Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-30-1999 CommunicationMarch 23, 1999 Ms. Catherine A. Pugh Stein & Pugh LLC 221¼ E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Re: PCRB Dear Catherine: 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 fon~vard to working with you in connection with these matters while you serve as the PCRB's attorney. 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/Itr/pugh3 doc 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 [s 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 ere 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 PCP, B 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 investige, t[on. 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 Chief's 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 Chief's report, the PCRB determines if the Chief's 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 Mamh 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 t(~ 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-ci _ty.com/citv/persmmel. 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 exper/ence 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 5pm, April 19, 1999, to Marian K. Kart, City Clerk, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240. The City is an equal opportunity employer. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 1999 TO: Staff of City Boards and Commissions FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~ RE: Absence Policy for City Boards and Commissions The City Council Rules Committee has proposed a City wide Board and Commission Absence Poller. 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. I. 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 aunouneed 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 staffofa 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. absence.doc 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 #99-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 35§-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 .B 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 PCRB Complaint #99-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 ] of the alleged misconduct. DATE D: 750 Iowa 521 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES [4] II. We have many times emphasized 4. the distinction between jurisdiction and au- The IIAWK EYE and William thorlty. Se~ e.g., State v. Mandici~w, 509 Mertens, Appellees, N.W.2d 481, 482 (Iowa 1993). We agree that the trial court lacked authority to proceed in v. pn Woodbury County district court with this Patrick C. JACKSON, Appellant, cy special statutory remedy, onl Iowa Department of Public Safety, del [5, 6] As a general rule, contempt is un- Intervenor-Appellant. dis, available to enforce a money judgment. See No. 93-666. nic: Iowa Code § 626.1 (money judgments eh- fac~ forceable by execution; other commanded Supreme Court of Iowa. cid, acts are to be coerced by contempt); Iowa and Code 8 665.2 (generaIly setting forth con- Sept. 21, 1994. tip tempt grounds). A special statute, involving I.C support orders entered in dissolution of mar- riage decrees, provides aq exception to this Newspaper sought writ of mandamus 5. I rule. A disLrict court has authority to hear compelling disclosure of Division of Crbninal and determine contempt proceedings in the Investigation (DCI) report concerning allega- context of delinquent child support. Iowa t/on of use of excessive force by police, and sufl Code 8 598.23A (1993). the District Court, Des Moines County, John 1nv, C. Miller, J., granted writ. Divisimt appeal- rio, [7] But this power is a special one the ed, and the Supreme Court, Neuman, J., held was legislature accorded only in dissolution of that any public harm created by disclosure of witl marriage cases. It is not a separate cause of report was far outweighed by public harm abe, action, but a remedy specifically appended in accruing frmn nondisclosure, luct order to enforce orders already entered. We A/in-med. abo~ do not think the legislature intended for bi- fern furcation of disputes concerning support, wer, modification, or other matters that may arise 1. Mandamus z=q87.9(1) quit within a dissolution of marriage proceeding, inve Review of mandamus action by Supreme mad We are convinced the legislature intended for Court is de novo, and Supreme Court gives or Ii these matters to be pursued only within the original proceeding. Because the contempt weight to district court's fact-findings but is subj proceeding is merely aa adjunct to the case not bound by them. I.C.A. 8 661.3. men in Black Hawk district court, and not an 2. Records ~:~60 independent action, we agree that the appr0. 6. B priate remedy is dismissal, not transfer un- Privilege protecting peace officers' in- der rule of civil procedure 175. vestigative reports and communica~ons made to public officers in official confidence is qua]- resp forc( We agree that the Woodbury district court ified, and official claiming privilege must lacked authority to apply the contempt power show that public officer is being examined, conc available in Black Hawk district court, communication was made in official confi- publ dence, and public interest would suffer by cond AFFIRMED. disclosure. I.C.A. 8§ 22.7, 622.11. publi 3. Records ~=~60 7. R  Determination of whether public interest would suffer by disclosure of official commu- to es vacations for purposes of qualified privilege wcigl covering communications requires weighing con& relative merits of interests at stake. I.C.A. pub[i 8§ 22.7, 622.1L 622.1 HAWK EYE v. JACKSON Iowa 751 Cileas521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994} 4. Records ~=,~t 8. Records Aids to law enforcement of encouraging Release of conditionally privileged eom- persons to come forward with information, munieation by public officer does not depend protecting secrecy of informants, and allow- on s~atus of party seeking release. I.C.A. lng law enforcement officials necessary priva- §§ 22.7, 622.11. cy to discuss findings and theories constitute 9. Records ~=~52, 60 only one factor to be considered by court in Newspaper has same right of access as determining if public interest would suffer by any member of general public, and it is in disclosure of conditionally privileged commu- that representative capacity that newspaper's nications of law enforcement officials, and interest in disclosure of conditionally privi- factor is not determinative; other case-spe- leged communications by public officials must cfilc factors, such ~ nature of investigation be evaluated. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. and whether it is completed or ongoing, may tip balance in favor of public disclosure. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. Bbnnie J. Campbell, Atty. Gen., and Jef- frey D. Farrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel- 5. Records ~=~65 lants. Finding that public interest would not Gene R. Krekel :and H. Craig Miller of snffer by disclosure of Division of Criminal HLrsch, Adams, Krekel, Putnam & Cahill, Investigation (DCI)report concerning allega- Burlington, for appellees. tion of usc of excessive force by police efficer Susan M. Boe and Michael A. Giudicessi of was supported by evidence that only ~wo Faegre & Benson, Des Moines, for amicus witnesses to investigation expressed concern curiae Iowa Freedom of Information Council. about ~dving statements, and witnesses' re- luctance stemmed solely from uncertainty Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and ab,~ut upcoming civil litigation und not from HARRIS, LAVORATO, NEUMAN, and feat' of retaliation, no confidential informants TERNUS, JJ. were used in investigation, newspaper's in- quiry into incident urose only alter official NEUMAN, Justice. investigation had ceased, no showing was This appeal concerns a county attorney's made that report contained hearsay, rumor, refusal to produce an Iowa Division of Crimi- or libelous comment, and report contained no hal Investigation file for inspection by a newspaper. After weighing the interests of mendations. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. the public on the issue, the district court ordered the official to turn over the file. We 6. Records ~=~64 affirm. Allegations of leniency or cover-up with In the spring of 1991, Steve Sands, a re- respect to disciplining of those sworn to en- porter for the Burlington newspaper, The force the law are matters of great public Hawk Eye, wrote a series of articles aimed at concern in determining potential harm to local reaction to the highly publicized beating public interest to be suffered by disclosure of of Rodney King by Los Angeles police conditionally privileged statements made by cers. As a part of the series, Sands inter- public officers. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, 622.11. viewed local law enforcement officials about whether allegations of excessive force had 7. Records ~64 ever been lodged against a member of the Existence of alternate means of access Burlington police department. During one to essentially same inibrmation is factor to be of these interviews, Sands learned of a possi- weighed in determining whether disclosure of ble civil suit against police officer Michael conditionally privileged communications of Swore. Sands approached police chief Wen- public officials is warranted. I.C.A. §§ 22.7, dell Patton for his comment regarding the 622.11. suit. Patton, previously unaware of the alle- n, the cer in official confidence, when the public Jackson's blanket claim of privilege. Appel- cover- interests would suffer by the disclosure, lants' reasons for protecting the confidentiali- round [2] In State ex rel. Shanahan v. lowa ty of the DCI report, while not insubstantial, ~ther, Distr~ct Conrt, 356 N.W.2d 523, 528 (Iowa do not justify nondisclosure under the unique · His 1984), we observed that these two statutory facts of this case. I con- provisions express essentially the same legis- First, the compelling reasons m'dinarily y, eh- lative purpose with respect to DCI files: as~ underlying the need far witness confidentiali- DCI, surance to all persons upon whom law eh- ty are absent. Only Swore and one other ~oten- forcement officials rely that "official confi- witness expressed any concern about giving a ing a dentiality attends their conversations and statement. In each case the reluctance ~edia. may protect from public access the officers' stemmed solely from uncertainty about their ~l re- reports of what they have said." Id. The upcoming roles in the civil litigation, not con- 'liege. privilege cloaking these communications, cern over intimidation or retaliation. Both ~o the however, is qualified, not absolute. Id. at ultimately testified publicly in the civil trial, tisclo- 527. An official claiming the privilege must as did ten persons out of the total of fourteen v the satisfy a three-part test: (1) a public officer interviewed by I4isner. No confidential o the is being examined, (2) the communication formants were used in the investigation. a, the was made in official confidence, and (3) the cport public interest would suffer by disclosure, Second, the record reflects that the news- tl fol- Id, at 527; accord Shannon v. Hanse~ 469 paper's inquiry arose only after official inves- N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1991). tigation into the Swore incident had ceased .... Kisner reported that he closed the DCI file ~table [3] Only the third part of the test con- following the decision not to prosecute. nova. terns us here. Determining where the line Jackson expressed his belief that any recon- ,'c~r falls between public harm and public good sideration of his decision would be bmTed by give ': requires weighing the relative merits of the the applicable statute of limitations for as- s but interests at stake. We have long recognized sault. He was unaware of any pending fed- that confidentiality encourages persons to eral charges arising out of the same incident. '~blic come forward with information, whether sub- Thus any claim that an on-going investigation · e on stsntiated or not, that might be use( to solve might be hindered by disclosure of the report ,etlon crimes and deter criminal activity. Shana- is unsubstantiated.. ha~; 356 N.W.2d st 529. Secrecy is especial- Third, the appellants made no showing II be ly vital where reports are based on confiden- that the DCI report contained hearsay, pu- le'red ~Jal informants, persons indispensable to sue- cessfifl police work but who frequently fear mar, or libelous comment. Because the focus ,~tho*f the intimidation and reprisal, h/. at 529-30. of the investigation rested solely on Swore, Furthermore, nondisclosure permits law en- no legitimate concerns e~dst over named but innocent suspects. Kisner's report contained forcement officials the necessary privacy to no subjective theories, conclusions, or recom- discuss findings and theories about cases un- mendations, thus minimizing the need for '~'~' der investigation. Id. at 529. else~ secrecy present in most investigations. date, [4] We have also held, however, that The district court properly weighed the I'act~ these important aids to effective law enforce- foregoing facts against the newspaper's proof ,e or ment comprise only one factor to be consid- thut the public interest would be harmed by I un- ered by the court and are "not determinative denial of access to the DCI file. See Shana- ~sual as to the 'public interest' test." Shanno~ ha~ 356 N.W.2d at 530. The record reveals .auld 469 N.W.2d at 415. Other case-specific fac- that community interest and concern over estb tars, such as the nature of the investigation allegations of police brutality, already piqued sger and whether it is completed or ongoing, may by the events in Los Angeles, was height- tip the balance in favor of public disclosure. is: See id. ened by the suit against Swore. This inter- est grew upon the filing of a second civil suit d rz [5] III. Turning to the record before us, against him. Merteas testified that, once the offl-!~ ~e are convinced the court wisely rejected jury reached a verdict in apparent conflict '754 Iowa 521 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES with city officials' decisions, the newspaper unique facts of this case, any public harm received many more letters to the editor created by the disclosure of the DCI investi- expressing concern over both incidents, gatory report is far outwcighed by the public harm accruing from its nondisclosure. The [6] There can be little doubt that allega- district court's order compelling disclosure is tions of leniency or cover-up with respect to therefore af£~ned. the disciplining of those sworn to enforce the t law are matters of great public concern. AFFIRMED. This fact is underscored by Patton and Jack- 4 son's own testimony regarding the immediate action taken upon hearing Swore was ac- ~ c cueed of using excessive force, r. [7] Appellants nevertheless claim that the newspaper's need for disclosure is slight n because the same information could have n been gained from trial testimony or the In the Interest of C.T., A Minor, newspaper's own private interviews. It is C.T., Appellant. true that existence of an alternate means Of access to essentially the same information is No. 94-138. 5. a factor to be weighed in determining wheth- Supreme Court of Iowa. er disclosure is warranted. Id~ at 531. But motivating the newspaper's claim is its con- Sept. 21, 1994. cern that the information contained in the e~ DCI report may not be similar to that re- vealed at trial or secured by reporters out- Juvenile was adjudicated in the District fo side the courtroom. That suspicion is only Court, Scott County, Gary D. McKenrick, 6. strengthened by the jury's verdict. So long District Associate Judge, as delinquent after as it is barred from seeing the report, the being found to have committed acts of tam- newspaper is effectively prevented from as- pering with witness and criminal gang partic- nc seesing the reasonableness of the official ac- ipation, ,.and he appealed. The Supreme pr tion. Like the district court, we believe that Court, Ternus, J., held that: (1) determina- tit neither the trial testL'nony nor independent tion in prior adjudication that organization pr 'witness intetwiews would shed light on that was criminal street gang could not be used to § asseesment~ establish that fact in adjudication of juvenile 7. who was not party to or in privity with party [8, 9] Finally, we reject appellants' con- to earlier proceeding, but (2) evidence sup- tention that the newspapers' interest in the ported findings that juvenile bad committed rio report is lower--and thus less compelling-- acts of delivery of controlled substance and ne: than the interest of the plaintiff in Shana- criminal gang participation, is ha~, a litigant seeking discovery relevant to his civil lawsuit. Release of the report does Affirmed. 8. not depend on the status of the party seeking cie it. Northeast Council on S~bstance Able, L Assault and Battery e:~53 er~ In~ v. Iowa Depg of Public Health~ 513 One form of assault is going muned with lng N.W.2d 757, 761 (Iowa 1994). The newspa- intent to commit felony. I.C.A. § 708.8. per has the same right of access as any 9. member of the general public. See Head v. 2. Judgment ~707 Colloton, 331 N.W.2d 870, 874 (Iowa 1983). State could not use determination made crh It is/n that representative capacity that its in prior adjudication that organization was evi~ interest in disclosure must be evaluated. "criminal street gang" within meaning of of In summary, our de novo review of this statute in later adjmlicat~on of juvenile mem- cre~ record leads us to the same conclusion her of organization for criminal gang pattie- deli reached by the district court. Under the ipation where juvenile was not party to prior § 7 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 learning 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