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