Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-30-1999 CommunicationMarch 23, 1999 Ms. Catherine A. Pugh Stein & Pugh LLC 221'/z E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: PCRB Dear Catherine: CITY OF IOWA CITY By memorandum of February 25, 1999 from Sandy Bauer, Assistant to the PCRB, I received a draft of the information cover sheet for the Police Department complaint form and the PCRB complaint form. Enclosed you will find a revised draft of that form which I have prepared. I have made additions to both sections, and in doing so have attempted to accommodate the often competing needs for simplicity and accuracy. I am concerned that providing too little information will lead to misunderstandings and/or unreasonable expectations. I have added the following information: a. The fact that the PD form will not necessarily generate a formal internal affairs investigation while the PCRB form will. b. Only the Police Chief has authority to discipline. C. Although the entire PCRB process will take longer the complainant will receive the Police Chiefs report prior to receiving the PCRB's report. d. The PCRB makes decisions using a "reasonable basis" standard of review. e. The PCRB does have the right to release names in the case of a sustained ["upheld" used in draft form] complaint. f. Reference to the actual PCRB ordinance for more details. I consider the form to be a work in progress and welcome further discussion with the PCRB. Please extend my appreciation to the Board for its recent thank -you letter. I look forward to working with you in connection with these matters while you serve as the PCRB's attorney. Very4rul �y yours, �/j Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney Enclosure cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk Steve Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Police Chief Sarah Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney eleanor/Itrlpugh3. doc 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1926. (319) 356-5000. FAX (319) 356-3009 YOU WANT TO FILE A COMPLAINT ABOUT AN IOWA CITY POLICE OFFICER. WHICH COMPLAINT FORM SUITS YOUR PURPOSE? There are two different complaint forms. The type of form you choose determines who is involved in the investigation of your complaint and to what extent the results of the investigation will become public. 1. Iowa City Police Department Complaint Form If you use the Police Department form, the Iowa City Police Department will determine how the complaint should be addressed and what type of investigation is necessary. Depending on the nature of the complaint, the investigation may be informal, such as a discussion between you and the officer's supervisor, or it may be a formal internal affairs investigation in which you, the officer(s) and witnesses are interviewed and a formal written report detailing the findings and conclusions of the investigators is prepared for review by the Police Chief. You will be notified of the outcome of the investigation. Generally, the investigation is considered a non-public, confidential record as is any officer discipline which may result from the findings of the investigation. By law, the Police Chief decides whether and how an officer will be disciplined. Complaints filed on this form are not reviewed by the Police Citizens' Review Board and are generally handled within the Police Department. When you use this type of form it usually takes between a week and 90 days for you to receive a final response from the Police Department. 2. Police Citizens' Review Board (PCRB) Complaint Form If you use the PCRB form, your complaint will be investigated by the Iowa City Police Department. In every case, the Police Department will conduct a formal internal affairs type of investigation. As soon as you file your form, the PCRB will receive a copy of it, so they know your complaint is being investigated. When the Police Department has finished its investigation, the Police Chief will prepare a written report for the PCRB and will send a copy of that report to you and the officer involved. The PCRB reviews the Chiefs report and determines what, if any, additional information or investigation the PCRB needs to make a decision. The Board may conduct its own investigation. After reviewing/investigating the Chiefs report, the PCRB determines if the Chiefs conclusions are reasonable and issues a public report to the City Council. You will be notified of the outcome of the PCRB's review. The PCRB handles its work with complaints confidentially. Generallly, the PCRB's report to the City Council will not include your name or the officer's name although the PCRB does have the right to include your name and the officer's name in the report if the complaint is upheld. The media may report information about PCRB decisions. The PCRB has no authority to discipline an officer, though the PCRB may comment generally as to whether discipline is appropriate. When you use this type of a form it usually takes between 60 and 90 days to receive the Police Chief's report and between 4 to 5 months to receive the PCRB's final report. If you would like further information regarding the procedures and authority of the PCRB, please see the PCRB Ordinance, Iowa City Code Chapter 8-8, available in the City Clerk's office. If you have questions about choosing a form, contact the Police Department (356-5275) or the PCRB Office (356-5413) The City of Iowa City WHEN: April 28, 1999 TIME: 7:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. WHERE: Broadway Neighborhood Center 2105 Broadway Street Iowa City SPEAKERS: Sign-up will be available at the forum The PCRB invites YOU to attend a community forum soliciting comments about policies, procedures, and practices of the Iowa City Police Department. We want to learn if the Iowa City Police Department's performance is in keeping with community standards. R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police, will make a presentation on the Special Crimes Action Team and other issues of interest to citizens living in the Broadway area. The PCRB will use suggestions and recommendations from the forum as we determine the focus and direction of our work. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5413 March 11, 1999 R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Iowa City Police Department 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 Dear Chief Winkelhake: The members of the Board are looking forward to your attendance at the PCRB Community Forum on Wednesday, April 28, 1999, at 7:00 P.M., at the Broadway Neighborhood Center. With regard to your presentation at the forum, the Board feels you may wish to address police related concerns that are inherent to the neighborhood and what measures the police department is taking to deal with them. These concerns and measures could include, but not necessarily be limited to: types and frequency of crimes, police public relations and prevention programs, enforcement activities, results and outcomes which you believe would be of interest to those citizens living in this area of the city. Because of the nature of your presentation, we expect a question and answer session will follow. However, I want to limit your participation to thirty (30) minutes so that the remainder of the time will be available for comments to the Board. If there is any information you would like to appear on the notice for this forum, please let me know by the week of March 22. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly �yours, Leah Cohen, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney MEMORANDUM POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City DATE: March 25, 1999 TO: PCRB FROM: Marian K. Karr RE: Update on Legal Counsel Search Attached is a copy of the revised job description for PCRB legal counsel. Ads will be run in the Iowa City Press Citizen 3/20-26/99 and the Cedar Rapids Gazette on 3/21/99. The ad also appears on the Iowa City web page at www.iowa-city.coiyi/city-/persoiuiel. Copies have been sent to: Linn County Bar Association President Darrel A. Morf Johnson County Bar Association President John T. Nolan Drake University Law School Career Services University of Iowa College of Law Career Services -Law Placement All resumes will be forwarded to you at the end of the advertising period. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD (PCRB) ATTORNEY Independent legal counsel to PCRB. Licensed attorney with experience with criminal law and municipal boards and commissions important. Duties include: advise PCRB on operation of city ordinance, by-laws and standard operating procedures, criminal law and procedures, Iowa Public Records Law, Iowa Open Meetings Law, review PCRB reports, memoranda, correspondence, interaction with Board members, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Staff, City Council, citizens and police. Attendance at all meeting required. Send resume and salary information no later than Spm, April 19, 1999, to Marian K. Karr, City Clerk, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240. The City is an equal opportunity employer. . City of Iowa City zlmzreft��ff ff DATE: March 8, 1999 TO: Staff of City Boards and Commissions FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk 0- RE: Absence Policy for City Boards and Commissions The City Council Rules Committee has proposed a City wide Board and Commission Absence Polio . After discussion the City Council recommended input on the following proposal prior to Council action. Please review the policy with your Board or Commission and submit written comments to me by April 30. 1. Absence of a board or commission member from more than 20% of the meetings in any successive 12 month period after the date of their appointment shall constitute just cause for removal from office. After notification from the staff of a Board or Commission of such absence, the City Clerk will advise City Council in writing and provide a copy to the board or commission member. 2. In accordance with Chapter 372.15 of the Code of Iowa, persons appointed to a Board or Commission by the City Council may be removed only by that body. Such removal must be by written order (resolution) filed with the City Clerk with a copy sent to the member by certified mail. The order must set forth the reason for the removal and must explain that it is subject to the right of the member, within thirty (30) days from the mailing date, to file with the City Clerk a request for a hearing before the City Council on all issues related to the removal. The hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days of the date the request is filed, unless the member involved requests a later date. In the event no hearing is requested the order for removal stands and a vacancy is announced on that Board or Commission. 3. A Board or Commission member who has accumulated one-half of the maximum number of permitted absences will receive from the City Clerk, upon notification from the staff of a Board or Commission of such absence, a written reminder of this policy. Such reminder will be sent prior to the next meeting of the Board or Commission. abs nce.dm POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5413 FORM LETTER A Date R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police and/or Steve Atkins, City Manager Dear xxxxxx: The Police Citizens Review Board has received Complaint 1199-xx filed on xxxxx xx, 1999. This complaint appears to be an untimely complaint and will be reviewed by the Board at its next meeting. The Board will advise you of its status after their review. Sincerely, Leah Cohen, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: PCRB POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5413 FORM LETTER B Date Dear xxxxxx: The Police Citizens Review Board has received your Complaint dated xxxxx, xx,1999 regarding an incident that took place on xxxxxx, xx, 1999. Under Section 8-8-3 D of the City Code of Iowa City, the PCRB can only consider complaints brought within 60/90 days of the incident complained of, it appears from your complaint that it is possible that your complaint was filed too late for the Board to consider. At the Board's next meeting on xxxxx, xx, 1999, it will consider whether it should dismiss your complaint because it was filed too late. The Board would be glad to receive and review any written information from you relevant to your complaint's timeliness. Any materials you want the PCRB to consider should be sent to the Board before its meeting on xxxxx xx. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact the PCRB office at 356-5413 or 356-5401. Sincerely, Leah Cohen, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Steve Atkins, City Manager Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5413 FORM LETTER C Date Dear xxxxxx: The Complaint you filed with the Police Citizens Review Board on xxxxx xx, 1999 was summarily dismissed by the Board at its meeting on xxxxx xx, 1999 because it was untimely filed. As noted in the PCRB ordinance: All complaints must be filed with either the Board or The Iowa City Police Department within sixty (60) [ninety (90)] days of the alleged misconduct... or be subject to summary dismissal by the Board. Although your complaint will not be reviewed by the PCRB, there is a method for you to file a complaint directly with the Iowa City Police Department should you wish to pursue this matter. If you have any further questions regarding this, please call the Board office. Sincerely, Leah Cohen, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: PCRB POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5413 FORM LETTER D Date R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police and/or Steve Atkins, City Manager RE: PCRB #99-xx Dear xxxxxx: In accordance with Section 8-8-3(E) of the PCRB Ordinance and Section 1.13 of its Standard Operating Procedures, the Police Citizens Review Board considered Complaint #99-xx in executive session on xxxxxx xx, 1999. The incident which is the subject of this complaint occurred on xxxxxx xx, 1999. The PCRB hereby summarily dismisses Complaint #99-xx. The Police Department [or City Manager] does not need to proceed with an investigation of this complaint. Sincerely, Leah Cohen, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: PCRB FORM PCRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Re Investigation`of CPii�pl'a�nt ]?,trf2B 99 xx° " :„ PCRB Complaint J199-xx, filed xxxxx, 1999, was summarily dismissed as required by the city Code, Section 8-8-3 D and 8-8-3 E, requiring that the complaint must be filed within sixty (60) days [ninety (90) days I of the alleged misconduct. DATED: 750 Iowa 521 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES (4) II. We have many times emphasized the distinction between jurisdiction and au- thority. See, e.g., State v. Mandicirw, 509 N.W.2d 481, 482 (Iowa 1993). We agree that the trial court lacked authority to proceed in Woodbury County district court with this special statutory remedy. (5, 61 As a general rule, contempt is un- available to enforce a money judgment. See Iowa Code § 626.1 (money judgments en- forceable by execution; other commanded acts are to be coerced by contempt); Iowa Code § 665.2 (generally setting forth con- tempt grounds). A special statute, involving support orders entered in dissolution of mar- riage decrees, provides an exception to this rule. A district court has authority to hear and determine contempt proceedings in the context of delinquent child support. Iowa Code § 598.23A (1993). [7) But this power is a special one the legislature accorded only in dissolution of marriage cases. It is not a separate cause of action, but a remedy specifically appended in order to enforce orders already entered. We do not think the legislature intended for bi- furcation of disputes concerning support, modification, or other matters that may arise within a dissolution of marriage proceeding. We are convinced the legislature intended for these matters to be pursued only within the original proceeding. Because the contempt proceeding is merely au adjunct to the case in Black Hawk district court, and not an independent action, we agree that the appro- priate remedy is dismissal, not transfer un- der rule of civil procedure 175. We agree that the Woodbury district court lacked authority to apply the contempt power available in Black Hawk district court. AFFIRMED. w O 5 R[Y MUMSER SYSTEM r The HAWK EYE and William Mertens, Appellees, V. Patrick C. JACKSON, Appellant, Iowa Department of Public Safety, Intervenor -Appellant. No. 93-666. Supreme Court of Iowa. Sept. 21, 1994. Newspaper sought writ of mandamus compelling disclosure of Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) report concerning allega- tion of use of excessive force by police, and the District Court, Des Moines County, John C. Miller, J., granted writ. Division appeal- ed, and the Supreme Court, Neuman, J., held that any public harm created by disclosure of report was far outweighed by public harm accruing from nondisclosure. Affirmed. 1. Mandamus e-187.9(1) Review of mandamus action by Supreme Court is de novo, and Supreme Court gives weight to district court's fact -findings but is not bound by them. I.C.A. § 661.3. 2. Records e-60 Privilege protecting peace officers' in- vestigative reports and communications made to public officers in official confidence is qual- ified, and official claiming privilege must show that public officer is being examined, communication was made in official confi- dence, and public interest would suffer by disclosure. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. 3. Records <-60 Determination of whether public interest would suffer by disclosure of official commu- nications for purposes of qualified privilege covering communications requires weighing relative merits of interests at stake. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. HAWK EYE v. JACKSON Iowa 751 Clu es 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994) 4. Records G-64 8. Records Qw 60 Aids to law enforcement of encouraging persons to come forward with information, protecting secrecy of informants, and allow- ing law enforcement officials necessary priva- cy to discuss findings and theories constitute only one factor to be considered by court in determining if public interest would suffer by disclosure of conditionally privileged commu- nications of law enforcement officials, and factor is not determinative; other case-spe- cilic factors, such as nature of investigation and whether it is completed or ongoing, may tip balance in favor of public disclosure. I.C.A. H 22.7, 622.11. 5. Records <-65 Finding that public interest would not suffer by disclosure of Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) report concerning allega- tion of use of excessive force by police officer was supported by evidence that only two witnesses to investigation expressed concern about giving statements, and witnessesre- luctance stemmed solely from uncertainty about upcoming civil litigation and not from fear of retaliation, no confidential informants were used in investigation, newspaper's in- quiry into incident arose only after official investigation had ceased, no showing was made that report contained hearsay, rumor, or libelous comment, and report contained no subjective theories, conclusions, or recom- mendations. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. 6. Records <-64 Allegations of leniency or cover-up with respect to disciplining of those sworn to en- force the law are matters of great public concern in determining potential harm to public interest to be suffered by disclosure of conditionally privileged statements made by public officers. I.C.A. H 22.7, 622.11. 7. Records 0-64 Existence of alternate means of access to essentially same information is factor to be weighed in determining whether disclosure of conditionally privileged communications of public officials is warranted. I.C.A. H 22.7, 622.11. Release of conditionally privileged com- munication by public officer does not depend on status of party seeking release. I.C.A. H 22.7, 622.11. 9. Records <-52, 60 Newspaper has same right of access as any member of general public, and it is in that representative capacity that newspaper's interest in disclosure of conditionally privi- leged communications by public officials must be evaluated. I.C.A. H 22.7, 622.11. Bonnie J. Campbell, Atty. Gen., and Jef- frey D. Farrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel- lants. Gene R. Krekel'and H. Craig Miller of Hirsch, Adams, Krekel, Putnam & Cahill, Burlington, for appellees. Susan M. Bee and Michael A. Giudicessi of Faegre & Benson, Des Moines, for amicus curiae Iowa Freedom of Information Council. Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, LAVORATO, NEUMAN, and TERNUS, JJ. NEUMAN, Justice.. This appeal concerns a county attorney's refusal to produce an Iowa Division of Crimi- nal Investigation file for inspection by a newspaper. After weighing the interests of the public on the issue, the district court ordered the official to turn over the file. We affirm. In the spring of 1991, Steve Sands, a re- porter for the Burlington newspaper, The Hawk Eye, wrote a series of articles aimed at local reaction to the highly publicized beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police offi- cers. As a part of the series, Sands inter- viewed local law enforcement officials about whether allegations of excessive force had ever been lodged against a member of the Burlington police department. During one of these interviews, Sands learned of a possi- ble civil suit against police officer Michael Swore. Sands approached police chief Wen- dell Patton for his comment regarding the suit. Patton, previously unaware of the alle- q" p n, the cover - round other, His con- y, en- DCI, ,oten- ing a nedia. 1 re- ilege. o the lisclo- v the o the a, the eport d fol- itable novo. Cur give v but 'ublic e on ction II be lcred f the ltho- n is, clse- (late, Pacts �e or 1 on- isual nuld esti- nger Is: d as offl- P HAWK EYE v. JACKSON Iowa 753 Cue as 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994) cer in official confidence, when the public Jackson's blanket claim of privilege. Appel - interests would suffer by the disclosure. lants' reasons for protecting the confidentiali- [21 In State ex ret Shanahan v. Iowa ty of the DCI report, while not insubstantial, District Court 356 N.W.2d 522, 528 (Iowa do not justify nondisclosure under the unique 1984), we observed that these two statutory facts of this case. provisions express essentially the same legis- lative purpose with respect to DCI files: as- surance to all persons upon whom law en- forcement officials rely that "official confi- dentiality attends their conversations and may protect from public access the officers' reports of what they have said." Id. The privilege cloaking these communications, however, is qualified, not absolute. Id. at 627. An official claiming the privilege must satisfy a three-part test: (1) a public officer is being examined, (2) the communication was made in official confidence, and (3) the public interest would suffer by disclosure. Id at 527; accord Shannon v. Hansen, 469 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1991). [31 Only the third part of the test con- cerns us here. Determining where the line falls between public harm and public good requires weighing the relative merits of the interests at stake. We have long recognized that confidentiality encourages persons to come forward with information, whether sub- stantiated or not, that might be used to solve crimes and deter criminal activity. Shana- han, 356 N.W.2d at 529. Secrecy is especial- ly vital where reports are based on confiden- tial informants, persons indispensable to sue- cesshd police work but who frequently fear intimidation and reprisal. Id. at 529-30. Furthermore, nondisclosure permits law en- forcement officials the necessary privacy to discuss findings and theories about cases un- der investigation. Id at 529. [4] We have also held, however, that these important aids to effective law enforce- ment comprise only one factor to be consid- ered by the court and are "not determinative as to the 'public interest' test" Shannon, 469 N.W.2d at 415. Other case -specific fac- tors, such as the nature of the investigation and whether it is completed or ongoing, may tip the balance in favor of public disclosure. See id [5) III. Turning to the record before us, we are convinced the court wisely rejected First, the compelling reasons ordinarily underlying the need for witness confidentiali- ty are absent. Only Swore and one other witness expressed any concern about giving a statement. In each case the reluctance stemmed solely from uncertainty about their upcoming roles in the civil litigation, not con- cern over intimidation or retaliation. Both ultimately testified publicly in the civil trial, as did ten persons out of the total of fourteen interviewed by Kisner. No confidential in- formants were used in the investigation. Second, the record reflects that the news - paper's inquiry arose only after official inves- tigation into the Swore incident had ceased. Kisner reported that he closed the DCI file following the decision not to prosecute. Jackson expressed his belief that any recon- sideration of his decision would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations for as- sault. He was unaware of any pending fed- eral charges arising out of the same incident. Thus any claim that an on -going investigation might be hindered by disclosure of the report is unsubstantiated. Third, the appellants made no showing that the DCI report contained hearsay, ru- mor, or libelous comment. Because the focus of the investigation rested solely on Swore, no legitimate concerns exist over named but innocent suspects... Kisner's report contained no subjective theories, conclusions, or recom- mendations, thus minimizing the need for secrecy present in most investigations. The district court properly weighed the foregoing facts against the newspaper's proof that the public interest would be harmed by denial of access to the DCI file. See Shana- han, 356 N.W.2d at 530. The record reveals that community interest and concern over allegations of police brutality, already piqued by the events in Los Angeles, was height- ened by the suit against Swore. This inter- est grew upon the filing of a second civil suit against him. Mertens testified that, once the jury reached a verdict in apparent conflict 754 Iowa 521 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES with city officials' decisions, the newspaper received many more letters to the editor expressing concern over both incidents. [6] There can be little doubt that allega- tions of leniency or cover-up with respect to the disciplining of those sworn to enforce the law are matters of great public concern. This fact is underscored by Patton and Jack- son's own testimony regarding the immediate action taken upon hearing Swore was ac- cused of using excessive force. [7] Appellants nevertheless claim that the newspaper's need for disclosure is slight because the same information could have been gained from trial testimony or the newspaper's own private interviews. It is true that existence of an alternate means of access to essentially the same information is a factor to be weighed in -determining wheth- er disclosure is warranted. Id, at 531. But motivating the newspaper's claim is its con- cern that the information contained in the DCI report may not be similar to that re- vealed at trial or secured by reporters out- side the courtroom. That suspicion is only strengthened by the jury's verdict. So long as it is barred from seeing the report, the newspaper is effectively prevented from as- sessing the reasonableness of the official ac- tion. Like the district court, we believe that neither the trial testimony nor independent witness interviews would shed light on that assessment. [8, 91 Rinally, we reject appellants' con- tention that the newspapers' interest in the report is lower —and thus less compelling — than the interest of the plaintiff in Shana- han, a litigant seeking discovery relevant to his civil lawsuit. Release of the report does not depend on the status of the party seeking it. Northeast Council on Substance Abuse, Inc. v. Iowa. Dept of Public Health, 513 N.W.2d 757, 761 (Iowa 1994). The newspa- per has the same right of access as any member of the general public. See Head v. Colloton, 331 N.W.2d 870, 874 (Iowa 1983). It is in that representative capacity that its interest in disclosure must be evaluated. In summary, our de novo review of this record leads us to the same conclusion reached by the district court. Under the unique facts of this case, any public harm created by the disclosure of the DCI investi- gatory report is far outweighed by the public harm accruing from its nondisclosure. The district court's order compelling disclosure is therefore affirmed. ►1V511i4Uga171 (ITS n NUNS[ SSY N In the Interest of C.T., A Minor, C.T., Appellant. No. 94-138. Supreme Court of Iowa. Sept. 21, 1994. Juvenile was adjudicated in the District Court, Scott County, Gary D. McKenrick, District Associate Judge, as delinquent after being found to have committed acts of tam- pering with witness and criminal gang partic- ipation, and he appealed. The Supreme Court, Tereus, J., held that: (1) determina- tion in prior adjudication that organization was criminal street gang could not be used to establish that fact in adjudication of juvenile who was not party to or in privity with party to earlier proceeding, but (2) evidence sup- ported findings that juvenile had committed acts of delivery of controlled substance and criminal gang participation. Affirmed. 1. Assault and Battery e-53 One form of assault is going armed with intent to commit felony. I.C.A. § 708.8. 2. Judgment ca707 State could not use determination made in prior adjudication that organization was "criminal street gang" within meaning of statute in later adjudication of juvenile mem- ber of organization for criminal gang partic- ipation where juvenile was not party to prior POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5413 March 10, 1999 Ms. Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 Dear Eleanor: The PCRB would like to extend a very sincere thank you for all your help this past month. We feel comfortable with the Council's decisions and realize your support was necessary to reach these goals. The Board will continue to monitor and make suggestions as we feel necessary. This first year and a half has been a leaning process for all of us. Your insights have helped make it possible for us to fulfill our duties under the ordinance. We thank you for your confidence and support. Sincerely, Leah Cohen, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager Ernie Lehman, Mayor R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police