodian to disclose any particular infor- mation of the kind enumerated in this paragraph, the burden of proof is on the lawful custodian to demonstrate that the disclosure of that informa- tion would jeopardize such an investigation or would pose such a clear and present danger. 19. Examinations, including but not limited to cognitive and psychological examinations for law enforcement officer candidates administered by or on behalf of a governmental body, to the extent that their disclosure could reasonably be believed by the 404 custodian to interfere with the accomplishment of the objectives for which they are administered. 20. Information concerning the nature and location of any archaeological resource or site if, in the opinion of the state archaeologist, disclosure of the information will result in unreasonable risk of damage to or loss of the resource or site where the resource is located. This subsection shall not be construed to interfere with the responsibilities of the federal government or the state historical pres- ervation officer pertaining to access, disclosure, and use of archaeological site records. 21. Information concerning the nature and location of any ecologically sensitive resource or site if, in the opinion of the director of the depart- ment of natural resources after consultation with the state ecologist, disclosure of the information will result in unreasonable risk of damage to or loss of the resource or site where the resource is located. This subsection shall not be construed to interfere with the responsibilities of the federal government or the director of the department of natural re- sourcesand the state ecologist pertaining to access, disclosure, and use of the ecologically sensitive site records. 22. Reports or recommendations of the Iowa insurance guaranty association filed or a~de pujh suant to section 515B.10, subsection 1, p gr~ 1 "a", subparagraph (2). 23. Information or reports collected or sub- mitted pursuant to section 508C.12, subsections 3 and 5, and section 508C.13, subsection 2, except to the extent that release is permitted under those sections. - 24. Records of purchases of alcoholic liquor from the alcoholic beverages division of the depart- ment of commerce which would reveal purchases made by an individual class "E" liquor control li- censee. However, the records may be revealed for law enforcement purposes or for the collection of payments due the division pursuant to section 123.24. 25. Financial information, which if relensecl would give advantage to competitors and serve nn public purpose, relating to commercial operations conducted or intended to be conducted by a person submitting records containing the information In the department of agriculture and land steward• ship for the purpose of obtaining assistance in busi• `. ness planning. 26. Applications, investigation reports, and ,? case records of persons applying for county genernl assistance pursuant to section 252.25. i 27. Marketing and advertising budget and ;; strategy of a nonprofit corporation which is subject ~~ to this chapter. However, this exemption does nol l apply to salaries or benefits of employees who nrr employed by the nonprofit corporation to Dandle ~, the marketing and advertising responsibilities. ~ 28. The information contained in records of the centralized employee registry created in chnpter 1~ 404 ~1 shment of :~~ istered. ~ i ` ' ature and ,'~ ~r site if, in I isclosure of ~ ~ , able risk of y,a where the ', I hall not be ~-; I isibilities of ~~ ; toricalpres- ~~~~ ' disclosure, ;qt, nature and resource or the depart- lltation with information .age to or loss fee is located. d to interfere 1 government .f natural re- ling to access, sensitive site s of the Iowa or made pur- 1, paragraph lected or sub- , ,subsections 3 ion 2, except to ;d under those dcoholic liquor n of the depart- :veal purchases quor control li- be revealed for ,he collection of uant to section hich if released urs and serve no } ;rcial operations cted by a person , e information to ' .d land steward- ~sistance in busi- on reports, and ,~r county general .2.25. ;ing budget and it which is subject emption does not nployees who are oration to handle esponsibilities. ~ ~d in records of the reated in chapter EXAiyIINATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS (OPEN RECORDS), §22.8 405 ~; ~: ~' f~ ~i:~ 252G, except to the extent that disclosure is autho- rized pursuant to chapter 252G. 29. Records and information obtained or held by independent special counsel during the course of an investigation conducted pursuant to section 68B.34. Information that is disclosed to a legisla- tive ethics committee subsequent to a determina- tion ofprobable cause by independent special coun- sel and made pursuant to section 68B.31 is not a confidential record unless otherwise provided by law. 30. Information contained in a declaration of paternity completed and filed with the state regis- trar ofvital statistics pursuant to section 144.12A, except to the extent that the information may be provided to persons in accordance with section 144.12A. 31. Memoranda, work products, and case files of a mediator and all other confidential commu- nications in the possession of a mediator, as pro- vided in chapters 86 and 216. Information in these confidential communications is subject to disclo- sure only as provided in sections 86.44 and 216.15B, notwithstanding any other contrary pro- vision of this chapter. ' 32. Social security numbers of the owners of unclaimed property reported to the treasurer of state pursuant to section 556.11, subsection 2, in- cluded on claim forms filed with the treasurer of state pursuant to section 556.19, included in out- datedwarrant reports received by the treasurer of state.pursuant to section 25.2, or stored in record systems maintained by the treasurer of state for purposes of administering chapter 556, or social se- curity numbers of payees included on state war- rants included in records systems maintained by ' the department of revenue and finance for the pur- e pose of documenting and tracking outdated war- ~~ rants pursuant to section 25.2. '' 33. Data processing software, as defined in !i section 22.3A, which is developed by a government 'r body. • ~~ 34. A record required under the Iowa financial . transaction reporting Act listed in section 529.2, ~.(~ subsection 9. zF 35. Records of the Iowa department of public A ~, health pertaining to participants in the gambling ~~'.. treatment program except as otherwise provided in j . this chapter. ' • ; 36. Records of a law enforcement agency or the r state department of transportation regarding the a issuance of a driver's license under section < 321.189A. l 37. Mediation documents as defined in section ~{ 679C.1, except written mediation agreements that ~~ resulted from a mediation which are signed on be- half of a governing body. However, confidentiality of mediation documents resulting from mediation ,' conducted pursuant to chapter 216 shall be gov- ~i}~ erned by chapter 216.. [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.7; 81 Acts, ch 36, §1, ch 37, §1, ch 38, §1, ch 62, §4J 83 Acts, ch 90, §9; 84 Acts, ch 1014, § 1; 84 Acts, ch 1185, §5, 6 , C85, §22.7 85 Acts, ch•134, §16; 85 Acts, ch 175, §1; 85 Acts, ch 208, § 1; 86 Acts, ch 1184, § 1; 86 Acts, ch 1228, § 1; 87 Acts, ch 223, §20; 88 Acts, ch 1010, §1; 88 Acts, ch 1256, §1; 89 Acts, ch 194, §1; 89 Acts, ch 304, §102; 89 Acts, ch 311, §22; 90 Acts, ch 1017, § 1; 90 Acts,§2 1271, §703; 92 Acts, ch 1212, §3; 93 Acts, ch 79, 93 Acts, ch 163, §27; 94 Acts, ch 1023, §76; 94 Acts, ch 1064, §1; 94 Acts, ch 1092, §1; 94 Acts, ch 1174, §1; 95 Acts, ch 100, §1; 95 Acts, ch 129, §1; 95 Acts, ch 191, §1; 96 Acts, ch 1037, §1; 96 Acts, ch 1099, §16; 96 Acts, ch 1133, §38; 96 Acts, ch 1150, §1; 96 Acts, ch 1212, §10; 97 Acts, ell 92, §1; 97 Acts, ch 159, §1; 98 Acts, ch 1062, §8, 9; 98 Acts, ch 1073, §9; 98 Acts, ch 1090, §59, 84 , 1998 amendment to subsection 2 by 98 Acts, ch 1090, 559, is effective Jan- uary 1, 1999; 98 Acts, ch 1090, 484 Terminology change applied Subsection 2 amended ' Subsection 20 stricken end former subsections 21-37 renumbered as 20_ 36 NEW subsection 37 , 22.8 Ir~junotion to restrain examination. 1. The district court may grant an injunction restraining the examination, including copying, of a specific public record or a narrowly drawn class of public records. Ahearing shall be held on a request for injunction upon reasonable notice as deter- mined by the court to persons requesting access to the record which is the subject of the request for in- junction. Itshall bathe duty of the lawful custodian and any other person seeking an injunction to en- sure compliance with the notice requirement. Such an injunction may be issued only if the petition sup- ported byaffidavit shows and if the court finds both of the following: a. That the examination would clearly not be in the public interest. b. That the examination would substantially and irreparably injure any person or persons. 2. An injunction shall be subject to the rules of civil procedure except that the court in its discre- tion may.waive bond. 3. Inactions brought under this section the dis- trict court shall take into account the policy of this chapter that free and open examination of public records is generally in the public interest even though such examination may cause inconve- nience or embarrassment to public officials or oth- ers. Acourt may issue an injunction restraining ex- amination of a public record or a narrowly drawn class of such records, only if the person seeking the injunction demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that this section authorizes its issuance. An injunction restraining the examination of a nar- rowly drawn class of public records may be issued only if such an injunction would be justified under 4os I 407 §22.8, EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS (OPEN RECORDS) this section for every member within the class of records involved if each of those members were con- sidered separately. ' ' ~ ' ' 4. Good-faith, reasonable delay by a lawful cus- todian in permitting the examination and copying of a government record is not a violation of this chapter if the purpose of the delay is any of the fol- lowing: ~ , . , , , a. To seek an injunction under this section. ' b. To determine whether the lawful custodian is entitled to seek such an injunction or should seek such an injunction. ' c. To determine whether the government rec- ord in question is a public record,. or confidential record. • .d. To determine whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and copying to the person requesting the right to do so: A reason- able delay for this purpose shall not exceed twenty calendar days and ordinarily should not exceed ten business days. ' ' e. Actions for injunctions under this section may be brought by the ]awful custodian of a govern- ment record, or by another government body or person who would be aggrieved or adversely af- fected by the examination or copying of such a rec- ord. f. The rights and remedies provided by this sec- tion are in addition to any rights and remedies pro- vided by section 17A.19. ~' ~.. .: , [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.8] ' 84 Acts, ch 1185, §7 , . , C85, §22.8 . ' `22.9 Denial of federal funds = rules. If it is determined that any provision of this chapter would cause the denial of funds, services or essential information from the United States gov- ernment .which would otherwise definitely be available to an agency of this state, such provision shall be suspended as to such agency, but only to the extent necessary to prevent denial of such funds, services, or essential information. , ' An agency within the meaning of section 17A.2, subsection 1 shall adopt as a rule, in each situation where this section is believed applicable, its deter- mination identifying those particular provisions of this chapter that must be •waived in the circum= stances to prevent the denial of federal funds, ser- vices, or information: ' ' [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.9] " ' 84 Acts; ch 1185, §8 ' C85, §22.9 ~ ' . ~~ ~ .. 22.10 Civil enforcement. ~ ~ ' 1. The rights and remedies provided by this section are in addition to any rights and remedies provided by section 17A.19. Any aggrieved person, any taxpayer to or citizen of the state of Iowa, or the attorney general or any county attorney, may seek judicial enforcement of the requirements. of this chapter in an action brought against the lawful custodian and any other persons who would be ap- propriate defendants under the circumstances. Suits to enforce this chapter shall be brought in the district court for the county in which the lawful cus- todian has its principal place, of business. 2. Once a party seeking judicial enforcement of this chapter demonstrates to the court that the de- fendant is subject to the requirements of this chap- ter, that the records in question are government records, and that the defendant refused to make those government records available for examina- tion and copying by the plaintiff, the burden of go- ing forward shall be on the defendant to demon- strate compliance, with the requirements of this chapter. ` `. 3. Upon a findingby a preponderance of the ev- idence that a lawful custodian has violated any pro- vision of this chapter, a court: a. -Shall issue an injunction punishable by civil contempt ordering the offending lawful custodian and other appropriate persons to comply with the requirements of this chapter in the case before it and, if appropriate, may order the lawful custodian and other appropriate persons to refrain for one year from any future violations of this chapter. b. Shall assess the persons who participated in its violation damages in the amount of not snore than five hundred dollars nor less than one hundred dollars. These damages shall be paid by the court imposing them to the state of Iowa if the body in question is a state government body, or to the local government involved if the body in ques- tion is a local government body. A person found to have violated this chapter shall not be assessed such damages if that person proves that the person either voted against the action violating this chap- ter, refused to participate in the action violating this chapter, or engaged in reasonable efforts under the circumstances to resist or prevent the action in violation of this chapter; had good reason to believe and iri good faith believed facts which, if true, would have indicated compliance with the require- ments of this chapter; or reasonably relied upon a decision of a court or an opinion of the attorney gen- eral or the attorney for the government body. c. Shall order the payment of all costs and rea- sonable attorneys fees, including appellate attor- neys fees, to any plaintiff successfully establishing a violation of this chapter in the action brought un• der this section. The costs and fees shall be paid by the particular persons who were assessed damages under paragraph `~" of this subsection. If no such persons exist because they have a lawful defense under that paragraph to the imposition of such damages, the costs and fees shall be paid to the suc• cessful plaintiff from the budget of the offenclinq government body or.its parent. d. Shall issue an order removing a person from office if that person has engaged in two prior viola• tions of this chapter for which damages were as• sessed against the person during the person's term. 4. Ign chapteri~ ing broug~ or its desi; ing the ex: the exams is authors governmc~ of the lam ness, or to or the att~ taro the ]c~ 5. Judi not preclu~ 22.6 or an. 84 Acts, 22.11 ) This sect rnation Prn to require agencies ai review and 1. Each shall adopt a. The identifiab]c the legal at motion, ant b. A deg tic records, which are 1 fiat records dentiality of cote whetl identifiable c. Tlie p access to pu d. The l: view a gove have additic that record i ute. c. The pi fidential rec leased to a r. /.' The p notify persoi the agency o; motion, whit routinely be ~ of the infor i which are op to provide th ~ g. Whetl collates, or 1 identifiable i ~; personally id ,; ord system. ;~ •~ 2. Astag ,~ identifiable i • ~f ~~ i7 lOG ~~ ii ~~ ap- ces. ' i the pus- ' 1' it of .} de- !~ aap- nent ialce ~ ~ina- f go- non- this ~`~ e ev- •pro- civil ~dian :~; h the ire it ~dian r one ; ~r. :ed in more ' one iid by if the ' or to ques- md to Messed , person chap- ' lating under ; lion in relieve ~I 'true, ~' :quire- ~pon a ;y gen- y ~ ; id rea- ~';;{ attor- lishing ! ~~ ;ht un= i' j~, ?aid by ~'~ images a! ~o such defense i~ of such . "~ ;he suc- ' ;~ fending ,. on from . ~r viola- ; ?l ~.. sere as•: !4 ~:i ~'s term. , i i i 407 EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS (OPEN RECORDS), §22.14 4. Ignorance of the legal requirements of this chapter is not a defense to an enforcement proceed- ; ing brought under this section. A lawful custodian or its designee in doubt about the legality of allow- ing the examination or copying or refusing to allow ' the examination or copying of a government record is authorized to bring suit at the expense of that government body in the district court of the county of the lawful custodian's principal place of busi- ness, or to seek an opinion of the attorney general or the attorney for the lawful custodian, to ascer- tain the legality of any such action. ' 5. Judicial enforcement under this section does not preclude a criminal prosecution under section 22.6 or any other applicable criminal provision. 84 Acts, ch 1185, §9 22.11 Fair information practices. .~ .: , • , This section may be cited as the `Iowa Fair In/'or- mation Practices Act". It is the intent of this section to require that the information policies of state agencies are clearly defined and subject to public review and comment. 1. Each state agency as defined in chapter 17A shall adopt rules which provide the following: a. The nature and extent of the personally identifiable information collected by the agency, ' the legal authority for the collection of that infor- i mation, and a description of the means of storage. 6. A description of which of its records are pub- ]ic records, which are confidential records, and (. which are partially public and partially confiden- } tial records and the legal authority for the confi- i• dentiality of the records. The description shall indi- cate whether the records contain personally identifiable information. ~ - ~ ~ ` ' ~~, - c. The procedure for providing the public with access to public records. ~ - ~ ' ~ d. The procedures for allowing a person to re- „. view a government record about that person and ~, have additions, dissents, or objections entered in ;~ ; that record unless the review is prohibited by stat- N ute. ~ ; i.. , a~ ; e. The procedures by which the subject of acon- ~ fidential record may have a copy of that record re- ~~~' leased to a named third party. ;• ~ ~: t /.' The procedures by which the agency shall notify persons supplying information requested by n ., the agency of the use that will be made of the infor- mation, which persons outside of the agency might o routinely be provided this information, which parts ~, t. of the information requested are required and which are optional and the consequences of failing ~1 to provide the information requested. ~ , • !., ~ ,. •~ g. Whether a data processing system matches, ~ mllates, or permits the comparison of personally identifiable information in one record system with • personally identifiable information in another rec- ord system. ; ., ~ ~ .. M. I~ • , 2. A state agency shall not use any personally ~~'I identifiable information after July 1, 1988, unless it is in a record system described by the rules re- quired by this section. • •~ 84 Acts, ch 1185, § 10 22.12 Political subdivisions. Apolitical subdivision or public body which is not a state agency as defined in chapter 17A is not re- quired toadopt policies to implement section 22.11. However, if a public body chooses to adopt policies to implement section 22.11 the policies must be adopted by the elected governing body of the politi- -'cal subdivision of which the public body is a part. The elected governing body must give reasonable. notice, make the proposed policy available for pub- lic inspection and allow full opportunity for the public to comment before adopting the policy. If the public body is established pursuant to an agree- ' ment under chapter 28E, the policy must be adopted by a majority of the public agencies party ' to the agreement. These policies shall be kept in the office of the county auditor if adopted by the board of supervisors, the city clerk if adopted by a city, and the chief administrative officer of the pub- licbody if adopted by some other elected governing body. 84 Acts, ch 1185, § 11 22.13 Settlements -governmental bod- ies. . A written summary of the terms of settlement, including amounts of payments made to or through a claimant, or other disposition of any claim. for damages made against a governmental body or against an employee, officer, or agent of a govern- mental body, by an insurer pursuant to a contract of liability insurance issued to the governmental body, shall be filed with the governmental body and shall be a public record. ' 91 Acts, ch 96, §1 ~ _ ' ~ `, , 22.14 Public funds investment records in custody of third parties. ! 1. The records of investment transactions made by or on behalf of a public body are public rec- ords and are the property of the public body wheth- er inthe custody of the public body or in the custody of a fiduciary or other third party. : , . ~. . 2.:. If such records of public investment transac- tions are in the custody of a fiduciary or other third party, the public body shall obtain from the fidu- ciary or other third party records requested pur- suant to section 22.2. ~ :. ~ ~ ~ ' 3. If a fiduciary or other third party with custo- dy of public investment transactions records fails to produce public records within a reasonable peri- od oftime as requested by the public body, the pub- lic body shall make no new investments with or through the fiduciary or other third party and shall not renew existing investments upon their maturi- ty with or through the fiduciary or other third party. The fiduciary or other third party shall be li- able for the penalties imposed under section 22.6 due to the acts or omissions of the fiduciary or other i ' ~ State Edition ~ Des Moines Sunday Register nQ~ ~Ult~alf •~u~~tCX ~ OCTOBER 18, 2009" ~ STATE EDIT , `~ ~_ `~ ~ ' }'~ ` ''T'- "' , "1 believe if the public trusts cis #o i ~ ~ -~ _ . 3y .° ~ , investigate murdeirs, he rtost~~mmoral, • l lZ~~'~1 ~ ~~ r ~,, ~ crime;:they should~be ablet~o trust us , a,,4 w to hold ourselves accountable:' ~ ~ ~ xti ~ -Judy Bradshav~, Des Moines police chief ~ . st.;°~9' i .< ' ~ - •, < . O ., ~ _ se es Qf allegahoi~stabo~t ~,~ ~ B _ RDS . '`~'`~ ~' "` s FROnn,Pa~e is , improper .activity, ~y{w offi~ r ~, a~: eae„ : r.~~#~ ~ ~~ ; , , , :, - cers, ra~tgmg~ from,verb~a~l~ O# ~ s" ~,r~, , . lieves. police face ~stron~ : abuse~fo. imprroper use' of . c 1 -t, ~ ~ ' ~ - ~~ ~; internal and ~ e~Cternal force. The bord~ finds~lth~e ~ - ~~~~- -~'-,~_,•~ alle ationscontat dnthe ~~ -1 . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ scrutin and a ctuilian. re= g ~ , - ' ~ ~ '~ ~` ~ ~' ' ~ '`~ y com latnt either sustained . • ~ ~ vtew~board would stripv~the t;,,,,P,;.~, ~,:, ''' ~ department's: managers of or~not su"~statned - Y ~•, ~~ t0. ~~ ;.` ` i~~ s~~ ~~~p `'' authority when governing In, ~'fhbe`' `mrie cases z the' ^'''E "' ' ~'~'" '° ~' ~ ~~:~~~~, , board~com'p"I'e`ted m-2008; ,. y '-~ ~ officers + ;, ,-~ -~ ~,r=~; ti'' ~ ;"Ibeheveif the'~public it found oiily~one~of 31 al •,~~~~b,~ll .' le ations sustained; The ~'~ ~ ,~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ` ~ trus"ts usr~to`' investigate g F z.A boar`d'a eed`that an officer o-z ~ ~ „i~ ~~ - mUrderS, the '~mQSt ~'lm? a ~ ~ ~ SF f r ~ P~ ' ~ ~ ~ r' ' ~ `"' ~ ~ moral crime;•_tliey should showed poor Judgme~tr In , Q~, . s - b baekm u a ati•ol car. be~able to trust us;to'h61d y ~ ,g ,P p , r .~ ~ y `,, ,~r,~~~ ;y , » whtle a woman was stand: ,:' ~ r :' i~ , ,~ a~i ~ s~= .r. i, OurSe1V2S .'*+aCCOUntable;.= ,~ 1 .. , tri?f ' ` ' ~ 3 Bradshaw~said ~ mg near rts open door ~ ~ `~ ~ ~~~' ~ _~r'r Theboard~'does no't`know IowaiCity~has stat~'s~lo~ie board; idea k `'` ~~~'~ ,°' 4" t fi °" ~-> > ~ - ~ ~. •~_ _ ~ the Haines of the officers m ~~~~~~- 7 l ~ t, -° Does it take a tragedy , ~, ,~ Yri has~inever:taken roo#„m DestMoi~i~e~s "'~ ~ ~ ~ volved to ~he'mvestgatton ~;,~,~ ~ ,. to establish oversight? ~ ~ ~ ~'++_ ., unless the officer agrees By DANIEL P ;FINNEY ~ ~~ ~ .- ° ~ ' ~5 At least 10 'outside ;agen- to a ear before a "name Lf 4 ~ y ~, ; ~ PI? , ~~.+ ~,. dafinne dmre 'com ~" ~ ~~°~~ 4~:;T F~ t i~ ~7s ~y® ,. 9•, ,,,.~ ~ _ ~~~ rtes have the authon{y to clear n eann which ,~i j i.- ,+t. ~ r , ~ ~ mvestagate Des Moores po' ' ~°'g ~~ "~~- g' `~ '' -Five peoplegathered'at tie Iowa City govern= t: has never happened. merit building lastweek.~'t~o do".something no ~ hce They~mclude the city We~beheve we do `a very oiher group,. of,civih ins an `the ts~ate does, ~Re-, manager, City Council, the good"job of holding ou~r~ " ' ~~` ~ "~ ~~''`f ~~~ ~~~ '' ~ Des Momes~Human,Rtghts selves accountable," said view the conduct ;of their~r~ommumfy s~pohGe _ 3. officers - Boar.. the Des Moines Ctvtl ` 4~ Iowa.City Sgt. Troy:Kelsay Iowa~City s Police ~ itize'~i' s Review~Board is ~ Right's Cornmissiori th'e The.board Ives the ` ublic , ,p g.. the gnly such body in hn~ a`~uid orie. of}about 60 Polk'County, attorney the another option for raismg-a nationwide. The ~groug,~elds'Co`mplatnts,about, Iowaattorney general th'e conce oes the review ,, pohee~directlyr from the }%iblic Fr~'hougli;the'y Iowa Department of Public board), he~lp.,build .the ,pub; ` Safe ,the overnor s o`f= ~ ~ ~ ~; ~have;the powertt~ostbpoe'Yi~'`rec~o~~s and `d~ocu- " ~' ,. :g ~ ,~ tic trust Yes ~ D,o, they also `'~ dr ~,-`. ', '_ face,' fhe FBI and the U S: merits, the board primarrl f~vie'tvsfhe findin s ~ ~ ~ ~,, ~ + r~ :. make extrawprk fo,r= olive' ~~'1y1; ~*t^ ~'` ~ g Department'of:Tus$ce '"~ officers?Yes." p of internal ppltee inves~tgattd~ns +Sf~c~dents; , ,~ We~pro~deanother ~h c~~'m~t~e~systetn,;j,said' ~ Also,-Polk.County Attor- Th'econcern that civilian ,~,~;~ ~D,pnaldiKmg 4a~forrner''se~i' ~'~r`cl`~vh'o:is ~ Hey JohnSarcone~has the;., review creates little,beyond~ ' ,, fence cl~,arrman~f thy', bo e ~~~anot er set ~ ~ authority to call a .grand .,pap ~ ~ ,- , ,,,, + . _ more erwork is echoed f~R of~,eyes ~or,thew,public ~; , ~ '~~ ~~`''" jury,.made up of civilians,,to patio . wtde~+Ih 200Q; Ba1f1,- ,~.F •.,;,, E I tnvestigate;police conduct: more's then-rna or,,Martin Though advocacy,gro~ups ~ecsiu ally catl,for- i - ~ ,y ,.~r > a~simiiar~board in.~Des IVIo~1i'es, `home to Iowa's ! Bradshaw was hired by and O'Malley described the <, largest police force,'the idea;;rtas fever taken is ultimatelyresponsibleyf° newlyforniedreviewboacd ' }''~"J~~ ~"~ " t` the:~.ma or ,and ~. the Ct ' ., root ~ The`most recent c fur JJlnnll!hce preview , y ~' as- "critically , important came after-,Qctavius' Bonds and :Erin Evans, 'a ~ ~ Counctl all civilian-,elected to ..buildding confidenee,~in Des~Moines~couple,, satd~-~h~e~ ~~ ere victiriis of- representatives , . _.~. ;_~ our po~lice~force,"~the~Balti- ' However, -. advocates - of . police brutalityaftera20~8`tiatficstop ' , - ,,,, more,Surt;reported:Nearly The officers+tnvolvedVle ed >5~autovic and : ctvilian review say that ' a decadejtlater„ however, '~ "' $~ ~'`°' mvestt attoris rarel o John ~Mailander both roo~aes res'i n d-urrder ~ g ,; -Y g ~ the ~ity_s~commun rela- ;~,threat,.of termmatiorl~Th o e~~or Bonds beyond internal police re,- honscomtnission told the and Evans, Peter~,Bergei a~li'~ r~'~ctvthan're- vtew~,and-ltfiat officers tend newspaper;.};I.don' think viewof policeafter a ji`r~~ ttt~e ~ £s c~tents of to favor the actions of other. ~,~,e; have preached; he full interference with polc"~ ~. s~~~.c,~targes to officers. ' _ ~ potenttal ofahe boar§d " ,<<~, March FThe couple has a15 wed$~i,~i~uilsutt;that "We're never going to A imtlar .board 'in Eu- alleges the officers vtola e ~heirConstttutional haveetvilian'~review,in Des recentl de gene;; Orei,1, y - ~; protections `agamst7cruel i`~"~Ik~'unuS`ial punish- ' Moines until"there: ts, an bated whether-to close, its ~'- rrient,'~unlawful searcl,and se' ure end ini'ringe- incident that°,ts tiigh..profile .meeting to:ahelpublic so it ~~"~"• enou h with a vtcttm of ~inents on their due`process-ng ~t~ r g could.,review complaints ~~~~ Des Moines'Police Chtef'J~udy Bra7sh'aw be- police~brutalitythat;issyrr`i- fromthe publtc more~ef- •~~~~~BOaROS, PAGE ais patheric enough'to create a fectively. , ' large, public outcry," said The civilian revtew~board Ben Stcine: ctnrii~r fir thP' .. .. ""b`:~ Y """ "'""-"/• -"""- Ben Stone, counsel for the' 111C 1.1V1110.111CV1c Vy. VV0.au .oston,~?1VIassx,<reviev~ed in B Iowa Civil ~,iberties;UnLOn; , , ~., . dust ~19'cases'in its,fii~st year ~ , ~ € "I fall to a lqt of violins of of ,existence, the :Boston police tactics ~ throughout Herald reported in 2Q08. the state, ,and there' is a However; it;urge'd, he city's deed for ,civilian , review, police. chief;to ~reyew five but it's not;goirlg to happen cases that- alleged police until there. is a tragedy." impropriety. Iowa .City created its , :; civilian .,review board in Do boardsereate' 1997 after; a police, officer or resolve trust issues? shot and. killed a man malia hs ing a telephone call m Cities that 'have r' ci~i1- t ~ father's _busmessfrThe~~of; q ian review boards tend in trust. have senouS gaps fiver involved eventually . , between police 'and ''the resigned .from ;the force, `Courity ohnsgr J but;, the Public, but~there`are alter- , , , :;declined to ~ camel attorney natives` to `crvihan `review ~ ` , ~>}~ ~ ti o olive public '~iin rove' to P p e reylew a grand fury t , , ~~ trust said Rache'1'Bandy, case ~ ~~x ~ sir ~t " m' son~College`~ass'°4stant S d i wl~~c) '~~he review boar _ i profe`ss~or'of'socl~ology and. zs,a, flart,;of clty;~cod2 ire,- n ' b ,:, :. ,a ,,,:, r +, criminal htstlce almost exclusi~vely4o lies invests tions co duct d ~ g~ ,; t, Among' her eX~amples. •, ' ' ,. ~, s e ~ ,~ adecriy C civilian police a ° ` ' l n e1pF#74e~pub- h cours'es~that sue to is ty no a tho has heunderstand police meth= discipline.. '"~ ' ~`'`~ ~..>, its ods~an"d'tacttcs bet't'er ~ and I)urmg,, the 200,8 fiscal year, ,.the five+nember board reviewed mne citizen complaints against Iowa City, police and dismissed a 1.O~h. "neighborhood based po= hceumts tfiat`allow peo~`~'Ie to'`develop 'relafohsliips with the `police"oltside of ' emergency~sltuafions 'r~ ' ` ~ ' Des 1Moiiies Has ~ both a c~itizeri's'~acade'my sand `a rnmrti't~initV tD`Ollce`~'tUIllt. said `Stone of the ACLU ~`' ` "'You'could probablyymap out °the Iar'eas of tie city most land}'wh'ere' `they "are {rustedttFiekl~"ast,'?~`he said. "The areas where` there "is the least fi=usf of°pohce'are also gom~~`td~b'e'sth~e area"s . where 'there is °~the most r~.,., .-;; , T.,... contact with police # ', ~ ' Trus`t's`a factor~for police effectiveness, with or with- out civilian review, Bandy sai8 ' ` , ,,. ~ r ~; ~ `i~' "If the public `trusts '-the pohce;'tte'y are more likely to come~forwardr~th infor- mation that'vv~lt•lielp solve crimes,"-Bandy,§aid: "If riot; than they will be'met with resist~ri'cd arid' crimes will be' hardef '~to~solve ,~ ~~~;i;