Loading...
01-11-2022 Meeting PacketMEMORANDUM COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City DATE: January 6, 2022 TO: CPRB Members FROM: Chris Olney RE: Board Packet for meeting on TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2022 Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting: • Agenda for 1/11/22 • Minutes of the meeting on 12/13/21 ■ ICPD General Order 99-05 (Use of Force) ■ ICPD Quarterly Summary Report [AIR/CPRB, 4th Quarter 2021 ■ Office Contacts — December • Complaint Deadlines • CPRB Contacts AGENDA COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY JANUARY 11, 2022 — 5:30 P.M. EMMA J HARVAT HALL 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 12/13/21 • ICPD General Order 99-05 (Use of Force) • Quarterly Summary Report IAIR/CPRB, 4th Quarter 2021 ITEM NO. 3 NEW BUSINESS ■ Discussion Community Forum ITEM NO.4 OLD BUSINESS ITEM NO. 5 PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (Commentators shall address the Board for no more than 5 minutes. The Board shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items). ITEM NO. 6 BOARD INFORMATION ITEM NO. 7 STAFF INFORMATION ITEM NO. 8 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • February 8, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall • March 8, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall ■ April 12, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall ITEM NO. 9 CONSIDER MOTION TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 21.5(1)(i) to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation and that individual requests a closed session 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. 10 ADJOURNMENT If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this program/event, please contact Chris Olney at 319-356-5043, christine-olney@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Draft COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — December 13, 2021 CALL TO ORDER: Orville Townsend called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Amanda Nichols (6:07 electronically), Jerri MacConnell, Saul Mekies, Orville Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Theresa Seeberger STAFF PRESENT: Staff Chris Olney/Kellie Fruehling, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Police Chief Dustin Liston, City Council Member Joah Seelos, Law Enforcement Liaison Janice Weiner, CPRB Liaison Motion by Townsend, seconded by MacConnell to have Townsend act as temporary Chair in Nichols absence. Motion carried 3/0, Nichols, Seeberger absent. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept CPRB #20-02 Report (2) Accept CPRB #20-05 Report (3) Accept CPRB #20-06 Report (4) Accept CPRB #20-07 Report (5) Accept CPRB #20-08 Report CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Mekies, seconded by MacConnell, to adopt the consent calendar as presented. • Minutes of the meeting on 11/9/21 • ICPD General Order 21-02 (Crisis Intervention) • ICPD Use of Force Review/Report October • Correspondence from Kenn Bowen, Sabri Rose Sky, Pat Bowen, Zach Krisl, Kevo Rivers, Stephany Hoffelt, Ann Houlahan, Maureen Vasile, Iowa City Catholic Worker Motion carried, 3/0, Nichols, Seeberger absent. NEW BUSINESS Meet Law Enforcement Liaison Joah Seelos Chief Liston explained part of the City's plan to restructure the police department was to add a Law Enforcement Mental Health Liaison. This person would assist the ICPD when responding to calls involving people experiencing a mental health crisis. Chief Liston introduced Law Enforcement Liaison, Joah Seelos. CPRB December 13, 2021 Draft Seelos provided information regarding his professional and educational background as a mental health professional. Seelos explained his position as a law enforcement mental health liaison was to provide an alternative response and intervention for those experiencing a mental health crisis. Seelos noted he is employed at CommUnity but is stationed at Iowa City Police Department. He responds to calls for service to help those individuals experiencing mental health crisis. He provides follow up, resources for individuals and family members. He explained the goal of the partnership with the ICPD, and CommUnity is to best serve and avoid unnecessary arrests, reduce repeat 911 calls, decrease law enforcement contact, and connect community members to available resources. MacConnell asked if police officers were called first and then notified Seelos. Seelos explained that Law Enforcement was called first and if they access the situation as something needing a mental health professional, then Johnson County dispatch would notify him to respond. Townsend said he liked that follow ups were being done. Seelos explained that follow up with clients is an essential aspect of providing mental health assistant and sometimes it was easier for a person to talk to a social worker vs a police officer. Ford asked Chief Liston if there was data on percentage of times for a call for service where Seelos was called out. Chief Liston explained that data was being collected by ICPD and CommUnity, however since it was a new program started in July it would be awhile before it would be available. He added that ICPD would look into expanding the programs coverage in the future. Discussion CPRB Advisor /Review Board Role Townsend noted he had requested the discussion to be added to the agenda but would like to table the item until a later date to still be determined. The Board agreed to table discussion. OLD BUSINESS Discussion of CPRB Recommendations to the City Council Townsend asked Board members if they had any comments regarding the CPRB expansion memo and draft ordinance amendment included in the meeting packet. MacConnell stated she felt the CPRB should not be expanded to seven members, noting this would extend the meeting time and could also cause more conflicts amongst members. Ford explained that the Board had previously approved the recommendation to expand membership from five -member -board to seven. This was part of CPRB's recommendations for changes submitted to City Council. The draft ordinance change is for the Board to review the language prior to being sent to City Council. Motion by Townsend, seconded by Mekies to direct staff to send letter to City Manager stating the Board reviewed and approved of the language in the draft ordinance amendment. AYES: Mekies, Townsend. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: MacConnell. ABSENT: Nichols, Seeberger Motion Carried, 2/0/1/2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. CPRB December 13, 2021 BOARD INFORMATION None. Draft STAFF INFORMATION Olney noted this was her last meeting as she was retiring on January 31 and Fruehling would be the CPRB's interim staff representative. Legal Counsel Ford suggested the board consider changing the complaint form to emphasize that the CPRB only hears complaints against Iowa City police officers, and it could include a generic statement stating to contact the city or police department where the incident took place. He also suggested to have the on-line form prevent the complainant from submitting if it does not pertain to an Iowa City officer. Chief Liston agreed noting the amount of time involved on those complaints that are not Iowa City related incidents. Fruehling stated she would check into the options to update the complaint form and will report back to the Board. Ford inquired if a complainant was able to provide video of the incident and how would the CPRB have the opportunity to view it. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) ■ January 11, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall • February 8, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall • March 8, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall • April 12, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall Nichols joined the meeting via telephone at 6:07 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Mekies, seconded by MacConnell 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, Seeberger absent. Open session adjourned at 6:10 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:12 P.M. Motion by Townsend, seconded by MacConnell to accept CPRB Reports #20-02, 20-05, 20-06, 20-07, 20-08 as amended and forward to City Council. Motion Carried, 4/0, Seeberger absent. CPRB December 13, 2021 Draft Motion by Nichols, seconded by Townsend to set level of review for CPRB #21-02 at 8-8-7(B)(1) (a) on the record with no additional investigation. Motion Carried, 4/0, Seeberger absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by MacConnell, seconded by Townsend. Motion carried, 4/0, Seeberger absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:13 P.M. COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2021 - 2022 (Meeting Date) KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 1/12/21 2/9/21 3/9/21 3/26/21 4/14/21 5/11/21 5/17/21 5/26/21 6/8/21 7/13/21 8/2/21 8/30/21 9/20/21 10/12/21 11/1/21 11/9/21 12/13/21 NAME j FORUM X Jerri X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MacConnell Saul Mekies -- — —» — -- X X X X X X X X Amanda X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Nichols Theresa — — — --- - » - — — X X X X X X X O Seeberger Orville X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X Townsend David X X X X O/E X X O X - --- — — — — Selmer _ Latisha X X O/E O X X O X --- -- - - — — — — McDaniel KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member COMMUNITY 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 # 20-02 This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of :the invejtigation of Complaint CPRB # 20-02 (the "Complaint"). - BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as followa: 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 Chiefs 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)(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 June 4, 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 condudt, 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 Board also requested additional investigation and a report by the Police Chief. Since the Police Chief had changed between the time of the incident and the time of this review, City Code section 8-8-5 (D) no longer applied. The board requested that the Police Chief provide copies of recordings of the incident. 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 14, 2021, July 13, 2021, August 2, 2021, August 30, 2021, September 20, 2021, October 12, 2021, November 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. _ 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." (https '/www.usatoda.com/stor /news/factcheck/2020106/06/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. COMMUNITY 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 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 investigatioff-. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) - 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs 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)(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 Board also requested additional investigation and a report by the Police Chief. Since the Police Chief had changed between the time of the incident and the time of this review, City Code section 8-8-5 (D) ria longer applied. The board requested that the Police Chief provide copies of recordings of the incident. 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 14{202-, July 13, 2021, August 2, 2021, August 30, 2021, September 20, 2021, October 12, 2021, November 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. 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 8-8-313. 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." ( m/stor /news/factcheck/2D26/96/96/facf.- check-its-true-tear- as-chemical-wea an-banned-war/3156448961/) 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. COMMUNITY 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 # 20-06 This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB # 20-06 (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 Chiefs 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 tithe 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 19, 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 Board also requested additional investigation and a report by the Police Chief. Since the Police Chief had changed between the time of the incident and the time of this review, City Code section 8-8-5 (D) no longer applied. The board requested that the Police Chief provide copies of recordings of the incident. 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, March 26, 2021, April 14, 2021, July 13, 2021, August 2, 2021, August 30, 2021, September 20, 2021, October 12, X021, November 1, 2021, November 9, 2021, and December 13, 2021. Prior to the November 1, 2021 meeting, the Board reviewed the OIR report, reviewed=videiq•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. 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 8-8-313. 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:llwww.usatoda .com/stor /news/factcheck 12020106/061fact- 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. COMMUNITY 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 # 20-07 This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB # 20-07 (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 Chiefs 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)(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 27, 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 Board also requested additional investigation and a report by the Police Chief. Since the Police Chief had changed between the time of the incident and the time of this review, City Code section 8-8-5 (D) no longer applied. The board requested that the Police Chief provide copies of recordings of the incident. 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 14, 2021, July 13, 2021, August 2, 2021, August 30, 2021, September 20, 2021, October 12, 2021, Novem-ber 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 condudt they found problematic. 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 8-8-313. 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:/Iwww.usatoda .com/stor Inewslfactclleck/2020/06/06/faci- 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. COMMUNITY 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 # 20-08 This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB # 20-08 (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 Chiefs report, the Board must select one or, more 6f --the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(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 m 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(13)(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 27, 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 and requested additional investigation and -a report by the Police Chief. Since the Police Chief had changed between the time of the incident and the -time of this review, City Code section 8-8-5 (D) no longer applied. The board requested that the Police:Chief provide copies of recordings of the incident =' 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 14, 2021, May 26, 2021, July 13, 2021, August 2, 2021, August 30, 2021, September 20, 2021, October 12, 2021, November 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 complainant, 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 Qf_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. 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:l/www.usatoda.com/sto Inews/factcheck/2020/00105/fact- check-its-[rue-tear- as-chemical-weapon-banned-war13155448001/) 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. OPS -03.1 USE OF FORCE Original Date of Issue General Order Number April 28, 2001 199-05 Effective Date of Reissue Section Code December 14, 2021 1 OPS -03 Reevaluation DateI Amends Decemper cuc, 1 C. A. L. E. A. Reference 1.3.1 —1.3.8,1.3.13 1 (see "INDEX AS" INDEX AS: ■ Use of Force Use of Force Model _ =' Canine ■ Reporting ; Significant ForceArrests Warning • Investigation g Shots 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. III. DEFINITIONS OPS -03.2 A. Deadly Force (Section 704.2, Code of Iowa) — For the purpose of this policy, shall mean any of the following: 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 result. 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 Injury (Section 702.18 Code of Iowa) — Means 1. disabling mental illness; or 2. 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. 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. D. Verbal Commands/Directives — Verbal communication by an officer directing someone to perform or not to perform an act: e.g. "Stop", `;Don't move", "Put your hands up", or "Get on the ground". _. E. De-escalation - Taking action to stabilize a situation and reduce-theci immediacy of a threat so that more time, options, and resources are available to resolve the situation. The goal of de-escalation is -to gain the voluntary compliance of subjects, when feasible, and thereby reduce -Or eliminate the necessity to use physical force. tia F. De-escalation Techniques - Actions used by members of the department, that seek to minimize the likelihood of the need to use force during an incident and increase the likelihood of gaining voluntary compliance from a subject. Note that these techniques should only be employed when it is safe to do so. IV. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE USE OF FORCE The use of force is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. "The right to be free from excessive force is included under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizure of the person." Andrews v. Fuoss, 417 F.3d 813, 818 (8th Cir. 2005). On the other hand, "the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of OPS -03.3 physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it." Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1872 (1989). A. Reasonable Officer: Objective Standard 1. "The 'Reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged 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). 3. Reasonableness is "not capable of precise definition or mechanical application." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979). Reasonableness is determined by the totality of circumstances, which include the "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1872 (1989). B. The Code of lova authorizes the use of force in making an arrest and preventing an escape. 1. Section 804.8 Use of force by peace officer making an arrest: A peace officer, while making a lawful arrest, is justifled in the use of any force which the peace officer reasonably believes to be necessary to eWect the arrest or to defend any person from bodily harm while making the -arrest. However, the use of deadly force or a chokehold (chokehold is specifically defined in the state code]is only justified when a person cannot be captured any other way and either: a. The person has used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony, or b. The peace officer reasonably believes the person would use deadly force against any person unless immediately apprehended. A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which the peace officer would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless the peace officer knows that the warrant is invalid. [Note: The use of a chokeholds and other lateral restraints is further limited by this policy. See Section X below.] 2. Section 804.13 Use of force in preventing an escape. OPS -03.4 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 imminent 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. Provided the criteria for paragraph 2(a), 2(b) or 2(c) have been satisfied, 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 -03.5 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. Rendering medical aid following police actions a. Officers shall render immediate and appropriate medical aid in incidents that involve injuries sustained during detainments or apprehension b. Officers shall immediately activate the emergency medical system when: i. Obvious severe injuries have occurred, ii. Medical distress is apparent, or the individual is unconscious, iii. Requested by the subject(s) involved, iv. The extent of an injury is unknown or not visible! or CD V. The nature or extent of the injury dictates. b. Officers shall err on the side of caution, requesting emergency medical system to respond to the scene if in doubt about the existence or extent of an injury. 4. Surrender of firearm. When officers 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 OPS -03.6 unloaded, cleaned, nor in any way 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 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. 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 arld nylon leg restraints. d. To bring an unlawful situation safely and effectively'udldercontrol. 3. Officers shall offer medical treatment to any non -combative person who has been exposed to a chemical irritant / OC spray. Of ic&s shall decontaminate a person exposed to a chemical irritant and�coq�jlue to monitor the condition of that person until they are no longer in toe custody of the officer. C. NOTIFICATION 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: OPS -03.7 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. 5. Whenever a member, on or off duty, is required to strike or use force against another person, he/she shall call a supervisory person to the scene or contact a supervisory officer as soon as practical following the incident and take whatever action swch supervisory officer requires. _ `s D. REPORTING USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS 1. Discharge of Firearms — report required. - co 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 -03.8 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. Administrative Review Committee. a. Use of force incidents shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of a minimum of three sworn personnel. i. The committee should consist of two supervisors as designated by the Chief of Police and one officer -preferably a use of force instructor. To provide differing perspectives, the Chief of Police may appoint multiple committees that alternate review responsibilities. ii. This group should, at a minimum, meet every month to review the Use of Force Reports from the previous month. iii. The purpose of this committee shall be to review all facts and reports concerning use of force incidents to determine whether policy, training, equipment, or disciplinary issues should be addressed. 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 Rffairs�- _' Investigations as assigned by a Division Commander. 1, 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. OPS -03.9 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. 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 medical treatment being offered, supervisor notification, and decontamination procedures. a. 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 fef adherence to Department policy and procedure and documenttheir conclusions. d. All reports concerning use of force shall be forwarded to the Sergeant of Planning/Research. e. The Captain of Field Operations and Chief of Police shall review all use of force reports where any participant is injured during the use of force and/or where a deadly force option has been utilized (excludes display of a weapon). 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 policy modifications. OPS -03.10 6. Duty to Intervene and Report All employees are required to be familiar with and abide by GO 20- 01 titled Duty to Intervene and Report. E. INVESTIGATION OF USE OF FORCE RESULTING IN DEATH 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 soon as 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: 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 from their Division Commander, 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. OPS -03.1 1 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 conducta separate yet parallel (administrative) investigation into a use of force incident to ensure all personnel followed departmental policies and guidelines. VI. USE OF FORCE MODEL Police officers are given the unique right to use force, even deadly force, against others for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The right to use 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 e-nhanc&-ffie department's ability to manage the use of force and will benefit -the off herby providing guidance, resources, and options.-�' A. ESCALATION OF FORCE Officers of the Iowa City Police Department shall followAhe %' principles of the Use of Force Model. The model describes OR. 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 or reduces, the officer must correspondingly de-escalate. 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 to the fact that officer/member of the public 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. uolllsod gales e of sjeaayj lellua}od of saaol}}o sesodxe leyl uolllsod a woaJ 6ulnoW }eaay} a bululeluo0 aaol}}o ue pue joafgns Mjeaad000un ue uaanqaq saaljaeq buioeld :apnloul saldwexe aayjO -pasn aoaoI Ileaano ayj aonpaa of 41l1lge ayj aseaaoul Aew pue suolldo aoaol algellene ayj aseaaoul Aew auaos uo siaoll}o jo jagwnu ayl -shun Alleloads ao siaol}}o aaow lleo of algellene awlj saseaJoul pue `saoanosaa ealxa azllp of awl} juaw1jedap ayj jo sa901}40 san16 leaJyl 10 Aoelpawwl ayl 6ullebilM -uol}nlosaa ales a of uollen}ls ayj bulaq of a}epdoidde Isow ayl aje suolldo IeOIJOBJ yolynn 6ulpl09p uaynn aaol}}o ayl 6uloel Iuaploul ayl 10 s}oelayj Isulebe peoueleq aq uayl lleys `Ilwjad Algeuoseaa saouelswnojlo pue awll uaynn `salllllglssod asay} jo ssauaaenne s,aao!,40 uy slslJo leaolney98 �= uol}oeaa}ul 6njd _ . jalaaeq abenbuel u011e1lwll leolsAqd Allllgeslp lejuawdolanaa }uewaledwllejuaW suol}!puoo leolpaW :o} pallwll jou Inq `6uiPnloui sioloel uo paseq Aldwoo of Allllgeul ue jo Islsai of idwal}e a}eaagllap e sl aouelldwoo jo Noel sjoafgns a aaylaynn aaplsuoo Ileys juaw:pedep ayj jo sjagwaw `jlwaad Algeuoseaa saoue}swnojlo pue awll uayM uoplosai juaploul aol algellene age saoanosaa pue suolldo `awll ajow leyl os uogenlls ayj azylgels ao unnop enols of ldwalle lleys juaw}iedep ayj jo saagwaw `seoue}swnojlo jo Alllelol ayj japun elglsea} pue ales uayM -os op 01 ales sl 1! uaynn paAoldwa aq Aluo pinoys sanbluyoa} asay} leyl a}oN -}oafgns e woe} aouelldwoo Aje}unlon 6ululeb 10 pooylla�ll ayl aseaaoul pue }uaploul ue bulinp aojol asn of peau ayl jo pooylla�ll ayl azlwlulw 01 Naas leyl }uawliedep ayl jo saagwaw Aq pasn suoljoe aye sanbluyoal uolleleosa-aa -alglseal pue ales uaynn `aoaoj jo uolleolldde jol peau ayj aonpaa o} ljoga ue ul palldde aq lleys sal6a}e.ils uol}eleosa-aa 3Od0-� JO NOI-LVIVOS3-3C] 'S Z x,00-Sd0 OPS -03.13 Decreasing the exposure to potential threat by using - Distance - Cover - Concealment Communicating from a safe position intended to gain the subject's compliance, using: - Verbal persuasion - Advisements - Warnings Avoiding physical confrontation, unless immediately necessary (for example, to protect someone, or stop dangerous behavior) Using verbal de-escalation techniques to generate cooperation and gain voluntary compliance. Calling extra resources to assist or officers to assist: - More officers - CIT officers ,77 - Officers equipped with less -lethal tools =~j - Supervisors. * Using any other tactics and approaches that attempt to hieve gaining the compliance of the subject. ID .` D. Reasonable officer's perception/Reasonable officer's response (see attached matrix) VII. CIVILIAN OFFICERS (COMMUNITY SERVICE AND ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS) A. Community Service Officers assigned to the road and Animal Control Officers shall carry chemical irritants (OC) under this policy for the sole purpose of self-defense from persons or from animals. B. When dealing with upset persons, civilian officers must first attempt to deescalate the situation, if it is reasonable to do so, by backing away from the situation to a place of safety (vehicle or other barrier) and calling for a sworn officer to come to the scene. If after attempting to deescalate the situation, the civilian officer reasonably believes that they are going to be assaulted, the officer may deploy their chemical irritant in a manner consistent with training. C. When dealing with aggressive animals, civilian officers should try backing away from the situation to a place of safety (vehicle or other barrier) and call OPS -03.14 for a sworn officer to come to the scene to assist. If the civilian officer is unable to make it to a place of safety and they reasonably believe that they may be attacked, the officer may deploy their chemical irritant at the animal in a manner consistent with training. D. Civilian officers that deploy chemical agents at a person are subject to all reporting requirements set forth in this policy. Additionally, they are responsible to immediately contact the on duty Watch supervisor as well as summoning medical personnel to the scene for any injuries. E. Civilian officers that deploy chemical agents at an animal shall notify their supervisor to make them aware that a chemical agent was deployed as well as the circumstances involved. F. When dealing with persons, a civilian officer will be held to the "Reasonable officer's perception/Reasonable officer's response" standard. (see level four and five in the attached matrix) VIII. PREREQUISITES TO CARRYING LETHAL / LESS LETHAL WEAPONS All personnel authorized to carry weapons intended for use of force application must receive training on their use from the perspectives of practical application and organizational policy. Instruction should include confirmation of employee understanding of legal implications and requirements, weapon specific operating and care procedures, documentation and reporting procedures, and obligations following the use of force. IX. FBI NATIONAL USE of FORCE DATA COLLECTION The Department voluntarily participates in the FBI National Use of Force Data Collection. The sergeant of planning and research shall track the following use of force incidents: When a fatality to a person occurs connected to a use of force by an Iowa City police officer. When there is serious bodily injury to a person connected to a use of force by an Iowa City police officer. For this section the definition of serious bodily injury will be based, in part, upon Title 18, United States Code, Section 2246 (4). The term "serious bodily injury" means "bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of bodily member, organ, or mental faculty." In the absence of either death or serious bodily injury, when a firearm is discharged by an Iowa City police officer at or in the direction of a person. OPS -03.15 When an incident meeting the above criteria is met the sergeant of planning and research shall report the following information to the FBI: Incident Information - Date and time of the incident - Total number of officers who applied actual force during the incident - Number of officers from the Iowa City Police Department who applied actual force during the incident - Location of the incident (address or latitude/longitude) - Location type of the incident (street, business, residence, restaurant, school, etc.) - Did the officer(s) approach the subject(s)? - Was it an ambush incident? - Was a supervisor or a senior officer acting in a supervisory capacity present or consulted at any point during the incident? What was the reason for initial contact between the subject and th�76fficer (response to unlawful or suspicious activity, routine patrol, traffic stop, etc.)? I� - If the initial contact was due to "unlawful or criminal activity,' what were the most serious reported offenses committed by the subjebt`prior to or at the time of the incident? - If applicable, the National Incident -Based Reporting System or local incident number of the report detailing criminal incident information on the subject and/or assault or homicide of a law enforcement officer If the incident involved multiple law enforcement agencies, the case numbers for the local use -of -force reports at the other agencies Subject Information Age, sex, race, ethnicity, height, and weight - Injury/death of subject(s) (gunshot wound, apparent broken bones, unconsciousness, etc.) - Type(s) of force used connected to serious bodily injury or death (firearm, electronic control weapon, explosive device, blunt instrument, etc.) OPS -03.16 - Did the subject(s) resist? - Was the threat by the subject(s) directed to the officer or to another party? - Type(s) of subject resistance/weapon involvement (threatened officer, threatened others, threatened self, active aggression, firearm, attemptto flee, etc.) Was there an apparent or known impairment in the physical condition of subject? If yes, indicate which (mental health/alcohol/drugs/unknown) - At any time during the incident, was the subject(s) armed or believed to be armed with a weapon? Officer Information Age, sex, race, ethnicity, height, and weight - Years of service as a law enforcement officer (total tenure, number of years) - At the time of the incident, was the officer a full-time employee? - Was the officer readily identifiable? - Was the officer on duty at the time of the incident? Did the officer discharge a firearm? Was the officer injured? What was the officer's injury type (gunshot wound, apparent broken bones, severe laceration, unconsciousness, etc.) X. CHOKE HOLDS, LATERAL NECK RESTRAINTS, and SIMILAR COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES A. Choke holds, lateral neck restraints, and similar compliance techniques that are specifically designed or intended to restrict the ability to breathe or the flow of blood to the brain, or any intentional and prolonged application of force to the throat or windpipe of another that prevents or hinders breathing or reduces the intake of air, are prohibited except: 1. Where a person cannot be captured any other way; AND 2. a. The person has used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony OR OPS -03.17 b. The officer reasonably believes the person would use deadly force against any person unless immediately apprehended; [Note: 1 and 2 are requirements that must be present before the exception on the use of chokeholds in Section 804.8 of the Iowa Code applies.] AND 3. It is the only reasonable means of protecting oneself or a third party. [Note: 3 is an additional City of Iowa City requirement that must be present before the exception applies.] B. If utilized, the technique must be immediately loosened or released if the individual on whom it is being applied becomes compliant. C. Any individual who has been subjected to a lateral choke hold, neck restraint, or similar compliance technique, regardless of whether he/she was rendered unconscious, shall be promptly examined by emergency medical services and shall be monitored until examined by medical personnel. D. The officer shall inform any person receiving custody, or any person placed in a position of providing care, that the individual has been ._7 subjected to a choke hold, lateral neck restraint, or similar compliance technique and whether the individual lost consciousness as a result:_ E. Any officer applying a choke hold, lateral neck restraint, or si'niilar compliance technique shall promptly notify a supervisor of the use attempted use of such hold. A use of force report shall be completed. XII. ANNUAL IN-SERVICE TRAINING On an annual basis all officers will receive in-service training on this policy. The training shall include a review of the definitions of conditional terms, such as those for reasonable belief, serious physical injury, or similar terms used to qualify the policy. Dustin Liston, Chief of Police OPS -03.18 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. w.i • 1,,,r3 . w ~'CD r\1 OPS -03.19 LEVEL ONE Perception — Subject is compliant Response — Cooperative controls (includes: mental preparation, spatial positioning, communications skills, handcuffing positions and techniques, searching techniques, arrest and transport controls) USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE COMPLIANT: LEVEL 1 MENTAL PREPARATION ! SPATIAL POSITIONING I COMMUNICATION SKILLS HANDCUFFING POSITIONS HANDCUFFING TECHNIQUE SEARCHING TECHNIQUES SPECIALIZED TECHNIQUES ARREST TECHNIQUES ESCORT CONTROLS LTRANSPORT CONTROLS- COOPERA > PERCEPTION SKILLS > RISK ASSESSMENT > SURVIVAL ORIENTATION > OFFICER STANCE > BODY LANGUAGE > RELATIVE POSITIONING VERBAL - VERBAL COMMANDS/DIRECTIVES - VERBAL DE-ESCALATION TECHNIQUES > NON-VERBAL > WALL > STANDING > - r > PRONE > KNEELING —' > CONTROLLED r, > WALL > STANDING > PRONE > KNEELING > OPPOSITE SEX > FRISK > STRIP > SINGLE OFFICER > MULTIPLE OFFICERS > SINGLE OFFICER > MULTIPLE OFFICERS > SINGLE OFFICER > MULTIPLE OFFICERS OPS -03.20 LEVEL TWO Perception — Subject is passively resistant Response — Contact controls (includes: contact controls, conflict management techniques, and mass formation arrest techniques including: 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) > VERBAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS - VERBAL DIRECTIVES - VERBAL DE-ESCALATION TECHNIQUES > NON-VERBAL > ARM CONTACT CONTROLS > WRIST > HAND ARREST TECHNIQUES > ESCORT TECHNIQUES > TRANSPORT TECHNIQUES > MASS FORMATION M C -s Z rQ OPS -03.21 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 NERVE COMPRESSION TECHNIQUES: > HEAD NEURO -MUSCULAR CONTROLS > ARM > LEG CONTROL TACTICS > WRIST ROTATION > ELBOW LEVERAGE BICYCLE > TAKE DOWN TECHNIQUES > COMMUNICATIONS/ASSESSMENT SKILLS VEHICLE PURSUIT TACTICS > PACING/TRAILING TECHNIQUES r� OPS -03 22 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 -03.23 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) DEADLY FORCE USE OF FORCE MODEL — FUNCTIONAL PROFILE ASSAULTIVE (Serious Bodily Harm/Death): DEADLY FORCE LEVEL 5 also ATTACK DEFENSE LETHAL FORCE UTILIZATION j OTHER OPTIONS: I FORCIBLE STOPPING TECHNIQUES s from lower Levels) > WEAPON > WEAPONLESS > WEAPON RETENTION TECHNIQUES > SERVICE WEAPON > SUPPLEMENTAL WEAPON > OTHER OPTIONS > CONTACT > ROADBLOCK OPS -03.24 REDLINE VERSION Green highlights are additions RED highlight: are deletions USE OF FORCE Original Date of Issue General Order Number April 28, 2001 199-05 Section Cod Effective Date of Reissue e December 14, 2021 OPS -03 Reevaluation Date Amends December 2022 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 f. 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. III. DEFINITIONS OPS -03.2 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 result. 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 Injury (Section 702.18 Code of Iowa) — Means 1. disabling mental illness; or 2. 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. 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. D. Verbal Commands/Directives — Verbal communication by an officer directing someone to perform or not to perform an act: e.g. "Stop", "Don't move", "Put your hands up", or "Get on the ground". E. De-escalation - Taking action to stabilize a situation and reduce the immediacy of a threat so that more time, options, and resources are available to resolve the situation. The goal of de-escalation is to gain the voluntary compliance of subjects, when feasible, and thereby reduce or eliminate the necessity to use physical force. F. De-escalation Techniques - Actions used by members of the department, that seek to minimize the likelihood of the need to use force during an incident and increase the likelihood of gaining voluntary compliance from a subject. Note that these techniques should only be employed when it is safe to do so. IV. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE USE OF FORCE The use of force is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. "The right to be free from excessive force is included under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizure of the person." Andrews v. Fuoss, 417 F.3d 813, 818 (8th Cir. 2005). On the other hand, "the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it." Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1872 (1989). A. Reasonable Officer. Obiective Standard 1. "The 'Reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged 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). 3. Reasonableness is "not capable of precise definition or mechanical application." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979). Reasonableness is determined by the totality of circumstances, which include the "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1872 (1989). B. The Code of Iowa authorizes the use of force in making an arrest and preventing an escape. 1. Section 804.8 Use of force by peace officer making an arrest. A peace officer, while making a lawful arrest, is justified in the use of any force which the peace officer reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest or to defend any person from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, the use of deadly force or a chokehold (chokehold is specifically defined in the state code]is only justified when a person cannot be captured any other way and either. a. The person has used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony, or b. The peace officer reasonably believes the person would use deadly force against any person unless immediately apprehended. A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which the peace officer would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless the peace officer knows that the warrant is invalid. [Note: The use of a chokeholds and other lateral restraints is further limited by this policy. See Section X below.] 2. Section 804.13 Use of force in preventing an escape. OPS -03.4 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 farce to protect him/her or others from what he/she reasonably believes to be an imminent 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. Provided the criteria for paragraph 2(a), 2(b) or 2(c) have been satisfied, 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 -03.5 g. Shooting at or from a moving vehicle is prohibited, except under the following circumstances: When the occupant of the vehicle is utilizing deadly force against the police officer or other persons. As a last resort to prevent death or serious injury to officers or other persons. 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. Rendering medical aid following police actions a. Officers shall render immediate and appropriate medical aid in incidents that involve injuries sustained during detainments or apprehension b. Officers shall immediately activate the emergency medical system when: Obvious severe injuries have occurred, ii. Medical distress is apparent, or the individual is unconscious, Requested by the subject(s) involved, iv. The extent of an injury is unknown or not visible, or V. The nature or extent of the injury dictates. b. Officers shall err on the side of caution, requesting emergency medical system to respond to the scene if in doubt about the existence or extent of an injury. 4. Surrender of firearm. When officers 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 OPS -03.6 unloaded, cleaned, nor in any way 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 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. 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. C. NOTIFICATIONS 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: OPS -03.7 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. b. %Nhemnever a member, on or off duty, Is required to strike or use force against another person. lie/she shall call a supervisory Penson to the scene or contact a supervisory officer as soon as practical following the inciderft and take v.ohatever action s1 ich supervisary officer requires. D. 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 -03.8 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. Administrative Review Committee. a. Use of force incidents shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of a minimum of three sworn personnel. i. The committee should consist of two supervisors as designated by the Chief of Police and one officer -preferably a use of force instructor. To provide differing perspectives, the Chief of Police may appoint multiple committees that alternate review responsibilities. ii. This group should, at a minimum, meet every month to review the Use of Force Report from the previous month. N. The purpose of this committee shall be to review all facts and reports concerning use of force incidents to determine whether policy, training, equipment, or disciplinary issues should be addressed. 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. OPS -03.9 The report(s) shall contain the following information: L 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. 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 medical treatment being offered, supervisor notification, and decontamination procedures. a. 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 documenttheir conclusions. d. All reports concerning use of force shall be forwarded to the Sergeant of Planning/Research. e. The Captain of Field Operations and Chief of Police shall reviewall use of force reports where any participant is injured during the use of force and/or where a deadly force option has been utilized (excludes display of a weapon). 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 policy modifications. OPS -03.10 6. Duty to Intervene and Report All employees are required to be familiar with and abide by GO 20- 01 titled Duty to Intervene and Report. E. INVESTIGATION OF USE OF FORCE RESULTING IN DEATH 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 soon as 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: 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 from their Division Commander, 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. OPS -03.11 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 policies and guidelines. VI. USE OF FORCE MODEL Police officers are given the unique right to use force, even deadly force, against others for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The right to use 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. A. ESCALATION OF FORCE 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 or reduces, the officer must correspondingly de-escalate. 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 to the fact that officer/member of the public 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. OPS -03.12 B. DE-ESCALATION OF FORCE De-escalation strategies shall be applied in an effort to reduce the need for application of force, when safe and feasible. De-escalation techniques are actions used by members of the department that seek to minimize the likelihood of the need to use force during an incident and increase the likelihood of gaining voluntary compliance from a subject. Note that these techniques should only be employed when it is safe to do so. When safe and feasible under the totality of circumstances, members of the department shall attempt to slow down or stabilize the situation so that more time, options and resources are available for incident resolution. When time and circumstances reasonably permit, members of the department shall consider whether a subject's lack of compliance is a deliberate attempt to resist or an inability to comply based on factors including, but not limited to: Medical conditions Mental impairment Developmental disability Physical limitation Language barrier Drug interaction Behavioral crisis An officer's awareness of these possibilities, when time and circumstances reasonably permit, shall then be balanced against the facts of the incident facing the officer when deciding which tactical options are the most appropriate to bring the situation to a safe resolution. Mitigating the immediacy of threat gives officers of the department time to utilize extra resources, and increases time available to call more officers or specialty units. The number of officers on scene may increase the available force options and may increase the ability to reduce the overall force used. Other examples include: Placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer Containing a threat Moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position OPS -03.13 Decreasing the exposure to potential threat by using - Distance - Cover - Concealment Communicating from a safe position intended to gain the subject's compliance, using: - Verbal persuasion - Advisements - Warnings Avoiding physical confrontation, unless immediately necessary (for example, to protect someone, or stop dangerous behavior) Using verbal de-escalation techniques to generate cooperation and gain voluntary compliance. Calling extra resources to assist or officers to assist: - More officers - CIT officers - Officers equipped with less -lethal tools - Supervisors. * Using any other tactics and approaches that attempt to achieve gaining the compliance of the subject. D. Reasonable officer's perception/Reasonable officer's response (see attached matrix) VII. CIVILIAN OFFICERS (COMMUNITY SERVICE AND ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS) A. Community Service Officers assigned to the road and Animal Control Officers shall carry chemical irritants (OC) under this policy for the sole purpose of self-defense from persons or from animals. B. When dealing with upset persons, civilian officers must first attempt to deescalate the situation, if it is reasonable to do so, by backing away from the situation to a place of safety (vehicle or other barrier) and calling for a sworn officer to come to the scene. If after attempting to deescalate the situation, the civilian officer reasonably believes that they are going to be assaulted, the officer may deploy their chemical irritant in a manner consistent with training. C. When dealing with aggressive animals, civilian officers should try backing away from the situation to a place of safety (vehicle or other barrier) and call OPS -03.14 for a sworn officer to come to the scene to assist. If the civilian officer is unable to make it to a place of safety and they reasonably believe that they may be attacked, the officer may deploy their chemical irritant at the animal in a manner consistent with training. D. Civilian officers that deploy chemical agents at a person are subject to all reporting requirements set forth in this policy. Additionally, they are responsible to immediately contact the on duty Watch supervisor as well as summoning medical personnel to the scene for any injuries. E. Civilian officers that deploy chemical agents at an animal shall notify their supervisor to make them aware that a chemical agent was deployed as well as the circumstances involved. F. When dealing with persons, a civilian officer will be held to the "Reasonable officer's perception/Reasonable officer's response" standard. (see level four and five in the attached matrix) VIII. PREREQUISITES TO CARRYING LETHAL / LESS LETHAL WEAPONS All personnel authorized to carry weapons intended for use of force application must receive training on their use from the perspectives of practical application and organizational policy. Instruction should include confirmation of employee understanding of legal implications and requirements, weapon specific operating and care procedures, documentation and reporting procedures, and obligations following the use of force. IX. FBI NATIONAL USE of FORCE DATA COLLECTION The Department voluntarily participates in the FBI National Use of Force Data Collection. The sergeant of planning and research shall track the following use of force incidents: When a fatality to a person occurs connected to a use of force by an Iowa City police officer. When there is serious bodily injury to a person connected to a use of force by an Iowa City police officer. For this section the definition of serious bodily injury will be based, in part, upon Title 18, United States Code, Section 2246 (4). The term "serious bodily injury" means "bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of bodily member, organ, or mental faculty." In the absence of either death or serious bodily injury, when a firearm is discharged by an Iowa City police officer at or in the direction of a person. OPS -03.15 When an incident meeting the above criteria is met the sergeant of planning and research shall report the following information to the FBI: Incident Information - Date and time of the incident Total number of officers who applied actual force during the incident - Number of officers from the Iowa City Police Department who applied actual force during the incident - Location of the incident (address or latitude/longitude) - Location type of the incident (street, business, residence, restaurant, school, etc.) - Did the officer(s) approach the subject(s)? - Was it an ambush incident? - Was a supervisor or a senior officer acting in a supervisory capacity present or consulted at any point during the incident? - What was the reason for initial contact between the subject and the officer (response to unlawful or suspicious activity, routine patrol, traffic stop, etc.)? - If the initial contact was due to "unlawful or criminal activity," what were the most serious reported offenses committed by the subject prior to or at the time of the incident? - If applicable, the National Incident -Based Reporting System or local incident number of the report detailing criminal incident information on the subject and/or assault or homicide of a law enforcement officer If the incident involved multiple law enforcement agencies, the case numbers for the local use -of -force reports at the other agencies Subject Information Age, sex, race, ethnicity, height, and weight - Injury/death of subject(s) (gunshot wound, apparent broken bones, unconsciousness, etc.) - Type(s) of force used connected to serious bodily injury or death (firearm, electronic control weapon, explosive device, blunt instrument, etc.) OPS -03.16 Did the subject(s) resist? - Was the threat by the subject(s) directed to the officer or to another party? - Type(s) of subject resistance/weapon involvement (threatened officer, threatened others, threatened self, active aggression, firearm, attemptto flee, etc.) Was there an apparent or known impairment in the physical condition of subject? If yes, indicate which (mental health/alcohol/drugs/unknown) At any time during the incident, was the subject(s) armed or believed to be armed with a weapon? Officer Information Age, sex, race, ethnicity, height, and weight Years of service as a law enforcement officer (total tenure, number of years) -At the time of the incident, was the officer a full-time employee? - Was the officer readily identifiable? - Was the officer on duty at the time of the incident? - Did the officer discharge a firearm? - Was the officer injured? - What was the officer's injury type (gunshot wound, apparent broken bones, severe laceration, unconsciousness, etc.) X. CHOKE HOLDS, LATERAL NECK RESTRAINTS, and SIMILAR COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES A. Choke holds, lateral neck restraints, and similar compliance techniques that are specifically designed or intended to restrict the ability to breathe or the flow of blood to the brain, or any intentional and prolonged application of force to the throat or windpipe of another that prevents or hinders breathing or reduces the intake of air, are prohibited except: 1. Where a person cannot be captured any other way; AND 2. a. The person has used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony OR OPS -03.17 b. The officer reasonably believes the person would use deadly force against any person unless immediately apprehended; [Note: 1 and 2 are requirements that must be present before the exception on the use of chokeholds in Section 804.8 of the Iowa Code applies.] AND 3. It is the only reasonable means of protecting oneself or a third party. [Note: 3 is an additional City of Iowa City requirement that must be present before the exception applies.] B. If utilized, the technique must be immediately loosened or released if the individual on whom it is being applied becomes compliant. C. Any individual who has been subjected to a lateral choke hold, neck restraint, or similar compliance technique, regardless of whether he/ she was rendered unconscious, shall be promptly examined by emergency medical services and shall be monitored until examined by medical personnel. D. The officer shall inform any person receiving custody, or any person placed in a position of providing care, that the individual has been subjected to a choke hold, lateral neck restraint, or similar compliance technique and whether the individual lost consciousness as a result. E. Any officer applying a choke hold, lateral neck restraint, or similar compliance technique shall promptly notify a supervisor of the use or attempted use of such hold. A use of force report shall be completed. XII. ANNUAL IN-SERVICE TRAINING On an annual basis all officers will receive in-service training on this policy. The training shall include a review of the definitions of conditional terms, such as those for reasonable belief, serious physical injury, or similar terms used to qualify the policy. Dustin Liston, Chief of Police OPS -03.18 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. OPS -03.19 LEVEL ONE Perception — Subject is compliant Response — Cooperative controls (includes: mental preparation, spatial positioning, communications skills, handcuffing positions and techniques, searching techniques, arrest and transport controls) USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE : LEVEL 1 MENTAL PREPARATION SPATIAL POSITIONING COMMUNICATION SKILLS HANDCUFFING POSITIONS HANDCUFFING TECHNIQUE SEARCHING TECHNIQUES SPECIALIZED TECHNIQUES ARREST TECHNIQUES ESCORT CONTROLS TRANSPORT CONTROLS > PERCEPTION SKILLS > RISK ASSESSMENT > SURVIVAL ORIENTATION > OFFICER STANCE > BODY LANGUAGE > RELATIVE POSITIONING VERBAL - VERBAL COMMANDS/DIRECTIVES ' - VERBAL DE-ESCALATION TECHNIQUES > NON-VERBAL > WALL > STANDING > PRONE > KNEELING > CONTROLLED > WALL > STANDING > PRONE > KNEELING > OPPOSITE SEX > FRISK > STRIP > SINGLE OFFICER > MULTIPLE OFFICERS > SINGLE OFFICER > MULTIPLE OFFICERS > SINGLE OFFICER > MULTIPLE OFFICERS OPS -03 20 LEVEL TWO Perception — Subject is passively resistant Response — Contact controls (includes: contact controls, conflict management techniques, and mass formation arrest techniques including: 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) > VERBAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS - VERBAL DIRECTIVES - VERBAL DE-ESCALATION TECHNIQUES > NON-VERBAL > ARM CONTACT CONTROLS ARREST TECHNIQUES > WRIST > HAND > ESCORT TECHNIQUES > TRANSPORT TECHNIQUES > MASS FORMATION _J OPS -03.21 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 FORCE OP] COMPLIANCE CONTROLS NERVE COMPRESSION TECHNIQUES: NEURO -MUSCULAR CONTROLS CONTROL TACTICS BICYCLE VEHICLE PURSUIT TACTICS COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES includes all options from lower Levels > NERVE COMPRESSION TECHNIQUES > CHEMICAL IRRITANTS, CROWD CONTROL CHEMICAL MUNITIONS > CONTROL TACTICS > HEAD > ARM > LEG > WRIST ROTATION > ELBOW LEVERAGE > TAKE DOWN TECHNIQUES > COMMUNICATIONS/ASSESSMENT SKILLS > PACING/TRAILING TECHNIQUES OPS -03.22 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) DEFE . USE OF FORCE MODEL — FUNCTIONAL PROFILE ASSAULTIVE (Potential Bodily Harm): LEVEL 4 DEFENSIVE TACTICS C. 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 -03.23 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) DEADLY FORCE USE OF FORCE MODEL— FUNCTIONAL PROFILE ASSAULTIVE (Serious Bodily Harm/Death): DEADLY FORCE LEVEL 5 E OPTIONS (also i ATTACK DEFENSE LETHAL FORCE UTILIZATION OTHER OPTIONS: FORCIBLE STOPPING TECHNIQUES from lower > WEAPON > WEAPONLESS > WEAPON RETENTION TECHNIQUES > SERVICE WEAPON > SUPPLEMENTAL WEAPON > OTHER OPTIONS > CONTACT > ROADBLOCK OPS -03.24 TO: File Memorandum FROM: Captain Denise Brotherton RE: Quarterly Summary Report IAIR/CPRB, 4th Quarter 2021 DATE: January 5, 2022 Attached you will find the IAIR/CPRB 2021 4th quarter summary report for the Iowa City Police Department Internal Affairs/Citizen's Police Review Board investigative file. There were two non -criminal investigations for improper conduct involving four ICPD employees that were received externally through on-line CPRB complaints. The investigations were completed and the complaints were not sustained against the employees. There were two external complaints that were reported to supervisory staff on one employee that initiated one internally driven investigation for use of force and improper conduct. This investigation is still active. cc: CPRB Sgt. Doug Hart IAIR / CPRB Summary IAIR Number 21-08 CPRD Number Date and Time of Incident Location of Incident Assigned Date Type of Investigation Resolution Origin of Complaint 21-04 9/11/2021 5:00 Court St Parking Ra 10/13/2021 Improper Conduct Exonerated External IAIR Number 21-09 CPRB Number Date and Time of Incident location of hcident Assigned Date Type of Investigation Resolution Origin of Complaint 21-07 10/22/2021 0:32 100 Block S Dubuque 10/28/2021 Improper Conduct Exonerated External 21-07 10/22/2021 0:32 100 Block S Dubuque 10/28/2021 Improper Conduct Unfounded External IAIR Number 21-10 CPRB Number Date and Time of Incident location of Incident Assigned Date Type of Investigation Resolution Origin of Cumalaint 11/12/2021 1:58 100 Block S Clinton S 11/22/2021 Use of Force 11/12/2021 1:58 100 Block S Clinton S 11/22/2021 Improper Conduct Wednesday, January 5, 2022 Page 1 of 1 External External COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD OFFICE CONTACTS December 2021 Date Description None January 11, 2022 Mtg Packet COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD COMPLAINT DEADLINES CPRS Complaint #21-02 Filed: 09/20/21 Chief's report due (90 days): 12/20//21 Chief's report filed: 10/19/21 Complainant's response to the Chief's report (21 days to respond, no response received) 11/09/21 Chief/City Manager response to the Complainant's response (10 days to respond): --/--/-- CPRB meeting #1 (Review): 11/01/21 CPRB meeting #2 (Review): 12/13/21 CPRB meeting #3 (Review): 01/11/22 CPRB meeting #4 (Review): ??/??/22 CPRB report due (90 days from the date of the Chief/City 03/08/22 Manager's response to the complainant): 02/07/22 CPRB Complaint #21-03 Filed: 09/27/21 Chief's report due (90 days): 12/27/21 Chief's report filed: 11/15/21 Complainant's response to the Chief's report (21 days to respond no response received) 12/06/21 Chief/City Manager response to the Complainant's response (10 days to respond): CPRB meeting #1 (Review): 01/11/22 CPRB meeting #2 (Review): ??/??/22 CPRB meeting #3 (Review): ??/??/22 CPRB report due (90 days from the date of the Chief/City Manager's response to the complainant): 03/08/22 CPRB Complaint #21-07 Filed: 10/27/21 Chief's report due (90 days): 01/26/22 Chief's report filed: 11/30/21 Complainant's response to the Chief's report (21 days to respond, no response received) 12/21/21 Chief/City Manager response to the Complainant's response (10 days to respond): ??/???? January 11, 2022 Mtg Packet CPRB meeting #1 (Review): 01/11/22 CPRB meeting #2 (Review): ??/??/?? CPRB report due (90 days from the date of the Chief/City Manager's response to the complainant): 03/21/22 CPRB Complaint #21-08 Filed: 12/06/21 Chief's report due (90 days): 03/08/22 Chief's report filed: 12/15/21 Complainant's response to the Chief's report (21 days to respond) ??/??/22 Chief/City Manager response to the Complainant's response (10 days to respond): ??/???? CPRB meeting #1 (Review): 01/11/22 CPRB meeting #2 (Review): ??/??/?? CPRB report due (90 days from the date of the Chief/City Manager's response to the complainant): ??/??/?? CPRB Complaint #21-09 Filed: 12/08/21 Chief's report due (90 days): 03/10/22 Chief's report filed: 12/15/21 Complainant's response to the Chief's report (21 days to respond) ??/??/22 Chief/City Manager response to the Complainant's response (10 days to respond): ??/???? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPRB meeting #1 (Review): 01/11/22 CPRB meeting #2 (Review): ??/??/?? CPRB report due (90 days from the date of the Chief/City Manager's response to the complainant): ??/??/?? TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE February 8, 2022 March 8, 2022 April 12, 2022 May 10, 2022 Jerri MacConnell CPRB (319) 333-1096 Mobile nelliel896Qgmail.com 320 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Amanda Nichols CPRE (319) 677-1153 Mobile director@corridorcan.com 2713 East Court St Iowa City, IA 522-45 Orville Townsend Sr CPRE (319) 331-3482 Mobile (319) 354-5995 Home orville.torunsend@hotmail.com 713 Whiting Ave Iowa City, IA 52245-5644 Saul Mekies CPRB (319) 857-3617 Mobile smekies@kirkwood.edu 2151 Abbey Lane Iowa City, IA 52246 Theresa Seeberger CPRE (319) 400-0119 Mobile starhawk25Qmsn,com 2418 Friendship St Iowa City, IA 52245 Patrick Ford CPRB 319-430-15-49 Mobile 319-338-7551 Home ford@lefflaw.com Leff law Firm L.L.P. 222 S Linn St Iowa City IA 52240-1601