HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2015 Community Police Review BoardMEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
DATE:
September 1, 2015
TO:
CPRB Members
FROM:
Kellie Tuttle
RE:
Board Packet for meeting on September 8, 2015
Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting:
• Agenda for 09/08/15
• Minutes of the meeting on 07/20/15
• ICPD Department Memo 15-18 (June 2015 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — June 2015
• ICPD General Order 99-08 (Body Worn Cameras and In -Car Recorders)
• Office Contacts — July 2015
• Office Contacts —August 2015
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.orp
AGENDA
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
Sepetmber 8, 2015 — 5:30 P.M.
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM
410 E. Washington Street, IC
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 07/20/15
• ICPD Department Memo 15-18 (June 2015 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — June 2015
• ICPD General Order 99-08 (Body Worn Cameras and In -Car Recorders)
ITEM NO. 3 NEW BUSINESS
• Select Nominating Committee
ITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC DISCUSSION
ITEM NO. 5 BOARD INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 6 STAFF INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 7 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS
• October 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• November 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• December 8, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• January 12, 2016, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
ITEM NO. 8 ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
(formerly Citizens Police Review Board)
MINUTES — July 20, 2015
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fidencio Martinez, Joseph Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter, Mazahir Salih
STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Pat Ford and Staff Kellie Tuttle
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB FYI Annual Report
(2) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #15-02
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or
amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 06/16/15
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
CPRB FYI Annual Report - After review, the Board had minor changes to the report.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez to accept the FYI Annual report as amended and
forward to the City Council.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
With the possibility of being his last meeting, Jensen thanked Martinez for his service on the
Board and to the community. Martinez's term ends September 1 and may not be available for
an August meeting due to scheduling.
STAFF INFORMATION
None.
July 20, 2015
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Martinez, seconded by Treloar 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, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent. Open session adjourned at 5:40 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:50 P.M.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez, to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB
Complaint #15-02 to City Council.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• August 11, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• September 8, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• October 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Martinez and Jensen will not be available the week of August 11th. Staff will look at meeting
materials and contact Board members to schedule a date if a August meeting is needed.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Martinez, seconded by Treloar.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:53 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
(Formerly Citizens Police Review Board)
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2014-2015
(Meeting Date)
TERM
9/15
10113
11110
11/25
12/3
12/8
12/29
2/10
3/10
4/7
4/28
5/20
6/16
7/20
NAME
EXP.
Melissa
911/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jensen
Joseph
911/17
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Treloar
Royceann
9/1/16
O
X
O
O
X
X
X
O
X
X
XO
O/E
O/E
Porter
Mazahir
911/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O
O
Salih
Fidencio
911/15
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
Martinez
KEY: X =
Present
O =
Absent
O/E =
Absent/Excused
NM =
No meeting
--- =
Not a Member
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Established in 1997, by ordinance #97-3792, the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board formerly
known as Citizens Police Review Board and now known as Community Police Review Board
(hereafter referred as the CPRB), consists of five members appointed by the City Council. The CPRB
has its own outside legal counsel.
The Board was established to review investigations into claims of police misconduct, and to assist the
Police Chief, the City Manager, and the City Council in evaluating the overall performance of the
Police Department by reviewing the Police Department's investigations into complaints. The Board is
also required to maintain a central registry of complaints and to provide an annual report setting forth
the numbers, types, and disposition of complaints of police misconduct. The Board shall hold at least
one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing citizens' views on the policies, practices
and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department. To achieve these purposes, the Board complies
with Chapter 8 of the Iowa City Code and the Board's By -Laws and Standard Operating Procedures
and Guidelines.
In FY2015. an educational video was prepared for use on cable TV. In May, City Council adopted the
recommendations of the Charter Review Commission, changing the name to Community Police
Review Board.
ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
Meetings
The CPRB tentatively holds monthly meetings on the second Tuesday and special meetings as
necessary. During FY15 the Board held fourteen meetings and one Community Forum.
ICPD Policies/Procedures/Practices Reviewed By CPRB
The ICPD regularly provided the Board with monthly Use of Force Reports, Internal Investigation
Logs, Demographic Reports and various Training Bulletins. The Department also provided various
General Orders for the Board's review and comment. A senior member of the Police Department
routinely attended the open portion of the CPRB meetings, and was available for any questions Board
members had regarding these reports.
Presentations
In April of 2015 the Board held its seventh Community Forum as required by the City Charter. The
Board did introductions and the forum was opened to the public for questions. There were twelve
members of the public that spoke at the forum. Topics of discussion included the following: Board
responsibilities, military surplus equipment, body cameras, racial disparity, profiling, and diversity in
the police department.
Board Members
In October 2014 officers were nominated with Melissa Jensen as Chair and Joseph Treloar as Vice -
Chair. Fidencio Martinez was appointed in November of 2014 for an unexpired term.
CPRB Annual Report FY 2015 — Approved 07/20/2015 — 1
COMPLAINTS
Number and Type of Allegations
Eleven complaints(14-03,14-04,14-05,14-06,14-07,14-08,14-09,14-10,14-11,15-01,15-02) were filed
during the fiscal year July 1, 2014 — June 30, 2015, Eight public reports were completed during this
fiscal period(14-02,14-03,14-04,14-06,14-08,14-11,15-01). One complaint was withdrawn (14-07)
and three complaints were summarily dismissed (14-05,14-09,14-10) The remaining complaint filed in
FY15 is pending before the Board (15-02).
Allegations
Complaint #14-02
1. Excessive Use of Force — SUSTAINED.
Complaint #14-03
1. Illegal Search of the Vehicle — NOT SUSTAINED.
2. Harassment— NOT SUSTAINED.
3. Use of a Racial Epithet —NOT SUSTAINED.
Complaint #14-04
1. Responsibilities — NOT SUSTAINED.
2. Obedience to laws and regulations— NOT SUSTAINED.
3. Incompetence — NOT SUSTAINED.
Complaint #14-05
SUMMARILY DISMISSED
Complaint #14-06
1. Unlawful Search — NOT SUSTAINED.
2. Unlawful Seizure — NOT SUSTAINED.
Complaint #14-07
WITHDRAWN.
Complaint #14-08
1. Officer included inaccurate information in an official police report — NOT SUSTAINED.
2. This was retaliation against the Complainant for filing a complaint against another
officer in an earlier CPRB complaint — NOT SUSTAINED.
Complaint #14-09
SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
Complaint #14-10
SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
Complaint #14-11
1. Officer failed to sufficiently investigate the motor vehicle collision as directed by ICPD General
Order 99-09, Section IV, Procedures. — NOT SUSTAINED.
2. Officer's determination that the Complainant was at fault in the accident was incorrect and the
traffic citation for following too closely should not have been issued — SUSTAINED.
3. Officer did not listen to the Complainant's point of view in regard to how the accident occurred
— NOT SUSTAINED.
CPRB Annual Report FY 2015 — Approved 07/20/2015 — 2
4. Officer's threat to take the Complainant to jail was inappropriate under these circumstances —
NOT SUSTAINED.
5. Officer issued the Complainant a citation because she is not an "American". — NOT
SUSTAINED.
Complaint #15-01
1. Racial Profiling — NOT SUSTAINED.
2. Discourtesy— NOT SUSTAINED.
Level of Review
The Board decided, by simple majority vote, the level of review to give each report, selecting one or
more of the six levels specified in the City Code per complaint:
Level a
On the record with no additional investigation 7
Level b
Interview or meet with complainant 0
Level c
Interview or meet with named officer 0
Level d
Request additional investigation by Chief or 0
City Manager, or request police assistance
in the Board's own investigation
Level a
Board performs its own additional investigation 0
Level f
Hire independent investigators 0
Complaint Resolutions
The Police Department investigates complaints to the CPRB of misconduct by police officers. The
Police Chief summarizes the results of these investigations and indicates in a report (the Chief's
Report) to the CPRB whether allegations are sustained or not sustained. (If complaints are made
against the Chief, the City Manager conducts the investigation and prepares and submits the reports.)
The Board reviews both the citizens' complaint and the Chief's Report and decides whether its
conclusions about the allegations should be sustained or not sustained. The Board prepares a report
which is submitted to the City Council.
Of the eighteen allegations listed in the seven complaints for which the Board reported, two were
sustained.
The Board made comments and/or recommendations for improvement in police policy, procedures, or
conduct in three of the reports:
Complaint #14-02 — The CPRB acknowledges that suitable changes have been made to the Weapons
policy.
Complaint #14-04 — The original eight allegations are summarized in the three categories listed
above.
Complaint 15-01 - CPRB acknowledges cultural differences and mannerisms may make it
difficult to accurately assess and interpret behavior, especially when compared to others
behavior/responses.
Name -Clearing Hearings
The ordinance requires that the Board not issue a report
after a name -clearing hearing has been held. During
name -clearing hearings, but none were held.
critical of the conduct of a sworn officer until
this fiscal period, the Board scheduled two
CPRB Annual Report FY 2015 — Approved 07/20/2015 — 3
Complaint Histories of Officers
City ordinance requires that the annual report of the CPRB must not include the names of
complainants or officers involved in unsustained complaints and must be in a form that protects the
confidentiality of information about all parties. In the seven complaints covered by the FY15 annual
report a total of ten officers were involved with allegations against them.
ICPD Internal Investigations Logs
The Board reviewed the quarterly ICPD Internal Investigations Log, provided by the Chief of Police.
COMPLAINT DEMOGRAPHICS
The following is demographic information from the seven complaints that were completed in this fiscal
year. Because complainants provide this voluntarily, the demographic information may be
incomplete.
* Category/Number of Complainants
Ape:
National Origin:
Color:
Under 21
0
American
2
White 2
21 & over
4
Unknown
5
Black 1
Unknown
3
Brown 1
Unknown 3
Sexual Orientation:
Gender Identity:
Sex:
Heterosexual
1
Female
1
Female 1
Unknown
6
Male
2
Male 2
Unknown
4
Unknown 4
Marital Status:
Religion:
Mental Disability:
Single
2
Unknown
6
No 0
Married
1
None
1
Yes 1
Unknown
4
Unknown 6
Divorced
0
Physical Disability:
No 1
Yes 0
Unknown 6
* Information is reported as presented by the person completing the form.
BOARD MEMBERS
Melissa Jensen, Chair
Joseph Treloar, Vice Chair
Royceann Porter
Mazahir Salih
Maxime Tremblay/Fidencio Martinez
CPRB Annual Report FY 2015 — Approved 07/20/2015 — 4
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
(formerly known as Citizens Police Review Board)
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
July 20, 2015
0
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
r—
Equity Director
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
�+
cti
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #15-02
This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #15-02 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chief's report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(3).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the
officer involved.
E,
C 5
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 03/18115, As required by Sec=t;r,
—
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for inigat6�0.
'"
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on 05/21/15. "
�'
cn
The Board voted on 06/16/15 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: & the record
with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(1)(a).
As customary the Police Chief provided a copy of all audio or video recordings of the incident.
The Board met to consider the Report on 06/16/15 and 07/20/15.
Board members independently reviewed audio or video recordings of the incident prior to this meeting.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 9, 2015, Iowa City police imitated a traffic stop due to a nonfunctioning brake light. Officers
informed the driver of the violation and asked for relevant documents (license, registration, insurance).
While engaging the driver in conversation the officer made a number of observations that caused him to
suspect that evidence of illegal drug use or transport might be found in the vehicle. Upon request a
Sargent authorized a K-9 unit to be dispatched to the scene for drug detection. Officers removed the
Complainant and the passenger and searched the vehicle, based on a positive alert from the K-9. No
evidence of illegal drugs was found. Subsequently the passenger admitted to smoking marijuana
earlier in the day while wearing the same clothes. The Complainant was issued three traffic citations
and arrangements were made for him to park the vehicle until a valid driver could respond.
ALLEGATION 1 —Unprofessional Behavior -Rudeness and Harassment.
The Complainant alleged that he brought his disabilities to the officer's attention and was ignored. The
Complainant alleged that officers got him and his passenger out of the vehicle and sat them on the
ground. Review of the videos showed that at no time was the Complainant sat on the ground, nor did
he sit on the ground on his own accord. The Complainant was seen standing and leaning on the police
car but not sitting on the ground. The Complainant did mention to the officer that he had disabilities but
did not identify any special needs that the officer should consider when dealing with him.
The Complainant included in his complaint, "we were never informed the traffic stop was now a drug
stop, until the officer showed up with a drug dog". The officer stated he does not tip off people that a K-
9 is responding because he wants to minimize the opportunity for the destruction or discarding of illegal
drugs. This is consistent with established practices of the ICPD.
There was no evidence in the video and audio recordings of officers behaving rudely or
unprofessionally toward the Complainant or his passenger.
Allegation: 1 - Unprofessional Behavior -Rudeness and Harassment - Not Sustained
ALLEGATION 2 — Differential Treatment -Violation of Civil Rights.
The Complainant alleged that officers did not advise him of his rights by reading him a Miranda
Warning. However, the Complainant and his partner were not subject to a custodial interrogation, so
advising them of their Miranda Warning was not required.
The Complainant alleged that officers searched his vehicle without consent. The officer had
reasonable suspicion that drugs would be found in the car, so consent was not required once the K-9
alerted.
The Complainant alleged that officers "depended on our fear & intimidation so that I would give them
what they wanted." When the videos of this incident were reviewed, there was no evidence of officers
attempting to use fear or intimidation when dealing with the Complainant and the passenger in his
vehicle.
The Complainant alleged he was discriminated due to this race. In reviewing the video and audio
evidence there was nothing to indicate any discrimination.
Allegation: 2 — Differential Treatment -Violation of Civil Rights - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 3 — False Reports.
The Complainant alleged that officers did not have grounds to issue him citations. The Complainant
reported that "... but I refused to sign any of the tickets so the officer took the tickets back & got into
his vehicle & left." The Chief's report included three citations signed by the Complainant. The
Complainant could be seen on the video signing these citations. The Chief's report also included
records from Iowa Courts on Line showing that the Complainant plead guilty of two of the citations and
the third "Financial Liability Coverage 321.20E-A" was dismissed. Financial Liability Coverage charges
are dismissed, by operation of law, if the defendant provides proof to the court that they were insured at
the time the citation was issued. Pleading guilty to the citations contradicts the allegation that these
were false reports. y
Allegation: 3 - False Reports- Not sustained
M- -
(V
COMMENTS
The complete video and audio record alone clearly refutes all of the allegations�f-bllsco
duct'
baseless. In fact, after extensive audio and video review during this investigatipA the
gomplainant
agreed the officer did not commit the violations that were alleged.
c,
DEPARTMENT MEMO #15-18
TO:
Chief Hargadine
FROM:
Captain Douglas S. IIart
RE:
June 2015 Use of Force Review
DATE:
July 31, 2015
The "Use of Force Review Committee" met on July 30, 2015. It was composed of Captain Hart,
Sgt. Gaarde and Officer Cook.
For the review of submitted reports in April, 26 Officers were involved in 27 separate incidents
requiring use of force.
All issues or concerns were identified and addressed at previous levels of review. Of the
incidents reviewed for this period: on 1 occasion a Taser was displayed, no Tasers were
deployed, on 1 occasion OC was deployed, there were no SRT calls, in 5 other incidents officers
responded to calls where their firearm was displayed, and 4 animals were dispatched. Of the 27
incidents 2 suspects and 1 Officer were injured.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Copy: City Manager, CPRB, Watch Commanders, Review Committee
a
c
». �
e3-G
c)
'"
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT6
'
Use of Force Report
June2015
Officer
Date
Incident
Incident
Force Used
Badge
Number #
Number#
36
6/5
2015005879
Fight In
The subject made multiple attempts to pull
Progress
away. The Officer used a wrist lock on the
subject to affect custody.
25,63
6/6
2015005944
Welfare
The subject tried pulling away and was
Check
directed to the ground. The subject then
tried swinging a backpack at the officer and
officers had to place the subject's hands
behind his back for cuffing.
30
6/6
2015005948
Narcotics
After a foot chase, the subject was
apprehended and taken to the ground with
a takedown method.
35,83,55
6/07
2015005955
Fight In
The Officer had to place the subject on the
Progress
ground as the subject continued to throw
punches at another person. The Officer
had to use his knee as leverage to prevent
the subject's repeated attempts to rise
while another Officer physically placed the
subject's hands behind his back.
8,97,29,
6111
2015006102
Search
Officers displayed sidearms while securing
40,27,38,
Warrant
a residence for a search warrant.
8,45,48
19
6/12
2011006147
Armed
The Officer displayed his sidearm towards
Robbery
a suspect that was just involved in a
robbery, as well as running from the
Officers.
40,19,15,
6112
2015006183
Shooting
Iowa City Police Officers responded to the
66,63,61
Coral Ridge Mall shooting. Patrol rifles and
pistols were displayed.
64,37,30
6/14
2015006260
Suicidal
The Officers displayed long guns and pistol
63
Subject
when approaching a suicidal subject who
had just shot himselL
40,41
6/15
2015006307
Traffic Stop
A wanted subject refuse$ to e>the vehicle
and was removed by 6cer�asing"'4T
bar. The subject then 9 rt n Ufficere-and
the officers were ablMair contrblo
affect c f.
-
r b
ry
-J
64
6115
2015006311
Vehicle
The Officer pursed a vehicle fleeing from
Pursuit
Coralville after its occupants assaulted a
store clerk. The Officer discontinued the
pursuit after the fleeing vehicle began to
drive erratically.
55,7
6/17
2015006366
Fight In
The subject was already fighting with bar
Progress
staff and continued to struggle with
Officers. One Officer displayed his taser
and another officer used a takendown
method over the course of the arrest.
67
6/17
2015006367
Domestic
The subject tried calling the victim. The
officer had to remove the phone from the
suspect's grasp and used a wrist lock to
lace the subject in custody.
66
6/17
2015006400
Disturbance
The subject was told to leave the area
multiple times. The subject refused
whereupon the officer grabbed hold of the
subject and used a take -down technique to
affect custody.
30
6/17
2015006402
Fight in
At a fight in progress, the subject
Progress
approached the officer with fists clenched
shouting vulgarities. The subject was told
the leave the area and refused. Upon
trying to arrest, the Officer had to pull the
subject's arms behind his back.
66
6/18
2015006402
Fight in
The officer used OC spray to disperse
Progress
three separate groups of people actively
engaged in fights.
25
6/18
2015006402
Fight in
The subject had to be carried to the patrol
Progress
car after being laced under arrest.
67
6/18
2015006404
Intoxicated
The subject took off running and was taken
Subject
to the ground with a takedown technique.
67
6/19
2015006438
Criminal
The intoxicated suspect claimed he was
Mischief
feeling suicidal. The Officer had to assist
lifting the suspect from the squad car onto
a wheelchair, and later a hospital bed.
30
6/18
2015006462
Animal
The officer used his sidearm to end of the
life of a wounded deer.
2
6/20
2015006503
Traffic Stop
On a traffics stop the Officer displayed a
sidearm towards a subject who reached
down towards the floor area of the vehicle
when told to place his handsag a visible
ositio-& L;;
i
N
+A
11,66
6/21
2015006504
Domestic
The suspect had just choked a female
victim and was now fighting with bar staff
on the ground. The officers had to place
leverage on the suspect to affect custody.
3
6/21
2015006511
Intoxicated
The Officer used a wrist lock to affect
Subject
custody of the subject.
25
6/23
2015006600
Animal
The officer used his sidearm to end of the
life of a wounded deer.
2
6/27
2015006697
Intoxicated
The drunk subject repeatedly slammed his
Subject
head against the squad car safety shield.
The subject had to be manually placed in a
wheelchair for treatment
47
6/27
2015006713
Vehicle Theft
The Officer had to assist ambulance staff
restrain the subject.
41
6/27
2015006724
Animal
The officer used his sidearm to end of the
life of a wounded deer.
9
6/29
2015006767
Animal
The officer used his sidearm to end of the
life of a wounded deer.
FRE
r
P
t= CITY OF I O WA CITY
Date: August 6, 2015
To: Mr. Thomas Markus, City Manager
From: Chief Sam Hargadine T
Re: Body Worn Camera Policy
Attached is General Order Number 99-08 which outlines our operating procedures for body
worn cameras and the use of in -car dash camera system which is already installed in every
marked police vehicle.
This policy was written with the assistance of City Legal, input from the ACLU and meets the
requirements of CALEA® (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.)
The body cameras have been deployed and are in use. Each officer has been trained on its
use and the requirements for when the device will be activated and recording.
�i
fi
iv
OPS-12.1
M-MAki:
1go
IN -CAR
Original Date of Issue General Order Number
July 30, 1999 99-08
Effective Date of Reissue Section Code
August 2015 1 OPS-12
Reevaluation Date Amends
September 2017 1 OPS-12 Previous Version (2013)
C.A.L.E.A.
41.3.8
INDEX AS:
Use of Force
Internal Investigations
Evidence
Evaluations
Reference
(see "INDEX AS:
Traffic Stops
Recording Devices
In -car Recorders
Body Worn Cameras (BWC)
1
`ter^
e
ti?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to identify when recording devices should be used
and procedures to be followed when using the recording equipment.
Note: this policy specifically does not govern nor apply to covert operations and
any related recordings.
II. POLICY
It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department that all members serving a patrol or
Investigative function, to include road CSOs and Animal Control Officers, be required to
use recording devices to collect evidence and document interactions between officers
and the public. Only approved equipment will be used by department members and
usage shall comply with the manufacturer's instructions. All videos are the property of
the Iowa City Police Department. Any distribution of a video or portion of a video shall
only be done with the authorization of the Chief of Police or his/her designee. The
unauthorized playing or copying of any video is prohibited.
OPS-12.2
III. DEFINITIONS
Audio/video recording equipment consists of:
1. In -car recorders to include a camera, recorder, flashcard and LCD
Display. These units are within the vehicle. A remote voice link device
is carried by the officer.
2. Body worn cameras (BWC) of a type selected and issued by the
Department, are cameras worn on an individual officer's person that
record and store audio, video and metadata evidence.
IV. PROCEDURES
The Iowa City Policy Department has adopted the use of the BWC and in -car
recorders to accomplish several objectives. The primary objectives are as
follows:
1. BWCs and in -car recorders allow for accurate documentation of police -
public contacts, arrests, and critical incidents. They also serve to
enhance the accuracy of officer reports and testimony in court.
24rrAudio and video recordings also enhance the Iowa City Police
" Department's ability to review probable cause for arrest, officer and
(b suspect interaction, and evidence for investigative and prosecutorial
t ;a4_purposes and to provide additional information for officer evaluation
wi-�,and training.
g The BWC and in -car recorders may also be useful in documenting
_ crime and accident scenes or other events that include the confiscation
Rand documentation of evidence or contraband.
The Commander of Administrative Services or his/her designee will supervise the
use, storage, duplication and erasing of the material recorded by members of this
department.
If an officer notices that there is a problem with the equipment, he/she shall notify
a watch supervisor. The watch supervisor will forward notification of the problem
or malfunction to the Commander of Administrative Services or his/her designee.
Only persons trained in the servicing of audio/visual equipment will service the
equipment. Any defective unit will not be used, and when practical, will be
removed from service until repaired.
If an employee who is not trained in the use of the in -car recorder is assigned to
a vehicle containing one, they should notify a supervisor at the conclusion of the
assignment. The supervisor shall then assign identity to that portion of the video
not identified.
Officers are not required to inform the person(s) that the recording equipment is
in use, however, it may be advantageous to do so to de-escalate a situation and
possibly reduce the need to use force. People generally are on their best
behavior when they know they are being recorded.
Officers shall disclose the use of a video recorder upon inquiry.
OPS-12.3
OPERATION OF THE RECORDING APPARATUS
In -car Recording Apparatus
Officers shall inspect and test the in -car recording system prior to each shift in
order to verify proper functioning and shall notify their supervisor of any
problems.
In -car audio/visual recording units will be installed such that they are activated
when: ti3
0
1. turning on emergency lights;
--
2. turning on siren v
3. manual activation by pushing the ® record button '
4. manual activation by remote voice link button � rn @
5. excessive speed with no lights or siren m
All traffic stops shall be recorded in their entirety. Officers should, to t%extent
possible, use the recording equipment to document the administrationrbl' field
sobriety tests, remembering that safety is the first priority.
In addition to traffic stops officers shall manually activate their recording
equipment on calls for service and on self -initiated field activity if it involves an
encounter with a person. The in -car recorder system's remote voice link device
shall be carried by officers and utilized to record audio information outside the
range of the vehicle microphones. Officers, if able, shall activate the in -car
recorder system immediately upon being involved in a motor vehicle crash. It is
recommended that officers give consideration to activating the in -car recorder
system when responding to calls -for -service where video capture of
persons/vehicles leaving the scene of incidents has investigative value. Once a
recording unit has been activated it shall only be stopped when the incident in
question is concluded unless allowed under this policy.
When the recording is stopped, the in -car recorder system will allow a priority to
be set. The following priorities are available:
Priority 1 = normal recordings, traffic stops etc.
Priority 2 = officer marking for personal review
Priority 3 = file to be saved as evidence
Priority 4 = OWI
Priority 5 = for supervisor review
BWC
When responding to a call for service officers shall activate the BWC prior to
arriving on scene. Additionally, officers shall activate the at the initiation of any
other law enforcement or investigative encounter between a police officer and a
member of the public to include: Stops (including traffic stops), frisks, searches,
arrests, consensual interviews and searches, enforcement actions of all kinds,
and any encounter that becomes in any way hostile or confrontational.
OPS-12.4
Additionally, the BWC shall be activated when a firearm is used to destroy an
animal.
Exceptions to this requirement include interviews with victims of sexual assault,
domestic abuse, or other sensitive crimes, or the recording of witnesses who are
concerned about retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with the police.
Officers' may also use their discretion during routine and casual situations such
as officers on foot or bike patrol who wish to converse with neighborhood
residents and where turning on a video camera could make the encounter seem
officious and may make the person reluctant to speak with the officer.
Officers may also deactivate their BWC during the following types of situations:
In locations where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy,
such as a residence, they may decline to be recorded unless the recording
is being made pursuant to an arrest or search of the residence or the
individuals or other enforcement action is occurring in such a location. The
BWC shall remain activated until the event is completed in order to ensure
the integrity of the recording unless the contact moves into an area
restricted by this policy.
Once an officer has finished investigating a collision and the involved parties
have been released, the officer may deactivate the BWC prior to clearing
the,.call to complete any paperwork.
lf,arrofficer responds to assist with traffic control at the scene of a collision,
fir, similar incident, the officer may deactivate the BWC as long as there
is.,pnteraction with persons or that interaction has ended.
WMfon a tow call or issuing a parking citation as long as there is no
o interaction with persons or that interaction has ended and after capturing
" any violation or damage with the BWC. NOTE: The recording must be
longer than 60 seconds in order for it to be accepted into the video system.
Animal control calls (unless a firearm is used) as long as there is no
interaction with persons or that interaction has ended.
Other calls where there is no further interaction with persons or that
interaction has ended, for example, an OW I investigation where the person
has been taken to jail or otherwise released and the officer still has
additional paperwork.
When a recording is going to be made inside the Department by one of the
OW I or interview room cameras, the in -car recorder may be deactivated
while escorting the person into the Department as long as the BWC is
activated; however, officers shall only deactivate their BWC after the
appropriate room video system has been activated to avoid any lapses in
recording. When leaving the Department, if still in the presence of the
person, BOTH recorders (in -car recorder and BWC) shall be reactivated
OPS-12.5
prior to deactivating the OWI and interview room cameras to avoid any
lapses in recording.
If at any point during these types of calls any of the previously listed
situations occur where a BWC is required, the BWC shall be
reactivated.
The above list is to serve as a guide and is not intended to be all inclusive. If in
doubt, record it.
If an officer fails to activate the BWC, fails to record the entire contact, or
interrupts the recording, the officer shall document why a recording was not
made, was interrupted, or was terminated. This is to include mutingge audio. A
brief statement in the recorder prior to the interruption shall tsuffint ,
documentation. c
Procedures for BWC Use cis
Officers shall inspect and test the BWC prior to each shift in ord to verify?17zper
functioning and shall notify their supervisor of any problems.
r.
Officers who are assigned BWC equipment shall use the equipment unless
otherwise authorized by supervisory personnel.
Police personnel shall use only BWCs issued by this department. The BWC
equipment and all data, images, video, and metadata captured, recorded, or
otherwise produced by the equipment is the sole property of the agency.
Police personnel who are assigned BWCs must complete an agency approved
and/or provided training program to ensure proper use and operations. Additional
training may be required at periodic intervals to ensure the continued effective
use and operation of the equipment, proper calibration and performance, and to
incorporate changes, updates, or other revisions in policy and equipment.
BWC equipment is the responsibility of individual officers and will be used with
reasonable care to ensure proper functioning. Equipment malfunctions shall be
brought to the attention of the officer's supervisor as soon as possible so that a
replacement unit may be procured.
The BWC shall be worn on the officer's chest with clear view to the front (not
blocked by clothing or other equipment) and properly oriented.
Procedures for Both In -car Recorder and BWC Use
Officers shall not edit, alter, erase, duplicate, copy, share, or otherwise distribute
recordings in any manner without prior written authorization and approval of the
Chief of Police or his or her designee.
OPS-12.6
Officers are encouraged to inform their supervisor of any recordings that may be
of value for training purposes.
Requests for deletion of portions of the
personal recording) must be submitted
Police or his or her designee. All reque
file.
recordings (e.g., in the event of a
in writing and approved by the Chief of
>ts and final decisions shall be kept on
Officers shall note in their incident, arrest, and related reports when recordings
were made during the incident in question. However, BWC recordings are not a
replacement for written reports.
Restrictions on Using the In -car Recorder or BWC
In -car recorders and BWCs shall be used only in conjunction with offal law
enforcement duties and shall not be used to record the followi:�
• Encounters with undercover officers or confidential info aks.
• When on break or otherwise engaged in personal activitiesa
• Communications with other police personnel without the'permi6�3ion of the
Chief of Police.
• Unless in the scope of officers' official duties and with an articulable
reason, officers will not use their in -car recorder or BWCs in any location
where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a
restroom or locker room.
Storage and Release
All files shall be securely downloaded periodically and no later than the end of
each shift. Each file shall contain information related to the date, in -car recorder
or BWC identifier, and assigned officer.
All images and sounds recorded by the in -car recorder or BWC equipment are
the exclusive property of the Iowa City Police Department. Accessing, copying, or
releasing files for non -law enforcement purposes is strictly prohibited.
All access to in -car recorder or BWC files must be specifically authorized by the
Chief of Police or their designee, and all access is to be logged and available for
audit to ensure that only authorized users are accessing the data for legitimate
and authorized purposes.
Files shall be securely stored for a period three years. After three years, the
video system will automatically prevent the ability to restore a backed up video to
live status. Then, on a quarterly basis, the Property and Evidence Custodian or
designee will destroy all backed up files that reside on physical storage such as
DVD and Blu-ray discs that have reached their retention limits. A listing of the
OPS-12.7
destroyed discs will be forwarded to the Commander of Administrative Services.
Files needed as evidence or for some other articulable purpose will be separately
retained.
Primary Officer Responsibilities
The primary officer shall, at the end of their investigative narrative under a
separate heading, list all officers that made recordings at anytime of the incident.
Officers who are not assigned as the primary officer shall make the primary
officer aware of any recordings they made during the incident.
Supervisory Responsibilities
At least on a semi-annual basis (Jan-Jun/Aug Dec), supervisors will randomly*
review two in -car or BWC recordings of each employee under their supervision to
ensure that the equipment is operating properly and that officers are using the
devices appropriately and in accordance with policy and to identify any areas in
which additional training or guidance is required. On January 1"and August 1"
of each year, each Watch Commander, Lieutenant of Investigations and Animal
Control Supervisor, shall forward to the Commander of Field Operations the
information on the prescribed form (Appendix A). *Randomly, for the puose of
this policy, means videos randomly selected that are not alreadk� eingf�viey,,py
for another purpose.
r-. i
Media Card Control a'
Normally, video for the in -car recorders is downloaded wirelessl�r- trrough a -_
secured wireless connection. In the case of failure of that systerh the yi* eo files
will need to be downloaded manually. In -car recorder videos are capOdd on
media cards on a recorder located in each vehicle. The media cards are secured
within the recorder to which only supervisors have access via key. Spare media
cards and keys to the recorders are available only to supervisors. The recorder
activates a warning for the operator when the media card is nearing capacity. A
supervisor shall be notified who will then replace the media card. The media card
is then uploaded to the server by the supervisor. Once the upload is complete the
files are automatically erased from the card. The media card is then available for
re -use.
BWCs have no user removable media cards and are downloaded by use of a
docking station.
If the video contains documentation of a use of force, the fact that there is a
video should be included in the Use of Force Report form. In instances where
there is a complaint against a member of the department, the supervisor
receiving the complaint shall ascertain if the event in question was recorded.
Video files are stored on the server located within the Police Department. Backup
DVD's and/or Blu-ray discs (BD) are created automatically when there is enough
data to fill a disk. Files that are tagged as evidence or for review will be kept live
OPS-12.8
and accessible on the server for a period of 1 year. Files not tagged as evidence
are kept on the server for a minimum of 90 days. If a video is needed after the 90
day period, it must be re -activated from the backup DVD/BD. All backup disks
are stored in the evidence room and under the control of the Evidence
Custodian. Only the Evidence Custodian, the Commander of Administrative
Services the Commander of Field Operations and the Chief of Police are
authorized to remove disks from the storage area.
Q
yy
f✓i..ru
�
W96u
mnF�J
p
�m.,u�p
y3 � A3
4.r i
Tip
n3
cv
Samuel Hargadine, Chief of Police
WARNING
This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civi
proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of higher
legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party
claims. Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental
administrative sanctions.
r
M�.� CITY OF IOWA. CITY
, � MEMORANDUM
Date: August 6, 2015 j" `m r = !
To: City Council
From: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney a
Re: Police Body Worn Cameras
N
j `kl
As you are aware, the Police Department has developed a policy governing the use of Body
Worn Cameras, as well as modifying their earlier policy on use of squad car cameras (In -Car
Recorders). They have recently deployed the Body Worn Cameras (BWCs) for use by their
officers. Council approval of the policy is not required. However, per the earlier request of
Council, the policy is being presented for your information. Questions or feedback on the policy
can be directed to the City Attorney's Office or City Manager's Office.
Background
Squad car cameras (In -Car Recorders) have been around for decades. They served, and
continue to serve, some purpose in documenting police interactions with members of the public.
However, they are limited in that they have a fixed perspective — from the dashboard of the car.
More recently, BWCs have become more prevalent. Improvements in technology have made
them more viable as a method of documentation. Because the BWC goes where the officer
goes, regardless of the officer's car's location, the camera better documents the experience of
the officer, and those around the officer.
On the other hand, this greater capability raises a number of other issues for the police and the
public.
Open Records
Under Iowa law, videos are considered open records. There are specific statutory exceptions
for confidential records, but they are relatively narrow. The two most applicable exceptions are
videos that are part of a police officer's investigatory report (Iowa Code section 22.7(5)), and
communications to the government by members of the public not required by law, where
disclosure of the communication would chill persons from making those communications (Iowa
Code section 22.7(18)). The latter exception still requires disclosure of whatever can be
released without identifying the community member. An example of the first exception would be
a recording of an officer's interview of a victim or witness, which could be kept confidential under
current law as part of an officer's investigatory report. In addition, on rare occasions a video
could be confidential under the medical records exception of 22.7(2) if it caught an interaction
between a medical provider and patient. However, unless a video falls into one of these narrow
exceptions, the video must be made available to anyone asking for it. It is from this foundation
that many collateral issues arise.
August 6, 2015
Page 2
Competing Interests
There are numerous competing, legitimate interests related to the videotaping of members of
the public, such as with BWCs. Videos documenting the interaction between a police officer
and a member of the public are useful for a number of purposes, including the following:
• Providing evidence at a criminal or civil trial
• Shining a light on a police encounter following an allegation of misconduct
• Providing a means by which officers can improve the accuracy of their reports, and
review the incident before later trial testimony to refresh their memory
• Allowing for better police training and discipline
• Reducing both use of force by the police and false allegations of improper force against
the police
However, the videos create a number of privacy or surveillance concerns. The following are
some examples of circumstances in which videotaping may be objectionable:
• Interviews of victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or other sensitive emes
• Interviews of victims or other witnesses in physical or emotional cri ,"" o erwise'
vulnerable
• Interviews of children
• Interviews with confidential informants or undercover agents'''
Fri
• Views of the interior of occupied restrooms or locker rooms
• Views of the interior of private homes .; nv
• Views of persons entering medical facilities, adult businesses, or houses of worship.
• Conversations between medical providers and their patients (e.g., in the Emergency
Room)
• Views of persons participating in political protests
A number of the above, but not all, can be kept confidential under the current exceptions to the
Iowa Open Records Act discussed above earlier. As you know from Council's earlier
discussions regarding BWCs, members of the pubic have expressed an interest in assuring that
the camera is on continuously and need not be activated by the officer. However, short of
running the camera continuously throughout the officer's entire shift, including bathroom breaks
and through all the other circumstances during which we would not want to be recording, the
requested technology does not currently exist. Of course, an interest in removing discretion
from the officer competes head-on with the desire to have the camera turned off by the officer in
certain circumstances to protect the privacy of others.
The policy adopted by the police department attempts to resolve these competing interests by:
1) giving the officer discretion to turn the BWC off when interviewing a victim of sexual assault,
domestic abuse, or other sensitive crimes, or witnesses who are concerned with retaliation if
they are seen as cooperating with the police; and, 2) allowing a person to decline to be recorded
in locations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a residence, unless the
recording is being made pursuant to an arrest or search of the residence or persons or other
enforcement action is occurring in the location, in which case recording will take place
regardless of the person's request.
We appreciate that these policies, while providing a structure for officers to make decisions on
whether to record, still requires officers to use their discretion, based on their assessment of the
August 6, 2015
Page 3
circumstances at the time. Officers cannot, and will not, make the ultimately correct decision
every time. For example: an officer might turn the camera off at the request of a crime victim,
only for an unanticipated altercation and injury to occur.
Even organizations that normally are in agreement differ greatly in approach to BWCs. One
example can be seen in the published views of the ACLU and the Des Moines Register Editorial
Board. On February 7 and 8 of this year, respectively, the Register ran an ACLU position
statement, followed by the Register's own editorial the next day. While there were some
matters upon which the two groups agreed, public access to videos of community members
created deep division.
The ACLU, advocating for the privacy interests of those who appear on the BWC videos, argued
that videos without apparent value should be deleted swiftly. This, they argue, serves to
prevent the videos from being available for police use, "as a surveillance tool", or for use by
other community members or the media. "Videos for which the public oversight value is high
should be flagged and retained.... At the same time, those videos with no ascertainable
oversight value should be deleted as soon as possible." Put another way, one might fear that
community members would be chilled from calling the police, for fear of how they might come
across on the video that may find its way onto YouTube for the world to see. The privacy
interests identified by the ACLU are genuine, and at present can only be marginally protected by
open records laws in Iowa.
The Register, arguing for greater transparency, has advocated for maximum access to videos,
saying, "Any law should treat recordings as open records, with a minimum of exceptions." In
response to an ACLU proposal to limit access to the videos to only those appearing in the
videos, and/or granting those individuals veto authority over dissemination to others, the
Register stated, "...recordings should be accessible to the public without requiring subjects'
consent."
Both interests are valid and reasonable. However, absent an amendment to Iowa's open
records law, the Register's position currently holds sway, as the public will have access to
nearly every video taken. The ACLU proposed legislation in the 2015 session, attempting to
maximize accountability of police officers, while at the same time preserving privacy of those
individuals appearing on the videos, by making them confidential records not available to the
public but available to persons captured in the videos. While in our view the ACLU's proposed
legislation fails to recognize purposes for which the video may be useful, other than police
oversight, the proposed confidentiality exception would go a long way toward addressing the
desire that the cameras be on as much as possible, without the risk that non -depicted members
of the public would have access to the videos. In any event, the legislation did not advance, but
will likely be reintroduced next year.
Finally, the volume of the videos that may be generated creates a data storage ssue. It
appears the Police Department has secured the computer infrastructure D.Addr,TJ,ss thjsissue,
though the long-term feasibility of the storage (including burning videos tf'&D /DF% and M
associated organizational and retrieval mechanisms have not yet been �'esied. '
ZEE
ti
na
August 6, 2015
Page 4
Model Policies
There are a wide variety of policies in place governing use of BWCs. The International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) published a model policy in April, 2014. However, it has a
number of provisions that would make it unacceptable here. One issue is the treatment of the
videos. Given the differences between open records laws of the various states, the IACP policy
concedes that it must be modified to fit the laws of the state in which it is implemented. For
example, Iowa's laws would forbid significant aspects of the IACP policy, such as, "All images
and sounds recorded by the BWC are the exclusive property of this department. Accessing,
copying, or releasing files for non -law enforcement purposes is strictly prohibited."
The University of Iowa Department of Public Safety has a policy governing the use of BWCs by
their officers, who have been equipped with BWCs for several years. Much of their policy was
adopted in ours, but it is very general in its description of when to record and when not to
record, and does not address retention, other than to say that the Director or his/her designee
°...will supervise the use, storage, duplication and erasing of the material recorded by members
of this department."
Our office believes this will be a rapidly changing area of both policy and law. Numerous states
have proposed widely varied laws governing the use, or nonuse, of BWCs. I anticipate the
issue will again be debated in the 2016 Iowa legislative session. Moreover, with a new
deployment of this technology, we expect that our policy will need to be tweaked as we all learn
lessons on the most appropriate use of, and procedures for, BWCs.
For now, the inclination of our office is to lean in favor of recording, as we believe that position
best addresses the present demands of the community, and also best serves to protect the City
from frivolous claims and/or needless litigation costs.
As always, should you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Cc: Tom Markus, City Manager
Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
N
G
gwern�
yq]a.
ry
N
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
OFFICE CONTACTS
July 2015
Date Description
None
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
OFFICE CONTACTS
August 2015
Date Description
None