HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-2022 Community Police Review BoardMEMORANDUM
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
Ifyou 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
XJerriXXXXXXXXXXX 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 _ ='
CanineReporting ;
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 CodEffectiveDateofReissue 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