HomeMy WebLinkAbout20-05COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
December 13, 2021
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Equity Director
Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint # 20-05
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB # 20-05 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
t `7
ItiJ
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as fefiows:w
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an inve5figatioraw.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) W
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or mord 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)(5).)
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 August 14, 2020. As required by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
City Code section 8-8-5 (D) provides if a complaint concerns the Police Chief's conduct, the City
Manager shall investigate or cause an investigation to be completed. As the Interim Chief and City
Manager were involved in the police response on June 3 thus could not investigate the complaint, on
September 1, 2020, the City Council approved an agreement with the OIR Group, LLP to conduct an
independent and comprehensive review of June 3 incident.
The OIR Group Independent Review Report was received on January 28, 2021. The Board voted on
March 9, 2021 to apply the following Level of Review to the OIR Report:
Interview/meet with the complainant, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(b) and
Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager or request police assistance in the
Board's own additional investigation.
The Board invited the complainant to meet, but the complainant declined to do so. The Bo@rd also
requested additional investigation and a report by the Police Chief. Since the Police ChieFiad changed
between the time of the incident and the time of this review, City Code section 8-8-5 (D) 61
applied. The board requested that the Police Chief provide copies of recordings of-the.indident.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on June 30, 2021.
The Board met to consider the Reports on February 9, 2021, March 9, 2021, April f202 -4, --,-July 13,
2021, August 2, 2021, August 30, 2021, September 20, 2021, October 12, 2021, Novembew 1, 2021,
November 9, 2021, and December 13, 2021.
Prior to the November 1, 2021 meeting, the Board reviewed the OIR report, reviewed video recordings
of the incident, met with the Police Chief, and discussed the incident in numerous closed sessions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On June 4, 2020, Iowa City Police Officers joined Iowa State Patrol officers in response to a protest.
During this response, officers verbally planned to deploy munitions while waiting for protesters to reach
the police line. Some officers bantered during this time as well. A few protesters went ahead of the
others and verbally engaged with Officers.
After a while the large group of protesters approached. About 2 1/2 minutes after the majority of
protesters stopped near the police line, dispersal commands could be heard in three of the five officer -
worn -body -camera recordings. All five cameras were recording the entire incident. Iowa City Police
Officers and State Patrol officers then deployed flash bangs, quickly followed by tear gas and OC
sprays, into the crowd.
The majority of the crowd backed off and/or dispersed, with a few protesters remaining within camera
view of the police line. Officers deployed munitions several more times after this, eventually advancing
as they did so.
During and after munition deployment officers: talked and laughed among themselves; kicked a
canister towards a person who was on the ground and the people who were trying to help said person
back up as officers were instructing those people to do; sprayed a protester who said "I just have a
question" with her hands in the air; and several officers simultaneously sprayed one non -combative
protester.
It was difficult to tell from the recordings which officers were with ICPD and which were with State
Patrol. That alone made this a very challenging incident to review, as we are only able to review
complaints against Iowa City Police Officers.
ALLEGATION 1 — Excessive Use of Force.
The complainant alleged the use of nonlethal munitions to be an excessive use of force.
The complainant alleged that excessive force was used during munition deployment, whereas the
Board found no violation of policy and affirmed the opinion set forth in the report of the police chief
and/or city manager.
The majority of the Board believe that The Use of Force policy, as it existed at the time of the incident,
was not violated because the goal of deploying munitions was to disperse the crowd. Those Board
members believe that since some protesters remained after the initial deployment and after being
warned, the continued deployment of tear gas and OC spray was justified. While the Board.found no
violation of policy, most Board members did express concerns with some actions and conduct they
found problematic. r
Chief's Conclusion - Not sustained
Board's Conclusion - Not sustained
COMMENTS
The Board remains divided in its opinions on this incident, even after lengthy deliberations. Consensus
was not reached and the Board voted 3/2 to "Not sustain" this complaint. It was concerning that the
dispersal order could not be heard in 2 of the 5 videos, as this indicates that a large portion of the
crowd of protesters was unable to hear the order. The Police Chief has told the Board that the
department has invested in improved technology to ensure messages reach everyone in any future
crowd incidents
There was discussion about the Board filing its own complaint of discourtesy, as allowed by Iowa City
Code Section 8-8-3B. However, the Board did not have access to the videos of the incident until after
the 180 day deadline to file a complaint had passed. For this reason, the Board recommends that this
section of the city code be changed so that the Board has 180 days from the time it receives access to
audio/video evidence of an event to file its own complaint, rather than 180 days from the time of the
incident. For this complaint, the Board's concerns are addressed here in the comments.
It is indisputable that tear gas causes harm. It irritates cells and activates pain receptors, causing
"intense burning pain in the eyes, throat, skin and mucous membranes. Tear gas can also cause
exaggerated muscle cramping in the eye and sensitivity to light that leads to eye closure. Other effects
of tear gas include a difficulty in swallowing, drooling and severe burning in the mouth. In some cases,
it can cause an asthma attack or swelling in the area that could potentially lead to asphyxiation or
death." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines tear gas, or riot control agents, as
"chemical compounds that temporarily make people unable to function by causing irritation to the eyes,
mouth, throat, lungs, and skin." (htt s://www.usatoda .comisto /news/factcheck/2020/06/06/fact-
check-its-true-tear- as-chemical-wea on-banned-war/3156448001/)
It is because of this well-established harm that "the 1925 Geneva Protocol categorized tear gas as a
chemical warfare agent and banned its use in war shortly after World War I." This ban was
strengthened by the U.N.'s Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) that outlawed the use of riot control
agents in warfare and went into effect in 1997.
If an officer believes that he/she must cause harm in order to protect the public, that should be a
solemn thing. However, some of the Officers in the tape seemed to be excited to have the opportunity
to deploy munitions, and the laughter, insulting and dehumanizing comments, and remarks about how
"amazing" and "neat" the gas was gave the appearance that some officers were detached from the
harm they were causing. This leads to questions and concerns about the culture of the department.
While the changes made to the Use of Force Policy following this incident are beneficial steps that will
hopefully prevent a recurrence of ICPD involvement in teargassing non -combative protesters, the
internal climate portrayed in the body -cameras of officers involved in this incident should be addressed.