Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-2012 Police Citizens Review BoardMEMORANDUM POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City DATE: July 5, 2012 TO: PCRB Members FROM: Kellie Tuttle RE: Board Packet for meeting on July 10, 2012 Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting: • Agenda for 07/10/12 • Minutes of the meeting on 06/12/12 • Minutes of the meeting on 05/09/12 • ICPD Department Memo #12 -19 (Jan -Feb 2012 Use of Force Review) • ICPD Use of Force Report — January 2012 • ICPD Use of Force Report — February 2012 • ICPD General Order (99 -02) Alarm -Open Door Response • ICPD General Order (99 -03) Prisoner Transport • ICPD General Order (99 -05) Use of Force • ICPD General Order (01 -01) Racial Profiling • Complaint Deadlines • Office Contacts — June 2012 • Draft #1 of FY12 PCRB Annual Report Other resources available: National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement NACOLE provides information regarding civilian oversight in law enforcement nation wide. For more information see: www.NACOLE.org AGENDA POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD July 10, 2012 — 5:30 P.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM 410 E. Washington Street ITEM NO.1 CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED • Minutes of the meeting on 06/12/12 • ICPD Department Memo #12 -19 (Jan -Feb 2012 Use of Force Review) • ICPD Use of Force Report — January 2012 • ICPD Use of Force Report — February 2012 • ICPD General Order (99 -02) Alarm -Open Door Response • ICPD General Order (99 -03) Prisoner Transport • ICPD General Order (99 -05) Use of Force • ICPD General Order (01 -01) Racial Profiling ITEM NO. 3 NEW BUSINESS • Draft #1 of FY12 PCRB Annual Report • Complaint statistics ITEM NO. 4 BOARD INFORMATION ITEM NO. 5 STAFF INFORMATION ITEM NO. 6 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM NO. 7 CONSIDER MOTION TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION based on Section 21.5(l)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. ITEM NO. 8 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • August 14, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • September 11, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • October 9, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • November 13, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm ITEM NO. 9 ADJOURNMENT DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — June 12, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:32 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kingsley Botchway, Melissa Jensen, Donald King (5:45 P.M.), Royceann Porter (5:44 P.M.) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Catherine Pugh STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Jim Steffen of the ICPD. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #12 -02 2) Accept PCRB Community Forum Summary 3) To change the name to Citizens Police Review Board 4) To remove the language regarding Formal Mediation within the City Code and from the Standard Operating Procedures 5) To offer as an option, the ability for a Board member to accompany the complainant during the police investigation interview process for a PCRB complaint, at the complainant's request CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Jensen and seconded by Botchway to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 04/30/12 • Minutes of the meeting on 05/09/12 • ICPD Use of Force Report — November 2011 • ICPD Use of Force Report — December 2011 • ICPD Department Memo #12 -16 (Nov -Dec 2011 Use of Force Review) Motion carried, 3/0, King and Porter absent. OLD BUSINESS Community Forum — The Board reviewed the forum summary draft and made revisions and also confirmed the motion made during the community forum regarding the proposed name change to the Citizens Police Review Board. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Treloar to approve the amended summary draft and forward to Council. Motion carried, 5/0. The Board then discussed the followina other recommendations: It was moved by Treloar, seconded by Jensen to remove the language regarding Formal Mediation within the City Code and from the Standard Operating Procedures. PCRB June 12, 2012 Page 2 In order for mediation to take place both the complainant and the officer must agree to it. The Board feels that it's misleading to offer mediation to a complainant when the officer is being advised by the Union /Association to not participate in the mediation process. Therefore, offering false hope to the complainant. Motion carried, 5/0. Based on public concern it was moved by Treloar, seconded by King that all complaints go to both the Police Department and the PCRB. The Board discussed what a complaint was and concluded that they were talking only about the written formal complaints. They then talked about what the advantages /disadvantages would be for all complaints to be reviewed by the Board, especially if the complainant is satisfied by the outcome of response they receive from the ICPD and that the option of filing with both the Board and the ICPD are offered when they speak with someone from the ICPD. The Board also receives a quarterly report from ICPD, which lists the formal written complaints that are filed at the ICPD and issued [AIR # and also the complaints that are filed with the PCRB, which are also issued an IAIR #, and lists a date, location, type of investigation, and resolution. The Board also agreed that more education needs to be done regarding the PCRB so that the public is aware of their options. The Board is open to ideas and suggestions on the different ways to educate and get the word out to the public. Motion defeated, 0/5. (Break 6:54 -6:56) Motion by Botchway, seconded by Porter, to offer as an option, the ability for a Board member to accompany the complainant during the police investigation interview process for a PCRB complaint, at the complainant's request. The Board felt that if a complainant was uneasy about meeting with the ICPD they could offer the option of a member going with them and possibly making them feel more at ease; therefore more complainants would participate in the interview process giving more information to the investigation process than just the written form. Motion carried, 5/0. The Board discussed the additional changes concerning the ordinance, by -laws, or standard operating procedures that they had previously been looking into when former member Braverman was on the Board. It was agreed that many of those changes were addressed in the recommendations or at the forum, such as the name change, making the process more welcoming and less intimidating, more education regarding the Board and the complaint process, hiring an independent investigator, and keeping statistics for the complaints filed. The Board agreed that they would add an item regarding keeping statistics on the next meeting agenda to discuss further. PCRB June 12, 2012 Page 3 The Board agreed these are the current recommendations. No other recommendations will be made at this time. NEW BUSINESS King welcomed new member Kingsley Botchway to the Board. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle stated that she would work on a draft of the annual report for the next meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Porter and seconded by Jensen to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 7:34 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:37 P.M. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Botchway to forward the Summary Dismissal for PCRB Complaint #12 -02 to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • July 10, 2012 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • August 14, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • September 11, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • October 9, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Porter, seconded by Treloar. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M. I 0 U. � A p 'S N a ,Im z �n t7 o r N U ro 0 r n r y z .roa�Xro'�y4 t74,� C � 5 ri tlQ x! x x x x o N x ? x x x x N w i i x x x x N t+ x x x x o i i I i I I I i I I 1 ,Im z �n t7 o r N U ro 0 r n r y z PCRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Re: Investigation of Complaint PCRB #12 -02 Complaint PCRB #12 -02, filed May 7, 2012, 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: June 12, 2012 JUN 1`2 2012 City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 June 12, 2012 Iowa City City Council City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Police Citizen Review Board's Annual Community Forum Conducted 9 May 2012 To Whom It May Concern: The Police Citizens Review Board held its annual forum at the Iowa City Public Library in Room A at 7:OOpm. Board members present were Donald King, Chairperson, Joseph Treloar, Melissa Jensen, and Royceann Porter. New member Kingsley Botchway was present but not on the panel due to just being appointed. The Board's Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh was also present. The Chairperson called the forum to order and the agenda was presented. Legal Counsel Pugh started the presentation with a quick outline of the responsibilities and procedures that the board must follow (See Attached). She highlighted some of the questions that have been posed about what the board can and cannot do. She pointed out that the primary federal law that governs these issues is the Fifth Amendment, to avoid incriminating oneself. Chapter 400 of the Civil Service is the limitation that the PCRB has no ability to discipline any police officer. Ms. Pugh went on to explain the procedure for filing a complaint with the PCRB. The PCRB gives the complaint to the Police Chief to investigate. The Chief and the City Manager are the only individuals who have the ability to compel the testimony of police officers. This power is particular to a public employee. Private employers cannot compel their employees to testify. This is why the Chief investigates the complaints. If complaints were investigated by the PCRB alone or by a private investigator, there would be no accused officer's testimony. The standard of review that the PCRB uses is one of reasonable basis that is outlined in our ordinance and is described very specifically. Since the Chief makes a decision and he has the expertise in police matters, the PCRB's review of his decision is a reasonable basis review. The only reason the PCRB cannot sustain a decision of the Chief is if it is "unsupported by substantial evidence', "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", according to Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c of the Iowa City City Code. This is the standard of review that was chosen at the time the ordinance was created. It can be changed but that's what we have to work with right now. Member Treloar and Member Jensen answered several of the questions that had been submitted by the public to the City Clerk's Office. Questions regarding Police Department procedures were directed to the Iowa City Police Department. Chair King shared the statistics. Since 1997, eighty complaints were filed with 177 allegations. Six allegations were sustained during those complaints. King explained that the recommendations to the City Council were on the web site along with all of the complaints since 1997. Chair King advised the attending group of the meetings being open to the public and held on the second Tuesday of the month. The forum was then opened to the public for questions. The Board was asked if they had gone to the City Council to have the name changed and Chair King advised that it had not been taken to the City Council. A former Board member asked that her letter to the PCRB be read into the record. Member Jensen read the letter into the record. The former member stated that most of the changes had been discussed at length and that they were ready to go to the City Council with recommendations. She said we had been looking at the procedures, bylaws, and ordinances. She felt that those issues were abandoned. Member Treloar explained that he had received information from four other citizen review boards. When comparing their laws with our laws, their laws being quite different, there were a lot of things we couldn't apply. Some had powers to discipline officers. That's not in our Charter. Treloar then asked if he could make a motion to recommend to the City Council that we change the name. Treloar motioned and Member Jensen seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the name be changed to Citizens Police Review Board. Motion carried 4 -0. A question from the public was presented about training to deal with active mental illness. A member from the police department, in attendance, explained training procedures and stated training was given to cover mental illness this year. The four members present were asked to give their thoughts on the structure of the board. All members responded. The consensus was that the feeling from the public about openness could not be helped since the privacy and confidentiality of the complainant did not allow us to discuss our procedures during Executive Sessions. One concern expressed was about spending too much time on officer misconduct and not enough time in dealing with the disproportionate arrest and citations rates for black youth in the community. A community member suggested the PCRB should make more recommendations to the City Council about police policies, practices and procedures. Another community member asked if the City Council had asked the Human Rights Commission to take a look at the PCRB process. Iowa City Mayor Matt Hayek, in attendance, responded that it was on their pending work session. Some members of the public spoke on the transparency of the complaint process. It was again pointed out that we are limited on the information we can share with the public about our process in keeping the identity of the individuals involved private. Treloar pointed out that our police department strives hard to keep their officers' actions transparent by wearing microphones and having videos in the patrol cars. Policy requires the officers to use both on all calls. One person questioned the process of knowing the officers involved and keeping the number of complaints filed against him. The board wants to remain blind to the identity of the officers involved so their decisions wouldn't be tainted by that knowledge. PCRB again has no authority to discipline officers. The process of where the complaint is filed was brought up. Complaint can be filed at the Police Department or the PCRB. Thought was that maybe all complaints should go to the PCRB. This again would require the current practice to be changed. PCRB currently gets the statistics from the department but does not review the internal complaints. A motion for adjourmnent was raised by Jensen and seconded by Treloar and voted 4 -0 to adjourn. Adjournment 8:30pm Donald King Chairperson Police Citizen Review Board Transcriptions attached per Council request. Forum agenda, minutes, transcriptions, correspondence, and handouts are all available on the City website. (www.ic og v.org) Police Citizens Review Board May 9th, 2012 Community Forum History of Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) The PCRB was created under Iowa home rule authority on July 15, 1997 to assure external accountability of the Iowa City Police Department. In response to a community referendum and following an Iowa Supreme Court decision upholding the amendment, on December 12, 2007, the PCRB was made a permanent entity by amendment to the Iowa City Charter. Additionally, the PCRB was granted the power to subpoena evidence and was required to hold one public forum per year. The PCRB is comprised of five citizens who are appointed by the City Council for four year terms. II. Laws Governing the PCRB Although Iowa home rule law allows the City of Iowa City to create a police citizens review board, the board's authority is limited by Federal and State Law. A. 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution No person may be compelled to testify against himself. The PCRB cannot force the testimony of any police officer accused of misconduct. B. Iowa Code Ch. 400 CIVIL SERVICE The state of Iowa has established a Civil Service Commission to oversee civil service operations in the cities of our state. Under this law, only the police chief and city manager have the power to discipline a police officer. (Iowa Code 400.19) Iowa City Code section 8 -8 -2 (E) reiterates that limitation upon the PCRB. III. Investigations of PCRB Complaints A. Investigations by Chief of Police Complaints made to the PCRB are investigated by the ICPD. The reason investigations are structured in this way is to allow the most comprehensive investigation into alleged police misconduct. The Command staff has the power to compel police officers to cooperate with all internal investigations. This right of the public employer was established in Uniformed Sanitation Men Association v. Commissioner of Sanitation of City of New York (392 US 280). This power is particular to the public employer and cannot be transferred to another entity. Under Iowa's Civil Service law, this power to compel is held only by the City Manager and the Police Chief. B. Investigations by PCRB If cases were not investigated within the Police Department, the PCRB would have no other access to the officer's side of the story. Even with subpoena power, the 5th amendment right to avoid self- incrimination prevents anyone, other than the public employer from compelling an officer's testimony. The PCRB ordinance allows the PCRB Police Citizens Review Board May 9th, 2012 Community Forum to do its own further investigation after reviewing the Police Chiefs findings. The current system allows the PCRB the benefit of information it would have no way of obtaining unless investigations were conducted internally. The PCRB is committed to making the complaint procedure more comfortable and less intimidating for complainants and is interested in ideas to promote complainant participation in the investigation. IV. Standard of Review: Reasonable Basis Standard The Iowa City Police Citizen's Board is the first and only such review board in the state of Iowa. In determining a manner for this board to review the findings of the Chief of Police, the drafters looked to the Administrative Procedure Act, Ch. 17A of the Code of Iowa. The Administrative Procedures Act requires a reviewing agency to use a reasonable basis test to review decisions made by the entity with expertise in the subject at hand. Since internal investigation by the Police Department was believed to be the most effective method of fact finding, it followed that a reasonable basis standard would apply to the Police Chiefs conclusions. The PCRB cannot substitute its own judgment in cases before it. The PCRB is required to review the Chiefs decisions with deference to his expertise and sustain those decisions unless they are "unreasonable ". V. Changing Name of PCRB The citizens of Iowa City went through a fair amount of effort to accomplish the referendum which survived a challenge to the Supreme Court of Iowa to make the Police Citizens Review Board a permanent entity in our city. The Iowa City Charter was amended to require the existence of the Police Citizens Review Board. Given that the name was specifically included in the Charter amendment in 2007, it should remain the formal name of the board with any other version of the name being designated "a.k.a ". May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Members Present: Melissa Jensen, Royceann Porter, Joseph Treloar (Vice - Chair), Donald King (Chair) Non - Participating Member: Kingsley Botchway It (new) Members Absent: None Staff Present: Catherine Pugh Call to Order/Roll Call: King: I'd like to call the quorum to order, and roll call. Royceann Porter. Porter: Here. King: Joseph Treloar. Treloar: Here. King: Melissa Jensen. Jensen: Here. King: Catherine Pugh Pugh: Here. King: Don King is here. Introduction of Board /Overview of Complaint Review Process and Purview of Board: Page 1 King: Good evening. Uh, on tonight's agenda, uh, what we'd like to do is we have a presentation from our legal counsel. After the ... her presentation, then we will have, uh ... the Board Members have questions that were sent in to us that, uh, we've reviewed and we'll answer those questions. Then we'll open it up to the public. Um, when we do open up to the public we ask that you keep your comments to five minutes or less. If there's time towards the end, you can always come up. Um, we ask that you turn pagers and cell phones off so there's not any interruptions. Are you ready, Catherine? Pugh: Yes, thank you. King: All right! Pugh: Good evening. Um, if you have had... haven't had an opportunity, I have prepared a, uh, summary, an outline, um, concerning several of the questions that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 2 have been raised and posed to the PCRB, and those are available on the back table. Uh, it may be a little easier to follow along on that and uh, there's a lot of information that I want to cover rather quickly. So that might be ... helpful to have that to ... to glance at. Some of the questions that have been posed, uh, to the PCRB concern, uh, what we can and cannot do. Uh, in my preparation for answering some of those questions, I had the opportunity to go through the ancient archives of the, uh, PCRB legal counsel. Um, my predecessor, uh, who is now a district court jud ... judge, Dough Russell, kept copious notes about how the PCRB came into being and ... why we do things the way we do. Some of the things that I want to share with you are, uh, the laws that govern the PCRB, and the limitations. A lot of times, uh, people have said, well, why can't you do things the way they do in another jurisdiction. Um, we have certain laws that we need to follow here in Iowa, and I wanted to outline a couple of those for you. The PCRB was created under Iowa Home Rule Law, and that basically means that a city can create entities to carry out duties if they're not otherwise accounted under a state, federal law. So in July 15 of 1997 the, uh, City Council created the PCRB. A citizen referendum, uh, in 2006 requested that the PCRB be made a permanent entity. Uh, and requested that PCRB have additional powers, including sub ... the power to subpoena evidence, uh, the responsibility to hold one public forum per year, uh, yeah, and ... after a supreme court challenge to several other items that had been passed as part of that referendum. The changes to the PCRB were the ... were the only ones that were held up. So as a ro ... result of that, on December 12, 2007, uh, the PCRB was created as a permanent entity and part of the City ... Iowa City Charter. Although Home Rule allows the City of Iowa City to create a Police Citizens Review Board, the Police Citizens Review Board still has to operate under federal and state law. The primary federal law that makes our job interesting is the Fifth Amendment, and that is the right of any person ... to avoid incrimination, um, by testifying against themselves. The second is a state code, uh, which is Chapter 400 Civil Service, and this is something that has been talked about a lot, and that is the limitation that the PCRB has no ability to discipline any police officer. Uh, and that is because that privilege is specifically limited to the Police Chief and uh, in Iowa City the City Manager. The second area that has been, urn, had a lot of questions... concerning... is the way in which PCRB complaints are investigated. When a PCRB complaint is made, we receive a copy of it and the Police Department receives a copy of it. Then for a period of 90 days the PCRB doesn't do much with that complaint, until they receive a report from the Chief. Now, the Chief and his staff, uh, the command staff, investigate the complaint. The Chief has the ability to compel the testimony of police officers, and he is the only one, the Police Chief and the City Manager are the only individuals who have the ability compel the testimony of police officers, and I've reiterated the case in which, um ... that right is created. It's Uniform Sanitation Men Association vs. the Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York. Uh, this power is particular to a public employer. It doesn't go to private employers. Private employers can't compel their employees to testify, or to ... uh, to give evidence, but the Chief can. This is why the PCRB complaints are investigated by the Chief. Unless they were, they were... if they This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 3 were investigated by the PCRB alone or by a private investigator, there would be no access to the accused officer's testimony. And, the drafters of the ordinance felt that this would be the best way to get a ... a balanced accounting of what happened. That the investigators would have access to the complainants and to the officers. Uh, something that ... with the subpoena power that the PCRB would have access to that, but again, the officers, uh, Fifth Amendment rights prevent the PCRB from compelling that testimony. The standard of review that the PCRB uses is one of reasonable basis, and ... and that is outlined in our ordinance, uh, and described rather specifically. Since the Chief makes a decision and he has expertise in ... in police matters, the PCRB's review of his decisions is a reasonable basis review, and that means that the only reason that the PCRB can, uh, not sustain a decision of the Chief is if it is unreasonable. The PCRB does not get to take a brand new look at the evidence and insert their own judgment in the case. They're limited to ... that ... difference, given to the Chiefs... Chief's decisions, and this is a common standard of review when a reviewing body is looking at a decision made by an entity with expertise in an area. This is the standard of review that was chosen at the time the ordinance was created. Uh, it can be changed, but that's what we have to work with right now. The last thing I wanted to comment on is changing the name of the PCRB, and I guess the only thing that we need to keep in mind ... I .... the board has no objection to whatever name, uh, people feel would be ... would better describe what the PCRB does, but keep in mind that the Charter specifically states that we are the Police Citizens Review Board. So in order to make a change to that, there would have to be a change to the Charter. Okay. I think I've covered my duties here. I'll be happy to answer additional questions as they come up, and hopefully the outline will clear up any, uh, ambiguity I ... I left in my presentation. King: (mumbled) Treloar: Sure. Um, one of the questions we received, um, do you think it is possible that the fact that the police chief investigates the complaint is a deterrent to people who have a complaint? That may be. I ... and may not be, but as is specified by the guidelines on which we have to operate ... we ... there's really no choice in the matter. That's the way the system is set up. Unr ... do the records of the PCRB include information on the race, socioeconomic status of the person who filed the complaint? If yes, do you notice a pattern of any kind and what is it? Um, on the back table there there's the complaint forms, and ... on the very back page of the complaint form is the complainant statistical information. We ask if this ... be filled out. If they don't want to fill it out, that's fine too. But that'd be the information that we have to go off of for this (mumbled) indicate your age, color and national origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, mental disability, physical disability, and religion. Um ... often times that's not filled out and I, you know, we have not compiled a study to see if there's a pattern because there's not a whole lot of information to develop a study from. Um... do the police personnel /officers get any training on cultural competency, racial profiling, and /or training on systemic racial disparity and law enforcement? If so, what This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual commnlnity forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 4 specifically does the training cover and how often do they receive update training? I contacted the Police Department on this, urn ... the Iowa City Police Department subscribes to the Police Legal Sciences, uh, Inc., and it's a corporation dedicated to helping police officers and dispatchers strengthen their decision - making skills, professionalism, customer service. Um, once a year the training focuses on racial profiling. This year they've also been training month... have a training month on dealing with... immigrants and this year Iowa City PD received four hours of diversity training on a countywide, uh, in countywide sessions. The four -hour diversity training doesn't occur every year, but usually happens about every other or every third year. Um, and the Police Department also tracks all traffic stops by race, reason for stop, vehicle searches, and outcome of stop. And... and... what type of training on racial disparities and how to review complaints for racial profiling do the members of the PCRB receive? Actually, there's no formal training for us in that regards. Um ... I personally have been through cultural competency training with my other ... with my regular employment in racial profiling but as a board member ... we don't have training that we receive to be board members. We're just volunteers so ... and uh ... has the PCRB ever watched a video, listened to an audio from a police car of a specific situation related to a complaint? Why or why not? And if you have listened, who selects what you listen to and watch? Yes we do that regularly. Um, the officers have monitors on them. They have cameras in the cars. It's very common for us to request to see the tapes. When we see the tapes, the officer's specific face is blocked out because that's a safeguard to keep us from ... um ... developing a pattern on a particular officer or just to protect the identity of the officer. But um, all it takes for us to request that is just any one board member can request to listen to the tapes or see the audios, and ... we do that with regularity. I mean, we've even just to make sure we're thorough on cases that seemed pretty cut and dried right up front, urn, requested to hear the audios and see the tapes, just to make sure we weren't missing something. So that's... that's a common practice of the board. Melissa (mumbled) Jensen: Okay. Um, one of the... one of the next questions is... one of the next questions is do you know that sometimes the Police Chief has shown or played a police recording of a situation to a complainant filer? If you are aware of this and the PCRB members sometimes see or hear a recording related to a case, do you know whether the filer and the PCRB board members actually see or hear the same footage, or different footage? Is that reported to you as part of the investigative process? Um, as Joe mentioned, um, we are aware that a complainant may sometimes view or listen to an audio recording, and that is part of typically the investigative report that we get if a complainant has viewed or has watched that. Um, and we do occasionally, um, request that information. It's provided for us to view that ... to view that information whether it's ... it's video or audio recording. Often times that information'll be stated in the police ... in the police report. That's typically where we would find that information, that, uh, someone who has filed a complaint has viewed or listened to an audio recording. That would be included in the report that we would receive. The next question, is the PCRB This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community foruin of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board —Amoral Community Forum Page 5 provided with a complete record of the steps in each investigation? Do the investigation records let you know whether the Chief or another investigating officer has had a conversation with the filer and the content of that conversation? Yes, that again is part of the report, uh, that we receive. So, regarding conversations involved with that ... that the Chief or the investigating officers may have had with the person that filed the complaint. Next one, there is ... there is, excuse me, there's always communication between the PCRB and the Chief regarding every case. Does the PCRB always have direct face -to -face communication with every complaint filer? Why or why not? That particular face -to -face conversation with the complaint filer, um, may or may not occur. It depends in part on the review level that is set for the complaint itself. Urn, and also the wishes of the complaint filer. In some cases the complaint filer chooses to not ... to not do that. Um, the complaint filer is also... always welcome to come to the open portion of the meeting, um, if they choose to do that, as well. So, that depends on each individual case. Again, it depends on the case itself, on the wishes of the person filing the complaint. Next question, has anyone who made a complaint withdrawn it during the investigation process? Do you know the reasons given for that? Um, I can't speak for what has happened prior to my being on the board. I've been on the board about a year, but my understanding is is if someone does choose to withdraw their complaint, they're welcome to do that. That's their prerogative, and as far as reasons given, they're not required to provide a reason to us. If someone changes their mind or for whatever reason chooses to withdraw that, that is totally within that individual's prerogative. And then the last one, um, who reviewed the questions submitted by the public, and who created the answers? Uh, the PCRB board itself reviewed the questions and discussed the responses to the questions. King: One of the, uh, other questions was, uh, the number of complaints filed since the board, uh, was certified in 97. Uh, there's been 80 total complaints. Out of those complaints there was 177 allegations. Out of those 177 allegations, six of `em were sustained. Urn ... one of the questions, has the board ever made any recommendations to the City Council regarding changes to pol ... police practice, procedures, and policies? Under the complaint resolution in the annual report, uh, from 1998 to 2011, um, they're online. There's instructions back there on the yellow sheet, um, how to get online to the Police Citizens Review Board and you can review our annual reports. Uh, what is the process for citizens to make a request that the board review a police practice, procedure, or policy? Um, please describe exactly how the board would respond to such a request. Um, every month, it's the... second Tuesday? Of the month ... um, when we have our meetings. They're open to the public. The public can come in. Uh, if there's a particular thing that they want to look at, um, let us know, um, and then we can research it and get back to, um, that person. Um ... we did just receive ... um, a letter tonight, um ... from a citizen who was once on the board. Um, some of the things that we had discussed prior was, uh, some of the procedures and changing them. Um ... they were put, urn ... I don't want to say they were put on the back burner, but ... we had, uh, a lot of complaints to review and our... forum, we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Porunt Page 6 wanted to get ready, um, and we've moved those back. Um ... we, I think they're on the ... May or June's agenda. Um, the other thing was... was... how we have to change `em. One of `em was if you change one policy or procedure, that makes you change another policy or procedure, and that may have to go to the City Council to be changed. Um, one of `em was the ... was the name. Urn, the City Council, um, I think there's three options that they can do, uh, for our name change. Um, they can initiate it, um, a citizen can initiate it to them, and ... they, the Council can turn it over for a, uh, vote. Is that correct? To have the public... vote on whether they want to change the name? Pugh: Two of those options would involve a public vote. The Council can change it within its own internal vote, uh, a ... a citizen can, um, create a referendum, sort of like what was done, um, previously for the PCRB, and then it goes to a vote that way; or the ...the Council can request that it be ... that it be up for a vote. (several talking) May I just make one clarification? Um, in one of the previous questions about, um, face -to -face contact with complainants. Um, aside from the fact that the complainant can, you know, request an opportunity to speak to the PCRB, the PCRB ... on occasional also requests the opportunity to interview the complainant, and that decision is made after the PCRB receives the Chief's report. Then they can determine, uh, they make a determination as to what level of review they want to apply to that report. Um, and they can... feel that the report was sufficient on its face and that they don't need to do any additional investigation. They can request an opportunity to meet with the complainant; um, they can... request the opportunity to meet with other witnesses; and they can, uh, request additional investigation by the Chief or the City Manager, um, subpoena witnesses, hire independent investigators. So there's a ... a whole array of things that the board can do, including requesting a meeting with the .... with the complainant. Public Discussion With Police Citizens Review Board: King: I'd like to open it to the public. Um, when you come up if you'd sign your name, um, fill in the ... I think it's your name and address on there and we'll take your questions. Dieterle: Um, I'm Caroline Dieterle and I just wanted to ask whether the, um, review boarc has requested the name change that the... requested the ... sent a request to the Council requesting, um, the name change, because I'm aware that, and have been aware for a long time, that the procedure would involve the Council doing it. It's not something that you can do, and it is my understanding that the Council can vote and just do it. Um, it would seem to me that it would be in their best interest to change the name and get it done, and um, rather than, uh, you know, messing around about with it anymore, simply you know make that part of your recommendation to the City Council to please change that, I mean it's... doesn't, you know, it doesn't really change anything about what you're doing. It just is making a better name that I think would be more acceptable to the public. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Conununity Forum Page 7 King: To answer that, currently we have not, um, taken that to the City Council. (several talking) Braverman: Hi, I know most of you. I'm Janie Braverman. I'm a, uh, former member of the board, and it, Don, I have a couple questions. I'm assuming that that was my letter that you referred to, but did not read? King: Yes. Braverman: Um, I would like to have you read that into the record tonight, if you would, and I'm also just a little bit concerned because, um ... one of the questions you answered... your response was that the board's been busy because there have been a lot of complaints. You know, the process that we were going through was when I was on the board. That's been two years ago. I just wanted to make that clear, that it's been two years ago since the board was actually looking at those things. When you answered it sounded like that that was a very recent thing. So, but anyway, I would like you to read... since you did read other people's in, because my question really was much broader than are you looking, have you looked, and what you're doing. So if you would do that, I'd appreciate that. Jensen: Um, okay, I'll go ahead and read it. It was actually, um, addressed to the City of Iowa City, um, to the person that the question were to be submitted to. Here's a question for tomorrow night's public forum. When I resigned from the PCRB in the summer of 2010, the board had been engaged in a review of its policies, standard operating procedures, bylaws, and ordinance, with the intent that the board would make one or more recommendations to the City Council for changes. One recommendation that the board had agreed on was to change the name of the board to make its purpose more clear. As I recall, the suggestion was the name be changed to Citizens Police Review Board. The board members had had preliminary discussions about various matters, including one, the name of the board; two, whether the process was intimidating or less than welcoming to the community; three, whether there were barriers to community participation; four, whether the procedure of the board reviewing the Police Chiefs report was the best procedure; five, what if anything it meant that so few complaints against the police were sustained; six, whether the current policy of not keeping statistics about individual officers limited the board's ability to look at the Police Department as a whole, and whether keeping various statistics might be useful for other purposes; and seven, whether the board should be looking at the department as a whole rather than just on a complaint -by- complaint basis. When I left the board, the only remaining preparatory work to be done was the review of the citizens boards of other jurisdictions. I believe Joe ... board member Joe Treloar was tasked with that. Following that the board would have been ready to discuss what recommendations it would make to the City Council, and then make the recommendations. As I look at the subsequent agendas, it appears that the effort to review and make recommendations was abandoned. Is that correct? If so, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 8 why? If not, what was the result of the review? Were there any recommendations ever made? Janie Braverman. Treloar: Urn ... I did receive information about other police citizen review boards. One of `em I think was Portland, Oregon, and there are three or four other states. Uh ... in looking at the confines under which we operate, it ... under our law, and their laws being quite different, there are a lot of things that just ... we couldn't apply. Um... other citizens review boards had powers to recommend disciplinary procedures, things like that. That's just not in our abilities, our Charter. Um, I'm trying to think of what other changes we were looking at at that time, and it escapes me, but ... yeah, it was looked into at that time. Um ... is there any reason we can't just take a motion to... King: To what? Treloar: To ... recommend to the City Council we change the name? Can I make ... making motion (mumbled) change the name? We recommend to the City Council that they change the name of our board to the Citizens Police Review Board. (several talking) King: (several talking) seconded by Melissa. All in favor say aye. All opposed same sign. Motion carries 4 -0. We will be making a recommendation to the, um, City Council that we change the name. Actually kind of like that name better. We found the other name a little bit confusing ourselves. But, uh, it's not within our power to change, but we can certainly recommend, so we will definitely do that. Braverman: (mumbled) Let me just speak to one thing you said. I just wanted to be really clear that what I was talking about was recommendations to come from the PCRB to go to the City Council. I think Catherine did an excellent job of summarizing what the current ordinance is. But what we were doing is we were looking at the procedures. We were looking at the bylaws. We were looking at the ordinance, with an eye to looking at what we had and thinking about whether or not we wanted to say to the City Council, we don't think we have the best that we can offer the City of Iowa City. We don't think we have the best that we can offer to the Police Department or to the community. You know, I think that what you said is true, and as you know, I'm a lawyer by training. Uh, and what Catherine said i� true. This is what the current ordinance is. But, what we were doing two years ago, what we were looking at is, is it the best that we can offer this community or should we be looking to our charge to report to the City Council as an opportunity to say to the City Council, the PCRB has been here this period of years. This has been our experience. These are our concerns. These are the things that we need to look at. You know, I think it's clear to everyone that the PCRB itself has no ability to change, um, its bylaws and its ordinance. So I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you and I also want to say thank you for coming to the Library. That is something we talked about quite a bit when I was on the board was the inaccessibility of the board, barriers between the community and the board, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 9 whether or not the board needed to get out of City Hall, away from the Police Department's front doorstep, and I just want to say I'm very pleased to see that you did that. So, thank you. Davidson: My name is Barbara Davidson and I'd like to know, I don't have a formal question, but I'd like to know what ongoing training the police force receives in dealing with... community members who have active mental illness, and may present in a variety of ways to the force? Treloar: Um, in my response I received from Sergeant Steffan, it says I also attend a number of meetings concerning, uh, disparate juvenile minority contacts. These meetings have members of the school system, juvenile court system, DHS, and others concerned with this issue. This allows us to find out and respond to local issues in a more timely manner. Um ... I'm not aware of specific, uh, trainings the Police Department receives with mental illness, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm just not personally aware of them. If ... there was a member of the Police Department that was aware of those that could address that, I'd sure appreciate it, but I'm not aware of...we don't get a list of all the training the police officers go through. So ... I'm not aware of that. King: But we ... we can check into it (both talking) Treloar: I know that's typically common, um, I work for the Department of Correctional Services. We go through extensive training on such things but ... (unable to hear person away from mic) Treloar: If you would please! Sure. We'll wait until after her question and... fortunately we do have a member of the Police Department that's volunteered to answer that question cause he's more aware of the training that they receive than I am. Smithey: Um, my name is Mike Smithey. I am, uh, the Vice President of our union, the Police Union. To answer your question, um, we do, uh, and I don't intend to respond to all the questions tonight, but uh, I want to make ... I think it's important that the public know that we do receive regular training, uh, with regards to, uh, persons with disabilities. Um ... uh, usually at the same in- service trainings that we receive, uh, the ... the profiling training or um ... there's a wide variety of issues that we go through. We have a couple of days worth of training that, um, as a department each year, uh, some in a row; some ... we call it MATS, which is Multi- Agency Training Session, I think, where we get together with the other... with other members of other departments in the area and we, uh, I know this year we had, um ... we had people come in, uh, that provided training, um ... regarding suicidal persons and other persons with, uh, with disabilities, unt, that were both apparent and un- apparent upon immediate contact and how to deal with those people and what the proper protocol was to, uh, get people help when help was what we needed to do. So, it...it...it's also contained within the, uh, police legal sciences training that we receive every month, that is usually... well, that's always This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 10 on a single topic or maybe two topics that we go through, um, it's a computer training that each individual officer has to take and then, uh ... uh, there's a test at the end that we have to pass or we have to take it again. Um, so ... that topic may be, uh, mental illness on one month and it may be racial profiling in another month, um ... I think one of the board members mentioned it was... it had to do with immigration status this month, uh, and immigrants and how to ... uh, how to deal with, uh, immigration issues that come up during the job. So, uh, the ... the variety of training is ... is quite vast. Um, but we do receive training, um, sometimes four hours at a time; sometimes two hours at a time; sometimes from an outside, um, organization, uh, social workers at the University of Iowa Hospitals may come in and assist in the training, as they did this year during MATS. So, there's quite a bit that ... that goes on. Uh, I think probably most of all the training we ... we receive is certainly limited by the amount of time that we, uh, are given each year for training, but uh, there ... there are certain things that are required every year or every other year, such as CPR and so on, that are simply required by law to keep us up to date on certain things, um, and then there's other training, and I'm not sure which one that falls into, but, um, we do receive training on it. (several talking) Carrie Norton: Um, I understand that if you're not pleased with your name that you can discuss it among yourselves and then ask the City Council, and similarly, if you're not pleased or satisfied with your structure, what you can do, what you can't do. You could as a group go to the City Council and say, you know, we've been doing this for a while and ... and we're finding that this structure isn't working for us. And I ...and I'm sensing that that was the nature of...of your letter, Janie. Braverman: Yes. Norton: So, what would be helpful for me is to maybe hear each of you speak to that issue. Are you frustrated with the structure? Do you think the structure is ... is serving the purpose that the ... the review board was established for? Is it working? And I guess it would be interesting to hear from each of you, and ... and I'm ... I'm sorry, I came a little late so I don't know. Are you a member of the board or... Pugh: I'm not a member of the board. I'm counsel to the board. Norton: So they can ask you questions when they review? Okay. And this is the complete board? There are four of you. King: There's five. Norton: There's five. Okay. King: (mumbled) Um, he was just appointed at the last City Council meeting, um, and he (mumbled) (several talking and laughing) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board— Annual Community Forum Page 11 Norton: So ... so my question is, are you frustrated with the structure, or is the structure working for you as a board, and /or do you wish it could be changed and ... and if so, how? Treloar: There are very frustrating things about the structure, um ... I don't know if I would change them or not. A lot of our investigations have high levels of confidentiality and there are times that we all wish that we could discuss in more detail what we, um, looked into, what we thought when we conducted our investigations and make the public more aware of that, but we can't. And so (laughter) sometimes that's frustrating! And uh ... urn ... at first when I was a member of the board, I thought, gee this board has very limited power. But, I've come to realize even though our power is limited, um, we the citizens of Iowa City have more power than anybody else in the entire state of Iowa with their police department... cause we're the only ones that have such a board, and part of our power is having the annual public forum. I've come to believe that's probably why they mandated we have an annual forum in the original Charter. It gives the citizens a chance to come on ... to the forum; it's televised; this'll probably be repeated numerous times over the public access television; and it gives the citizens a ... citizens a voice. Um ... I think as Iowans, we're all aware of how powerful just small voices can be. I mean, think about our voices at the national caucuses. Now, as a voting bloc, we don't have that much of a block, but with our status (mumbled) we have a huge impact on the nation, and that's just from... exercising our voice! This gives, um, the citizens of Iowa City similar power. If they're displeased with the Police Department, it's a quick and easy way to make Council know about it. And, although that's not the part of the discipline, and it's limited... that's still a lot of power! And I think City of Iowa City citizens have used that well! I've been very happy to see them participate to the level they do at our forums, and our meetings. I hope that answers your question! King: Um, yeah the name change, urn, I think that's a big thing. Um ... and it wouldn't even necessarily have to be citizens. It could be community, um, to make it more community friendly. I ... I think ... not so much that the procedures and stuff have to change, um, some of the perception of the public on what we can and can't do, um, might be ... I don't know, more of a problem or more of a ... cloud on it than actually changing the policies and procedures. Um, so ... if ... if you change the name and we ... and you change one thing and it has to change a whole bunch, um; then maybe we have to look at all that, but um ... I think the way that it was set up, um, is working, um ... like I said, I think a lot of the problems could be the perception of what we can and can't do, and why we can't do that, um ... when we do have our... our meetings and we go into executive session, that's more for the privacy of the individuals involved in it than it is to be secretive about it. Um... I don't think anybody here that made a complaint would want their name out, um, for everybody to see if they're making complaints. Urn ... I think that the ... the police department that we have here is a very good police department. Um, I don't think that there's, um ... any problems with the administration of the Police Department. Um, again, it might be some people's perception because the ... the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 12 Chief has an investigation, or an investigator, do the investigation that is slanted towards the police. Um, I've been on the board ... uh, probably close to five years, and ... when you see the reports and you see what goes on, and then you listen to the audio, it...it falls right in line. Um, and I think maybe because it's so secretive that the public may get the perception that there's something going on when there really isn't. Um ... I think Chief Hargadine, um, Chief Hargadine in all his dealings with the public is very fair with `em. Um, when we've asked, um, complainants, um, they either refuse to talk to us, um, sometimes when they're doing it, it's in the heat of the moment. They're, I don't want to say they're all drunk, but... alcohol has a big factor to it. Um, the college kids, um, they complain that they got hurt by the police, uh, excessive use of force. Um, and then when you talk to `em, they barely remember the (coughing, unable to hear). Um ... there are other cases that, um, like I said, we've looked at it and ... and I think that the Chief does a fair job. Uh, so I don't know of anything that I would change right off. Jensen: Yeah, I've been on the board...a year. I think I came on last year, um, to fulfill a term of someone who has resigned and I'm not sure who that—who that individual was. Um... so I don't have some of the history that I think some of the other board members have. Um, one of the things that ... one of my—my objectives in being here and, um, asking to be on the board was that ... it was a way for rue, I felt like to give back to the community, and to get involved. So that was important to me to do that. And, I ... it's been a learning process. Um, but one of the things that has really stood out to me is that how ... mn, important the City and the members of this board take each and every item that comes before them. And how I think the board... takes a really, um, strong look at trying to be objective, hying to be fair, looking at all the facts, considering all the information that they have, and I would agree with Joe. I think the frustrating thing if I had a frustration is that ... there are times that if we were able to share more information, then we could share about a particular situation, that would perhaps explain some of the misconceptions that some individuals may have. But on the other band, um, that is totally to respect the confidentiality of the people involved, and the circumstances. So I think that's very important to maintain that confidentiality. But as far as the board itself, um, I think it's a tremendous board. And I think the board takes each and every, um, situation seriously. And, situation that we address, urn, the board does everything it can to be very thorough. Um, as far as things like the name change, I don't think any of us have any objection to things like that, or to looking at other issues, and those things that we can do that are within our power. So, I ... I would agree, I mean, that would be my one frustration is the same that Joe has ... has talked about, and that's just ... that's part ... that's part of doing what we do is we need to maintain that confidentiality and um, that's very, very important. If it was me in that position, I would want that for myself, urn, and I think it's important to maintain that for the individuals involves in potentially filing those complaints. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May % 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board— Annual Community Forum Page 13 Porter: Me personally I'm very frustrated at, um ... the way that this board is set up, cause personally I feel like we can't do anything. Personally, I'm going to tell the truth, um, I personally filed a complaint myself Um, I had a situation; I don't want to go into it cause I'm trying to put it behind me. Um, I decided to stay on this board because I want to make a difference so that others, if they ever fall into the shoes or had to walk through my shoes of what I went through and filed a complaint, I wouldn't want anyone to feel the way that I felt, but the way that it's governed, um, yes, in 1997 rules were made because of something this board came together, because of something that happened, and me personally, I saw shuttin' up the community they came up with this board. So, this board, uh, was put together so that ... um ... it can look at some policies and procedures of the Police Department... which is good. I have no objections to them. I've been on this board. Um, we've had many cases and out of 177 cases, six sustained. Um, I just think that it really needs to be looked into because to me personally it's like the fox watching the hen. Honestly, name change or no name change it's not about the name change. There's more need to be done than just the name change. Um, when I came on this board, Janie, you had this paper. Everything you stated in here. These were the things we were working on, back then. These were the things we talked about and it was about community. It wasn't about just one or two people. It's not about me. It's about just doing the right thing, and ... when we met last week, we talked about what is it that we as a board can do and personally, we can't do nothing! Personally, we can send, give a recommendation to the City Council, but nobody up here has any recommendations to give because they're okay with what's going on. So, to me, this is what it is and it's not about a name change. You know, I have no problems with ... I'm trying to move on. I have no problems with the Iowa City Police. I ... I try to speak to `em when I see `em ... everybody on the Police didn't do anything to me. I had some issues with several of the police. Some things happened to me. So, therefore, that should have been looked at. That's all I wanted. Not the whole police force because I love what the Iowa City Police is doing here, as far as drugs in our community, far as the safety. They are doing things that I'm pleased with. I live here because I choose to live here because I feel it's safe for me and my family ... than from where I come from. So when we're talking about what is it and frustrations, yes. The policy and procedures of the Police need to be looked into. That's my personal opinion. Not just the name change. It's more than a name change. But, we need to just make sure that the community, we as a community, feel safe as a whole. So ... that's my concerns. When you file a complaint, in that complaint you get a call, which I did too, from ... you get a call from somebody in the Police Department who wants you to come in and talk to `em. Personally, a lot of people feel like if I'm filing a complaint with the Police, why do I have to go talk to the Police? So therefore... um, my question was why couldn't there be an outside agency to handle this? Why couldn't somebody else handle this? But then an officer explained to me last week that he is the president of the union and he recommends that no police officer do a mediation, because he let me know that the person that comes in for a mediation cannot discipline a police officer if he This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forurn of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 14 needs to be disciplined, you know, and follow the procedures that they have to go through. So, that's my concerns. Eastham: (mumbled) My name is Charlie Eastham, urn ... and I actually sent one of the letters to the board about, uh, making recommendations about police procedures and practices, not the board's composition and duties and, uh, structure. But police procedures and practices. Uh, I just want to say that it...it seems very apparent to me that, um, moving policing in any direction from where it is right now is not something that can be done by continuing to spend effort looking into officer misconduct. It's a very good idea for a citizens' board to be able to review officer misconduct. I think that's a fine idea. But I think the ... the community that I'm in contact with is looking for this board to do things other than looking at officer misconduct. Um, if you take a look at the disproportionate, uh ... uh, arrest and citation rates for black youth in the community, which are much, much higher than (mumbled) should be. None of those rates can actually change if we continue to use all of our effort looking at individual officer misconduct. To change something like that, we have to look at police practices, you know, in a mulch more, um, generally as well as, uh, specifically, and not ... not at the (mumbled) officer level, but at, uh, the way the police department is going about, uh, providing policing services for the community. So I hope the board will in the future will, uh, realize that it has two major sets of powers. One is investiga... investigating officer misconduct, but the other is the general power to actually make recommendations to the police, uh, I mean to the Council about police policies, practices, and procedures, and ... and use more time to, uh, to do the latter, and I think that's in part what I understand, uh, Janie was trying... was getting at in her letter. King: Thank you. Anyone else? Dieterle: Well I heartily agree with, um, Charlie Eastlram and his remarks because urn ... you know, within the scope of the Police Department there... there's just so much they can do with the number of officers they have and the amount of time that they have. That has to be decided I ... presumably by the Chief, you know, where the emphasis is going to be placed. Um, and you know, in the ... in the years that I've been watching this and I was one of the people who helped pass the petition to get the ... the whole, uh, thing onto the, uh, onto the... ballot, um, and was one of the people who pressed for the, uh, police review board in 1997 because of the Eric Shaw disaster. And, um, it...it seems to me that all of the people that I've talked to, pretty much, have been much more interested in the police having their resources placed, um, on ... oil victimed- crime. Crimes that have a victim. People who have actually robbed, beaten, assaulted, um, in some way or another, uh, victimized by somebody. And I've had people complain that they've had, you know, what they suspected was burglaries and ... and things going on, where they called the police but the amount of time it took for someone to get there was insufficient, that ... it was less than useful, and I, you know, I appreciate that you can't just direct them away from what they ... what they're This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 15 doing, but you ... it would seem to me that the whole business about their discretionary power and how to prioritize, you know, what is the most important thing to be done is something that could be looked into. Um, you know, of course we have traffic laws and we have laws against drinking and all those kinds of things, and you know, you can't just ignore those things, but you also don't need to make that the priority when there are people who are actually being assaulted, beaten, chased, you know, stalked, and ... and whatever. Thanks. King: Anyone else? Um, our next meeting.... Tucker: Hi ... Annie ... Annie Tucker. Um ... sorry, writing my address. I appreciate that ... that you're required to have this review and that you're open to all the questions and that you're here doing it. And I appreciate you giving the background, and I appreciate you ... urn ... in this room considering what you would like changed, and I really urge you to go back to the point where you were when Janie was on the board. And, look beyond the constraints that you see, or like just step way back from it and look at what would be a good process. I believe ... I believe, Matt, did you ask the Human Rights Commission to take a look at the PCRB process? Where is that? Hayek: It's... it's, well, I can't talk because the Councils here but it's on our pending work session, uh, so we're going ... we're going ... we scheduled it for after, uh, this forum. So, we're going to have a conversation. Tucker: And ... and did the, can I just ask a procedural thing? Did the ... did the ... maybe I can ask Orville ... did the Human Rights Commission approach the Council about the PCRB process? Townsend: I think we made a recommendation (mumbled) Tucker: Okay. (male): (mumbled) Tucker: Okay. So I just wanted to (several talking) Orville Townsend: I just shared that the Human Rights Commission, uh, requested that the, uh, City Council make it an agenda item and uh, you know, take a look at it. We expressed some concerns. Tucker: Okay. And I guess I just want to raise, or I want to reiterate support for Charlie Eastham's encouragement to look at not just individual officer's behaviors but ... but practices and policies and procedures. That makes all the sense in the world. I'm also concerned about one thing that I've heard from someone is that the officers are ... it's a 24/7 crew, and how often can you get ... any percentage of officers focused or able to attend any given topic. I ... I just, that's a question. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board amoral community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review- Board — Annual Community Forum Page 16 That's a question. Um, I also just want to, um, say if...if we had a business... and we had an accountant that was doing our books, and a ... we had a question about how the accountant was doing the books. Would we go to that accountant's co- worker to ask them to double check it? I don't think we would. I think we want a process that is above suspicion or doubt. As ... as we back up and look at what could that look at, I want something ... I encourage us to find a process that is above suspicion or doubt of people saying, ooh, is there a conflict of interest here? Ooh, is there a, you know ... and the, um, the part of the process where someone who makes a complaint has to come in to the Police department and speak to an officer seems intimidating to me, but it's inherent because the police department is doing the ... the investigation. So given the structure, it's an inherent part of it, but I think it could be a deterrent or a real ... it could be intimidating. Separate from the people involved. Just structurally intimidating. And then I guess, I guess I want to go to...I think Mr. King, I think you were the one who said, or one of the people who said the secrecy piece creates suspicion. You know, so it's like, it's too bad you have things that you would want to say, but nobody can hear them because your part of the process is confidential, at least. King: Correct. Yes. Tucker: So, I just wonder, are there times when different... different people or entities benefit from that confidentiality. What if someone who made a complaint is fine about the world knowing it? You know? I just ... I just think that's something to consider. That there may be people who make a complaint... that are fine with anyone knowing. They would want people to know. That's a possibility. That as you're looking at the process I'd want you to look at. So ... that's all. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity, and thanks for a really rigorous look at the process. And thanks to the Human Rights Commission for raising the concern. Finnerty: Good evening. My name is Diane Finnerty and I'm with the, uh, Iowa City Human Rights Commission and I apologize for coming in late. We just had a wonderful event at the Englert. Um, giving Human Rights Awards to youth in our community doing great stuff. So ... um, got here when we could, but several of us commissioners just showed up after... about 60 awards. It was really great. Um, so I just want to offer also, um, my own individual support too for just looking at the model. Um, part of our conversation at the commission was, um, hearing concerns in the community, both ones that were given to us directly as a commission, as well as anecdotal ones as we work on issues of immigration, of people feeling, uh, whether they can or can't come forth, even to file concerns, um, to the Police Department, but then also concerns about treatment and the... it's not a look at whether the Police Department is doing their job well. It's whether there is transparency in our community for citizens, for residents, to be able to believe there's a transparent process. I ... I think the current model really doesn't benefit anyone. Um, we'd want a model that supports the Police Department in doing their incredibly important work in the community, at the same time engenders trust in the ... the actual community members that there's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 17 response and that there's... it's not an insular, circular investigation process that's going on. So, um, our recommendation for looking at the model is to look at both the strengths, but also the challenges, um, and our understanding and our commitment particularly as the commission is to ... as we continue to diversify in our community that we call feel like we have access to our, um, city government at all realms, um, and uh, our concerns this past year has been particularly on issues of immigration, on issues of racial profiling in terms of some of the national issues, as well as local ones, and um, we ... we just believe that a look -see at this current process would benefit us all, um, so I ... I thank you for your service to the community, and uh, we look forward to working as partners in the future as we go forward. King: Thank you. Treloar: Um, there seems to be quite a bit of concern about transparency and I understand that, and um, I appreciate that actually. One thing I would like to point out though is, I ... this is Iowa City. We expect a lot from our police, and that's good. We should also look at what we get from our police in response to our expectations. Um, as far as transparency, our officers do have microphones on them when they get out at calls. They're required to turn them on. Urn ... I think I can say this because it's not a particular case. There was one instance where one of the officers did not have his microphone turned on. The Chief's response was that he received training with the Chief on the importance of that. Now, I've been in law enforcement since 1975. I've been a police chief. I've been a police officer. When you read something like that you know that that was not a good day for that officer (laughter). That the training... was not a good day for that officer. The Chief obviously took keeping that microphone turned on extremely seriously. They have the cameras in the cars. Our Police Department is nationally accredited. There are very few police departments in the nation that achieve national accreditation status. What that involves is having a ... an enormous, um, amount of policies that are scrutinized by a national review board on all the practices of the police department, and they come in and they go over those, about every three years. It's lengthy. It's expensive! It's thorough, but that is one of the steps that our city has seen fit to do to make sure that we have a top -flight police department, and that things are transparent and above - board. The microphones, the cameras, most police departments in the state do not have those. They're going above and beyond what is expected throughout the rest of the state to be transparent. Another thing that our Police Department in conjunction with the Sheriff's Department and the University Police Department, um, and the Coralville Police Department does is they amorally have a police... a citizen's police academy. I was fortunate enough to attend that last year. Like I said, I've been in law enforcement since 75. Things change a lot, and in that 12- week session I learned a lot of new things, and ... there are a lot of things that the police do that I'm going to use the words "don't make common sense," because common sense implies that understanding that we all have about something. Well, some of the things in the police world, we don't have a common This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 18 understanding about how that all works. There are very many legal ramifications to why they do what they do, and ... often times I've caught myself doing that too. I thought, well, why do they do that, that doesn't make sense? But then when I researched further and found the details of what was actually involved, then it made sense. It wasn't common sense because your common person doesn't know all the details involved, but it does make sense. Um, so I'll just ... the reason we have these... we also have a new crime prevention officer in the last few years. That's another effort on the Police Department's part to be proactive. It's extremely important for law enforcement to be proactive, and by proactive that means getting citizens involved, citizens' trust, citizen participation. If we had to depend on the officers to do all the crime fighting for us, we'd really be behind the ball. The officers depend on the citizens to call them to report things, to let `em know what's going on, and that involves developing good public relations. That again is another reason why they developed the Police Citizens Review Board is to help foster those public relations. These things all again happened because you the citizens expect a lot of your police department. And, they're not perfect, and we're not perfect, but... you're doing a lot of good things and don't ...don't soft -sell that. There's a lot of good going on here in Iowa City and law enforcement. So ... thank you for your input (mumbled). (male): (mumbled) (several talking) Yes. Hanson: My name is Peter Hanson. I'm a resident of, uh, Iowa City since 1999. I know a few years ago if one individual repeatedly filed complaints, say ten complaints over a period of three years, on the tenth complaint you knew this individual was kind of a repeat complainer and it's difficult for that knowledge not to color your treatment of that person's complaint. On the other hand, at least a few years ago, if many complaints were made against the same officer, the way the system worked you did ... the Police Citizens Review Board, did not know that repeated complaints of the same nature had been made against the same officer. Is that still the case in your operation or has that been changed? King: Do we know the identity? No we do not. Treloar: We don't know the identity of the officers (mumbled) of the complaint. Hanson: But you do know the identity of the complainant? Treloar: Yes. Hanson: Is that fair? Treloar: Well ... since I've been on the board, I ... I don't know of any case where we've had a repeat complaint from, uh, a citizen. But um, in fairness to the officer... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 19 Hanson: See, if there's a pattern, I mean, if one officer has ten similar complaints filed against him or her over a period of five years, I would think that would put up a red flag. King: Well that would ... that would be to the Chief, because we couldn't do anything... we don't have ... we can't discipline him. We can't discipline that officer, even if we knew that officer had ten. That would be up to the Chief. Hanson: No, I'm not talking about discipline but just the, uh ... I would think it would have an effect on how you viewed the complaint. King: (mumbled) Pugh: And I think that's the very effect that they're trying to avoid, um... since the officer's the one being accused of the wrongdoing, they ... PCRB wants to remain blind to the identity of that officer so there wouldn't... their judgment wouldn't be tainted by that knowledge. If it was (mumbled) the same person doing the same thing again. Hanson: But that same blindness isn't necessary with respect to the complainant? Pugh: Well, the complainant's not the one being accused of anything. So I ... I guess (both talking) Hanson: Well, in a sense ... in a sense often they are, uh ... if they're very young maybe or if they're from a particular ethnic group and so forth ... uh ... I would ... I would suggest that ... that can color, uh, a normal human being's opinion (mumbled). But, there's no change in that practice (mumbled) Treloar: No. I mean ... I'm sure an officer that receives a complaint comes to the attention of the Chief (mumbled). And that's the one who has the (mumbled) and looking at the situation and ... with ultimate responsibility for the department. I'm confident the Chief takes those complaints seriously. Hanson: Yeah, but see I would think that for the same reason that the Chief would ... you know, his ears would perk up that yours would also if you knew it. But you're not ... you don't have that information available, see and ... so... Townsend: Good evening, my name is Orville Townsend. A couple questions. If there are ten complaints made—who decides, I mean, whether or not they come to you? (mumbled) to the board. King: Who decides what comes to us? Townsend: Yeah, I mean, you know, do you get all ... get to see all that information or what's the process? If there are ten complaints made, you may end tip ... do you get all This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board— Annual Community Forum Page 20 ten of `em or do you get five of `em? Who decides, you know, what you guys get to deal with? King: (mumbled) ...if there's like, um, a complaint and there's like ten allegations in that complaint, or ten different people complaining? Jensen: Do I...do I understand your question correctly, is how do ... how does a ... complaint come to the Police Citizens Review Board itself? Townsend: Right, you're the review board so I guess what I'm trying to find out is, who decides what you get to review? Treloar: When the citizens file a complaint with us, we review it. Townsend: Okay. King: It goes to the Chief and then (several talking) Townsend: Okay. Why does it have to go to the Chief? It looks like it would come to the review board. King: The Chief ...the Chief is the one that does the reviews. Townsend: Okay. King: The Chief does the reviews. Pugh: Although the board does receive a copy of the complaint. King: Right (several talking) Townsend: Okay. But doesn't that seem, um, you know, perception is 90 ... perception is just as damaging as reality, and doesn't it seem that, you know, people would be a little suspicious, especially if they don't get... if they feel they don't get a positive result, that they feel a little suspicious with the Police Department being... determining what you guys get to deal with? Smithey: I don't think you guys are understanding the question. (unable to hear; away from mic) Jensen: Yeah. Yeah, I... Smithey: The complainant decides if they get the complaint. Nobody else. It's entirely based on where the complainant files the complaint. Do they file it with the Police Department, in which case only the Police Department does the internal. If they file with the PCRB, in which case the PCRB gets the complaint but the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 21 Police Department still does the internal investigation. (unable to hear; away from mic) Townsend: Okay. Pugh: There are complaint filed with the Police Department that the PCRB may never see. (unable to hear; away from mic) (several talking) Jensen: Because the person filing the complaint doesn't file it with the PCRB. They ... it goes straight to the Police Department. Townsend: Okay. So in order to improve perception, it would probably be better if the Police Department, even if...when it's filed with you, it would probably be better if the Police Department weren't involved in it then. King: Well, again, it goes back to if we have our own investigator, the police officer's not compelled to ... to talk to us at all. Townsend: Okay. King: To get that side of the story. Then you go ... take it from the police aspect to the citizen's aspect. You're only going to hear one side, no matter how you do it. So the ... the Police Chief can compel his officers to, uh ... uh, to testify to ... to complete, uh, with the investigation, or as if it was our investigator to talk to the police, the police don't have to talk to us. That's why the ... that's why it's to the Police Department. Townsend: So ... what power do you have? King: Well, we have the power to ... to, uh, send it back to the Chief if we feel it wasn't, um, investigated thoroughly or properly. Um ... we can do our own investigation, um, as to—interviewing the complainant. We can subpoena the complainant to come in, um ... so we can ... we're limited to what we can do, but we ... there's things that we can do if...it'll have to go back to the Chief. Would have to go back to the Chief. Townsend: Okay. Treloar: And another example of a complaint that might go to the Police Department, might not come to us. Say I have a patrol car parked in front of illy house. It's there several days that week. And I'm worried... why is he watching me or something like that. So I go to the Chief, and the Chief explains we've had numerous complaints about people speeding in that neighborhood and we're stepping up the radar traffic enforcement there. That's why he's there. Well, that might be all I need. Oh, okay! So ... that wouldn't necessarily go on farther. That's why a lot of complaints get resolved by the police department, is they're This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 22 able to explain what they're doing and why they're doing it to ... to the complainant's satisfaction. Townsend: Okay. Thank you. Dieterle: I have a quick questions that's kind of a follow up to ... to his. Um, there was some discussion about changing the, uh, complaint form. So that it would say on the bottom, you know, that you can also file a complaint directly with the Police Review Board, as well as filing it with the Police. And, I wondered whether that might be a procedure that you might want to talk about having changed. Maybe via the Council, that all complaints go both to you and to the Police, so that there isn't anything that is ... that you're left out of essentially. And the other thing is is that some of the times that I've attended the board meetings, uh, there's been quite a long discussion about, um, identification of...of the, uh, officer and the whole question, because you don't get a name. You get a number or ... or a letter or something. Um, and this is to preserve confidentiality for the police. But, um, it seems to me that, you know, if you're going to keep some statistics it would be a good idea to do that, so that if you had a statistic showing up that the same number, you know, turned up over and over again, technically the person may not have done anything, uh, that would cause the complaint to be sustained, but it would be a case where you could say, well, uh, in the case of five or six complaints involving the same numbered, urn, officer, maybe we should ask the Chief to ... to, whether he's talked to this person, to do anything about this, to modify his behavior somehow cause maybe he's provoking some of the problems that he's involved in. Um, even though technically he's within the law. So, I ... it just seems to me that part of this transparency is having all of the complaints go to both board members, and that you keep some sort of statistics... about what you're doing too. Pugh: And I would make the comment that the board does receive a summary of all complaints internal or PCRB, although we don't review the internal complaints. We do receive like a summary of what those complaints were. Yeah. King: And the City Council does too. Pugh: Uh -huh. King: Anyone else? Motion for adjournment. Adiournment: (male): (several talking) Hansen: A couple years ago, uh, I attended one of these meetings and the question came up about your annual report and uh—we were told that, well, you just go to the web site and ... you know, you can download our annual report that we make to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board animal community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 23 the, uh, City Council each year. Well I, you know, I've got, I don't know, 60 years of computer experience and I spent about an hour trying to find it! And ... and I couldn't, and I haven't visited your web site, uh, recently, but I'm wondering have you, uh... King: The yellow sheet tells you how to get there, cause (both talking) all the complaints, or all the annual reports are on the ... on the computer. Hansen: They're more access ... but it's ... and they're more accessible (both talking) King: Yeah, you can .... you can read each one of `em and they have a section, um... Hansen: Cause you gotta find it before you can read it! I mean, they're easy to find... King: Yeah, yeah, they're easy to find. Hansen: Cause I remember ... I ended up calling the City Clerk's office and someone kind of stepped me through it and it took her a long time to ... to find it. King: Yeah! I think if you went to the City web site and go to A to Z, and go to P for the Police Citizens Review Board; click on that and it lists in ... in red all our annual reports. Hansen: Right on that... King: Right on that page. Hansen: That wasn't the case a few years ago. King: There's three pages of it, um, I know they're on there now because I just reviewed it in the last few days. Thank you! King: Uh, again, our next public meeting is June 12 °i at, uh, City Hall in the small conference room they have there in the lobby, urn ... (several talking) (female): What time? Jensen: 5:30 (several responding) King: Motion for adjournment? Jensen: Motion to adjourn. King: Motion by Melissa. Treloar: Second. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board annual community forum of May 9, 2012. May 9, 2012 Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board — Annual Community Forum Page 24 King: Second by Joe. All in favor say aye. All opposed same sign. Motion carries 4 -0. Thank you very much. (several talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board almual community forum of May 9, 2012. DEPARTMENT MEMO #1219 TO: Chief Hargadine FROM: Captain Jim Steffen RE: January — February 2012 Use of Force Review DATE: July 2, 2012 The "Use of Force Review Committee" met on June 29, 2012. It was composed of Captain Steffen, Officer Jenny Clarahan and Sgt. D. Brotherton. For the review of submitted reports in January, 7 Officers were involved in 4 separate incidents requiring use of force involving 2 individuals. In February, 21 Officers were involved in 9 separate incidents requiring use of force involving 5 individuals. All issues or concerns were identified and addressed at previous levels of review. Officers are reminded that the "Type of Incident" refers to the original call for service. As a further clarification on the documentation of injuries, injuries caused by the Taser probes should be listed as superficial and the injury photographed. Of the incidents reviewed over the two month period, a Taser was discharged on one occasion. The remaining use of force dealt with officers using hands on techniques and six (6) destruction of injured animals. Of the I1 incidents reviewed, 3 suspects and 1 Officer sustained superficial injuries as a result of the use of force. Please contact me if you have any questions. Copy: City Manager, PCRB, watch Commanders, Review Committee IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT January 2012 Ofe # Date Inc # Incident Force Used 2012- 63 1 -09 00276 Injured Animal Officer deployed a sidearm to destroy an injured deer. 24,14, 1 -17 00614 Domestic Officers used hands -on control techniques and 40 Assault discharged a Taser to control and arrest a combative and assaultive subject. 34,3 1 -24 00895 Juvenile Officers used hands -on control techniques and Complaint applied handcuffs to control a combative juvenile who was physically fighting school staff. 62 1 -25 00922 Injured Animal Officer deployed a sidearm to destroy an injured deer. IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT February 2012 Ofc # Date Inc # Incident Force Used 2012- 51 2 -04 01453 Intoxicated Officer used hands -on control techniques to Subject control an assaultive subject during escort to the 'ail. 63 2 -10 01702 Injured Animal Officer deployed a sidearm to destroy an injured deer. 2,65 2 -13 01821 Intoxicated Officers used hands -on control and take -down Subject techniques to arrest a resistive subject who was attempting to flee. 17,18, 12 -10 28923 Suicidal Subject Officers displayed side arms and long guns to 2,32,5, approach and control a suicidal subject reported 52,57, to be in possession of a handgun and an assault 59,61, rifle. 65,8 9 12 -16 02026 Injured Animal Officer deployed a sidearm to destroy an injured deer. 53 2 -17 02003 Warrant Service Officer used hands -on control techniques to handcuff a resistive subject during arrest. 49 2 -20 02133 Injured Animal Officer deployed a sidearm to destroy an injured deer. 36 2 -20 02150 Injured Animal Officer deployed a sidearm to destroy an injured raccoon. 10,29 2 -24 02333 Intoxicated Officers used hands -on control and take down Subject techniques to control and arrest a resistive subject. OPS -0£3.1 ALARM - OPEN DOOR RESPONSE Original Date of Issue General Order Number February 9, 1999 99 -02 Effective Date of Reissue Section Code June 8, 2012 1 OPS -08 Reevaluation Date Amends /Cancels July 2013 OPS -08 Previous Version 2011 C.A.L.E.A. Reference 1.2.4, 1.3.6, 81.2.13 See Index INDEX AS: • Use of Force > • Supervisory Responsibility CID • Building Search • Alarm I Open Door Response • Canine Procedure PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to define the responsibilities and duties of officers when they respond to burglar alarms, bank alarms or "open door" calls. II. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to respond to burglar alarms, bank alarms and open door calls in a safe and efficient manner. When responding to these types of calls, they shall be handled in manner which provides maximum safety for the officer and the public. The decision to search a building in these circumstances will be made only after attempting to contact a representative of the building, or when a representative is unavailable, after considering all of the circumstances surrounding the incident. Warrantless searches shall be conducted only if circumstances justifying a warrantless search are present. OPS -08.2 III. DEFINITIONS IV. PROCEDURES A. BURGLAR ALARMS When a member of this department responds to a burglar alarm the officer should respond in a safe and reasonable manner. When approaching the location of the alarm the officer should consider the deactivation of emergency lights and siren if applicable. The officer should be observant for vehicles and /or persons leaving the immediate area. Upon arrival at the scene the officer should not park directly in front of the location from which the alarm is coming, instead they should park down the street from the alarm. The officer should approach the address from as concealed a position as possible. Upon reaching the exterior of the building, the officer should: 1. Check the exterior of the building for possible signs of a break -in. The officer should also check for open doors and monitor the interior of the building for suspicious activity. 2. If there are no obvious signs of forcible entry, the officer should notify JECC. The alarm company is responsible for contacting a business representative. Upon receiving notification from the alarm company of the key holder response, JECC should advise the officer if a representative is going to respond. If the representative requests that an officer accompany them into the building, the officer may do so after obtaining approval from a supervisor. When a representative requests an officer to accompany them to inspect a building, an entry shall be made listing the name of the representative as well as their relationship with the property in question. This will not constitute a search. 3. If there are signs of forced entry or attempted entry, officers should secure the perimeter of the building. When available, back -up officer(s) should check the immediate area for possible suspects or other buildings which may have been entered. JECC will contact a representative of the building at the officer's request. The representative shall be requested to come to the location,' fore an officer enters the building. The contact will ailow, officers the opportunity to determine if anyone would be expected to be in the building. A supervisor should respond to the scene;pefore entry` is made. 4. If a building representative cannot be contacted, a supervisor will make the determination whether: 1) officers will enter the - building to conduct a search; 2) the building will not be entered and "extra patrol" initiated for the building; and /or, 3) a search warrant will be requested. Extra patrol requests will be forwarded to subsequent watches as applicable. Regardless of the decision to enter or secure the building, the supervisor of the day watch or designee OPS -08.3 will attempt to contact a building representative the next business day. The building representative will be informed of the date, time and pertinent details of the incident and be asked for updated business contact information. 5. In instances where the building representative declines to come to the scene, a watch supervisor may authorize a search of the building if the building representative requests and consents to a search. 6. In instances where there is forced or attempted entry, the lead officer shall complete an incident report and any required supplemental reports. B. OPEN DOORS AND WINDOWS When an officer comes upon or is made aware of an open door, the following guidelines should be adhered to: 1. The officer(s) will secure the perimeter. At the officer's request, JECC will contact a building representative to come to the location before any officer enters the building. 2. If the building representative cannot be contacted or does not desire to come to the location, the officer(s) will secure the building to the extent possible and initiate an "extra patrol' request for the duration of the watch and subsequent watches as applicable. A member of Day Watch will contact the building representative the next business day. The business representative will, be advised of the date and time of the incident and be asked for — 'updated business contact information. C. SEARCH PROCEDURES 1. If a property representative is not available and there is a reasonable basis on which to conclude that an emergency threat to persons and /or property exists, a supervisor may authorize warrantless entry and search by officers. In the absence of such circumstances, any search must be pursuant to warrant. 2. In instances where the building representative declines to come to the scene, the watch supervisor may authorize a search of the building if the building representative requests and consents to a search. This does not require that the building be searched. 3. When a determination to search is made, with or without the contacting of a property representative, a supervisor should be present at the scene. 4. If a determination is made to search the property, officers should consider requesting an available canine team in assisting with the search. All use of canine teams shall comply with canine policies and procedures. 5. If it is determined that a search will be conducted, officers shall verbally identify themselves as members of the Iowa City Police Department prior to entry. If exigent circumstances exist, this notification may be waived by the supervisor on the scene. WORM D. BANK ALARMS Officers responding to bank alarms or other financial institutions shall utilize the authorized departmental protocol as identified in the Department's Field Training Manual. E. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. When assisting an outside agency in their jurisdiction, members of this department will be guided by this policy. Prior to the search of the building, an ICPD watch supervisor should authorize any participation by ICPD officers in the actual building search. The watch supervisor should confirm that the person requesting the search has authority to authorize the search. 2. When the building to be searched is a public building under the control of the City of Iowa City, an attempt to contact the appropriate department head should be made prior to authorizing the search of the building. 3. When a determination is made that an officer will search a building the officer will make the determination as to whether he /she will draw his /her weapon. If the officer decides to draw his /her weapon, a use of force report will be required only if an individual other than other police officers are encountered. In instances where multiple officers are involved in the search of a building and an individual is encountered, the on -scene supervisor may authorize on Use of Force report for all units present. IN ALL INSTANCES, ALL OFFICERS SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL USE OF FORCE POLICY. 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; cf 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_ departmenta-1 administrative sanctions. OPS -09.1 PRISONER TRANSPORT Original Date of Issue General Order Number March 17, 1999 99 -03 Effective Date of Reissue Section Code June 11, 2012 1 OPS -09 Reevaluation Date Amends July 2013 1 OPS -09 Previous Version (2010) C.A.L.E.A. Chapter 70 INDEX AS: • Use of Force • Prisoner Transport • Handcuffing I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for transporting persons in the custody of officers of the Iowa City Police Department between points of arrest and initial booking. II. POLICY Transporting prisoners is a potentially dangerous function. Therefore, it is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to take the precautions necessary while transporting prisoners to protect the lives and safety of officers, the public and the person in custody. 1 OPS- 2 III. PROCEDURES A. Vehicle Inspection 1. At the beginning and end of each tour of duty, all vehicles regularly used for prisoner transport shall be inspected for readiness as follows. a. The safety screen shall be securely in place and undamaged. b. All windows shall be intact and outer door latches in proper working order. c. Rear -seat door handles and window controls shall be deactivated. d. The interior shall be thoroughly searched to ensure that no weapons or contraband have been left behind or hidden within the vehicle. Prior to placing a prisoner in a vehicle for transport, the transporting officer shall inspect the interior for weapons or contraband. The vehicle shall be searched again after the prisoner has been delivered to the detention facility or other destination. B. Handcuffing/ Use of Restraints 1. Officers should handcuff (double - locked) all prisoners with their hands behind their back and palms facing outward. 2. The officer may handcuff the prisoner with his /her hands in front, or use other appropriate and approved restraining device(s) where the C prisoner: a. is in an obvious state of pregnancy; b. has a physical handicap; c. has injuries that could be aggravated by standard handcuffing procedures. 3. Known juveniles will be handcuffed only when reasonably necessary to ensure the safety of the officers, juvenile or others. 4. Prisoners shall not be handcuffed to any part of the vehicle during transport. 5. Additional approved restraint devices may be used to secure a prisoner who violently resists arrest or who exhibits behavior such that he /she poses a threat to himself, the officer, to the public, or to prevent escape. 6. Officers are prohibited from transporting prisoners who are restrained in a prone position. The technique of "hog tying" shall -not be; used by members of this department. Transport 1. Prior to transport, all prisoners shall be thoroughly searched.for any.-, weapons or contraband. ; 2. Prisoners should not be handcuffed together. 3. When possible, females should be transported separately from males. 4. Juveniles shall not be transported in the same area of a vehicle with adult prisoners. Special precautions should be employed when transporting high -risk prisoners. In particular: 2 OPS -09.3 a. combatants should be transported separately; b. members of rival gangs should be transported separately. 6. Prior to initiating transport, the officer should provide communications with the following information: a. arrest location and destination; b. mileage reading before and after the transport of juveniles or members of the opposite sex; c. number of persons being transported; d. nature of the charge(s). 7. The officer should assist the prisoner(s) into the squad car, taking care to avoid the prisoner(s) striking their head on the vehicle. Prisoners should be instructed not to lean back on their wrists. 8. Prisoners should be transported in a manner that allows for constant visual observation. Officers operating vehicles equipped with video shall activate the camera to document the prisoner during transport. Seating of officers and prisoners should, when possible, conform with the following: a. Where the vehicle has a security screen but one transporting officer, the prisoner should be placed in the back seat on the right hand side of the vehicle. When the vehicle is not equipped with a screen and has only one transporting officer, the prisoner shall be placed in the right front seat and secured with a seatbelt. b. When a prisoner is being transported in a two - officer vehicle without a security screen, the prisoner shall be placed in the right rear seat. The second officer shall sit in the left rear seat. c. Leg restraints should be used when a prisoner exhibits, or an officer reasonably believes the prisoner is likely to engage in, violent behavior or is an escape risk. d. A solo transporting officer shall not transport more than one prisoner in a vehicle without a screen. e. Prisoners may be instructed not to speak to each other, or have contact with outside parties during the transport process. f. Prisoners should be secured in a seatbelt during transport if the officer(s) feel they can safely do so. 9. The physical wellbeing of prisoners shall be monitored during transit. Particular attention shall be directed to persons reported or suspected of being under the influence of drugs and /or alcohol or who have a history or propensity for violence. a. Prisoners who report or display symptoms of serious physical illness or injury during transit shall be taken to an emergency room for treatment. b. Escorting officers shall remain with the patient at all times unless relieved by other authorized personnel (this may include medical staff). c. Potentially violent persons in custody shall be restrained; at III times" in treatment facility unless such restraint would interfere,with, essential treatment. °o 3 OPS -09.4 d. In the event a prisoner who has committed a serious offense is admitted to a hospital, long -term security may be appropriate. In such cases the supervisor of the arresting officer shall design a schedule that permits 24 -hour security of the prisoner. Adequate rotation of officers will be maintained. Visitors, including phone contact, not approved by the Police Department shall be prohibited Officers shall avoid fraternization with the prisoner. e. When released from the hospital, the prisoner shall be transported to the appropriate holding facility. The transporting officer shall ensure that all hospital treatment instructions and medication directions are given to the holding facility staff. 10. Symptoms or reports of physical or mental illness (such as threats of suicide or psychotic behavior) shall be reported to the receiving officer. 11. Any wheelchairs, crutches, prosthetic devices, and medication should be transported with, but not necessarily in the possession of, the prisoner. In instances where a person with a disability must be transported, and the disability prevents transport in a marked patrol car, a watch supervisor should be contacted for assistance. Alternate methods of transport may include but are not limited to the use of an unmarked unit, transport van, or requesting an ambulance to transport. 12. Prisoners should not be left unattended during transport. 13. Officers shall not engage in unrelated enforcement activities while transporting prisoners unless failure to act would risk death or serious bodily injury to another. In non -life threatening yet serious situations, officers should call for back -up assistance and may remain on -hand until such assistance has arrived. 14. Any escape shall be immediately reported to the communications center with a complete description of the fugitive, mode and direction of travel, original charge and propensity for violence if known. The officer shall ensure that the watch supervisor is notified. The officer shall complete a report detailing the escape. When a subject is not immediately captured, the watch supervisor should consider notifying outside agencies and request assistance. He /she may also consider the use of a canine unit in tracking the subject. If this is done, it shall comply with the general order pertaining to canines. 15. If a prisoner is an escape risk, the officer shall notify the receiving agency of this information. 16. When a prisoner is transported to the Iowa City Police Department for processing or questioning, the officer shall maintain control and shall ensure that visual contact is maintained with the subject:at all times. In this case, the officer will decide if the handcuffs may beremoved ' during the processing or interview process. Officers shall abide by all ; Departmental directives pertaining to prisoner /detainee processing and weapons security. 17. When officers are detained for a period of time waiting for jail _entry authorization, they shall monitor the wellbeing of their prisoners and ensure that restraints have not unduly tightened. Officers assigned to 12 Of'S -09.5 the prisoner holding van will check handcuffs of prisoners and make sure they are properly adjusted before prisoners are placed in the vehicle. The officer will inform dispatch of the check and the prisoner's name. At regular intervals, the officer will verbally check with the prisoners to make sure no problems have developed. If a problem develops, with two officers present and at the officer's discretion, the prisoner may be removed from the vehicle and the handcuffs or other problem checked. All checks will be noted in the CAD log. 18. Upon arrival at the Johnson County Jail, weapons shall be secured in the provided lockers. 19. Prisoners are considered in the custody of the Iowa City Police Department until they are received by Johnson County Jail personnel or released by the officer. 20. Persons who are transported for noncriminal procedures should be patted down and seated as indicated above. The officer will decide if the use of restraints is warranted. 21. Upon arrival at the receiving agency, the officer shall comply with the security requirements of the agency pertaining to weapons and prisoner restraints. Officers should advise the receiving officer of any medical conditions or special concerns regarding the prisoner as well as delivering all required paperwork and /or documentation regarding the subject. The receiving officer's name should be included on the appropriate form. 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 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. USE OF FORCE Original Date of Issue General Order Number April 28, 2001 99 -05 Effective Date of Reissue Section Code June 18, 2012 1 OPS -03 Reevaluation Date Amends July 2013 1 OPS -03 Previous Version (2011) C.A.L. E.A. Reference 1.3.1 — 1.3.8, 1.3.13 (see "INDEX AS ") INDEX AS: • Use of Force • Reporting • Significant Force • Investigation • Use of Force Model • Canine • Arrests • Warning Shots OPS -03.1 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide members of the Iowa City Police Department with guidelines on the use of deadly and non - deadly force. II. POLICY The Iowa City Police Department recognizes and respects the value and special integrity of each human life. In investing officers with the lawful authority to use force to protect the public welfare, a careful balancing of all human interests is required. Therefore, it is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department that police officers shall use only that force that is reasonable and necessary to accomplish lawful objectives and effectively bring an incident under control, while protecting the lives of the officers and others. OPS -03.2 III. DEFINITIONS A. Deadly Force (Section 704.2, Code of Iowa) — For the purpose of this policy, shall mean any of the following: 1. Force used for the purpose of causing serious injury. 2. Force which the actor knows, or reasonably should know, will create a strong probability that serious injury will occur. 3. The discharge of a firearm, in the direction of some person with the knowledge of the person's presence there, even though no intent to inflict serious physical injury can be shown. 4. The discharge of a firearm, at a vehicle in which a person is known to be. B. Serious Iniury (Section 702.18 Code of Iowa) — Means disabling mental illness, or bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. C. Reasonable Force (Section 704.1, Code of Iowa) — Is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one's life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one's dwelling or place of business or employment. ; D. Reasonable Officer: Objective Standard 1. "The 'Reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judgefi from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Graham v. Connor, 109, S.Ct. 1865, 1872. (1989) 2. "Reasonableness" also takes into account that police officers make judgments in a split second under circumstances that are "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1872. (1989) E. Less Lethal Munitions (as used in this policy) — Any Department approved weapons and /or munitions system designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. F. Use of Force — Any contact applied by an officer that significantly restricts or alters the actions of another and /or compels compliance with the demands or instructions of the officer. This includes the use of restraint devices such as handcuffs. IV. Code of Iowa — Use of Force in Making Arrests and Preventing Escape A. Section 804.8 Use of force by peace officer makinq an arrest. Ot'S -03.3 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: 1. The person has used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony, or 2. 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. B. Section 804.13 Use of force in preventing an escape. A peace officer or other person who has an arrested person in custody is justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody as the officer or other person would be justified in using if the officer or other person were arresting such person. V. PROCEDURES A. DEADLY FORCE 1. Purpose of statement a. To delineate the Department's policy regarding the use of deadly - force. b. To establish policies under which the use of deadly force,is permissible. 2. Policy a. Officers of the Iowa City Police Department may use deadly force to stop or incapacitate an assailant to prevent serious bodily injury or death. For this purpose and to minimize danger to innocent bystanders, the officer should shoot at the center body mass, whenever possible. b. An officer may use deadly force to protect him /her or others from what he /she reasonably believes to be an immediate threat of death or serious injury. c. An officer may use deadly force to effect the capture or prevent escape if: i. The person used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony, and ii. The peace officer reasonably believes the person would use deadly force against a person unless immediately apprehended. d. No distinction shall be made relative to the age of the intended target. e. Warning shots by officers of the Iowa City Police Department are prohibited. f. A verbal warning shall be utilized prior to an officer discharging a weapon unless it would compromise the safety of the officer or others. OPS -03.4 g. Shooting at or from a moving vehicle is prohibited, except under the following circumstances: i. When the occupant of the vehicle is utilizing deadly force against the police officer or other persons. ii. As a last resort to prevent death or serious injury to officers or other persons. iii. As a last resort to apprehend a person who has just committed a felony resulting in death or serious injury. iv. The discharge of firearms shall not be utilized when circumstances do not provide a high probability of striking an intended target or when there is substantial risk to the safety of other persons, including the risk of causing vehicle accidents. 3. Injuries resulting from Use of force. a. Officers shall render appropriate first aid to any person injured or complaining of pain following the use of force. b. EMS will be summoned to the scene to ensure delivery of appropriate medical treatment when: I. Requested by the subject(s) involved. ii. The extent of an injury is unknown or not visible: . iii. The nature or extent of the injury dictates. c. Officers shall err on the side of caution, requesting :EMS to..respond to the scene if in doubt about the existence or extent of an injury. 4. Surrender of firearm. When officers or employees discharge a firearm that results in personal injury or death to any person, the officer or employee shall surrender that firearm to his /her supervisor or a higher authority consistent with departmental directives. Firearms involved in police shooting incidents shall not be unloaded, cleaned, nor in anyway altered from the condition immediately following discharge other than to make the weapon safe for transport. a. When more than one officer or weapon has been involved in a shooting situation resulting in any injury or death, the involved weapons must be surrendered to the commanding officer in accordance with departmental directives. b. The commanding officer receiving such firearm or firearms shall immediately secure and document the same as evidence. B. LESS LETHAL FORCE 1. Where deadly force is not authorized under this policy, officers should assess the incident in order to determine which less lethal technique will best de- escalate the incident and bring it under control in a safe manner. Officers shall use no more force than is reasonably necessary to gain control of an individual or situation. Officers are authorized to use force consistent with the Use of Force model. 2. An officer shall use no more force than that officer reasonably feels is necessary in the performance of their official duties. Use of force by an officer is justified in, but not limited to, the following situations: a. To protect the officer or others from physical harm. OPS -03,5 b. To control an arrestee or a potentially violent person. c. To restrain or subdue a resistant individual. Approved restraint devices are handcuffs (hinged and chain style), flex -cuffs and nylon leg restraints. d. To bring an unlawful situation safely and effectively under control. 3. Officers shall offer medical treatment to any non - combative person who has been exposed to a chemical irritant / OC spray. Officers shall decontaminate a person exposed to a chemical irritant and continue to monitor the condition of that person until they are no longer in the custody of the officer. B. NOTIFICATIONS 1. Any officer who discharges a firearm in the course of their duty, shall immediately contact his /her supervisor. (This does not apply to animal euthanasia where supervisory permission to discharge the weapon must be sought prior to the destruction of the animal ((see section B in "REPORTING USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS ")) or training situations) If this is not practical, the officer shall contact the on -duty patrol supervisor. The notified supervisor shall then contact the following individuals: a. The involved officer's Division Commander. I. It shall be the Division Commander's responsibility to notify the Chief of Police. ii. If the Division Commander cannot be notified, a watch supervisor shall notify the Chief of Police. b. The County Attorney of the county in which the incident occurred. c. The City Attorney. d. The City Manager. e. The Criminal Investigation Commander or his /her designee. f. Other as Required by the Mandatory Call Matrix 2. The on -duty watch supervisor shall be immediately notified or summoned to the scene of any incident where use of force results in a physical injury. 3. The on -duty watch supervisor shall be immediately notified when,a chemical irritant / OC spray is utilized. 4. The on -duty watch supervisor shall be immediately notified when a conducted energy device is discharged. C. REPORTING USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS 1. Discharge of Firearms — report required. Any officer who discharges a firearm for any reason or purpose other than those exceptions listed in this section, shall make a written report to his /her immediate supervisor as soon as circumstances permit. This written report will then be forwarded through the chain of command to the Chief of Police for review. Exceptions to the requirement of a written report apply to the following circumstances in which no accident or injury results: a. The discharge of firearms on firearm ranges or in an area for firearms practice. OPS -03.6 b. Sporting events to include lawful hunting and organized shooting matches. 2. When, in accordance with applicable law, it becomes necessary for an officer to discharge a firearm to destroy an animal which presents a danger or is seriously injured or ill, the officer will, prior to discharging the firearm, request permission to do so from the on -duty supervisor. If such action must be immediately taken in order to protect the officer's or another person's safety, the officer need not delay action in order to request this permission. In this circumstance, however, the Watch Supervisor must be notified immediately after the firearm is used. A Use of Force report is required. 3. Review Committee. a. Use of force incidents shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of a minimum of three sworn personnel. L The committee shall consist of a Division Commander, the Sergeant of Planning and Research and /or Training Sergeant, and a third person designated by the Division Commander. ii. This group will, at a minimum, meet every three months to review the Use of Force Reports from the previous three months. ill. The purpose of this committee shall be to review all facts and reports concerning use of force incidents for: appropriateness of force used, for any training which may be necessary, and /or any need for policy changes. This committee will make recommendations on these matters to the Chief of Police. b. All non -use of force firearms discharges (e.g. accidental /negligent discharge), with the exception of the destruction of animals which are reviewed by the Use of Force Committee, shall be reviewed in a manner consistent with General Order 99 -06: Internal Affairs Investigations as assigned by a Division Commander. i. At a minimum, this will consist of a Report of Inquiry and supervisory review. ii. The Division Commander and the Training and Accreditation Sergeant will review the investigation and findings to identify any training recommendations which are necessary, and /or any need for policy changes. Recommendations on these matters will be forwarded to the Chief of Police. 4. Use of Force Reports. a. A Use of Force Report with a written narrative regarding any use of, force incident will be submitted in addition to any incident report., The report(s) shall contain the following information: i. Arrestee /suspect information. ii. Incident number(s), date and time of incident, and reporting officer. ' iii. Description of actual resistance encountered. iv. All required fields completed in Use of Force report. v. The force used by the officer to overcome the resistance and the specific weapon or technique used. OPS -03.7 vi. A description of any alleged or actual injuries to either the officer or suspect. vii. Pictures taken of any injuries to either the officer or suspect viii. Exposure to Chemical Irritant / OC spray will additionally require the documentation of hospital treatment being offered, supervisor notification, and decontamination procedures. ix. A Conducted Energy Device deployment will additionally require the documentation of medical treatment, if medical treatment is refused by the suspect, supervisor notification, and the number of cycles /applications used. b. When the only use of force is the application of handcuffs, double locked, no use of force report is necessary. The application of handcuffs, double locked will be documented on a written complaint or citation or in the body of an incident report. c. A supervisor of the reporting person shall review the report for adherence to Department policy and procedure and document their conclusions. d. All reports concerning use of force shall be forwarded through the chain of command to the Division Commander for review. 5. Executive Review. At a minimum, the Chief of Police and /or designee will conduct a documented analysis of all reports and incidents of force annually. An analysis of reports and incidents of force could reveal patterns or trends that indicate training needs, equipment upgrades and /or poiicy modifications. D. INVESTIGATION OF USE OF FORCE RESULTING IN DEATt1'OR,: SERIOUS INJURY 1. When any member of the police department is involved ,In an incident resulting in death or serious injury, a thorough and objective investigation of facts and circumstances will be initiated as sooWas practical by the Chief of Police's designees and completed as soon as practical. 2. The Chief of Police or his /her designee shall decide whether the DCI and /or any other outside agency shall be called to assist in the investigation. 3. If an incident resulting in death or serious injury which involves a sworn Iowa City police officer occurs in another police jurisdiction, the officer shall cooperate with that jurisdiction, as set forth in Iowa City Police Department directives. 4. The on -duty watch commander /supervisor shall ensure that appropriate case reports are initiated and that potential evidence is preserved. 5. The officer(s) or employee involved in the death or serious injury shall be relieved of field duty without the loss of pay or benefits, pending the results of the departmental investigation. Other officers or employees involved in the incident also may be relieved of field duty without loss of pay or benefits at the discretion of the Chief of Police, while the investigation is pending: OPS -03.£3 a. The officer or employee shall be available at all times for official interviews and statements regarding the case, and shall be subject to recall to duty at any time. The officer or employee must receive permission from the Chief of Police, or the Chiefs representative, prior to leaving the area. If such permission is given, the officer or employee shall supply the phone number(s) of his /her location and duration of the absence. b. The officer or employee will not discuss the case with anyone except the prosecuting attorney and /or persons designated by the Chief of Police or their designee. This does not prohibit the officer or employee from discussions with his /her attorney. If the officer or employee may be the subject of internal review or criminal charges, his /her constitutional rights and administrative protections will be maintained. The officer or employee will attend post- traumatic stress counseling at the discretion of the Chief of Police. c. At the discretion of the Chief of Police, the officer or employee may be returned to duty upon departmental receipt of notification from the counselor or mental health professional indicating the officer's fitness for duty. 6. The investigation and administrative leave policy outlined herein is not intended to imply or indicate the officer or employee has acted improperly, but is designed to safeguard the officer or employee and the Department. 7. The Chief of Police may appoint one or more individuals to conduct a separate yet parallel (administrative) investigation into a use of force incident to ensure all personnel followed departmental poli,cies`and guidelines. VI. USE OF FORCE MODEL A. Police officers are given the unique right to use force, even deadly force, against others for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The rightto`dse force carries with it an obligation to use that force in a responsible manner. Police agencies have an obligation to provide their employees with the policies, training, and tools necessary to accomplish their mission. Selection of a use of force response from the options articulated in this model will be based on: the skills, knowledge, and ability of the officer; the perceived threat and amount of resistance offered by a subject; and consideration of the situational framework. A defined Use of Force Model will enhance the department's ability to manage the use of force and will benefit the officer by providing guidance, resources, and options. B. Officers of the Iowa City Police Department shall follow the principles of the Use of Force Model. The model describes an escalation of force, which is based on a reasonable officer's perception of threat or resistance. As a subject's resistance escalates, more force options become available to the officer. When resistance stops, the officer must de- escalate, but only after control (e.g. handcuffing) is accomplished. Officers of the Iowa City Police Department must generally employ the tools, tactics, and timing of force utilization consistent with the Model's proscription and training protocols. Due OPS -03.9 to the fact that officer /citizen confrontations occur in environments that are potentially unpredictable, "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" (Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1872. (1989) the officer may utilize tools, tactics, and timing outside the parameters of the Model. However, these applications of force must meet the same test of reasonableness as those which have been previously identified and approved by the Department. C. Reasonable officer's perception / Reasonable officer's response (see attached matrix) Samuel Hargadine, Chief of Police ING This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party claims. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative sanctions. <s LEVEL ONE Perception — Subject is compliant 01'S -03.10 Response — Cooperative controls (includes: mental preparation, spatial positioning, communications skills, handcuffing positions and techniques, searching techniques, arrest and transport controls) COOPERATIVE • • USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE COMPLIANT: LEVEL 1 COOPERATIVE CONTROLS > PERCEPTION SKILLS MENTAL PREPARATION > RISK ASSESSMENT > SURVIVAL ORIENTATION > OFFICER STANCE SPATIAL POSITIONING > BODY LANGUAGE > RELATIVE POSITIONING > VERBAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS > NON - VERBAL > WALL > STANDING HANDCUFFING POSITIONS > PRONE > KNEELING HANDCUFFING TECHNIQUE > CONTROLLED > WALL > STANDING SEARCHING TECHNIQUES > PRONE > KNEELING > OPPOSITE SEX SPECIALIZED TECHNIQUES > FRISK > STRIP > SINGLE OFFICER ARREST TECHNIQUES > MULTIPLE OFFICERS ESCORT CONTROLS > SINGLE OFFICER > MULTIPLE OFFICERS > SINGLE OFFICER TRANSPORT CONTROLS > MULTIPLE OFFICERS OPS -03.11 LEVEL TWO Perception — Subject is passively resistant Response — Contact controls (includes: contact controls, conflict management techniques, mass formation arrest techniques (multiple officer lifts, stretchers, wheelchairs etc.) CONTACT CONTROLS USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE RESISTIVE Passive): LEVEL 2 CONTACT CONTROLS FORCE OPTIONS also includes all options from lower Levels CONFLICT MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES > SINGLE SUBJECT > MULTIPLE SUBJECTS > ARM CONTACT CONTROLS > WRIST > HAND > ESCORT TECHNIQUES ARREST TECHNIQUES > TRANSPORT TECHNIQUES > MASS FORMATION OPS -03.12 LEVEL THREE Perception — Subject is actively resistant Response — Compliance techniques (includes: neuromuscular controls, joint manipulation, nerve compression, chemical irritants, e.g. OC spray, controlled stopping devices for fleeing vehicle incidents) COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE RESISTANT (Active): LEVEL 3 COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES FORCE OPTIONS also Includes all options from lower Levels > NERVE COMPRESSION TECHNIQUES COMPLIANCE CONTROLS > CHEMICAL IRRITANTS, CROWD CONTROL CHEMICAL MUNITIONS > CONTROL TACTICS > HEAD NERVE COMPRESSION TECHNIQUES: > NECK NEURO - MUSCULAR CONTROLS > ARM > LEG CONTROL TACTICS > WRIST ROTATION > ELBOW LEVERAGE BICYCLE > TAKE DOWN TECHNIQUES VEHICLE PURSUIT TACTICS > COMMUNICATIONS /ASSESSMENT SKILLS > PACING/TRAILING TECHNIQUES OPS -03.13 LEVEL FOUR Perception — Subject is physically assaultive and may cause bodily injury Response — Defensive tactics (includes: personal weapon defense, e.g. hands, knees, feet, active countermeasures, etc.; impact weapons, e.g. ASP, weapon retention techniques, conducted energy devices) DEFENSIVE TACTICS USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE ASSAULTIVE (Potential Bodily Harm): LEVEL 4 DEFENSIVE TACTICS FORCE OPTIONS also includes all options from lower Levels > HEAD > HANDS PERSONAL WEAPON DEFENSES > ELBOWS > FEET > KNEES IMPACT WEAPONS (ASP) > STRIKES > IMPACT PROJECTILES > CANINE OPERATIONS LESS LETHAL WEAPONS > CONDUCTED ENERGY DEVICES > OTHER OPTIONS > FRONT WEAPON RETENTION TECHNIQUES (Less Lethal) > REAR > SIDE OTHER WEAPONS > CONTROL /APPREHENSION CANINE* TECHNIQUES *Deployment of canine for apprehension /protection shall be preceded by actions of suspect which are consistent with Level 4 ( Assaultive — Potential Bodily Harm) behavior. The exception to this is the deployment of canine for building searches or related circumstances, where the suspect actions are not known. In this circumstance procedures spelled out in the "Canine Operations" General Order (99 -04) shall be followed. OPS -03.14 LEVEL FIVE Perception - Subject is assaultive and likely to cause SERIOUS bodily injury or death Response- Deadly force (includes: weapon /weapons attack defense, lethal force utilization with service /supplemental weapons, forcible stopping techniques for assault with vehicle incidents) USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE ASSAULTIVE (Serious Bodily Harm /Death): DEADLY FORCE LEVEL 5 FORCE OPTIONS also includes all options from lower Levels > WEAPON ATTACK DEFENSE > WEAPONLESS > WEAPON RETENTION TECHNIQUES > SERVICE WEAPON LETHAL FORCE UTILIZATION > SUPPLEMENTAL WEAPON > OTHER OPTIONS OTHER OPTIONS: > CONTACT FORCIBLE STOPPING TECHNIQUES > ROADBLOCK OPS -17.1 RACIAL PROFILING Original Date of Issue General Order Number January 10, 2001 01 -01 Effective Date of Reissue Section Code June 14, 2012 1 OPS -17 Reevaluation Date Amends July 2013 1 OPS -17 Previous Version (2011) C.A.L.E.A. Reference 1.2.9 (see "INDEX AS ") r., INDEX AS: Racial Profiling Search and Seizure Complaints Traffic Stops Supervisor Responsibilities Arrests Warrants Discipline I. PURPOSE The purpose of this order is to unequivocally state that racial and ethnic profiling by members of this department in the discharge of their duties is unacceptable, to provide guidelines for officers to prevent such occurrences, and to protect officers from unfounded accusations when they act within the parameters of the law and departmental policy. II. POLICY It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to patrol in a proactive manner, to investigate suspicious persons and circumstances, and to actively enforce the laws, while insisting that citizens will only be detained when there exists reasonable suspicion (i.e. articulable objective facts) to believe they have committed, are committing, are about to commit an infraction of the law, or there is a valid articulable reason for contact. Additionally, the seizure and request for forfeiture of property shall be based solely on the facts of the case and without regard to race, ethnicity or sex. OPS -17.2 III. DEFINITIONS • Racial profiling - The detention, interdiction, exercise of discretion or use of authority against any person on the basis of their racial or ethnic status or characteristics. • Reasonable suspicion - Suspicion that is more than a "mere hunch" or curiosity, but is based on a set of articulable facts and circumstances that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an infraction of the law has been committed, is about to be committed or is in the process of being committed, by the person or persons under suspicion. ( "Specific and articulable cause to reasonably believe criminal activity is afoot. ") IV. PROCEDURES The department's enforcement efforts will be directed toward assigning officers to those areas where there is the highest likelihood that vehicle crashes will be reduced, complaints effectively investigated or addressed, and /or crimes prevented through proactive patrol. A. In the absence of a specific, credible report containing a physical description, a person's race, ethnicity, or gender, or any combination of these shall not 5 be a factor in determining probable cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for a stop. B. Traffic enforcement shall be accompanied by consistent, ongoing supervisory oversight to ensure that officers do not go beyond the parameters'of reasonableness in conducting such activities. 1. Officers shall cause accurate statistical information to be recorded in accordance with departmental guidelines. 2. The deliberate recording of any inaccurate information regarding a person stopped for investigative or enforcement purposes is prohibited and a cause for disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. C. Motorists and pedestrians shall only be subjected to investigatory stops or brief detentions upon reasonable suspicion that they have committed, are committing, or are about to commit an infraction of the law. Each time a motorist is stopped or detained, the officer shall radio to the dispatcher the location of the stop and any pertinent descriptors relevant or unique to that stop. The exception to this procedure is when officers are taking part in safety checkpoints and are working with other officers. D. If the police vehicle is equipped with a video camera, the video and sound shall be activated prior to the stop to record the circumstances surrounding the stop, and shall remain activated until the person is released. E. No motorist, once cited or warned, shall be detained beyond the point where there exists no reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity. F. No person or vehicle shall be searched in the absence of a warrant, a legally recognized exception to the warrant requirement as identified in General Order 00 -01, Search and Seizure, or the person's voluntary consent. 1. In each case where a search is conducted, information shall be recorded, including the legal basis for the search, and the results thereof. OPS -17.3 2. A cursory "sniff' of the exterior of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation by a police canine may be recorded on the department's canine action report form. V. TRAINING Officers shall receive initial and ongoing training in proactive enforcement tactics, including training in officer safety, courtesy, cultural diversity, the laws governing search and seizure, and interpersonal communications skills. A. Training programs will emphasize the need to respect the rights of all citizens to be free from unreasonable government intrusion or police action. VI. COMPLAINTS OF RACIAL /ETHNIC PROFILING Any person may file a complaint with the department if they feel they have been stopped or searched based on racial, ethnic, or gender -based profiling. No person shall be discouraged or intimidated from filing such a complaint, or discriminated against because they have filed such a complaint. A. Any member of the department contacted by a person, who wishes to file such a complaint, shall refer the complainant to a Watch Supervisor who shall provide them with a departmental or PCRB complaint form when requested. The supervisor shall provide information on how to complete the departmental complaint form and, if possible, shall record the complainants name, address and telephone number. B. Complaints which result in the initiation of an investigation shall be conducted as directed by General Order 99 -06, Internal Affairs Investigations. C. Supervisors should periodically review a sample of in -car video of stops made by officers under their command. Additionally, supervisors shall review reports relating to stops by officers under their command, and respond at random to assist or observe officers on vehicle stops. D. Supervisors shall take appropriate action whenever it appears that this-policy,, is being violated. - VII. REVIEW A. On an annual basis or as requested by the Chief of Police, the Commanding Officer Administrative Services, or designee, shall provide reports to the Chief of Police with a summary of the sex, race, and /or ethnicity of persons stopped. B. If it reasonably appears that the number of self- initiated traffic contacts by officers has unduly resulted in disproportionate contacts with members of a racial or ethnic minority, a determination shall be made as to whether such disproportionality appears department wide, or is related to a specific unit, section, or individual. The commander of the affected unit, section, or officer shall provide written notice to the Chief of Police of any reasons or grounds for the disproportionate rate of contacts. C. Upon review of the written notice, the Chief of Police may direct additional training towards the affected units /sections or to individual officers. OPS -17.4 D. On an annual basis, the department may make public a statistical summary of the race, ethnicity, and sex of persons stopped for traffic violations. E. On an annual basis, the department may make public a statistical summary of all profiling complaints for the year, including the findings as to whether they were sustained, not sustained, or exonerated. F. If evidence supports a finding of a continued ongoing pattern of racial or ethnic profiling, the Chief of Police may institute disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment of any involved individual officer(s) and /or their supervisors. 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. July 10, 2012 Mtg Packet PCRB COMPLAINT DEADLINES PCRB Complaint #12 -01 Filed: 04/09/12 Chief's Report due (90days): 07/09/12 Chief's Report filed: ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review) ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Report due (45days): ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Complaint #12 -03 Filed: 06/08/12 Chief's Report due (90days): 09/06/12 Chief's Report filed: ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review) ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Report due (45days): ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Complaint #12 -04 Filed: 06/18/12 Chief's Report due (90days): 09/17/12 Chief's Report filed: ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review) ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB Report due (45days): ? ?/ ? ?/12 PCRB MEETING SCHEDULE August 14, 2012 September 11, 2012 October 9, 2012 November 13, 2012 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD OFFICE CONTACTS June 2012 Date Description 6 -7 -12 Man came to office and requested 2 complaint forms. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Established in 1997, by ordinance #97 -3792, the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) consists of five members appointed by the City Council. The PCRB has its own legal counsel. The Board was established to review investigations into claims of police misconduct, and to assist the Police Chief, the City Manager, and the City Council in evaluating the overall performance of the Police Department by reviewing the Police Department's investigations into complaints. The Board is also required to maintain a central registry of complaints and to provide an annual report setting forth the numbers, types, and disposition of complaints of police misconduct. The Board shall hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing citizens' views on the policies, practices and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department. To achieve these purposes, the Board complies with Chapter 8 of the Iowa City Code and the Board's By -Laws and Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 Meetings The PCRB tentatively holds monthly meetings on the second Tuesday and special meetings as necessary. During FY12 the Board held eleven meetings and one Community Forum. ICPD Policies /Procedures /Practices Reviewed By PCRB The ICPD regularly provided the Board with monthly Use of Force Reports, Internal Investigation Logs, Demographic Reports and various Training Bulletins. The Department also provided various General Orders for the Board's review and comment. A senior member of the Police Department routinely attended the open portion of the PCRB meetings, and was available for any questions Board members had regarding these reports. Presentations In May of 2012 the Board held it's forth Community Forum as required by the City Charter. The PCRB Legal Counsel, Catherine Pugh, gave a brief summary on the history, laws governing, investigations, and the name change for the PCRB. There were ten members of the public that spoke at the forum. Topics of discussion included the following: Laws governing the PCRB, and potential changes to the ordinance and operating procedures. Board Members In October officers were nominated with Donald King as Chair and Joseph Treloar as Vice - Chair. Peter Jochimsen resigned and was replaced by Kingsley Botchway in May of 2012. COMPLAINTS Number and Type of Allegations Six complaints (11 -02, 11 -03, 12 -01, 12 -02, 12 -03, 12 -04) were filed during the fiscal year July 1, 2011 — June 30, 2012. Three public reports were completed during this fiscal period (11 -01, 11 -02, 11 -03) and one complaint was dismissed (12 -02). The remaining complaints filed in FY12 are pending before the Board (12 -01, 12 -03, 12 -04). Allegations Complaint #11 -01 1. Officers did not respond in a timely manner after her 911 calls for assistance. Complainant asserts that officers arrived almost 20 minutes after the shift change of 11:00pm. NOT SUSTAINED. PCRB Annual Report FY 2012 — Approved ? ?/ ? ?/12 —1 No audio /video from in -car cameras from responding officers. NOT SUSTAINED. Officers made untrue statements in the submitted written reports. NOT SUSTAINED. Improper conduct /treatment by responding officers during interaction with her. NOT SUSTAINED. 5. The Complainant stated that Officer C was untruthful in telling her that three guns had been recovered. NOT SUSTAINED. 6. Officer C made false statements in his report. The report stated the Complainant used profanity when referring to the Cedar Rapids juveniles and was more interested in cleaning up the mess in the clubhouse than speaking with officers. NOT SUSTAINED. 7. Officer C inquired of her personal information while a possible suspect was seated in the back of the patrol car and overheard the conversation. NOT SUSTAINED. 8. Not being told by Officer C that she was going to be charged with Disorderly House and questioned why a warrant was issued for her arrest. NOT SUSTAINED. 9. Officer C called A &M Management apprising them of the damage and telling them that he was going to charge the Complainant for the damages. NOT SUSTAINED. 10. Officer A had made false statements in his report. Report indicated that Complainant had yelled at him and that he made the statement that he was not going to speak with her if she continued to yell. The Complainant asserts this remark was in response to her asking for his name and badge number to report him to the police chief. NOT SUSTAINED. 11. Officer B made false statements in his report that the Complainant made remarks and comments about the police being worthless. Complainant denies making this statement and asserts the officer did this to get back at her since she was calling the chief of police for how she was treated. NOT SUSTAINED. 12. Officer D called the Complainant's employer with the intent of getting her fired. NOT SUSTAINED. 13. Officer D contacted A &M Management in an effort to get them to file charges and informed them that charges were already pending against her. NOT SUSTAINED. 14. Officer D interviewed and questioned juveniles at the schools about alcohol and guns without parent consent, a violation of school board policy. NOT SUSTAINED. Complaint #11 -02 1. Complainant stated that he was threatened with arrest by Officers. NOT SUSTAINED. 2. Complainant stated that he was intimidated by the Officers. NOT SUSTAINED. Complaint #11 -03 1. Officer A followed him, harassed him, and looked for more reasons to fine and arrest him. The complainant asserts that he abided by all of the officer's instructions and was compliant. He states he was mistreated, hand cuffed and Officer A's written statement was false and created to get him in trouble. NOT SUSTAINED. Level of Review The Board decided, by simple majority vote, the level of review to give each report, selecting one or more of the six levels specified in the City Code per complaint: Level a On the record with no additional investigation Level b Interview or meet with complainant Level c Interview or meet with named officer Level d Request additional investigation by Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation Level a Board performs its own additional investigation Level f Hire independent investigators Complaint Resolutions PCRB Annual Report FY 2012 — Approved ? ?/ ? ?/12 — 2 The Police Department investigates complaints to the PCRB of misconduct by police officers. The Police Chief summarizes the results of these investigations and indicates in a report (the Chief's Report) to the PCRB whether allegations are sustained or not sustained. (If complaints are made against the Chief, the City Manager conducts the investigation and prepares and submits the reports.) The Board reviews both the citizens' complaint and the Chief's Report and decides whether its conclusions about the allegations should be sustained or not sustained. The Board prepares a report which is submitted to the City Council. Of the seventeen allegations listed in the three complaints for which the Board reported, none were sustained. The Board made comments and /or recommendations for improvement in police policy, procedures, or conduct in three of the reports: Complaint #11 -03 Attempts to contact the complainant by the ICPD by phone on 11 -15 -2011 and 11 -17 -2011 were not answered in spite of leaving detailed messages. On 11 -17 -2011 a letter was sent with information as to how to contact the ICPD for an interview. Neither return calls nor correspondence have been received. Name - Clearing Hearings The ordinance requires that the Board not issue a report critical of the conduct of a sworn officer until after a name - clearing hearing has been held. During this fiscal period, the Board scheduled no name- clearing hearings. Mediation Officers and complainants are notified by mail that formal mediation is available to them at any stage in the complaint process before the Board adopts its public report. All parties involved must consent to a request for mediation. No mediations were convened this year. Complaint Histories of Officers City ordinance requires that the annual report of the PCRB must not include the names of complainants or officers involved in unsustained complaints and must be in a form that protects the confidentiality of information about all parties. In the three complaints covered by the FY12 annual report a total of seven officers were involved with allegations against them. ICPD Internal Investigations Logs The Board reviewed the quarterly ICPD Internal Investigations Log, provided by the Chief of Police. •u• _ �_ u• The following is demographic information from the three complaints that were completed in this fiscal year. Because complainants provide this voluntarily, the demographic information may be incomplete. Category /Number of Complainants ARE National Origin: Color: Under 21 0 Us 0 White Over 21 1 Unknown 3 Black Unknown 2 Unknown Sexual Orientation: Gender Identity: Sex: Heterosexual 0 Female 0 Female PCRB Annual Report FY 2012 —Approved ? ?/ ? ?/12 —3 Unknown 3 Marital Status: Single 0 Married 0 Unknown 0 Physical Disability: No 0 Yes 1 Unknown 2 BOARD MEMBERS Donald King, Chair Joseph Treloar, Vice Chair Royceann Porter Peter Jochimsen /Kingsley Botchway Melissa Jensen Male 0 Male 1 Unknown 3 Unknown 2 Religion: Mental Disability: Unknown 3 No 0 Yes 0 Unknown 3 PCRB Annual Report FY 2012 — Approved ? ?/ ? ?/12 — 4