Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-22 Info Packet-I .- =a j d ` �I CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org May 22, 2014 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP2 Memo from Police Chief to City Manager: UIPD & Bar Checks IP3 Article from City Manager: BCT New Update DRAFT MINUTES IP4 Charter Review Commission: May 13 IP5 Citizens Police Review Board: May 19 4 -AJ ho 10� CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Tuesday, June 3, 2014 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1 Subject to change May 22, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Location Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, July 15, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, July 28, 2014 TBA Joint Meeting /Work Session Tiffin TBA Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 2, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 4, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 16 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting r -64 CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P2 �. r� . hN MEMORANDUM Date: May 19, 2014 To: Mr. Thomas Markus From: Chief Sam Hargadine�` Re: UIPD & Bar Checks I have been notified by the University of Iowa Police Department that they will no longer conduct bar checks for the purpose of enforcement of the State's liquor licensing laws. Originally when the University hired additional officers it was in response to a series of violent attacks and random assaults occurring in the downtown area. Over time these additional UIPD officers assigned to downtown starting conducting PAULA bar checks. The bar owners insisted on those bar checks being tabulated in the PAULA ratio. Prior to UIPD assisting us with the bar checks ICPD was solely responsible for alcohol related enforcement such as PAULA inspections and underage stings. This policy change will not have a negative effect and should simplify the calculations given that only one agency will be conducting the inspections. Similarly issues of training and consistency regarding these inspections should be easier to maintain and it should be easier for the downtown bars to communicate with just one department. The UIPD does remain committed to providing increased patrols in the downtown area for the purpose of crime control. There has always been positive collaboration between the two departments and I see no issues with this policy change. ilTHE UNIVERSI'[Y OF IOWA May 14, 2014 Chief Sam Hargadine 410 E. Washington St Iowa City, IA. 52240 Chief Hargadine, Department of Public Safety 808 University Capitol Centre Iowa City, Iowa 52242 -5500 319- 335 -5022 Fax 319 -335 -5800 On April 22, 2014 the University of Iowa Police began a transition to return our "Downtown Patrol" to the original focus at inception in June 2010. As you are aware, the catalyst for our increased presence in the downtown area was an increase in violence in and around the downtown district. Over the years the assignment transitioned to include bar compliance checks. Recently, those compliance checks became the primary focus for the officers serving in this assignment. With the most recent community vote to continue the twenty -one only ordinance and your departments continued and effective enforcement efforts of the ordinance, we believe it is appropriate to return to our original mission. Therefore, we will continue to patrol on foot, bicycle and vehicle in the downtown area as part of a larger directed patrol effort, not limited to the downtown area. We are also experiencing an increase in requests for police officer presence in many other University areas, twenty -four hour study areas, residence hall areas and University Hospital. One of many new demands for law enforcement service began in January 2013, with one police officer posted in the University Hospital Emergency Department due to increased incidents of assaultive behavior and threats toward staff. Currently this assignment is staffed from 9:00pm to 6:00am daily, however extended hours are targeted in the future. Please know we have no intention of abandoning the downtown area. Our department considers it among our priority areas. We will continue to patrol, respond to calls for assistance by your department or businesses when we receive them. We will continue to address law violations when observed by officers, participate and plan multiagency enforcement efforts such as GTSB, and continue to partner with your department to promote and enhance safety for the community. Please feel free to contact me should you have questions or concerns regarding this modification to our patrol efforts. Respectfully, Lucy A. Wiederholt Associate Director and Chief, Police Division University of Iowa Department of Public Safety From: Marian Karr Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:06 PM To: Julie Voparil Subject: FW: BCT News Update Info packet Sent from Samsung Mobile. -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Tom Markus <Tom- Markus @iowa - city.org> Date: 05/21/2014 3:11 PM (GMT- 06:00) To: Marian Karr <Marian- Karr @iowa - city.org> Cc: Simon Andrew < Simon - Andrew @iowa- city.org >,Geoff Fruin <Geoff -Fruin @iowa - city.org> Subject: FW: BCT News Update Please add the 2nd article on New Urbanism to the info packet. From: Better! Cities &Towns [mailto :contact @newurbannews.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:08 PM To: Tom Markus Subject: BCT News Update News: May 21, 2014 Ped -bike advocates and urbanists: Get together Robert Steuteville, better! Cities & Towns Bicycle and pedestrian advocacy has become a huge movement, with more than 220 state, provincial, and local advocacy organizations that are members of the Alliance for Biking & Walking. The alliance recently published out its annual Bicycling and Walking in the United States, 2014 Benchmaking Report. The 260 -page book, which can be downloaded online or purchased in print, is a tremendous research effort — despite the criticisms I am 0 about to deliver. I would recommend it to anyone interested in this subject. Among the good news: Walking and bicycling are on the rise, gradually, and becoming safer. Bike share programs are surging. Yet this report also reveals a big hole in this movement — many ped -bike advocates rarely talk to urbanists and vice - versa. The report has about 40 authors and reviewers – representing major nonprofit, academic, and government institutions. They appear to be only vaguely aware of a key factor in the success of nonautomotive transportation: Place -based planning and development. Read more New Urbanism's impact on mid -sized and smaller cities Robert Steuteville, Better! Cities & Towns Author and architect Witold Rybczynski recently suggested that the New Urbanism has had little or no impact on big cities, citing a lack of signature projects like the High Line in New York City or Disney Hall in Los Angeles. More than a few urbanists responded that New Urbanism has dramatically impacted street design, infill development, and regulatory policies like form -based codes. Place -based development may have a profound effect over time in a big city yet get lost in the overall scale of a major metropolis. The new urban approach tends to blend in rather than shout "look at me." In mid -sized or smaller cities, the effects of New Urbanism can be much more dramatic. In these places, a few good infill projects, livelier public spaces, and new streetscapes can feel like a whole new downtown. Birmingham, Michigan; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Providence, Rhode Island; and many others that adopted a new urban approach 15 or 20 years ago have transformed themselves to a significant degree. read more Older buildings, continuity of place, and the human experience Kaid Benfield, better! Cities & Towns I have been trying trying to understand what makes historic places special to so many of us. Part of it is that they are relatively rare in the United States, I guess. For several decades our newer everyday architecture – our subdivisions, strip malls, office buildings – has been simultaneously bland and deadening in its consistency. Every place looks like every other place, or so it seems. While that isn't literally true – some exciting buildings are being designed and built, some nourishing new places are being fashioned – the best of our older buildings and neighborhoods have a distinctiveness to them, almost by default. But I also think there may be something deeper going on. We gravitate to older places because they ground us in space and time. There also is an emerging literature teaching us that they function pretty well, too. I'm not pretending to have all the answers, but here are some concepts that I would like to put on the table for consideration: Read More We need small houses Charles Marohn, Better! Cities & Towns Investments in small, starter homes used to be the catalyst for neighborhood growth. Our historic neighborhoods are filled with examples of this. This is not a minor issue. Brainerd's land use code is one of the most destructive obstacles to growth in the city. It makes hundreds of properties non - conforming, which means there isn't a clear path for them to be substantively improved, a regulation that unnecessarily stifles private investment. The code also prohibits development of hundreds of platted lots, parcels that are currently served with expensivesewer, water, storm sewer and streets.Thankfully there are some who see the problem — and the opportunity — in changing it. Read More sponsor News items West Coast rail conference Better! Cities & Towns To be held in San Francisco on June 2 -4, sponsored by the US High Speed Rail Association. read more New Urban Publications • PO Box 6515, Ithaca, NY 14851 607 - 275 -3087 • Fax 607 - 272 -2685 • mail @newurbannews Better! Cities & Towns • PO Box 6515, Ithaca, NY 14851 607 - 275 -3087 • Fax 607 - 272 -2685 • mail @newurbannews This message was sent to tom- markus(a),iowa- city.org from: New Urban Publications Inc. I PO Box 6515 1 Ithaca, NY 14851 Unsubscribe I Forward This Message Email Marketing by (1iContact Charter Review Commission I P4 May 13, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2014 — 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes (left 8:05), Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 04/22/14 — Chairperson Chappell asked if there was any discussion of the April 22 meeting minutes. Sullivan moved to adopt the April 22, 2014 meeting minutes as presented, seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9 -0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Dilkes noted that Members received in their packets this week the model charter and the guide for charter commissions. She added that this is the eighth edition of the model charter. Karr apologized about the electronic glitch during the packet distribution. She reminded Members that there are two ways to get these packets, either via the link she sends or if they subscribe to City notices they will receive it as soon as it's available. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be Addressed: * Preamble — Chairperson Chappell began the discussion with the Preamble section, noting that they talked about potentially making some adjustment to the word `citizen' or at least having further discussion about this. Use of the word 'shall' was also part of their continuing discussion. Chappell asked if anyone had anything they wanted to add at this point. Schantz noted that he did spend some time reviewing this since the last meeting and has come up with a preamble for them to discuss. He added that it is more in form like the preamble to the model charter. He stated that he believes it focuses more on what a preamble is basically about. Schantz stated that he will get his revision to Karr for distribution to all of the Members. * Definitions — No discussion. * Article II — Chappell began the discussion by stating that this section is fairly large and that they may not get through all of it at today's meeting. He suggested they take the first five sections, which talk about Council, and start their discussion. He asked if someone would volunteer to read the first two articles, and Sullivan did so. Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 2 The review began with Sections 2.01 and 2.02. Chappell noted that he believes Iowa City is unique with four at -large districts. Sullivan noted that this is the only part of the Charter that gives any guidance as to how the districts are set up, other than they are basically of equal population. He suggested that it might be helpful to have some more guidance as to how these districts are established. Kubby shared what it is like to run in a district seat and the challenges with a campaign. She stated that the system is not easily accessible at times. However, she does like the idea of having true districts and still having the four at -large seats, as well. Chappell then spoke to the number of council members. He stated that someone had suggested an increase, and Dilkes stated that it has to be an odd number. Chappell stated that he believes seven to be a good number. Sullivan added that a reason to add seats would be if it became obvious that there was a strong sense from the community that more members were needed. He does not, however, believe that they currently need to add seats. Vanderhoef agreed, stating that she too believes the current number of Councilors is sufficient. Atkins spoke to the fact that the County ran three Board Members for a long time before going to the current five. Chappell asked if anyone had any strong feelings about changing the number of council members. Schantz spoke to having nine members, for example, giving examples of how this number could work. Kubby noted that when there are too many members it can have a negative effect to getting things done. Sullivan asked if there is any interest in changing the districts, where perhaps five of them come from districts, with two at- large. Kubby stated that it does not make sense to her, that districts would be too large under this scenario. Vanderhoef asked Atkins if during his time as City Manager if he ever saw a Councilor that was only interested in their district. He stated that he does not believe this makes a big difference, that these members are elected at -large and function pretty much the same. Kubby asked if there is a difference between a 'ward' and a 'district.' Members briefly discussed how typically large cities have wards that they are responsible for, and that these typically have a fairly large population in each ward. Shaw asked how frequently districts are redrawn and just what this would entail. He also asked about councilor term limits, and whether these would change. Karr stated that districts are redrawn after each federal Census (ten years). She explained this process and how the Council then adopts an ordinance to adopt the new districts. Sullivan asked how it would be handled if they did in fact make any changes to the electoral system, if these would go into effect during the next City election or not. Karr and Dilkes noted that without more specifics it would be hard to fully answer this question. Atkins gave some background information on charters and how electoral changes might occur. Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 3 Chappell asked if there is anyone who does not want districts, that wants seven at -large members. Sullivan stated that he is not inclined to go with something like this, unless there are strong public feelings toward such. He does not feel very strongly personally that the current set -up is bad. Stone noted that one extreme would be to have all seven at- large, and the other would be seven or however many districts and seats. She does not believe that they need fewer members, and the next option of nine or 11 does not seem to be necessary at this point either. Stone added that the hybrid system they have with their districts and at -large seats appears to be the best of both worlds. Chappell agreed that he likes the four (at large) / three (district) split they currently have. Shaw asked if it makes a difference where there are three districts, basically a smaller section, compared to the four at- large, and whether this creates a stronger debate for those in specific districts. Karr clarified how this works with a primary election narrowing the candidates from districts. Kubby noted that this is where the confusion lies with this system. Karr then responded to Members' questions regarding elections and primaries. Kubby followed up with where the differences lie in district versus at -large seats in the elections. Atkins further clarified how districts are set up, noting they are say 20,000 each, and are strictly a `nose count.' Districts are then drawn up according to this Census count. Sullivan stated that the more they talk about the system in Iowa City, the more he sees where some of these quirks could be a barrier to participation, as noted previously by Kubby. Shaw asked if there have been any candidates or councilors who have asked for expanded districts. Karr stated that she is not aware of anyone having broached this subject. Vanderhoef gave a brief history of how the City began organizing neighborhoods back in the mid -90s in order to bring people closer together to function as a group. This can help bring some 'governance' to that neighborhood, and give them an awareness of the City government, as well. Schantz added that the Near Northside Neighborhood works well, as does the Downtown Association, to get things done. He added that in his own particular part of town, he has not heard of a neighborhood association. Craig spoke up at this point, saying that she likes the system as it currently is. She was Council Member Dobyns' campaign manager, and he ran as a district seat. She noted that she found that having to explain the 'hybrid' process helped to get people more interested in City government. She added that she does not believe the current system has ever kept voters from participating, especially those that have a strong interest in doing so. Members continued to discuss the district and at -large issue, with debate over whether the current system is confusing or not easily accessible to voters. Sullivan added that people do get confused by these issues, that they don't always understand who or what they are voting for. The general perception is that politics are hard to understand. Chappell spoke to some of the perceptions around voting and those true barriers to this. He added that many just do not vote in local elections. Kubby added that she would like to make it as easy as Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 4 possible for more voters to vote, to remove any barriers possible so people want to make the effort to vote. She believes that district candidates should be purely, genuinely district candidates. They would live in, be petitioned by, and voted on by people who live in that specific district. At -large seats would be voted on by those in the at -large area. Karr asked if the only change would then be in the November election, and Kubby stated yes. Members continued to discuss barriers and obstacles to getting voters to participate in elections. Sullivan noted that for some there is too much confusion and they opt to not be engaged. There are various barriers and there isn't one answer to solving the problem of getting more voter turnout. The discussion continued, with Members weighing in on why they believe having both district seats and at -large seats is the best option. Undervoting in districts was also discussed, with Members questioning voter turnout numbers during these types of elections. Schantz added that for many, unless there is an organizing issue such as the 21- ordinance, you typically have lower turnout. He added that comments he has heard from people who follow City government include: strengthen the mayor, perhaps with an election for mayor. Chappell stated that he is always skeptical of changing things just for the sake of changing. He added that he does not have any strong feelings on the district issue, though he prefers the 4/3 split with four at -large seats. As for the three districts, he does not feel strongly either way about changing things there. As the discussion wrapped up, Chappell noted that they will no doubt revisit these issues. He asked that Members think about these issues and speak with others, and come up with any further information they wish to have before they have further discussions here. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Chappell asked what ideas Members have in regards to garnering public involvement in this process. Sullivan asked what was done at the last Charter Review, ten years ago. Chappell stated that they had one or two designated hearings. One was allowing the public to just say what they wanted to say while the Commission listened. The other was a more collaborative meeting where four specific topics were discussed in smaller groups, with Commission Members taking notes during these small discussions. Kubby stated that this was a good way to actually have some dialogue and conversation, versus a typical meeting where the public speaks but there is no feedback. Karr reminded Chappell that she remembers there was also a third involvement session, after recommendations had been drawn up, to see if there was any further input from the public. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 5 TENTATIVE THREE -MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second _& fourth Tuesday of each month): May 27 June 10 June 24 July 8 July 22 August 12 August 26 ADJOURNMENT: Shaw moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 9 -0. Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 6 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - -- = Not a Member at this time TERM o 0 ul NAME EXP. 00 w 4/1/15 X X Steve Atkins Andy 411/15 X X Chappell Karrie 4/1115 X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 O X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X Schantz Melvin 4/1/15 X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X Moyer Stone Adam 4/1115 X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X Vanderhoef Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - -- = Not a Member at this time DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD a MINUTES — May 19, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Royceann Porter, and Mazahir Salih EMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Patrick Ford and Staff Kellie Tuttle present RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #13 -07 EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Jensen and seconded by Salih to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0. Open session adjourned at 5:31 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:09 P.M. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #13 -07 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Salih and seconded by Porter. Motion carried, 4/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:10 P.M. o c 0,�� fD fD � SU lD ICI � `� � e�•r a IQ n fD r� K �p N � O N d W � N O b C �• O td O O A� M �2+ vC O n CD 7i co CD ..1 fD O b A y FH r 3 �Q W i A W C`�7J � � ii ii is 9C N 00 00 , N yC O �C >C yC O 00 x x ul N � O N d W � N O b C �• O td O O A� M �2+ vC CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 May 19, 2014 �, To: City Council Complainant ry City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Ta Officer(s) involved in complaint �a From: Citizen Police Review Board _ C Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #13 -07 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #13 -07 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chief's report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(2).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or local law. 5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(3).) 6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on December 3, 2013. As required by Section 8- 8 -5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on February 28, 2014. The Board voted on March 11, 2014, to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(1)(d), and requested that the Chief provide a copy of all audio and video recordings of the incident. The Board met to consider the Report on March 11, 2014, April 21, 2014, May 5, 2014 and May 19, 2014. On April 21, 2014 and May 5, 2014, the Board reviewed audio /video recordings of the incident. FINDINGS OF FACT Police were summoned to a call of a disturbance. Police stopped a vehicle leaving the scene of the disturbance. Police were able to determine that the occupants of the vehicle were also involved in the disturbance. While talking to the occupants of the vehicle the officer directed the driver to park the vehicle. It became apparent the officer thought they were not going to comply with his directives. In order to gain control of the situation, the officer reached into the car and grabbed the drivers arm. The Complainant was upset that the officer grabbed the driver and she grabbed the officer. The Complainant exited the vehicle and started hitting the officer despite his direction to stay in the car. The Complainant was taken to the ground to be secured and arrested. Pepper spray was deployed on the Complainant's daughter who was the approaching the officer. On 04/21/14 and 05105/14 the Board met and reviewed the video and audio recordings of the incident. The Complainant claimed that the officer grabbed her arm and tried to pull her out of her car. She said the officer knocked her to the ground and handcuffed her and maced her daughter. The recordings do indicate that the Complainant was taken to the ground and handcuffed after engaging in a struggle with the officer. The recordings indicate that the officer did use his pepper spray on one of the Complainant's daughters. This was done after the officer told the daughters repeatedly to stay back and get back in the car. After reviewing the video and audio recordings the board found that the allegations of: r.,,, 1. Excessive Use of force f 2. Improper Conduct C-1— : �a were not sustained. C ap COMMENTS k E3 None. -