HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2009 Police Citizens Review BoardAGENDA
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
February 10, 2009 — 5:30 P.M.
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
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 01/13/09
• ICPD General Order 99-02 (Alarm -Open Door Response)
• ICPD General Order 01-01 (Racial Profiling)
• ICPD General Order 01-06 (Juvenile Procedures)
• ICPD Department Memo #09-04 (Oct -Nov 2008 Use of Force Review)
ITEM NO. 3 OLD BUSINESS
Complaint Form Update regarding Officer Bill of Rights
Complaint registry/Monitoring System
ITEM NO. 4
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 5
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
ITEM NO. 6
BOARD INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 7
STAFF INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 8
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 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. 9 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS
• March 10, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
• April 14, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
• May 12, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
• June 9, 2009, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
ITEM NO.10 ADJOURNMENT
MEMORANDUM
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
DATE:
February 6, 2009
TO:
PCRB Members
FROM:
Kellie Tuttle
RE:
Board Packet for meeting on February 10, 2009
Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting:
• Agenda for 02/10/09
• Minutes of the meeting on 01/13/09
• ICPD General Order 99-02 (Alarm -Open Door Response)
• ICPD General Order 01-01 (Racial Profiling)
• ICPD General Order 01-06 (Juvenile Procedures)
• ICPD Department Memo #09-04 (Oct -Nov 2008 Use of Force Review)
• Complaint Deadlines
• PCRB Office Contacts — January
• Extension request regarding PCRB 08-09
• Draft of Sustained Allegation Report
• City Charter Information regarding hiring of Police Chief
Other resources available:
National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement
NACOLE provides information regarding civilian oversight in law enforcement nation wide. For more
information see: www.NACOLE.org
DRAFT
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — January 13, 2009
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Donald King, Greg Roth, Abbie Yoder
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle
OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Richard Wyss and Officers David Schwindt of the ICPD; and public,
Caroline Dieterle
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08-08
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Yoder and seconded by Braverman to adopt the consent calendar as
presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 11/18/08
• ICPD General Order #00-08 (Weapons) Replacing Pages 1,8, and 15
• ICPD General Order #01-08 (Criminal Intelligence)
• ICPD Quarterly Summary Report (All quarters) — IAIR/PCRB, 2008
Braverman confirmed that within General order #01-08 (Criminal Intelligence) page
3, Focus of Strategic Intelligence Activities, number 7 listing "Major crime including"
is actually "including but not limited to". Also on page 4, Evaluation of Information,
Braverman verified that the only information that will not be entered into the system
is when reliability is unknown and validity cannot be judged.
OLD BUSINESS Complaint Form Update regarding Officer Bill of Rights — Pugh researched false
reports. Iowa Criminal Code section 718.6 (False reports to communications with
public safety entities) refers to false reports to fire departments, law enforcement
authorities, or other public safety entities. Pugh does not believe the PCRB would
qualify as other public safety entities. If through the investigation the complainant
makes a false report to the investigating officers, it may quantify as a false report.
Iowa Criminal Code section 720.2 (Perjury, contradictory statements, and retraction)
deals with when a person is under oath or in an affidavit makes a false statement.
Pugh's question was if the complaint form rises to the same level as an affidavit.
Pugh does not believe it does. The signature is not notarized and does not state that
they swear the information is true and/or accurate. There is a statement that they
certify to the best of their knowledge that the statements on the form are true. Pugh
will draft some general language regarding false statements for the next meeting to
include on the information sheet and the complaint form.
Complaint Registry/Monitoring System — The Board requested that the officer
identifiers in the Chief's report to the Board be changed to alpha only (ie, Officer A,
Officer B, etc). Captain Wyss will speak to the Chief regarding this request. The
Board then agreed to keep a registry of sustained allegations only. The report will
include incident date, officer identifier #, and the sustained allegation. When there is
a sustained allegation, the Board will request an identifying # for the officer from the
Police Chief, and then enter the information on the report. Captain Wyss will look
January 13, 2009
Page 2
into identifier numbers for the officers. From this point forward the Board will review
the report quarterly and in the event of multiple sustained complaints against a
particular officer, the Board would forward the report to the City Council.
Motion by Braverman, seconded by King to start a complaint registry/monitoring
system for sustained complaints only as described. Motion carried 4/1, Roth no.
The Board will revisit this item at the February meeting to discuss the draft report and
the additional details Captain Wyss is checking on.
NEW BUSINESS None.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION Schwindt confirmed that it was the Police Department that would be providing the
officer identifier # for the sustained complaint report.
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
STAFF
INFORMATION None.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by King and seconded by Yoder 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, 5/0.
Open session adjourned at 6:34 P.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 6:47 P.M.
Motion by King, seconded by Braverman to forward the Public Report as amended
for PCRB Complaint #08-08 to City Council.
Motion carried, 5/0.
January 13, 2009
Page 3
Motion by Yoder, seconded by Braverman to request 45 day extension for PCRB
Complaint #08-09 due to timelines and scheduling.
Motion carried, 5/0.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• February 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• March 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• April 14, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• May 12, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Roth and seconded by King.
Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M.
o
t7'
�
o
��
N
O
O
N
z
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
January 13, 2009
To: City Council _.
Complainant
Michael Lombardo, City Manager
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint L.
From: Police Citizen's Review Board
Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08-08
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the: "Board") review of the
investigation of Complaint PCRB #08-08 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the
Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the
Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the
Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise", Section 8-8-7 B (2). While the City
Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that
the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by
substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police
Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law", Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 22, 2008. As required by
Section 8-8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for
investigation.
The Chief s Report was due on October 20, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on October 16,
2008.
The Board met to consider the Chief s Report on October 28, 2008, November 18, 2008 and
January 13, 2009. At the November 18`h meeting, a 45 day extension was requested until January
1
20, 2009. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1)
(a), "on the record with no additional investigation".
FINDINGS OF FACT
On July 22, 2008, the complainant filed a Police Citizen's Review Board Complaint alleging that
Iowa City Police Officers had harassed her and were rude to her in contacts with her and her service
dog. The complainant feels that on July 7, 2008 a citation was not issued to a driver she claims hit
her service dog because she had complained to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office about the
police department.
ALLEGATION# 1:
A few years ago an unknown officer approached her and her service dog in the downtown
pedestrian plaza. The officer failed to recognize that the dog was a service dog despite wearing a
vest. The complainant stated the officer harassed her and was not trained in regards to service dog
laws.
CONCLUSION:
The mention of an incident from several years ago with a current incident is not within the PG,RB's
complaint review process. (PCRB complaints are accepted within 90 days of an inci gjjt) NOT
ADDRESSED
ALLEGATION#2:
On an unknown date in May of 2008, the complainant says that Officer A approached `, -e �n ` ^
Y p Y pp E ,� g g
having her dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. She states, Officer A failed to recogze thaUier
dog was a service dog despite wearing a service dog's vest. The complainant states that Off.6i? A
was rude to her and harassed her.
CONCLUSION:
The complainant picked out Officer A's picture from a department picture in the department's
lobby. Officer A remembers dealing with the complainant, but.recalls meeting her on July 2,
2008. There is no substantial evidence to support the allegation that Officer A harassed her, was
.rude, or not trained to proficiency regarding service dogs. NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION#3:
On July 2, 2008, Officer B approached the complainant regarding her having a dog in the
downtown pedestrian plaza. The complainant stated Officer B harassed her, was rude to her and
failed to recognize her dog was a service dog, even though it was wearing a service dog vest.
2
CONCLUSION:
There is no substantial evidence to support the allegation that Officer B harassed her, was rude to
her, or was not trained to proficiency regarding service dog laws. City ordinance does not allow
dogs in the downtown pedestrian plaza unless they are service dogs. Officers are expected to
approach persons with dogs in the downtown pedestrian plaza for enforcement of this ordinance.
The complainant stated that once Officer B was informed that the dog was a service dog, no further
conversation took place. The complainant could not describe any specific act or recount any words
or phrases used by Officer B used to suggest he was rude and/or harassed her.
A review of Officer B's in -car video was done of the interaction with the complainant however; the
listener was unable to hear any conversation between the complainant and Officer B - _
NOT SUSTAINED r
ALLEGATION #4:LZ
- --f
On July 7, 2008 Officer C covered a call involving complainant's dog and a vehicle. ¢OfficerI did
not issue the driver of the vehicle a citation. The complainant believed this was in retaliation for
her complaining to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office about the police department. The
complainant did not make any allegations that Officer C was rude to her, that he harassed her, or
made any comments about her complaining about the Iowa City Police Department.
CONCLUSION:
Officer C responded to a call about a vehicle hitting the complainant's dog while in the crosswalk
on the southwest corner of Linn and Washington Streets. The complainant stated that she was
about half way into the crosswalk when a vehicle turning left onto Linn Street from westbound
Washington Street struck her dog. The complainant stated that she kept her dog at the location it
had been struck and she did not allow the driver to move his vehicle.
To issue a citation an Officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. Officer C
talked with three independent witnesses who stated that complainant's dog was not struck by the
vehicle. The complainant stated that she did not allow the vehicle driver to move his vehicle before
Officer C arrived on scene. Officer C stated that when he arrived the vehicle had stopped prior to
and out of the crosswalk. Officer C's in -car video also showed the vehicle out of the crosswalk.
Officer C's in -car video also showed the vehicle out of the crosswalk. Officer C denies knowing
anything about complainant's complaint to Congressman Loebsack's office. NOT SUSTAINED
ADDITIONAL FACTS:
On July 22, 2008 the complainant also filed a PCRB Complaint making several allegations
concerning the Police Chief's conduct. This Internal Investigation was conducted by the City
Manager and the City Attorney's Office as the Chief of Police was the subject of the complaint.
The Police Chief, Officers A, B, C, and D and the complainant were interviewed. All reports and
audio/video tapes were also reviewed.
3
ALLEGATION# 1:
The complainant alleged that the Police Chief refused to direct Officer C to issue a citation in
retaliation for her complaint to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office.
CONCLUSION:
The Chief made no attempt to influence Officer C's decision to issue a citation after learning about
the incident and the relevant facts, and supported Officer C's decision. His decision was reasonable
and not based on an attempt to harass or retaliate against the complainant. The Chief did not recall
being aware of the complainant prior to receiving the letter from Congressman Loebsack's office on
July 8, 2008 and therefore had no motive or opportunity to retaliate against her or even encourage
other members of the police department to retaliate or harass her at the time of the crosswalk
incident which had happened on July 7, 2008. NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION#2:
Complainant alleges that the Chief told her that she had no authority to go to Congressman
Loebsack's office because she had not been harassed by the police department.
CONCLUSION:
The Chief recalled, during his interview, that he merely mentioned that he had received a letter
from Congressman Loebsack's office and that the police department was not interested in hiring her
to educate them on service dogs. The Chief stated that he had no reason to be concerned about the
complainant's complaint to Congressman Loebsacks' office, as Congressman Loebsack has no
authority over the Chief or the police department. NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION#3:
The complainant alleges that the Chief lied to her when he allegedly stated he had spoken with her
service dog's vet, who felt that the dog was not hit in the crosswalk.
CONCLUSION:
The Chief s statements regarding the service dog's condition after, the July 7, 2008 crosswalk
incident were based not on a personal conversation between him and the vet, but rather based on
representations made to him by Officer D and an examination of the veterinary bill, which had been
provided to him by Officer D. NOT SUSTAINED
--
4
..
DEPARTMENT MEMO #09-04
TO: Chief Hargadine
FROM: Captain R. D. Wyss
RE: October -November 2008 Use of Force Review
DATE: 3 February, 2009
The "Use of Force Review Committee" met on January 301h, 2009. It was composed of Captain
Wyss, Sgt. Hurd and Sgt. Kelsay.
The review of submitted reports for October (16 incidents-24 reports) and November (14
incidents-22 reports) were completed. Of the 30 incidents, 5 were for a drawn sidearm (building
search or felony stop) and 0 were for the destruction of animals.
All personnel continue doing a good job in their documentation and review of the reports.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
3
V
Copy: City Manager, PCRB, Watch Commanders, Review Committee
OPS-08.1
ALARM -
OPEN DOOR
RESPONSE
Date of Issue General Order Number
February 9, 1999 199-02
Effective Date Section Code
February 5, 2009 OPS-08
Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels
February 2010 1 Department Memo 96-56
C.A.L. E.A. Reference
1.2.4, 1.3.6, 81.2.13 ISeeindex
INDEX AS:
Use of Force -, -
Supervisory Responsibility f
Building Search
Alarm / Open Door Response
Canine Procedure
I. PURPOSE
r
vD
The purpose of this policy is to define the responsibilities and duties of officers when
they respond to burglar alarms, bank alarms or "open door" calls.
II. POLICY
It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to respond to burglar alarms, bank
alarms and open door calls in a safe and efficient manner. When responding to these
types of calls, they shall be handled in manner which provides maximum safety for the
officer and the public. The decision to search a building in these circumstances will be
made only after attempting to contact a representative of the building, or when a
representative is unavailable, after considering all of the circumstances surrounding the
incident. Warrantless searches shall be conducted only if circumstances justifying a
warrantless search are present.
OPS-08.2
M
DEFINITIONS
PROCEDURES
rT
A. BURGLAR ALARMS =F'
When a member of this department responds to a burglar alarm tf e
officer should respond in a safe and reasonable manner. When
approaching the location of the alarm the officer should consider the
deactivation of emergency lights and siren if applicable. The officer
should be observant for vehicles and/or persons leaving the immediate
area. Upon arrival at the scene the officer should not park directly in front
of the location from which the alarm is coming, instead they should park
down the street from the alarm. The officer should approach the address
from as concealed a position as possible. Upon reaching the exterior of
the building, the officer should:
1. Check the exterior of the building for possible signs of a break-in.
The officer should also check for .open doors and monitor the
interior of the building for suspicious activity.
2. If there are no obvious signs of forcible entry, the officer should
notify communications. The alarm company is responsible for
contacting a business representative. Upon receiving notification
from the alarm company of the key holder response, the ECO
should advise the officer if a representative is going to respond. If
the representative requests that an officer accompany them into
the building, the officer may do so. When a representative requests
an officer to accompany them to inspect a building, a CAD entry
shall be made listing the name of the representative as well as their
relationship with the property in question. This will not constitute a
search.
3. If there are signs of forced entry or attempted entry, officers should
secure the perimeter of the building. When available, back-up
officer(s) should check the immediate area for possible suspects or
other buildings which may have been entered. Communications
will contact a representative of the building at the officer's request.
The representative shall be requested to come to the location
before an officer enters the building. The contact will allow officers
the opportunity to determine if anyone would be expected to be in
the building. A supervisor should respond to the scene before
entry is made.
4. If a building representative can not be contacted, a supervisor will
make the determination whether: 1) officers will enter the building
to conduct a search; 2) the building will not be entered and "extra
OPS-08.3
patrol" initiated for the building; and/or, 3) a search warrant will be
requested. Extra patrol requests will be forwarded to subsequent
watches as applicable. Regardless of the decision to enter or
secure the building, the supervisor of the day watch or designee
will attempt to contact a building representative the next business
day. The building representative will be informed of the date, time
and pertinent details of the incident and be asked for updated
business contact information.
5. In instances where the building representative declines to come to
the scene, a watch supervisor may authorize a search of the
building if the building representative requests and consents to a
search.
6. In instances where there is forced or attempted entry, the lead
officer shall complete an incident report and required supplemental
reports. ,
0 1 :w
6. OPEN DOORS AND WINDOWS
When an officer comes upon or is made aware of an open-door, the
following guidelines should be adhered -to: " E
1. The officer(s) will secure the perimeter. At the officer' requf��t,
communications will contact a building representative to come -to
the location before any officer enters the building.
2. If the building representative cannot be contacted or does not
desire to come to the location, the officer(s) will secure the building
to the extent possible and initiate an "extra patrol" request for the
duration of the watch and subsequent watches as applicable. The
day watch commander will contact the building representative the
next business day. The business representative will be advised of
the date and time of the incident and be asked for updated
business contact information.
C. SEARCH PROCEDURES
If a property representative is not available and there is a
reasonable basis on which to conclude that an emergency threat to
persons and/or property exists, a supervisor may authorize
warrantless entry and search by officers. In the absence of such
circumstances, any search must be pursuant to warrant.
2. In instances where the building representative declines to come to
the scene, the watch supervisor may authorize a search of the
building if the building representative requests and consents to a
search. This does not require that the building be searched.
OPS-08.4
3. When a determination to search is made, with or without the
contacting of a property representative, a supervisor should be
present at the scene.
4. If a determination is made to search the property, officers should
consider requesting an available canine team in assisting with the
search. All use of canine teams shall comply with canine policies
and procedures.
5. If it is determined that a search will be conducted, officers shall
verbally identify themselves as members of the Iowa City Police
Department prior to entry. If exigent circumstances exist, this
notification may be waived by the supervisor on the scene.
When assisting an outside agency, members of this department will be guided
by this policy. Prior to the search of the building, a watch supervisor should be
present. The watch supervisor should confirm that the person requesting the
search has authority to authorize the search.
When the building to be searched is a public building under the control of the
City of Iowa City, an attempt to contact the appropriate department head should
be made prior to authorizing the search of the building.
When a determination is made that an officer will search a building, the officer
will make the determination as to whether he/she will draw his/her weapon. If
the officer decides to draw his/her weapon, a use of force report will be required
only if an individual other than other police officers are encountered. In instances
where multiple officers are involved in the search of a building and an individual
is encountered, the on -scene supervisor may authorize one Use of Force report
for all units present. IN ALL INSTANCES, ALL OFFICERS SHALL BE GUIDED
BY THE DEPARTMENTAL USE OF FORCE POLICY.
D. BANK ALARMS
Officers responding to bank alarms or other financial institu'tians shall
utilize the authorized departmental protocol as identified:, in -Ahe
Department's Field Training Manual. :mm ,
Sami I Hargadine ief of Police
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
OPS-17.1
PROFILING
Date of Issue General Order Number
January 10, 2001 01-01
Effective Date Section Code
January 21st, 2009 OPS-17
Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels
January 2010`
_ T}
C.A.L.E.A. Reference
1.2.9
INDEX AS:
Racial Profiling Search and Seizure
Complaints Traffic Stops
Supervisor Responsibilities Arrests
Warrants Discipline
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this order is to unequivocally state that racial and ethnic profiling by
members of this department in the discharge of their duties is unacceptable, to provide
guidelines for officers to prevent such occurrences, and to protect officers from
unfounded accusations when they act within the parameters of the law and
departmental policy.
II. POLICY
It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to patrol in a proactive manner, to
investigate suspicious persons and circumstances, and to actively enforce the laws,
while insisting that citizens will only be detained when there exists reasonable suspicion
(i.e. articulable objective facts) to believe they have committed, are committing, are
about to commit an infraction of the law, or there is a valid articulable reason for
contact. Additionally, the seizure and request for forfeiture of property shall be based
solely on the facts of the case and without regard to race, ethnicity or sex.
OPS-17.2
III. DEFINITIONS
Racial profiling - The detention, interdiction, exercise of discretion or use of authority
against any person on the basis of their racial or ethnic status or characteristics.
Reasonable suspicion - Suspicion that is more than a "mere hunch" or curiosity, but is
based on a set of articulable facts and circumstances that would warrant a person of
reasonable caution to believe that an infraction of the law has been committed, is about
to be committed or is in the process of being committed, by the person or persons
under suspicion. ("Specific and articulable cause to reasonably believe criminal activity
is afoot.")
IV. PROCEDURES
The department's enforcement efforts will be directed toward assigning officers to those
areas where there is the highest likelihood that vehicle crashes will be reduced,
complaints effectively investigated or addressed, and/or crimes prevented through
proactive patrol.
A. In the absence of a specific, credible report containing a physical description, a
person's race, ethnicity, or gender, or any combination of these shall not be a factor
in determining probable cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for a stop.
B. Traffic enforcement shall be accompanied by consistent, ongoing supervisory
oversight to ensure that officers do not go beyond the parameters of reasonablenes�-)n
conducting such activities.
1. Officers shall cause accurate statistical information to be recorded in ardarwe
with departmental guidelines.
2. The deliberate recording of any inaccurate information regarding a person
stopped for investigative or enforcement purposes is prohibited and a cause for
disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
C. Motorists and pedestrians shall only be subjected to investigatory stops or brief
detentions upon reasonable suspicion that they have committed, are committing, or
are about to commit an infraction of the law. Each time a motorist is stopped or
detained, the officer shall radio to the dispatcher the location of the stop and any
pertinent descriptors relevant or unique to that stop. The exception to this procedure
is when officers are taking part in safety checkpoints and are working with other
officers.
D. If the police vehicle is equipped with a video camera, the video and sound shall be
activated prior to the stop to record the circumstances surrounding the stop, and
shall remain activated until the person is released.
E. No motorist, once cited or warned, shall be detained beyond the point where there
exists no reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity.
OPS-17.3
F. No person or vehicle shall be searched in the absence of a warrant, a legally
recognized exception to the warrant requirement as identified in General Order
00-01, Search and Seizure, or the person's voluntary consent.
1. In each case where a search is conducted, information shall be recorded,
including the legal basis for the search, and the results thereof.
2. A cursory "sniff' of the exterior of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation by a
police canine may be recorded on the department's canine action report form.
TRAINING
Officers shall receive initial and ongoing training in proactive enforcement
tactics, including training in officer safety, courtesy, cultural diversity, the laws
governing search and seizure, and interpersonal communications skills.
1. Training programs will emphasize the need to respect the rights of all
citizens to be free from unreasonable government intrusion or police
action.
COMPLAINTS OF RACIAUETHNIC PROFILING
Any person may file a complaint with the department if they feel they have
been stopped or searched based on racial, ethnic, or gender -based profiling.
No person shall be discouraged or intimidated from filing such a complaint, or
discriminated against because they have filed such a complaint.
1. Any member of the department contacted by a person, who wishes to file
such a complaint, shall refer the complainant to a Watch Supervisor who
shall provide them with a departmental or PCRB complaint form when
requested. The supervisor shall provide information on how to complete
the departmental complaint form and shall record the complainants name,
address and telephone number.
2. Complaints which result in the initiation of an investigation shall be
conducted as directed by General Order 99-06, Internal Affairs
Investigations.
3. Supervisors should periodically review a sample of in -car video of stops
made by officers under their command. Additionally, supervisors, hall
review reports relating to stops by officers under their command;„ aRnd
respond at random to assist or observe officers on vehicle stops. i `d
4. Supervisors shall take appropriate action whenever it appears that iihis
policy is being violated.
wo
REVIEW
OPS-17.4
1. On an annual basis or as requested by the Chief of Police, the
Commanding Officer Administrative Services, or designee, shall provide
reports to the Chief of Police with a summary of the sex, race, and/or
ethnicity of persons stopped.
2. If it reasonably appears that the number of self -initiated traffic contacts by
officers has unduly resulted in disproportionate contacts with members of
a racial or ethnic minority, a determination shall be made as to whether
such disproportionality appears department wide, or is related to a specific
unit, section, or individual. The commander of the affected unit, section,
or officer shall provide written notice to the Chief of Police of any reasons
or grounds for the disproportionate rate of contacts.
3. Upon review of the written notice, the Chief of Police may direct additional
training towards the affected units/sections or to individual officers.
4. On an annual basis, the department may make public a statistical
summary of the race, ethnicity, and sex of persons stopped for traffic
violations.
5. On an annual basis, the department may make public a statistical
summary of all profiling complaints for the year, including the findings as
to whether they were sustained, not sustained, or exonerated.
6. If evidence supports a finding of a continued ongoing pattern of racial or
ethnic profiling, the Chief of Police may institute disciplinary action up to
and including termination of employment of any involved individual
officer(s) and/or their supervisors.
7 e� . %
Sa uel Hargadi hief of Police
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 a 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.
"q
Y
�T
OPS-19.1
or
Go ocv-
JUVENILE ��
PROCEDURES r
Date of Issue General Order Number
NOVEMBER 20, 2001 01-06
Effective Date Section Code
January 19, 2009 OPS-19
Reevaluation Date Amends / Cancels
JANUARY 2010
C.A.L. E.A. Reference
1.2.5, Chapter ", 82.1.2
c�
INDEX AS: = :;
Arrest
Investigation Procedures
Searches
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for members of the Iowa City Police
Department when dealing with juveniles in enforcement, custody, and child welfare
situations.
II. POLICY
The Iowa City Police Department is committed to the reduction of juvenile delinquency
and committed to the development and continuation of programs designed to prevent
and control juvenile delinquency. The Departments juvenile function is the equal
responsibility of all members, units and functions within the department. It is the
responsibility of all members of the Iowa City Police Department to familiarize
themselves with juvenile problems and established procedures for handling both
criminal and non -criminal juvenile incidents as defined in this policy. Officers should
bear in mind that only a small percentage of juveniles commit the majority of juvenile
crimes. While this small percentage may require secure custody, the vast majority of
juvenile offenders are likely candidates for non -secure custody and positive diversion
and intervention strategies. With this in mind, officers should, when reasonable and
justified under this policy, take those measures necessary to effect positive changes in
juvenile offenders that are consistent with state law and the safety and security interests
of the community.
OPS-19.2
III. DEFINITIONS
Status Offender: A juvenile who is charged with an offense that would not be a crime if
committed by an adult.
Responsible Adult: In the absence of a juvenile's parents or legal guardian, a
responsible adult is one who is responsible for the physical custody of a juvenile or who
is another adult acquaintance of the juvenile's parents or legal guardian who agrees
and reasonably demonstrates the ability to provide supervision for the juvenile until
parents, guardians or next of kin can assume responsibility.
Non -Secure Custody: A condition under which a juvenile's freedom of movement is
controlled by members of this agency and, during such time, the juvenile
1. is held in an unlocked, multi -purpose area that is in no way designed for
residential use, such as a report writing room or an office or;
2. is at no time handcuffed to any stationary object or;
3. is held only long enough to complete identification, investigation and
processing and then released to a parent, guardian or responsible adult or
transferred to a juvenile facility or court; or
4. is under continuous visual supervision until released.
Secure Custody: A condition in which a juvenile is physically detained or confined in a
locked room, set of rooms or a cell that is designated, set aside or used for the specific
purpose of securely detaining persons who are in law enforcement custody or when the
juvenile is physically. secured to a stationary object.
IV. PROCEDURES
A. Enforcement Alternatives
Officers dealing with juveniles in enforcement capacities may exercise reasonable
discretion as outlined in this policy in deciding on appropriate actions. Alternatives that
may be considered include, but are not limited to;
1. release without further action; _
2. informal counseling to inform the youth of the consequences of his actions;-
3. informal referrals to community services; t
4. referral to parents or responsible adult;
5. informal counseling of parents or responsible adult;
6. limited non -secure custody and warning at the PD;
7. issuance of summons or complaint; c ' �- `J
8. arrest under non -secure custody; and
9. arrest under secure custody. y v
Upon deciding on an appropriate course of action, officers should abide by any
notification requirements, consistent with state law and other departmental directives.
OPS-19.3
B. Enforcement Criteria
The following general guidelines may be used in determining appropriate enforcement
and related actions that may be taken when dealing with juvenile incidents:
I. Release without further action following informal counseling may be appropriate in
certain minor incidents.
II. When in the officers opinion, more than informal counseling needs to occur, the
officer may elect to do one or more of the following: Make contact with the juvenile's
parent(s), guardian or other responsible adult; make a delinquency referral to an
appropriate community service agency with or without follow-up; detain the juvenile at
the PD until he/she can be released to a parent or guardian. These actions may be
appropriate when:
A. the incident is of a more serious nature; or
B. the attitude conveyed by the juvenile demonstrates a lack of realizing the
seriousness of the incident; or
C. the juvenile has received prior warning, referrals, or has engaged in previous
delinquent acts; or
D. the juvenile's parent, guardian or responsible adult fails to provide appropriate
control or supervision
III. Officers may make a delinquency referral when the circumstances surroyagding the
incident meet or exceed the seriousness mentioned above. Officers should :makop--a }
criminal referral against juveniles when they commit: —'
A. Acts that if committed by an adult would be serious misdemeanor'or higWer
level charge.
B. acts involving weapons;
C. gang related offenses; >
D. acts which are assaultive in nature;=
E. acts committed while on probation or when they have charges pending
against them;
F. acts as repeat offenders or when they have refused to participate in diversion
or intervention programs; or
G. When it has been determined that parental or other adult supervision is
ineffective.
When a juvenile is taken into custody and when circumstances warrant, he/she should
be transported to the police department or the detention facility as soon as reasonably
practical, after being taken in to custody.
IV. An officer may also take a juvenile into custody if the juvenile is in imminent danger
to life or health, seriously endangered or is a runaway, or in violation of an order of
disposition. In all such cases these juveniles shall be held in non -secure custody and
officers should contact the juvenile's parent(s) or guardian as soon as reasonably
possible. When the parent(s) or guardian cannot be contacted or refuse to accept
custody, the officer should contact the Youth Shelter for placement.
OPS-19.4
V. In cases of alleged child abuse or endangerment, first insure the safety of the
child(ren) / juvenile involved. The watch supervisor should be contacted and a
determination made as to if an investigator should be called or whether the responding
officer should make telephonic contact with the Department of Human Services and
finish the initial report and forward the report before the end of his/her watch to the
investigations section. Copies of all reports shall also be forwarded to the Department
of Human Services. Where probable cause exists to support a criminal charge of child
abuse, an arrest is justified and the suspect should be taken into custody. If there is
insufficient information available at the time to make a determination as to the existence
of child abuse, the officer shall, in consultation with the Department of Human Services,
take steps to ensure the safety of the child(ren)/juvenile:
C. Status Offenses
I. Based on the seriousness of and circumstances surrounding the offense, the
background and demeanor of the juvenile and other relevant factors, an officer may
release a juvenile to his parents, guardian or other responsible adult. Prior to releasing
a juvenile to someone other than the parent, the officer shall make reasonable steps to
contact the parents for approval of the release.. When the juvenile is released to
someone other than a parent, the officer shall identify and document the person taking
custody prior to the release of the juvenile.
II. Juveniles taken into custody for status offenses may be frisked for weapons prior to
being transported.
III. Handcuffs or .other restraints will only be used when: the juvenile being taken into
custody physically resists; threatens physical violence when being taken into custody; is
being taken into custody for an alleged delinquent act of violence against a person;,.pr
when in the judgment of the officer, the juvenile presents a risk of injury to tR mselvQs
or others.
ria
IV. Officers shall pay particular attention to juveniles under the influence of 1cohoLor
drugs to determine whether emergency medical services are warranted.
V., Juveniles taken into custody for status offenses shall be held in non-securCE&St6ay,
for the purposes of identification, investigation, and related processing requir 'ments�o
facilitate their release to a parent or responsible adult or transport to a juvenile shelter
facility.
VI. Transportation of a juvenile in a "caged" vehicle is not considered secure custody.
VII. Status offenders and other juveniles taken into custody should not be placed in
an area with adult suspects and shall also be:
1. under constant observation;
2. .afforded reasonable access to toilets and washing facilities;
3. provided with access to water or other nourishment as needed;
4. allowed reasonable access to a telephone.
OPS-19.5
D. Criminal Offenses
I. Juveniles taken into custody for criminal type offenses may be placed in restraints if
the juvenile physically resists; threatens physical violence when being taken into
custody; is being taken into custody for an alleged delinquent act of violence against a
person; or when, in the reasonable judgment of the officer, the juvenile presents a risk
of injury to themselves or others. The parent, guardian, or custodian shall be notified
as soon as reasonably possible once a juvenile is taken into custody.
II. Unless the juvenile is placed in shelter care or detention, the juvenile shall be
released to their parent, guardian, custodian, responsible adult relative, or other adult
approved by the court.
III. Fingerprints and photographs of juveniles shall be taken and used in conformance
with the Code of Iowa chapter 232.148.
IV. Juveniles in custody should be questioned in conformance with the Departmental
Juvenile Waiver form. When practical, juveniles should be allowed to consult with their
parent(s). To the extent practical, parents should be allowed to be present during the
interrogation of juveniles. Questioning of juveniles should be limited in duration,
preferably one hour or less, and questioning limited to two officers.
V. Prior to terminating an interrogation, the questioning officer shall advise the juvenile
and/or his/her legal guardian or responsible adult of the procedures to be used in
making contact with the juvenile court office, in addition to information relating to
applicable court appearances or other means of dealing with criminal charges.
VI. Prior to requesting consent to search from a juvenile, officers should attempt to
contact the person in actual control of the property to be searched. When requesting
consent to search from a juvenile, officers shall consider the age of the juvenile.
Officers should not request consent to search from juveniles appearing to be under the
age of fourteen. When requesting consent to search from a juvenile, the requesting
officer shall clearly explain the voluntary nature of the request and the right of the
juvenile to refuse the request.
A. When officers are unable to contact the person in actual control of the
property to be searched, and the search is based on the consent of -a juvenile
fourteen years of age or older, the officer shall request a supervisor respond'to
the scene to determine how to proceed.
This section does not apply when the property to be searched is a motor vehicle find
under the control of a juvenile.
E. Reporting
I. Officers shall document contacts with juveniles on the Departmental Juvenile
Complaint form. The form shall be filled out as completely as possible. Juvenile
contacts include but are not limited to:
OPS-19.6
A. When a charge is filed or contemplated, other than the exceptions contained
in chapter 232.8 of the Code of Iowa. (cite and release exceptions)
B. transport of juveniles;
C. Field Interview (FI) contacts with juveniles (for juveniles this will be used in
lieu of FI cards), in these type situations officers should note on the complaint
that it was a FI contact.
D. juveniles in the company of others at the proximate time an offense was
committed;
E. Other circumstances as determined by watch supervisors or the Report
Review Officer.
II. Officers shall fill out the Incident Report form consistent with those categories in
which one is required for adult suspects.
III. On an annual basis the Sergeant of Planning and. Research shall analyze, evaluate
and report on the enforcement and prevention actions taken by the department. The
report shall include both a quantitative and qualitative component. The report should
contain recommendations for the continuance and/or modification of current
departmental efforts and or directives.
Samuel arga _ e, Chief of Police
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 a 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.
February 10, 2009 Mtg Packet
PCRB COMPLAINT DEADLINES
PCRB Complaint #08-09
Filed: 10/10/08
Chief's Report due (90days): 01/08/09
Chief's Report filed: 01/05/09
PCRB Mtg #1 (Review & Assign) 02/10/09
PCRB Mtg #2 (Review Draft Report) 03/10/09
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCRB Report due (45days): 02/19/09
45 day Extension Request: 04/05/09
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCRB MEETING SCHEDULE
March 10, 2009
April 14, 2009
May 12, 2009
June 9, 2009
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
OFFICE CONTACTS
January 2009
Date Description
None
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
January 14, 2009
Mayor Regenia Bailey
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
At the January 13, 2009 meeting, the PCRB voted in open session to request a 45-day
extension regarding the reporting deadline for the Public Report according to the City Code for
PCRB Complaint #08-09 for the following reasons:
• Due to timelines, and scheduling
• Public Report presently due February 19, 2009
45-day Extension request — Report would be due on Apri 5, 2009
The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
�r
�l'1 cG,a e f La
Michael Larson, Chair
Police Citizens Review Board
cc: City Attorney
Updated 99/99/99
DRAFT
SAMPLE
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
SUSTAINED ALLEGATION REPORT
INCIDENT
DATE
OFFICER
IDENTIFIER #
SUSTAINED ALLEGATION
99/99/99
123456
Officer was rude and harassed complainant.
99/99/99
456789
Officer was rude and harassed complainant.
99/99/99
123456
Officer was rude and harassed complainant.
Page 1 of I
Kellie Tuttle
From: Kellie Tuttle
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:32 AM
To: caroline-dieterle@uiowa.edu'
Subject: information request
Caroline,
Here's the information per the City Charter.
City Charter
Section 2.08. Appointments.
A. The council shall appoint the city manager.
B. The council shall appoint the city clerk. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
C. The council shall appoint the city attorney. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995)
Section 4.04. Duties Of City Manager.
A. The city manager shall be chief administrative officer of the city and shall:
(3) Appoint the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire department with the
approval of the city council.
Kellie Tuttle
City of Iowa City
City Clerk's Office
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Ph (319) 356-5043
Fax (319) 356-5497
1 / 14/2009