HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-2020 Community Police Review Board RevisedMEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
DATE: December ", 2020 December 8, 2020
TO: CPRB Members
FROM: Chris Olney
RE: Board Packet for meeting on Tuesday December 8, 2020 REVISED
Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting:
• Agenda for 12/8/20
• Minutes of the meeting on 11/10/20
• ICPD General Order 00-01 (Search and Seizure)
• ICPD General Order 99-02 (Alarm -Open Door Response)
• ICPD General Order 95-04 (Administration of Department Training)
• ICPD General Order 99-10 (Domestic Violence)
• ICPD General Orders 99-12 (Field Interviews and "Pat -Down" Searches)
• ICPD Use of Force Review/Report October
• Correspondence from Carol deProsse (x2)
• Recommendations Report - DRAFT #4 (Replaced by DRAFT #5)
• Unbiased Policing Ordinance
• Office Contacts — November 2020
• Complaint Deadline
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, DECMBER 8, 2020
Electronic Formal Meeting — 5:30 PM
ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by going to
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN fpYjMr-eR-CwvPS5-pzhLQ
via the internet to visit the Zoom meeting's registration page and submit the required information.
Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to join the meeting. If you are asked
for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number found in the email. A meeting password may
also be included in the email. Enter the password when prompted.
If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you may call in by
telephone by dialing (312) 626-6799. When prompted, enter the meeting orwebinar ID. The ID
number for this meeting is: 913 7830 1017
Once connected, you may dial '9 to "raise your hand," letting the meeting host know you would
like to speak. Providing comments in person is not an option.
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 11/10/20
• ICPD General Order 00-01 (Search and Seizure)
• ICPD General Order 99-02 (Alarm -Open Door Response)
• ICPD General Order 95-04 (Administration of Department Training)
• ICPD General Order 99-10 (Domestic Violence)
• ICPD General Order 99-12 (Field Interviews and "Pat -Down" Searches)
• ICPD Use of Force Review/Report October
• Correspondence from Carol deProsse (x2)
ITEM NO. 3 NEW BUSINESS
• CPRB Complaint Form
ITEM NO. 4 OLD BUSINESS
• Discussion Item No. 8 of Resolution 20-159 (Resolution of Initial Council
Commitments addressing the Black Lives Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in
the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police and calls for action from
protesters and residents)
ITEM NO. 5 PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (Commentators shall address
the Board for no more than 5 minutes. The Board shall not engage in discussion with
the public concerning said items).
ITEM NO. 6 BOARD INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 7 STAFF INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 8 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS
• January 12, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
• February 9, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
• March 9, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
• April 13, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
ITEM NO. 9 CONSIDER MOTION TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION based on Section
21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or
authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a
condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds,
and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies
including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5)
police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in
the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are
made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of
government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications
from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons
would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available
for general public examination.
ITEM NO. 10 ADJOURNMENT
If you will need disahility-related accommodations in order to participate in this programlevent, please contact
Chris Olney at 319-356-5043, christine-olnev diowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow
sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Draft
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — November 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to
concerns for the health and safety of Board members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair David Selmer called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerri MacConnell (5:38), Latisha McDaniel, Amanda Nichols, David Selmer
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Chris Olney/Kellie Fruehling, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Interim Police Chief Denise Brotherton
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept Community forum summary letter
(2) Accept CPRB #20-03
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Selmer, seconded by Townsend, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 10/15/20
• Minutes of the meeting on 10/23/20
• ICPD General Order 04-01 (Personnel Early Warning System)
• ICPD General Order 99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits)
• ICPD General Order 99-08 (Body Worn Cameras and In -Car Recorders)
• ICPD General Order 01-06 (Juvenile Procedures)
• ICPD Use of Force Review/Report September 2020
Motion carried, 4/0, MacConnell absent.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
Community Forum Discussion -
The Board reviewed the Community forum draft summary letter. Selmer noted typos within the second
bullet.
It was moved by Selmer, seconded by Townsend to forward the draft summary to Council as amended.
Motion carried, 4/0, MacConnell absent.
CPRB
November 10, 2020
Draft
Discussion Item No. 8 of Resolution 20-159 (Resolution of Initial City Council Commitments
addressing the Black Lives Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of
George Floyd by Minneapolis Police and calls for action from protesters and residents)
Selmer thanked McDaniel and Nichols for compiling the current draft report and Legal Counsel Ford for
the legal comments.
Selmer stated the task for this meeting was to go through each of the twenty-one draft proposals one
by one and reach a consensus as to whether it is a proposal to keep, edit or remove. Selmer noted
that for those not agreed upon by all members the opinions could be relegated to the section under
voiced concerns for additional consideration of the form.
Selmer questioned if the report should include the citations and legal comments. Nichols felt citations
should be included in the report as the reasons are important and helps strengthen their position.
McDaniel agreed and suggested citations are not put into the body of the report but are noted
separately as supported information. The Board agreed to include citations as a subsection and not to
include the legal comments.
Proposed change 1 — that in instances of a sustained misconduct complaint, the
CPRB be given information on the disciplining of the officer and be authorized to
include in its report its finding on the same.
Legal Counsel Ford stated officers' records are protected by Iowa Open Records Chapter 22
of the Iowa Code State which provides that certain specified records must be kept
confidential. Townsend felt having the CPRB has access to information on if an officer was
disciplined or required to have additional training would be helpful and remain confidential to
the Board. The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
II. Proposed change 2 — that an accused officer be required to comply with an interview
by the CPRB about any complaints or findings or be subject to additional discipline.
Legal Counsel Ford advised the Board regarding, open records law and Iowa's Civil Service
Law (Chapter 400 of the Iowa Code -State law) provides that only the Police
Chief (City Manager) has the authority to discipline an officer. Selmer suggested changing
"required" to "requested" to comply with an interview. Townsend agreed adding a voiced
concern that he did not feel the Board should be an administrator of officer's discipline. The
Board agreed to keep this proposal.
III. Proposed change 3 - a complainant shall have the right to respond to the chief's
findings in the chiefs report before the CPRB shall conduct its investigation.
Townsend voiced concerns regarding how this could affect the CPRB report filing deadline.
The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
IV. Proposed change 4 - all CPRB reports about an officer's misconduct shall identify the
officers involved by name and badge number.
The proposal should include requesting a monthly report to track officers' patterns of
misconduct and discipline by using a tracking number (not name or badge number). The
Board should have the ability to request the city do a further investigation by way of a
hearing. The Board agreed to combine proposals 4.5,6 and 17.
CPRB
November 10, 2020
Draft
V. Proposed change 5 — all CPRB reports, both in cases where a complaint is sustained
and when a complaint is not sustained, should be made easily accessible through a
publicly searchable database online.
The Board agreed to combine proposals 4,5,6 and 17.
VI. Proposed change 6 — all complaints of misconduct filed directly with the police
department, and not filed with the CPRB, shall be forwarded to the CPRB within seven
days of its filing with the police department.
The Board agreed to combine proposals 4,5,6 and 17.
VII. Proposed change 7 - the CPRB shall have authority to initiate investigations and
review at its sole discretion and without the necessity of a filed complaint.
The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
Vill. Proposed change 8 - CPRB shall be provided with additional information in the police
department quarterly reports to review for certain trends
Selmer noted the CPRB is provided with some of this information but felt additional data
would be beneficial. Nichols noted that the proposal should include recommendation for
implementation of a computerized risk -management system to analyze data trends. The
Board agreed to keep this proposal.
IX. Proposed change 9 — CPRB should have the authority to hire an independent auditor
to review the police department's internal investigation procedures.
The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
X. Proposed change 10 — CPRB shall be provided city funding to promote awareness of
the CPRB and enhance accessibility to its services.
Nichols would like to see the CPRB meetings streamed live and a more user-friendly
website. The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
XI. Proposed change 11 - CPRB shall be provided with funding and authority to allow
complainants to make use of a social worker or medical professional with trauma
awareness training for assisting complainants throughout the complaint process.
Selmer suggested to including legal aid to this proposal. Nichols agreed and noted it would
be beneficial for the complainant to have qualified trained professionals available as a
support person to walk them through the process of filing a complaint. McDaniel felt it was
important to have available resources to a person who may have had a traumatic
experience in their interaction with the police. Townsend voiced concerns stating the
CPRB's role should remain as an advisory board on police conduct if a complaint has been
filed. He felt the Board should not take on the responsibility of providing the resources for
social services. The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
XII. Proposed change 12 - require reporting and CPRB review for all incidents where an
officer draws a gun on a subject or uses their firearm during precautionary
positioning maneuvers, regardless of whether or not the gun is discharges.
Selmer noted this information is included in the Police Department Use of Force monthly
report. The Board agreed to remove this proposal.
CPRB
November 10. 2020
Draft
XIII. Proposed change 13 — expand the membership of the CPRB from five to nine
members, with an emphasis on minority representation and representation from a
current or former member of the police or police policy expert.
Selmer felt having a nine -member Board would help with having a quorum and would
spread out the report writing workload. Townsend and MacConnell voiced concerns on
having a larger Board could cause more problems with increased disagreements and
scheduling conflicts. The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
XIV. Proposed change 14 - complaints should be permitted to be filed through any of the
following means: telephonically, electronically, or by document either through the
mail, or hand delivery.
Selmer noted the CPRB complaint can now be filed electronically on-line at icgov.org CPRB
web page. The Board agreed to remove this proposal.
XV. Proposed change 15 - CPRB complaints should be permitted whether filed
anonymously or through third persons so long as there is sufficient knowledge of the
underlying circumstances.
McDaniel stated having the ability to file a complaint anonymously would alleviate the fear of
retaliation for reporting police misconduct. Nichols noted other types of complainants can be
filed anonymously such as reporting child abuse to CPS. McConnell voiced concerns
regarding how the complaint could be investigated. The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
XVI. Proposed change 16 - there should be an annual review/audit of the CPRB complaint
process.
Selmer stated the Board currently has this authority. McDaniel added that the Board should
make sure this process is reviewed annually. The Board agreed to remove this proposal.
XVII. Proposed change 17 - CPRB should have access to individual office records in order
to study a pattern of police misconduct of specific officers.
The Board agreed to combine proposals 4,5,6 and 17
XVIII. Proposed change 18 - CPRB public forums shall be held twice a year.
The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
XIX. Proposed change 19 — the statute of limitation for filing a CPRB complaint shall be
lengthened from 90 days after the date of the alleged misconduct, to 180 days after
the alleged misconduct.
Nichols noted that the Human Rights Commissions filing deadline is within 300 days of the
alleged occurrence and the Police Department complaint deadline has no statute of
limitation. Selmer questioned the Boards current ability to request deadline extensions for
good cause. Legal Counsel Ford will check what the limitations would be and report back to
the Board. MacConnell voiced concerns and felt that extending to 180 days could result in
people's memory not being as accurate. The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
CPRB
November 10, 2020
BTF111
XX. Proposed change 20 — information for filing a complaint with the CPRB shall be
printed on the back of every Iowa city police officer's business card.
The Board agreed to keep this proposal.
XXI. Proposed change 21 — I think it might be helpful to have seminars on police actives.
specifically, I am thinking of the complaint of excessive force used in getting a person
suffering a mental health crisis. the take -down was the very same used in hospitals to
bring someone to safe evaluation. The Board agreed to remove this proposal.
Selmer volunteered to edit the draft report to include the changes discussed and to incorporate each
proposal into subsections as A — Reasoning for proposal, B — Voiced Concerns, C - Citations and
additional Information. The revised draft will be included in the next meeting packet for review.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
None.
STAFF INFORMATION
None.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subiect to change)
• December 8, 2020, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
• January 12, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
• February 9, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
• March 9, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Selmer, seconded by Townsend 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 8:11 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 8:15 P.M.
Motion by Selmer, seconded by McDaniel to accept CPRB #20-03 report and forward to City Council as
presented.
Motion Carried, 5/0.
CPRB
November 10, 2020
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Selmer, seconded by MacConnell
Motion carried, 5/0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:16 P.M.
Draft
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2019-2020
eetin g Date
12/10M
1114/20
2/11120
34020
5/12/20
6/9/20
711420
828no
9l820
92120
102520
102320
IU1020
NAME
FORUM
Sam
O
O
O
O
Conaway
_
Monique
X
X
X
X
X
X
Galpin
Jerri
O
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Macconnell
Latisha
X
O/E
X
X
O
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
McDaniel
Amanda
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nichols
David Selmer
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Orville
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Townsend
]KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
November 10, 2020
Iowa City -City Council
City of Iowa City
410 Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
RE: Community Police Review Board Annual Community Forum
The Iowa City Community Police Review Board (CPRB) held the annual Community Forum on Monday,
September 21, 2020 at 5:30 pm. Due to the Covid Virus the program was held virtually via Zoom.
Board members participating in the forum were Vice Chair Orville Townsend, Jerri MacConnell, Latisha
McDaniel, Amanda Nichols, and David Selmer. Staff participants were Legal Council Patrick Ford, Staff-
Chis Olney and Kellie Fruehling
The Vice Chair opened the forum to the public and the following individuals participated:
David Drustup,Leslie Carpenter, Amel Ali, Margaret Fuller, Angie Jordan, Sabri Sky, Anna Blaedel
Aaron Page, Meredith Chen, Eric Harris, Tammy Nyden, Temple Hiatt, Caroline Dieterle, Rich Mathias.
The following topics were discussed:
• Remove funding from the police and have trained professionals respond to calls in the
community
• Having trained mental health professionals accompany police to mental health calls
• Make the Community Police Review Board's availability better known to the public
• Inquiry about the type and level of information that is provided to the CPRB from the Police
Department
• Schedule CPRB meetings more regularly for public engagement
• A member of "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America" inquired and commented on
services available to victims and observers of gun violence.
• Inquiry about the tear gas incident in June and the City Council's hiring of and independent firm
to investigate it.
• Discussion of the escalation of violence that we're seeing in this country.
Final Topic
The Vice Chair shared information related to the Community Police Review Board's functions and the
services available. The Vice Chair thanked everyone for participation and mentioned that the program
would be available on TV Channel 4.
The forum was adjourned at 6:53 pm
Orville H. Townsend, SR., Vice Chair
(Transcriptions are available at ICgov.org)
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
November 10, 2020
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Equity Director
Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint =
From: Community Police Review Board -7
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint # 20-03
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #20-03 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(5).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the
officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on July 7, 2020. 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 filed with the City Clerk on August 19, 2020.
The Board voted on September 8, 2020 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: On
the record with no additional review, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(a).
The Board met to consider the Report on September 8, 2020, and October 13, 2020.
Prior to the September 8, 2020 meeting, the Board reviewed body -worn -cameras (hereafter, 'BWC") of
the officers implicated in the complaint and cameras from the squad cars, as well as the summary
report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On June 8, 2020, the Iowa State Patrol initiated a traffic stop at the intersection of QHnton-Street and
Iowa Avenue, in Downtown Iowa City (hereafter, "the intersection"). The car that was the'subject of the
stop had parked in the intersection in the right moving lane of Clinton Ave between the lights. The car's
position blocked traffic from traversing in the right lane.
On that day, Black Lives Matter had reserved an area in the Pentacrest (a large pedestrian area on the
University of Iowa Campus approximately ten feet to the West of where the car had parked), as part of
their protests. It is speculation, but very likely, that the reason the car that had illegally parked in the
right lane at the intersection was to drop off several heavy signs for the protesters.
Around the time of the stop, a small crowd was already congregated in the Pentacrest. There were
three-foot tall temporary barriers that designated the reserved area and separated it from the sidewalk
on Clinton Street. The Black Lives Matter protesters were mostly on the West side of the barrier, with
the Clinton Street sidewalk separating them from where the State Patrol car and the car parked on
Clinton Street were located.
Iowa City Police Officers, (hereafter, "Officer 1" and "Officer 2," and collectively "Officers 1 and 2"), both
implicated in the underlying complaint, (hereafter, "the Complaint"), responded as a support unit for the
State Patrol. When Officers 1 and 2 parked their squad car at the intersection of Clinton Street and
Iowa Avenue, the State Patrol Officers were already in the process of conducting the traffic stop. At
some point during the stop the State Patrol Officers made the decision to call in a tow truck and have
the vehicle towed. The tow company that was called by the State Patrol to make the tow took
approximately 30 minutes to arrive. It was obvious from the audio on the video that the wait time for the
tow truck was much longer than the officers had anticipated.
During the half hour waiting for the tow truck, Officers 1 and 2, and the State Patrol stood in the area of
the stopped car in the event the State Patrol needed assistance with crowd control or other type of
support.
At no time did Officers 1 and 2, or any Iowa City Police Officer, participate in the traffic stop in any
capacity except to be present and support the State Patrol. Indeed, the Complaint does not allege any
misconduct concerning the traffic stop itself, but, rather, focuses on the actions and inactions of Officers
1 and 2 as they stood in support of the State Patrol waiting for the tow truck to arrive.
At 18:34, some almost ten minutes after Officers 1 and 2 arrived, a woman, respectfully, calmly, and
while wearing a Covid-19 mask, approached the State Patrol Officers. While holding up a cell phone as
if to record, she asked of the State Patrol Officers and Officer 2:
"Would you mind identifying yourselves?"
Officer 2 replies: "I'm not a part of the traffic stop, you don't need to know that."
The State Patrol Officers standing within a few feet of Officer 2 then proceed to give their name and
badge number upon their request.
The woman walked away without an identification or badge number of Officer 2. There was not any
circumstance that would have prevented Officer 2 from providing his name and badge.gumber at that
time.
The same woman then walks several feet to where Officer 1 was standing and s him,the same:
"Would you mind identifying yourself?" =
Officer 1 responds. "No."
It is unclear if the Officer was saying he did not mind, or if he was saying he would not identify himself,
and, based on the tone, that might have been the Officer's intention.
The woman persisted and asked the officer for his name and badge. Officer 1 replied again, "No."
There was not any circumstance that would have prevented Officer 1 from providing his name and
badge number at that time.
The woman walked away without an identification or badge number of Officer 1.
At 18:37, the Complainant can be heard in the Officer's video asking loudly, (as he was on the West
side of the barrier for the Black Lives Matter Protest, to Officer 1 who was standing by his squad car
some approximately 15 feet away) if there were cameras that recorded the intersection. Officer 1
replied he did not know. The person asked how to report a crime. Officer 1 replied, "You can tell me."
The person stated he would like to report an offense where a State Patrol car ran a red light at the
intersection, "ten minutes ago." The person then asked if Officer 1 was going to write anything down or
have any follow up. Officer 1 said, "No." It should be noted that the traffic offense the Complainant
mentioned could not be observed from the BWC of Officer 1.
As the traffic stop continued to drag on waiting for the tow truck, some of the persons that appeared to
be a part of the Black Lives Matter protest continued to ask questions, and some smaller verbal "flare
ups' of vocalized displeasure with the police could be heard. At 18:41 an empty can was thrown from
the direction of the Black Lives Matter protest, over the barricades, and landed in front of the officers.
One person from the Black Lives Matter protest area crossed the barricade and retrieved the can. An
officer thanked her.
At 18:43 a man approached Officer 2 from the direction of the Black Lives Matter protest and asked him
for his name and badge. Officer 2 did not provide it. There was not any circumstance that would have
prevented Officer 2 from providing his name and badge number at that time.
At 18:44, the same man again requested Officer 2's name and badge. He stated he only wanted it as a
precaution for accountability later. Officer 2 did not offer his name or badge. The man asked Officer 2
if he refused, and opined that it was "required." Officer 2 still did not provide his name or badge
number. There was not any circumstance that would have prevented Officer 2 from providing his name
or badge number at that time.
In the 30 minutes Officers 1 and 2 were standing in support of the State Patrol officers, Officer 1, on
four occasions, politely requested people to stop doing minor offenses. On two separate occasions
Officer 1 asked bicyclists to dismount their bicycles while they were riding on the sidewalk. On two
separate occasions Officer 1 asked pedestrians to not continue to cross against the traffic light. In all of
these occasions Officer 1 was polite, using the word please when asking for compliance, and saying
"Thank you" when they complied.
Officer 1 could also be heard on two occasions using his radio to report traffic offenses to other Iowa
City Police Department Officers. In one instance, Officer 1 reported having observed a driver use his
phone to take pictures of the Black Lives Matter protest while driving through the intersection for a
second time. In another instance, Officer 1 reported a car with its several passengers not wearing
seatbelts after it stopped at the light at the intersection in front of the officer and with the windows down.
Both of these alleged offenses Officer 1 reported were observable on the BWC of Officer 1.
The Complainant filed a report with the Iowa City Police for the alleged running of a red light by the
Iowa State Patrol at the intersection. The Complainant was referred to file the report with the Iowa
State Patrol on the stated grounds that, because it involved Iowa State Patrol, they Would. be best
suited to handle any sort of further investigation into the matter.
ALLEGATION 1 — Discourtesy.
Members of the Iowa City Police shall be courteous and orderly in their dealings with the public. It is
the expectation of the Iowa City Police Department, and the Iowa City community, that officers provide
their identification either by providing their name or badge number when they can reasonably provide it
in the circumstances.
Officer 1, in particular, showed politeness and was courteous in his interactions with the public
practically throughout the drawn -out occasion while waiting for the tow truck in front of a crowd that on
occasion made antagonizing and disrespectful remarks. However, on the occasion in which he was
politely asked for his name and badge number, he discourteously refused. Further, the way he
dismissed the reported alleged traffic violation by the Iowa State Patrol was discourteous.
Officer 2 refrained from any interactions with the public, except for the times he refused to provide his
name and badge number. His stated reason for his refusals was that, "he was not part of the traffic
stop." This reason does not excuse the officer from complying with the polite and repeated requests
from community members for his identification. He should have provided his name and badge number,
and failure to do so, was discourteous and not in conformance with the expectations of conduct for
Iowa City Police.
The board thereby affirms the opinion set forth in the report of the Interim Chief of Police.
Chief's Conclusion — Complaint Sustained
Board's Conclusion — Complaint Sustained
ALLEGATION 2 — Refusal to report or document a traffic violation
It is not the practice of the police department to investigate individual minor traffic violations if the officer
did not witness the violation or the violation did not result in a collision. There is no evidence that
Officer 1 observed the alleged minor traffic violation Complainant reported the Complainant observed
"ten minutes ago" to Officer 1. Additionally, as the Complainant reported violation was on the part of
the State Patrol employee, it was reasonable for the Iowa City Police Station Master to refer the
Complainant to contact the State Patrol about the incident. These reasons, alone, are enough for a
finding of "Not Sustained" to this allegation.
In the interests of thoroughness, we also find that there was no misconduct for Officer 1's refusal to
report or document an alleged traffic violation that happened "ten minutes earlier" on other grounds.
Officers are given reasonable discretion on whether and how to investigate, issue citations, or make
arrests for offenses. On two observable occasions on the scene of the incident, for example, Officer 1
reported traffic offenses he observed to other officers, rather than pursue them himself. This
showcases that he felt it was more important for him to stay standing in support of the State Patrol than
to investigate and make stops or citations for traffic violations. Again, it should be stated that, contrary
to these two occasions, there is no evidence Officer 1 observed the alleged traffic offense Complainant
reported to him.
The record further debunks the Complainant's accusation that Officer 1 displayed favoritism in refusing
to investigate the alleged offense that was reported to him on account that the minor violation was
committed by another officer. That is because Officer 1 exercised similar discretion on several
occasions towards non -officers on the scene well, even though he personally observed the violations
committed by non -officers. Officer 1 did not report a non -officer's minor traffic violation of a driver
operating while using a handheld device the first time he observed him; only the second time. Similarly,
Officer 1 asked bicyclists to dismount from riding on the sidewalk. Officer 1 asked pedestrians crossing
against the lights at intersection to return to the sidewalk until the lights changed. No officer
investigated or brought charges when a can was thrown over the Black Lives Matter barricade and
landed in front of them. These examples are only the ones observed and heard on the BWC. There
may have been more that Officer 1 did not express. The point is, Officer 1 exercised discretion in favor
of several non -officers on the scene, in addition to choosing not investigate the report of the Iowa State
Patrol officer allegedly running a red light "ten minutes earlier." Given the circumstances, we think, in
all instances on the scene, the exercised discretion was reasonable.
The board affirms the opinion set forth in the report of the Interim Chief of Police
Chief's Conclusion — Complaint Not Sustained
Board's Conclusion — Complaint Not Sustained
COMMENTS
None.
LEG-04.1
M \ ■ FMAY, k D
SEIZURE
Original Date of Issue General Order Number
January 10,2000 00-01
Effective Date of Reissue Section Code
November 16, 2020 1 LEG-04
Reevaluation Date Amends
November 2021 1 LEG-04 Previous Version (2010)
INDEX AS:
Search Arrests
Seizure Stop and Frisk
Warrants
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this order is to provide members of the Iowa City Police Department with
guidelines and background pertaining to search and seizure.
POLICY
It is the policy of this department to conduct searches and seizures that are both
legal and thorough. Such searches are to be conducted in strict observance of
the Constitutional and statutory rights of persons being searched and with due
regard for the safety of the officers involved. All seizures shall comply with all
relevant state and federal Constitutional provisions and statutes governing the
seizure of persons or property.
DEFINITIONS
A. Constitution of the United States of America:
LEG-04.2
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person
or things to be seized.
B. Constitution of the State of Iowa:
Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 8. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated;
and no warrant shall issue, but on probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
and things to be seized.
III. PROCEDURES
Search and Seizure Without a Warrant
The Iowa City Police Department recognizes that persons have the right to be free of
unreasonable search and seizure as afforded by the Constitutions of the United States
and the State of Iowa. This Department will strive to ensure that all searches and
seizures meet current legal requirements. In recognition of this, the following guidelines
are to be considered when making a determination to search without a warrant.
A. Consent to Search:
1. Persons or property may be searched upon the consent of the person, owner or
person in control of the property or item to be searched. The person giving
consent must do so voluntarily. The officer is obligated to abide by any
constraints placed on the search by the person. Where there is a reasonable
belief that the person only speaks a language other than English, an officer or
other individual fluent in that language should be summoned to the scene if
available and the exigency of the situation permits (see SOG 18-08 that
addresses communication with persons with limited English proficiency (LEP).
B. Exigent Circumstances:
1. An officer may search without a warrant when obtaining consent or a warrant is
impractical. In addition to exigent circumstances, there must be probable cause.
Two types of exigent circumstances are movable vehicles and hot pursuit.
a. Hot Pursuit Exception
A doctrine that allows police to enter a premise where they suspect a
LEG-04.3
crime has been committed without awarrant when delay would endanger their lives
or the lives of others and lead to the escape of the alleged perpetrator and where there is
probable cause.
b. Automobile Exception
A moveable vehicle may be searched if, at the time of the stop, there is probable cause
that it may contain evidence of a crime, which may be destroyed or moved, and it is
impractical to obtain a warrant.
C. Community Caretaker Exception
A warrantless search of a residence is permissible under the community
caretaking function when it is conducted to preserve life or protect property and
unrelated to criminal investigative duties. Probable cause is not required but the officer must be
reasonably (both objectively and subjectively) justified in performing the search for reasons other
than investigating a crime.
D. Stop and Frisk:
An individual may be frisked for weapons if an officer has an articulable concern
for his/her safety.
E. Inventory Searches of Impounded Vehicles:
The Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794 (Iowa 2018) set
forth the following three tenants that must be followed for a vehicle to be
impounded and searched consistent with the search and seizure provision of the
Iowa Constitution:
"the police should advise the owner or operator of the options to
impoundment";
"personal items may be retrieved from the vehicle"; and
"if the vehicle is impounded, containers found within the vehicle will not be
opened but stored for safekeeping as a unit unless the owner or operator
directs otherwise".
Question 1. Is impoundment necessary?
Impoundment is necessary if there is no driver or owner present.
Impoundment may be necessary after alternative arrangements that do
not interfere with public safety short of impoundment are explored. The
officer must explore alternative arrangements, which include:
Can the vehicle be parked and locked on the street or nearby lot?
LEG-04.4
Is there is a passenger that can take the vehicle, who is not
impaired and has a valid license?
Can the driver or owner arrange for the vehicle to be towed at the
owner's or driver's expense within a reasonable period of time?
Is a third party or friend of the driver able to come and take the
vehicle within a reasonable period of time?
Is there any other option under the circumstances that the driver
suggests and that does not interfere with public safety?
Is there any other option under the circumstances identified by the
officer that does not interfere with public safety?
What a reasonable period of time is will be based on the circumstances, such as
weather and the location.
If impoundment is not necessary, the driver or owner can agree to have the
vehicle impounded. If the vehicle is impounded with driver or owner consent, an
inventory search may be conducted consistent with the following section.
Question 2. If impoundment of the vehicle is necessary, the officer may conduct
an inventory search consistent with the following:
- The officer may request to search the vehicle. If specific consent is not
knowingly and voluntarily given, the officer must inventory closed
containers in plain view left behind in the vehicle as a unit. Bags and
containers must not be opened.
In order for the consent to be knowingly and voluntarily given, the officer
must tell the driver that closed containers in plain view may be stored for
safekeeping, and if they are stored, they will not be opened without a
warrant.
In order for the consent to be knowingly and voluntarily given, the officer
must ask the driver whether there is any property in the vehicle the driver
wishes to retain. If the answer is yes, the driver must be allowed to
retrieve it. The officer should take necessary steps to assure personal
safety.
With respect to property left behind, the officer must ask the driver
whether there is anything of value requiring safekeeping and make a
record of the response in order to protect the ICPD from a later claim of
theft of valuables.
F. Search Incident to Arrest:
LEG-04.5
When an arrest is made, the officer will conduct a search of the arrested person
and the area in the immediate control of the arrested person for the purpose of
ensuring the officers' safety, preventing the person from escaping, discovering
the fruits of the crime, or discovering instruments or articles which may have
been used in the commission of a crime or constitute evidence of an offense.
This search must be contemporaneous in place and time.
G. Plain View:
Officers may visually search items or property that is in plain view, provided that
the officer has the right to be in the position from which the view was made.
H. Crime Scene Search:
Depending on the location of a crime scene, consent or a warrant may be required prior to a search.
(i.e. public v. private property)
Officers may search persons on premises during the execution of a search warrant
in order to protect their safety, prevent disposal or concealment of property subject
to the warrant or to remove any items that could be used to effect an escape or
resist arrest.
I. Library and Aggravated Theft:
Persons concealing property as set forth in section 711.36 (aggravated theft) and
714.5 (theft of library materials or equipment) may be detained and searched by an
officer provided the detention is for a reasonable length of time and is conducted in a
reasonable manner by a person of the same sex.
Search and Seizure Pursuant to Warrant
A. What Property May Be Searched
A search warrant may be issued:
1. For property which has been obtained in violation of law.
2. For property, the possession of which is unlawful.
3. For property used or possessed with the intent to be used as the means of committing a public
offense or concealed to prevent an offense from being discovered.
4. For any other property relevant and material as evidence in a criminal prosecution.
B. Legal Basis for Obtaining a Search Warrant
1. In order to obtain a search warrant, an officer must be able to show probable
cause to believe that specific evidence, contraband, or instrumentalities/fruits of a
crime may be found at a particular location.
LEG-04.6
2. Specific facts establishing probable cause must be set forth with clarity and
sufficient specificity to enable an independent reasonable person with reasonable
effort to ascertain and identify the person, place or thing. Officers shall not rely
solely upon personal opinion or unauthenticated third party information or
hearsay. Such facts may be based on the personal observation or knowledge of
the officer, or information from a reliable source.
3. When informants are used, particularly confidential informants, the reliability of
the informant and the information provided should be specified. Whenever
possible, officers should corroborate informant information.
C. Affidavit Preparation
1. An affidavit supporting the application for a search warrant shall be prepared on
the appropriate form in accordance with department policy. Because the
accuracy of the affidavit is vital to the validity of the search warrant, officers shall
ensure that the following information is clearly and completely specified:
(a) Offense: The offense shall be described with reference to the criminal
statute number where possible.
(b) Person, Place or Thing to Be Searched: The person, place or thing to be
searched shall be clearly and specifically described. Where private
premises are to be searched, references should include:
(1) Street number and apartment number if appropriate;
(2) Physical description of the premises;
(3) Legal description of the premises;
(4) Name of owner or occupant;
(5) Geographical location of the property;
(6) Map coordinates or distances from given reference points;
(7) Photographs, satellite photographs, maps, or diagrams that aid in
specifically identifying the location to be searched;
(8) Photographs, physical description including gender, height, weight, eye
color, hair color, and name of the person to be searched.
(c) Scope of the Search: Only those things described in the search warrant can
be seized. Therefore, the affidavit should specify, and the officer should
ensure that the warrant includes the following:
(1) All areas that the officers desire to search shall be designated. In
instances where officers wish to conduct a complete search of a home
and its surroundings, the affidavit should specify a search of the
premise and its "curtilage," and should identify any outbuildings such as
garages, tool sheds or other detached buildings, where appropriate.
(2) Motor vehicles known to be on the premises that maybe searched should
be specified.
LEG-04.7
(3) Searches (other than frisks for weapons) of specific persons on the
premises shall be referenced in the affidavit by name if possible.
(4) The specific items to be seized shall be detailed. Where the item may be
dismantled (e.g., firearms) the warrant should authorize the search and
seizure of parts or components of that item.
(5) Officers anticipating search of computers and related high-technology
equipment should consult a forensic examiner or other qualified source
for appropriate language to use in the affidavit and procedures for
seizure of hardware, software, and electronic media.
(d) Time and Method of Search: A valid search warrant may be served at any
time of the day or night, as operationally required, within 10 days from the
time of issuance.
(1) Officers may request a "no knock" provision in the warrant when they
have reason to believe that adherence to the knock and announce rule
would endanger their safety or the safety of others, would enable a
wanted person to escape, or would likely result in the destruction of
evidence before entry can be made.
2. All affidavits must be reviewed and approved by a supervisor PRIOR to
presentation to a magistrate or other judicial official authorized to issue search
warrants.
PRIOR to obtaining a signed search warrant, a Search Warrant Control Review
Form shall be completed with the required signatures obtained (the second
signature must be from a lieutenant or higher. This would include a sergeant
appointed as an Acting Watch Commander) (see Appendix 1). The accompanying
Search Warrant Checklist should be followed throughout the warrant process.
Other than for the physical search of a structure, a supervisor may waive the
requirements of the Search Warrant Checklist (e.g. obtaining blood for an OWI
investigation, obtaining shoes from a prisoner at the jail, etc.) Justification for the
supervisor's waiver must be documented in writing prior to the service of the
warrant on Appendix I.
4. As all search warrants have potential for violence, the officer making application
will, at a minimum and prior to the execution of the warrant:
(a) Check the criminal history of any person known to reside or frequent the
location i.e. associates.
(b) Check the address for any history of violence.
(c) Prior to serving the warrant, the officer making application will call the
current agency responsible for providing deconfliction services.
If, after completing this assessment, the officer making application discovers
information that may make this a high risk warrant service, the officer will make
LEG-04.8
the approving supervisor aware of the information at which point they will follow
Search and Seizure Pursuant to Warrant -section G (pg. 9) to make a final
determination on whether or not it meets the high risk criteria.
D. Supervisory Review of Issued Search Warrant Prior To Execution
Prior to any attempt at service, a supervisor should review issued search
warrants to ensure that they include all pertinent information set forth in the
affidavit completely and accurately, and that the warrant has been properly
signed by a magistrate or other authorized judicial official. Officers shall not
attempt to serve any search warrant that is known to contain substantive or
administrative errors.
2. When an outside agency requests Iowa City Police assistance with the execution
of a search warrant in Iowa City, a supervisor will at a minimum familiarize
themselves with the address being searched and confirm the accuracy of the
location.
E. Execution of the Search Warrant
10-Day Time Limit: Search warrants must be executed within 10 days from the
time of issuance. Any warrant not executed within this time limit is void and must
be returned unserved to the magistrate or clerk of court. In the event that the
return of an unserved warrant will compromise an active investigation, the
County Attorney should be consulted regarding the time and manner of the
return.
2. Pre -Surveillance: For narcotics / drug or weapon related search warrants, it is
recommended that surveillance be maintained on the target location for a
minimum of 30 minutes prior to the execution of the search warrant.
3. Pre -Search Briefing: Prior to the execution of a search warrant, the supervisor in
charge of the search should ensure that a pre -search briefing is conducted to
inform assisting officers of the following:
(a) The supervisor in charge of the search;
(b) Verification of the specific location to be searched;
(c) The layout of the premises and any known or anticipated hazards that may
exist;
(d) The manner of approach and entry into the premises;
(e) The assignment of assisting officers as necessary to:
(1) Ensure exterior containment of the premises;
(2) Guard and/or transport any persons arrested;
(3) Search designated areas;
LEG-04.9
(4) Restrict access at entrances;
(5) Collect and handle evidence; and
(6) Interviews of any persons present;
(f) The communications procedures to be used;
(g) Historical data of suspects;
(h) Update from surveillance Officer on scene;
(i) Written Safety Plan — copies to all officers participating;
(see Appendix ll)
(k) Staging area discussion.
4 Supervisor Presence Required: The supervisor in charge must be physically
present on all search warrant executions. Once it has been determined that the
scene is secure, the supervisor may designate an officer to complete the search
warrant process. Upon conclusion of the search, the supervisor in charge or
designee is responsible for ensuring that all evidence is properly documented
and secured, that the premises is left in a secure manner, and that all paperwork
and reports are submitted as required.
5 Media or Other Third Party Participation: Police officers shall not take members
of the news media or other third parties into private premises during the
execution of a search warrant, unless the presence of the third party is necessary
in aid of the warrant's execution. Police authority to enter private premises
pursuant to a search warrant does not automatically extend to third parties.
Participation by a third party must be directly related to the authorized objective
and scope of the search warrant. This restriction shall not be construed to
prevent the entry of third parties into private premises pursuant to voluntary
consent or other legal authority.
6 Photographing Premises: Photographs should be taken of the premises both
before and after the search is conducted for the purpose of documenting the
property in its original condition and the condition in which it was left by officers
after the search. All photographs and videos taken at a search warrant are
evidence and will be placed in evidence or on the video storage system at the
conclusion of the search warrant.
7 Officers involved in the service of a search warrant shall comply with GO 99-08
Body Worn Cameras and In -Car Recorders.
Officers may break into any structure or vehicle where reasonably necessary to
execute the warrant if, after notice of this authority and purpose the officer's
admittance has not been immediately authorized. The officer may use
reasonable force to enter a structure or vehicle to execute a search warrant
without notice of the officer's authority and purpose in the case of vacated or
abandoned structures or vehicles. Officer executing a search warrant may break
LEG-04.10
restraints when necessary for the officer's own liberation or to effect the release
of a person who has entered a place to aid the officer.
9 Giving of Notice: The officer executing a search warrant must, before entering
the premises, give appropriate notice of his/her identity and purpose to the
person to be searched or the person in apparent control of the premises to be
searched. If it is unclear whether anyone is present at the location to be
searched, the officer must give notice in a manner likely to be heard by anyone
present. The giving of notice may be waived ONLY if specifically authorized in
the warrant.
10 Serving the Warrant: Before undertaking any search, the officer must leave a
copy of the warrant with the person to be searched or the person in apparent
control of the premises or vehicle to be searched. Where there is a reasonable
belief that the person only speaks a language other than English, an officer or
other individual fluent in that language should be summoned to the scene if
available and the exigency of the situation permits (see SOG 18-08 that
addresses communication with persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). If
no one in apparent and responsible control is occupying the premises or vehicle,
the officer must leave a copy of the warrant affixed to the premises or vehicle.
11 Detention of Persons Present:
A warrant to search a premises does not authorize an officer to search any person
present if an item is not found in the premises.
In the execution of a search warrant the person executing the same may reasonably
detain and search any person or thing in the place at the time for any of the
following reasons:
1. To protect the searcher from attack.
2. To prevent the disposal or concealment of any property subject to seizure
described in the warrant.
3. To remove any item which is capable of causing bodily harm that the
person may use to resist arrest or effect an escape.
13 Scope of the Search: The scope of the search may be only such as is authorized
by the warrant and is reasonably necessary to discover the items specified
therein. Upon discovery of the items specified, the officer must take possession
or custody of them. If in the course of the search the officer inadvertently
discovers items not specified in the warrant which are subject to seizure under
State or City Code, he/she may also take possession of the items so discovered.
14 Inventory of Items Seized: The officer executing the search warrant must
prepare and sign an inventory of all items seized. If the items are seized from a
person, then a copy must be given to that person. If the items are seized from a
place or vehicle, a copy must be given to the owner or person in control of the
premises or vehicle. If no person is present, the copy will be left in the premises
or vehicle from which the items were seized.
LEG-04.11
15 Concluding the Search: Officers will conduct the search in a manner so as to
leave the premises or vehicle in the same general condition as originally found.
All evidence will be handled in accordance with General Order 00-10. The officer
in charge of collecting evidence will complete all reports and property control
forms, and will place the evidence in secure storage prior to ending his/her tour
of duty.
16 Supervisor Responsibility: Upon conclusion of the operation, the approving
supervisor shall forward the original Written Safety Plan, Threat Assessment and
Search Warrant Control Review form to the Records Section. Records will
forward those documents to the Sergeant of Investigations where it shall be
maintained in a secure location separate from the investigative case file.
Return of the Search Warrant
1. Officers shall observe statutory and administrative requirements regarding return
on the search warrant to include providing an inventory of seized property to the
proper person for property taken, and return of the warrant and delivery of the
property inventory to the appropriate judicial authority within specified time limits.
G. Liaison with the County Attorney
1. Officers seeking search warrants in unusual situations or where the seriousness,
nature or legal complexity of the case so dictates, should review the case with
the County Attorney's Office prior to seeking a search warrant.
H. High -Risk Warrant Service Operations
1. Prior to the execution of a search warrant, the need for tactical support will be
determined. In determining whether or not service of the warrant constitutes a
high -risk operation under the provisions of this policy, the supervisor in charge
must consider several factors:
(a) The characteristics and location of the target premises and the number of
persons likely to be present.
(b) The anticipated need for pre -planned forcible or dynamic tactical entry into
the premises.
(c) Facts and information known or foreseen by officers that indicate an
unusually high potential for violence or physical danger exists. The danger
may originate from persons who are believed to be armed or who have a
past history of violence or from a danger within the environment to be
entered (eg., explosives, volatile or hazardous chemicals, barriers or
fortification, vicious animals, etc.).
(d) The number of personnel and resources required to safely and adequately
conduct the operation and accomplish the intended objective.
LEG-04.12
2. Supervisors should make a threat -assessment to determine whether the
intended warrant service activity requires tactical support. If the assessment
indicates a need for tactical support, the supervisor shall consult with the SRT
Commander and the Commander of Field Operations, who will make the final
determination.
3. Authorization for high -risk warrant service operations must be given by the
Commander of Field Operations or designee.
4. High -risk warrant service operations must be preceded with a written plan to
include, at a minimum, the following:
(a) The procurement of any special equipment or resources needed;
(b) The designation of a radio talk group to be used and any special
communications procedures to be followed;
(c) The specific strategy for approaching, entering, securing and leaving the
target premises. This strategy should include the layout of the premises (if
known), and the identification of any known or anticipated hazards that may
exist;
(d) The specific responsibilities of each officer present during the operation,
including provisions for the handling and transport of persons arrested;
(e) The coordination of any special support needed from outside agencies
regarding the foreseen or anticipated need for resources such as medical or
firefighting personnel, animal control units, etc.;
(f) All requirements regarding deconfliction are met per SOG 14-02.
5. Upon conclusion of the operation, the supervisor designated as having
responsibility for the control and coordination of operation must:
(a) Conduct a debriefing and/or critique of the operation with key participating
personnel. The debriefing should be conducted as soon as practical
following the operation;
(b) Review the associated documentation, paperwork, and any required reports
(e.g., use of force) to insure that current legal requirements and
departmental policy have been met;
(c) Insure that all evidence has been properly documented and placed in secure
custody;
(d) Ensure the preparation of an SRT report, if applicable. The SRT report must
include a summary of the result of the operation and any recommendations
arising from the debriefing.
Strip Searches
LEG-04.13
Strip searches are governed by the Iowa Code in addition to the U.S. Constitution (4lh
Amendment) and the Iowa Constitution (Article I, Section 8).
A. Definitions.
Gender Expression: External characteristics and behaviors that are socially viewed
as masculine, androgynous, or feminine. Gender expression is the external manifestation
of one's gender identity.
Gender Identity: A person's gender -related identity, appearance, or behavior. This may
be different from what is traditionally associated with the person's physiology or
assigned gender at birth.
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE): Registered nurses who have completed
specialized education and clinical preparation in the medical forensic care of the patient
who has experienced sexual assault or abuse
Transgender Individual: A person whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex.
Iowa Code 702.23 defines strip search as follows: "Strip search" means having a person remove
or arrange some or all of the person's clothing so as to permit an inspection of the genitalia,
buttocks, anus, female breasts or undergarments of that person or a physical probe of any body
cavity.
Iowa Code 702.24 defines visual strip search as follows: A "visual strip search" means having a
person remove or arrange some or all of the person's clothing so as to permit a visual inspection
of the genitalia, buttocks, anus, female breasts, or undergarments of that person.
B. A person arrested for a simple misdemeanor may be subject to a strip search and/or a visual strip
search under certain conditions.
C. Under Iowa Code Section 804.30, the following conditions apply:
(a) A person arrested for a simple misdemeanor shall not be subjected to either a
strip search or a visual strip search unless: (a) there is probable cause to believe
that the person is concealing a weapon or contraband, and (b) written authorization
of the supervisor on duty is obtained.
(b) A person arrested for a scheduled violation shall not be subject to either a strip
search or a visual strip search unless: (a) there is probable cause to believe that the
person is concealing a weapon or contraband, and (b) a search warrant is obtained.
(c) A strip search conducted pursuant to this section that involves the physical probing
of a body cavity, other than the mouth, ears, or nose, shall require a search warrant
and shall only be performed by a licensed physician unless voluntarily waived in
writing by the arrested person.
2. Any person arrested for a scheduled violation or a simple misdemeanor may be
LEG-04.14
subjected to a search probing the mouth, ears, or nose.
3. All searches conducted shall be performed under sanitary conditions.
4. All searches conducted, except for the probing of the mouth, ears, or nose, shall be
conducted in a place where the search cannot be observed by persons not conducting the
search.
5. All searches shall be conducted by a person of the same sex as the arrested person,
except for the probing of the mouth, ears, or nose, unless the search is conducted by a
physician. * See bullet #7 for Transgender Individuals.
6. Subsequent to a strip search, a written report shall be prepared which includes the written
authorization of the supervisor on duty, the name of the person subjected to the search,
the names of the persons conducting the search, the time, date, and place of the search,
and a copy of the search warrant, if applicable authorizing the search. A
copy of the report shall be provided to the person searched.
7. Officers Will Inform Transgender Individuals of Their Right to Express a Preference of
Officer Gender for Searches
Absent exigent circumstances, before performing any level of search of transgender
individuals, officers will inform them of the right to express a preference for the
gender of the officer who will conduct the search.
b. Officers will record the following information on either their In -Car Camera, Body-
Wom Camera, or video recording devices located in the department:
- The advisement and request for preference
- The individual's response
- Whether or not the request was granted
- Reason for not granting the request, if applicable
C. If the transgender individual has a preference, at least one officer of the gender
requested will conduct the search, whenever possible.
d. Officers must take into account the reasonableness of any delay created by waiting
for another officer.
If the transgender individual does not specify a preference, at least one officer of
the same gender as the transgender individual's gender expression will conduct the
search.
Example: A male officer would search a transgender man who indicates no
preference for the search.
When in doubt regarding any searches of a transgender individual, officers will call
a supervisor to the scene prior to searching.
LEG-04.15
D. Consistent with the limits U.S. Constitution and the Iowa Constitution, a person may
voluntarily waive these requirements. All waivers shall be in writing.
E. In instances involving juveniles, the juvenile's parent or legal guardian will be contacted
and asked to come to the station or other facility.
SANE nurses may be utilized for the collection of evidence during strip search procedures,
including the search of body cavities, if the Iowa Code, as applicable, and the U.S.
Constitution (4th Amendment) and the Iowa Constitution (Article I, Section 8) are not
violated.
G. Except as required herein, if the individual being searched has a preference, at least one officer
of the gender requested will conduct the search, whenever possible.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Searches and seizes shall be conducted in such manner to observe, uphold, and enforce all laws
pertaining to the individual rights of each person without regard to age, race, color, creed, religion, sex,
national origin, economic status, marital status, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. (See
GO 89-04 on Civil Rights).
Denise Brotherton, Interim 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 higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense
with respect to third -parry claims. Violations of this directive will only form
the basis for departmental administrative sanctions.
LEG-04.16
(APPENDIX I)
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEARCH WARRANT CONTROL REVIEW
The attached search warrant has been reviewed and there is written documentation to support
application. Supportive data under case #
This search warrant does comply with the following Iowa City Police Department as well as State of
Iowa requirements where appropriate.
1 Code of Iowa Chapter 808.
2 General Order 00-01, Search & Seizure.
3 General Order 89-04, Civil Rights.
4 General Order 99-02, Alarms -Open Door Response.
5 General Order 01-02, Informants.
Officer Making
Submitted: / /
(Signature)
Approving Supervisor *: (Signature)
Reviewed:
Lieutenant (or higher): (Signature)
Reviewed:
Safety Plan Waiver
All provisions of the Search Wan -ant Control Review are waived with the exception of the post warrant service.
Reason: Location is already secured Records only/DNA only Vehicle only
Dther:
Date
Post Warrant Service
1 Leave paperwork at scene of items seized. Applicant Supervisor
2 Notification to supervisor of results, concerns and problems. Applicant_ Supervisor_
3 Use of Force report if applicable. Applicant_ Supervisor_
4 Returnof service to the court. Applicant Supervisor
Prior to service of the search warrantcopies of the following are to be finished and on file.
1 Original complaint report(s).
2 All follow-up reports.
3 All intelligence reports.
4 Copy of search warrant.
5 Copy of signed Search Warrant Control Review.
6 Copy of Safety Plan.
7 Any other reports, data, relevant to the search warrant.
*Approving supervisor is responsible to route this form and the safety plan (if applicable) to the Sergeant of Investigations.
LEG-04.17
SEARCH WARRANT CHECK LIST
Deviations from the checklist must be approved by the Supervisor in charge. Prior to County
Attorney and Judge's Signatures:
1. Satellite photograph of target / neighborhood
Applicant_ Supervisor_
2. Photographs of target residence (front, rear, sides as applicable) Applicant
Supervisor_
SUPERVISOR MUST BE PRESENT DURING SERVICE OF SEARCH WARRANT
Prior to Execution of Search Warrant:
Briefing with all entry team officers, including supervisor
Applicant_ Supervisor_
2. Original complaint report, current investigative reports, intelligence reports
Applicant Supervisor_
3. Copy of search warrant
Applicant_ Supervisor
4. Maintained surveillance on target residence for a minimum of 30 minutes
(Narcotics / Drug Related)
Applicant_ Supervisor_
Briefing: Specific Assignments / Tasks:
Verification of address of target
Applicant_ Supervisor_
2. Method of entry and order of stack
Applicant_ Supervisor_
3. Exterior residence containment
Applicant_ Supervisor
4. Photographs — Documentation / Evidentiary / Persons
Applicant_ Supervisor_
Searchers / Interviewers
Applicant_ Supervisor
LEG-04.18
6. Observation and control of suspects
Applicant_ Supervisor
7. Communications with dispatch
Applicant_ Supervisor
8. Historical data of suspects
Applicant_ Supervisor
9. Update from surveillance officer on scene
Applicant_ Supervisor_
10. Written Safety Plan — copies to all officers participating
Applicant_ Supervisor_
11. Staging area discussion
Applicant_ Supervisor
12 Radio frequency & cell phone numbers
Applicant_ Supervisor_
Post Warrant Service: Moved to page 1.
LEG-04.19
1
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
�
OPERATIONAL
'I
'1
DATE: INCIDENT#: CASE AGENT:
SUPERVISOR:
Click here to enter text. I Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. I Click here to enter text.
t(800)308.59831 DECONFLICTION #: DECONFLICTED BY:
DECONFLICTION DATEITIME:
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
I Click here to enter text.
TYPE OF OPERATION AND MISSION OBJECTIVE:
BUY: ❑ BUYIBUST: ❑ SEARCH WARRANT: ❑ SURVEILLANCE: ❑ OTHER: ❑
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
SUBJECT NUMBER ONE
NAME
SEX
RACE
DOB
AGE
HEIGHT
WEIGHT
EYES
HAIR
Click here to enter
Clic
Clic
Click
Click
Click
Click
Click here
Click here to
SUSPECT'S ADDRESS(S)
PRIMARY: Click here to enter text.
ALTERNATE: Click here to enter text.
SUSPECT'S VEHICLE(S)
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
COLOR
LIC #
STATE
Click here to
Click here to
Click here to
Click here to
Click here to
Click here to
enter text.
enter text.
enter text.
enter text.
enter text.
enter text.
CRIMINAL HISTORY
REMARKS: Click here to enter text.
WEAPONS: Click here to enter text.
VIOLENT HISTORY: Click here to enter text.
PHOTO: ❑ SEE ATTACHMENT: ❑
7
• •
Click here to enter text.
2
3
4
LEG-04.20
UNDERCOVER
PERSONNEL
AGENTIOFFICER GALL SIGN
MOBILE#
PAGER#
Click here to enter
Click here to enter
Click here to
enter
Click here to enter text.
text.
text.
text.
VEHICLE MAKE
MODEL
COLOR
LIC#
STATE
Click here to
Click hereClick
here
Click here
Click here to enter text.
enter text.
to enter
Fenter
to enter
to enter
text.
text.
text.
VERBAL
BUST SIGNAL(S):
VISUAL
EMERGENCY
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
MONITORING
BODY WIRE / RECORDING
TYPE:
WORN BY:
I MONITORED BY:
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
I Click here to enter text.
CHOOSE HOSPITAL HERE
PERSONNEL ASSISTING
AGENT/OFFICER ID # PHONE # I VEHICLE ASSIGNMENT
SURVEILLANCE NOTES
LEG-04.21
REDLINE VERSION
Red highlights are deletions
Green highlights are additions
LEG-04.1
SEARCH AND
SEIZURE
Original Date of Issue General Order Number
January 10, 2000 00-01
Effective Date of Reissue Section Code
November 16, 2020 1 LEG-04
Reevaluation Date Amends
November 2021 1 LEG-04 Previous Version (2010)
C.A.L.E.A• Reference
1.2.4 1 (see "INDEX AS:")
INDEX AS:
Search
Seizure
Warrants
I. PURPOSE
Arrests
Stop and Frisk
The purpose of this order is to provide members of the Iowa City Police Department with
guidelines and background pertaining to search and seizure.
POLICY
It is the policy of this department to conduct searches and seizures that are both
legal and thorough. Such searches are to be conducted in strict observance of
the Constitutional and statutory rights of persons being searched and with due
regard for the safety of the officers involved. All seizures shall comply with all
relevant state and federal Constitutional provisions and statutes governing the
seizure of persons or property.
II. DEFINITIONS
A. Constitution of the United States of America:
LEG-04.2
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person
or things to be seized.
B. Constitution of the State of Iowa:
Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 8. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated;
and no warrant shall issue, but on probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
and things to be seized.
III. PROCEDURES
Search and Seizure Without a Warrant
The Iowa City Police Department recognizes that persons have the right to be free of
unreasonable search and seizure as afforded by the Constitutions of the United States
and the State of Iowa. This Department will strive to ensure that all searches and
seizures meet current legal requirements. In recognition of this, the following guidelines
are to be considered when making a determination to search without a warrant.
A. Consent to Search:
1. Persons or property may be searched upon the consent of the person, owner or
person in control of the property or item to be searched. The person giving
consent must do so voluntarily. The officer is obligated to abide by any
constraints placed on the search by the person. Where there is a reasonable
belief that the person only speaks a language other than English, an officer or
other individual fluent in that language should be summoned to the scene if
available and the exigency of the situation permits (see SOG 18-08 that
addresses communication with persons with limited English proficiency (LEP).
B. Exigent Circumstances:
1. An officer may search without a warrant when
obtaining consent or a warrant is impractical. In addition to exigent
circumstances, there must be robable cause. Two types of exigent
circumstances are and hot pursuit.
I
LEG-04.3
A warrantless search
caretaking function when it is con,
to crimine
Hot Pursuit Exception
A doctrine that allows police to enter a premise where they suspect a
crime has been committed without awarrant when delay would endanger their lives
or the lives of others and lead to the escape of the alleged perpetrator
be searched if
of
crime, which may be destroyed or moved, and it is impractical to obtain a warrant.
caretaking function when it is conducted to preserve life or protect property a
unrelated to criminal investigafive duties. Probable cause is not required but
D. Stop and Frisk:
1. An individual may be frisked for weapons if an officer has an articulable concern
for his/her safety.
E. Inventory Searches of Impounded Vehicles:
The Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794 (Iowa 2018) set
forth the following three tenants that must be followed for a vehicle to be
impounded and searched consistent with the search and seizure provision of the
Iowa Constitution:
"the police should advise the owner or operator of the options to
impoundment";
LEG-04.4
"personal items may be retrieved from the vehicle"; and
"if the vehicle is impounded, containers found within the vehicle will not be
opened but stored for safekeeping as a unit unless the owner or operator
directs otherwise".
Question 1. Is impoundment necessary?
Impoundment is necessary if there is no driver or owner present.
Impoundment may be necessary after alternative arrangements that do
not interfere with public safety short of impoundment are explored. The
officer must explore alternative arrangements, which include:
- Can the vehicle be parked and locked on the street or nearby lot?
- Is there is a passenger that can take the vehicle, who is not
impaired and has a valid license?
- Can the driver or owner arrange for the vehicle to be towed at the
owner's or driver's expense within a reasonable period of time?
- Is a third party or friend of the driver able to come and take the
vehicle within a reasonable period of time?
- Is there any other option under the circumstances that the driver
suggests and that does not interfere with public safety?
Is there any other option under the circumstances identified by the
officer that does not interfere with public safety?
What a reasonable period of time is will be based on the circumstances, such as
weather and the location.
If impoundment is not necessary, the driver or owner can agree to have the
vehicle impounded. If the vehicle is impounded with driver or owner consent, an
inventory search may be conducted consistent with the following section.
Question 2. If impoundment of the vehicle is necessary, the officer may conduct
an inventory search consistent with the following:
The officer may request to search the vehicle. If specific consent is not
knowingly and voluntarily given, the officer must inventory closed
containers in plain view left behind in the vehicle as a unit. Bags and
containers must not be opened.
In order for the consent to be knowingly and voluntarily given, the officer
must tell the driver that closed containers in plain view may be stored for
LEG-04.5
safekeeping, and if they are stored, they will not be opened without a
warrant.
In order for the consent to be knowingly and voluntarily given, the officer
must ask the driver whether there is any property in the vehicle the driver
wishes to retain. If the answer is yes, the driver must be allowed to
retrieve it. The officer should take necessary steps to assure personal
safety.
With respect to property left behind, the officer must ask the driver
whether there is anything of value requiring safekeeping and make a
record of the response in order to protect the ICPD from a later claim of
theft of valuables.
F. Search Incident to Arrest:
When an arrest is made, the officer will conduct a search of the arrested person
and the area in the immediate control of the arrested person for the purpose of
ensuring the officers' safety, preventing the person from escaping, discovering
the fruits of the crime, or discovering instruments or articles which may have
been used in the commission of a crime or constitute evidence of an offense.
This search must be contemporaneous in place and time.
G. Plain View:
1. Officers may visually search items or property that is in plain view, provided that
the officer has the right to be in the position from which the view was made.
H. Crime Scene Search:
1. Depending on the location of a crime scene, consent or a warrant may be
required prior to a search. (i.e. public v. private property)
Officers may search persons on premises during the execution of a search warrant
in order to protect their safety, prevent disposal or concealment of property subject
to the warrant or to remove any items that could be used to effect an escape or
resist arrest.
I. Library and Aggravated Theft:
Persons concealing property as set forth in section 711.3B (aggravated theft) and
714.5 (theft of library materials or equipment) may be detained and searched by an
officer provided the detention is for a reasonable length of time and is conducted in a
reasonable manner by a person of the same sex.
Search and Seizure Pursuant to Warrant
A. What Property May Be Searched
A search warrant may be issued:
LEG-04.6
1. For property which has been obtained in violation of law.
2. For property, the possession of which is unlawful.
3. For property used or possessed with the intent to be used as the means of committing a public
offense or concealed to prevent an offense from being discovered.
4. For any other property relevant and material as evidence in a criminal prosecution.
B. Legal Basis for Obtaining a Search Warrant
In order to obtain a search warrant, an officer must be able to show probable
cause to believe that specific evidence, contraband, or instrumentalities/fruits of a
crime may be found at a particular location.
2. Specific facts establishing probable cause must be set forth with clarity and
sufficient specificity to enable an independent reasonable person with reasonable
effort to ascertain and identify the person, place or thing. Officers shall not rely
solely upon personal opinion or unauthenticated third party information or
hearsay. Such facts may be based on the personal observation or knowledge of
the officer, or information from a reliable source.
3. When informants are used, particularly confidential informants, the reliability of
the informant and the information provided should be specified. Whenever
possible, officers should corroborate informant information.
C. Affidavit Preparation
1. An affidavit supporting the application for a search warrant shall be prepared on
the appropriate form in accordance with department policy. Because the
accuracy of the affidavit is vital to the validity of the search warrant, officers shall
ensure that the following information is clearly and completely specified:
(a) Offense: The offense shall be described with reference to the criminal
statute number where possible.
(b) Person, Place or Thing to Be Searched: The person, place or thing to be
searched shall be clearly and specifically described. Where private
premises are to be searched, references should include:
(1) Street number and apartment number if appropriate;
(2) Physical description of the premises;
(3) Legal description of the premises;
(4) Name of owner or occupant;
(5) Geographical location of the property;
(6) Map coordinates or distances from given reference points;
(7) Photographs, satellite photographs, maps, or diagrams that aid in
specifically identifying the location to be searched;
LEG-04.7
(8) Photographs, physical description including gender, height, weight, eye
color, hair color, and name of the person to be searched.
(c) Scope of the Search: Only those things described in the search warrant can
be seized. Therefore, the affidavit should specify, and the officer should
ensure that the warrant includes the following:
(1) All areas that the officers desire to search shall be designated. In
instances where officers wish to conduct a complete search of a home
and its surroundings, the affidavit should specify a search of the
premise and its "curtilage," and should identify any outbuildings such as
garages, tool sheds or other detached buildings, where appropriate.
(2) Motor vehicles known to be on the premises that may be searched should
be specified.
(3) Searches (other than frisks for weapons) of specific persons on the
premises shall be referenced in the affidavit by name if possible.
(4) The specific items to be seized shall be detailed. Where the item may be
dismantled (e.g., firearms) the warrant should authorize the search and
seizure of parts or components of that item.
(5) Officers anticipating search of computers and related high-technology
equipment should consult a forensic examiner or other qualified source
for appropriate language to use in the affidavit and procedures for
seizure of hardware, software, and electronic media.
(d) Time and Method of Search: A valid search warrant may be served at any
time of the day or night, as operationally required, within 10 days from the
time of issuance.
(1) Officers may request a "no knock" provision in the warrant when they
have reason to believe that adherence to the knock and announce rule
would endanger their safety or the safety of others, would enable a
wanted person to escape, or would likely result in the destruction of
evidence before entry can be made.
2. All affidavits must be reviewed and approved by a supervisor PRIOR to
presentation to a magistrate or other judicial official authorized to issue search
warrants.
3. PRIOR to obtaining a signed search warrant, a Search Warrant Control Review
Form shall be completed with the required signatures obtained (the second
signature must be from a lieutenant or higher. This would include a sergeant
appointed as an Acting Watch Commander) (see Appendix 1). The accompanying
Search Warrant Checklist should be followed throughout the warrant process.
Other than for the physical search of a structure, a supervisor may waive the
requirements of the Search Warrant Checklist (e.g. obtaining blood for an ON
investigation, obtaining shoes from a prisoner at the jail, etc.) Justification for the
LEG-04.8
supervisor's waiver must be documented in writing prior to the service of the
warrant on Appendix I.
4. As all search warrants have potential for violence, the officer making application
will, at a minimum and prior to the execution of the warrant:
(a) Check the criminal history of any person known to reside or frequent the
location i.e. associates.
(b) Check the address for any history of violence.
(c) Prior to serving the warrant, the officer making application will call the
current agency responsible for providing deconfliction services.
If, after completing this assessment, the officer making application discovers
information that may make this a high risk warrant service, the officer will make
the approving supervisor aware of the information at which point they will follow
Search and Seizure Pursuant to Warrant -section G (pg. 9) to make a final
determination on whether or not it meets the high risk criteria.
D. Supervisory Review of Issued Search Warrant Prior To Execution
Prior to any attempt at service, a supervisor should review issued search
warrants to ensure that they include all pertinent information set forth in the
affidavit completely and accurately, and that the warrant has been properly
signed by a magistrate or other authorized judicial official. Officers shall not
attempt to serve any search warrant that is known to contain substantive or
administrative errors.
2. When an outside agency requests Iowa City Police assistance with the execution
of a search warrant in Iowa City, a supervisor will at a minimum familiarize
themselves with the address being searched and confirm the accuracy of the
location.
E. Execution of the Search Warrant
10-Day Time Limit: Search warrants must be executed within 10 days from the
time of issuance. Any warrant not executed within this time limit is void and must
be returned unserved to the magistrate or clerk of court. In the event that the
return of an unserved warrant will compromise an active investigation, the
County Attorney should be consulted regarding the time and manner of the
return.
2. Pre -Surveillance: For narcotics / drug or weapon related search warrants, it is
recommended that surveillance be maintained on the target location for a
minimum of 30 minutes prior to the execution of the search warrant.
LEG-04.9
3. Pre -Search Briefing: Prior to the execution of a search warrant, the supervisor in
charge of the search should ensure that a pre -search briefing is conducted to
inform assisting officers of the following:
(a) The supervisor in charge of the search;
(b) Verification of the specific location to be searched;
(c) The layout of the premises and any known or anticipated hazards that may
exist;
(d) The manner of approach and entry into the premises;
(e) The assignment of assisting officers as necessary to:
(1) Ensure exterior containment of the premises;
(2) Guard and/or transport any persons arrested;
(3) Search designated areas;
(4) Restrict access at entrances;
(5) Collect and handle evidence; and
(6) Interviews of any persons present;
(f) The communications procedures to be used;
(g) Historical data of suspects;
(h) Update from surveillance Officer on scene;
(i) Written Safety Plan — copies to all officers participating;
(see Appendix ll)
(k) Staging area discussion
4 Supervisor Presence Required: The supervisor in charge must be physically
present on all search warrant executions. Once it has been determined that the
scene is secure, the supervisor may designate an officer to complete the search
warrant process. Upon conclusion of the search, the supervisor in charge or
designee is responsible for ensuring that all evidence is properly documented
and secured, that the premises is left in a secure manner, and that all paperwork
and reports are submitted as required.
5 Media or Other Third Party Participation: Police officers shall not take members
of the news media or other third parties into private premises during the
execution of a search warrant, unless the presence of the third party is necessary
in aid of the warrant's execution. Police authority to enter private premises
pursuant to a search warrant does not automatically extend to third parties.
Participation by a third party must be directly related to the authorized objective
and scope of the search warrant. This restriction shall not be construed to
prevent the entry of third parties into private premises pursuant to voluntary
consent or other legal authority.
LEG-04.10
6 Photographing Premises: Photographs should be taken of the premises both
before and after the search is conducted for the purpose of documenting the
property in its original condition and the condition in which it was left by officers
after the search. All photographs and videos taken at a search warrant are
evidence and will be placed in evidence or on the video storage system at the
conclusion of the search warrant.
Officers involved in the service of a search warrant shall comply with GO 99-08
Body Worn Cameras and In -Car Recorders.
Officers may break into any structure or vehicle where reasonably necessary to
execute the warrant if, after notice of this authority and purpose the officer's
admittance has not been immediately authorized. The officer may use
reasonable force to enter a structure or vehicle to execute a search warrant
without notice of the officer's authority and purpose in the case of vacated or
abandoned structures or vehicles. Officer executing a search warrant may break
restraints when necessary for the officer's own liberation or to effect the release
of a person who has entered a place to aid the officer.
Giving of Notice: The officer executing a search warrant must, before entering
the premises, give appropriate notice of his/her identity and purpose to the
person to be searched or the person in apparent control of the premises to be
searched. If it is unclear whether anyone is present at the location to be
searched, the officer must give notice in a manner likely to be heard by anyone
present. The giving of notice may be waived ONLY if specifically authorized in
the warrant.
10 Serving the Warrant: Before undertaking any search, the officer must leave a
copy of the warrant with the person to be searched or the person in apparent
control of the premises or vehicle to be searched. Where there is a reasonable
belief that the person only speaks a language other than English, an officer or
other individual fluent in that language should be summoned to the scene if
available and the exigency of the situation permits (see SOG 18-08 that
addresses communication with persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). If
no one in apparent and responsible control is occupying the premises or vehicle,
the officer must leave a copy of the warrant affixed to the premises or vehicle.
11 Detention of Persons Present:
A warrant to search a premises does not authorize an officer to search any person
present if an item is not found in the premises.
In the execution of a search warrant the person executing the same may reasonably
detain and search any person or thing in the place at the time for any of the
following reasons:
To protect the searcher from attack.
2. To prevent the disposal or concealment of any property subject to seizure
described in the warrant.
3. To remove any item which is capable of causing bodily harm that the
person may use to resist arrest or effect an escape.
13 Scope of the Search: The scope of the search may be only such as is authorized
by the warrant and is reasonably necessary to discover the items specified
therein. Upon discovery of the items specified, the officer must take possession
or custody of them. If in the course of the search the officer inadvertently
discovers items not specified in the warrant which are subject to seizure under
State or City Code, he/she may also take possession of the items so discovered.
14 Inventory of Items Seized: The officer executing the search warrant must
prepare and sign an inventory of all items seized. If the items are seized from a
person, then a copy must be given to that person. If the items are seized from a
place or vehicle, a copy must be given to the owner or person in control of the
premises or vehicle. If no person is present, the copy will be left in the premises
or vehicle from which the items were seized.
15 Concluding the Search: Officers will conduct the search in a manner so as to
leave the premises or vehicle in the same general condition as originall found.
All evidence will be handled in accordance with General Order 00-10 .
The officer in charge of collecting evidence will complete all reports and property
control forms, and will place the evidence in secure storage prior to ending
his/her tour of duty.
16 Supervisor Responsibility: Upon conclusion of the operation, the approving
supervisor shall forward the original Written Safety Plan, Threat Assessment and
Search Warrant Control Review form to the Records Section. Records will
forward those documents to the Sergeant of Investigations where it shall be
maintained in a secure location separate from the investigative case file.
F. Return of the Search Warrant
1. Officers shall observe statutory and administrative requirements regarding return
on the search warrant to include providing an inventory of seized property to the
proper person for property taken, and return of the warrant and delivery of the
property inventory to the appropriate judicial authority within specified time limits.
G. Liaison with the County Attorney
1. Officers seeking search warrants in unusual situations or where the seriousness,
nature or legal complexity of the case so dictates, should review the case with
the County Attorney's Office prior to seeking a search warrant.
H. High -Risk Warrant Service Operations
1. Prior to the execution of a search warrant, the need for tactical support will be
determined. In determining whether or not service of the warrant constitutes a
LEG-04.12
high -risk operation under the provisions of this policy, the supervisor in charge
must consider several factors:
(a) The characteristics and location of the target premises and the number of
persons likely to be present.
(b) The anticipated need for pre -planned forcible or dynamic tactical entry into
the premises.
(c) Facts and information known or foreseen by officers that indicate an
unusually high potential for violence or physical danger exists. The danger
may originate from persons who are believed to be armed or who have a
past history of violence or from a danger within the environment to be
entered (eg., explosives, volatile or hazardous chemicals, barriers or
fortification, vicious animals, etc.).
(d) The number of personnel and resources required to safely and adequately
conduct the operation and accomplish the intended objective.
2. Supervisors should make a threat -assessment to determine whether the
intended warrant service activity requires tactical support. If the assessment
indicates a need for tactical support, the supervisor shall consult with the SRT
Commander and the Commander of Field Operations, who will make the final
determination.
3. Authorization for high -risk warrant service operations must be given by the
Commander of Field Operations or designee.
4. High -risk warrant service operations must be preceded with a written plan to
include, at a minimum, the following:
(a) The procurement of any special equipment or resources needed;
(b) The designation of a radio talk group to be used and any special
communications procedures to be followed;
(c) The specific strategy for approaching, entering, securing and leaving the
target premises. This strategy should include the layout of the premises (if
known), and the identification of any known or anticipated hazards that may
exist;
(d) The specific responsibilities of each officer present during the operation,
including provisions for the handling and transport of persons arrested;
(e) The coordination of any special support needed from outside agencies
regarding the foreseen or anticipated need for resources such as medical or
firefighting personnel, animal control units, etc.;
(f) All requirements regarding deconfliction are met per SOG 14-02.
LEG-04.13
5. Upon conclusion of the operation, the supervisor designated as having
responsibility for the control and coordination of operation must:
(a) Conduct a debriefing and/or critique of the operation with key participating
personnel. The debriefing should be conducted as soon as practical
following the operation;
(b) Review the associated documentation, paperwork, and any required reports
(e.g., use of force) to insure that current legal requirements and
departmental policy have been met;
(c) Insure that all evidence has been properly documented and placed in secure
custody;
(d) Ensure the preparation of an SRT report, if applicable. The SRT report must
include a summary of the result of the operation and any recommendations
arising from the debriefing.
Strip Searches
Strip searches are governed by the Iowa Code in addition to the U.S. Constitution (4th
Amendment) and the Iowa Constitution (Article I, Section 8).
A. Definitions.
Gender Expression: External characteristics and behaviors that are socially viewed
as masculine, androgynous, or feminine. Gender expression is the external manifestation
of one's gender identity.
Gender Identity: A person's gender -related identity, appearance, or behavior. This may
be different from what is traditionally associated with the person's physiology or
assigned gender at birth.
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE): Registered nurses who have completed
specialized education and clinical preparation in the medical forensic care of the patient
who has experienced sexual assault or abuse
Transgender Individual: A person whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex.
�_. Iowa Code 702.23 defines strip search as follows: "Strip search" means having a person remove
or arrange some or all of the person's clothing so as to permit an inspection of the genitalia,
buttocks, anus, female breasts or undergarments of that person or a physical probe of any body
cavity.
Iowa Code 702.24 defines visual strip search as follows: A "visual strip search" means having a
person remove or arrange some or all of the person's clothing so as to permit a visual inspection
of the genitalia, buttocks, anus, female breasts, or undergarments of that person.
LEG-04.14
�. A person arrested for a simple misdemeanor may be subject to a strip search and/or a visual strip
search under certain conditions.
M. Under Iowa Code Section 804.30, the following conditions apply:
(a) A person arrested for a simple misdemeanor shall not be subjected to either a
strip search or a visual strip search unless: (a) there is probable cause to believe
that the person is concealing a weapon or contraband, and (b) written authorization
of the supervisor on duty is obtained.
(b) A person arrested for a scheduled violation shall not be subject to either a strip
search or a visual strip search unless: (a) there is probable cause to believe that the
person is concealing a weapon or contraband, and (b) a search warrant is obtained.
(c) A strip search conducted pursuant to this section that involves the physical probing
of a body cavity, other than the mouth, ears, or nose, shall require a search warrant
and shall only be performed by a licensed physician unless voluntarily waived in
writing by the arrested person.
2. Any person arrested for a scheduled violation or a simple misdemeanor may be
subjected to a search probing the mouth, ears, or nose.
3. All searches conducted shall be performed under sanitary conditions.
4. All searches conducted, except for the probing of the mouth, ears, or nose, shall be
conducted in a place where the search cannot be observed by persons not conducting the
search.
5. All searches shall be conducted by a person of the same sex as the arrested person,
except for the probing of the mouth, ears, or nose, unless the search is conducted by a
physician. * See bullet #7 for Transgender Individuals.
6. Subsequent to a strip search, a written report shall be prepared which includes the written
authorization of the supervisor on duty, the name of the person subjected to the search,
the names of the persons conducting the search, the time, date, and place of the search,
and a copy of the search warrant, if applicable authorizing the search. A
copy of the report shall be provided to the person searched.
7. Officers Will Inform Transgender Individuals of Their Right to Express a Preference of
Officer Gender for Searches
a. Absent exigent circumstances, before performing any level of search of transgender
individuals, officers will inform them of the right to express a preference for the
gender of the officer who will conduct the search.
b. Officers will record the following information on either their In -Car Camera, Body -
Worn Camera, or video recording devices located in the department:
- The advisement and request for preference
- The individual's response
LEG-04.15
- Whether or not the request was granted
- Reason for not granting the request, if applicable
C. If the transgender individual has a preference, at least one officer of the gender
requested will conduct the search, whenever possible.
d. Officers must take into account the reasonableness of any delay created by waiting
for another officer.
e. If the transgender individual does not specify a preference, at least one officer of
the same gender as the transgender individual's gender expression will conduct the
search.
Example: A male officer would search a transgender man who indicates no
preference for the search.
When in doubt regarding any searches of a transgender individual, officers will call
a supervisor to the scene prior to searching.
�. Consistent with the limits U.S. Constitution and the Iowa Constitution, a person may
voluntarily waive these requirements. All waivers shall be in writing.
�. In instances involving juveniles, the juvenile's parent or legal guardian will be contacted
and asked to come to the station or other facility.
�. SANE nurses may be utilized for the collection of evidence during strip search procedures,
including the search of body cavities, if the Iowa Code, as applicable, and the U.S.
Constitution (4th Amendment) and the Iowa Constitution (Article I, Section 8) are not
violated.
�. Except as required herein, if the individual being searched has a preference, at least one
officer of the gender requested will conduct the search, whenever possible.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Searches and seizes shall be conducted in such manner to observe, uphold, and enforce all laws
pertaining to the individual rights of each person without regard to age, race, color, creed, religion, sex,
national origin, economic status, marital status, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. (See
GO 89-04 on Civil Rights).
Denise Brotherton, Interim 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 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.
LEG-04.16
LEG-04.17
(APPENDIXI)
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEARCH WARRANT CONTROL REVIEW
The attached search wan -ant has been reviewed and there is written documentation to support
application. Supportive data under case #
This search warrant does comply with the following Iowa City Police Department as well as State of
Iowa requirements where appropriate.
1 Code of Iowa Chapter 808.
2 General Order 00-01, Search & Seizure.
3 General Order 89-04, Civil Rights.
4 General Order 99-02, Alarms -Open Door Response.
5 General Order 01-02, Informants.
Officer Making
Approving Supervisor *:
Lieutenant (or higher):
Submitted: / /
Reviewed:
Reviewed: / /
Safety Plan Waiver
(Signature)
(Signature)
(Signature)
All provisions of the Search Warrant Control Review are waived with the exception of the post warrant service.
R.cason: Location is already secured Records only/DNA only Vehicle only
Dther:
Supervisor Date
Post Warrant Service
1 Leave paperwork at scene of items seized.
Applicant
Supervisor
2 Notification to supervisor of results, concerns and problems.
Applicant
Supervisor
3 Use of Force report if applicable.
Applicant
Supervisor
4 Return of service to the court.
Applicant
Supervisor
Prior to service of the search warrant, copies of the following are to be finished and on file.
1 Original complaint report(s).
2 All follow-up reports.
3 All intelligence reports.
4 Copy of search warrant.
5 Copy of signed Search Warrant Control Review.
6 Copy of Safety Plan.
7 Any other reports, data, relevant to the search warrant.
*Approving supervisor is responsible to route this form and the safety plan (if applicable) to the Sergeant of Investigations.
LEG-04.18
SEARCH WARRANT CHECK LIST
Deviations from the checklist must be approved by the Supervisor in charge. Prior to County
Attorney and Judge's Signatures:
Satellite photograph of target / neighborhood
Applicant_ Supervisor
Photographs of target residence (front, rear, sides as applicable) Applicant
Supervisor
SUPERVISOR MUST BE PRESENT DURING SERVICE OF SEARCH WARRANT
Prior to Execution of Search Warrant:
Briefing with all entry team officers, including supervisor
Applicant Supervisor
2. Original complaint report, current investigative reports, intelligence reports
Applicant_ Supervisor
3. Copy of search warrant
Applicant_ Supervisor
4. Maintained surveillance on target residence for a minimum of 30 minutes
(Narcotics / Drug Related)
Applicant_ Supervisor
Briefing: Specific Assignments / Tasks:
1. Verification of address of target
Applicant_ Supervisor
2. Method of entry and order of stack
Applicant_ Supervisor
3. Exterior residence containment
Applicant_ Supervisor
4. Photographs — Documentation / Evidentiary / Persons
Applicant_ Supervisor
5. Searchers / Interviewers
Applicant Supervisor
LEG-04.19
6. Observation and control of suspects
Applicant Supervisor
Communications with dispatch
Applicant Supervisor
8. Historical data of suspects
Applicant_ Supervisor
9. Update from surveillance officer on scene
Applicant Supervisor
10. Written Safety Plan — copies to all officers participating
Applicant_ Supervisor
11. Staging area discussion
Applicant Supervisor
12 Radio frequency & cell phone numbers
Applicant Supervisor
Post Warrant Service: Moved to page I.
LEG-04.20
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL PLAN
I
iI
DATE: INCIDENT#: CASE AGENT:
SUPERVISOR:
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. I Click here to enter text.
II800)308.5983I DECONFLICTION #: DECONFLICTED BY:
DECONFLICTION DATEITIME:
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
BUY: ❑ BUY/BUST:•❑ SEARCH WARRANT: ❑ SURVEILLANCE: ❑ OTHER: ❑
Click here to enter text.
BACKGROUND OF INVESTIGATION:
Click here to enter text.
SUBJECT NUMBER ONE
NAME SEX RACE DOB AGE HEIGHT
WEIGHT EYES HAIR
Click here to enter Clic Clic Click Click Click
Click Click here Click here to
SUSPECT'S ADDRESS S
PRIMARY: Click here to enter text.
ALTERNATE: Click here to enter text.
SUSPECT'S VEHICLE S
MAKE
MODEL
COLOR
LIC #
STATE
Click here to
Click here to
Click here to
Click here to
Click here to
MREMARKS:
enter text.
enter text.
enter text.
enter text.
enter text.
here to enter text.
WEAPONS: Click here to enter text.
VIOLENT HISTORY: Click here to enter text.
PHOTO: ❑ SEE ATTACHMENT: ❑
• •
1 Click here to enter text.
2
3
4
LEG-04.21
Click here to "enter Click here to enter text Click here to enter text. I
TYPE; I WORN BY: MUNI IUKCu MT;
Click here to enter text. I Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
CHOOSE HOSPITAL HERE
LEG-04.22
OPS-08.1
ALARM -
OPEN DOOR
RESPONSE
Original Date of Issue General Order Number
February 9, 1999 1 99-02
Effective Date of Reissue Section Code
November 20, 2020 1 OPS-08
Reevaluation Date Amends
November 2021
C.A.L.E.A. Reference
1.2.4, 1.2.6, 81.2.13 See Index
INDEX AS: ^;
• Use of Force
• Supervisory Responsibility - 3
• Building Search - ry
• Alarm — Open Door Response _ 17'
• Canine Procedure
I. PURPOSE
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.
ORS-aa.2
IV
DEFINITIONS
PROCEDURES
A. BURGLAR ALARMS
When a member of this department responds to a burglar alarm the 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 the Communications Center [JECC]. The alarm company is
responsible for contacting a business representative. Upon
receiving notification from the alarm company of the key holder
response, JECC should advise the officer if a representative is
r; going to respond. If the representative requests that an officer
accompany them into the building, the officer may do so after
`-0 obtaining approval from a supervisor. When a representative
requests an officer to accompany them to inspect a building, an
o =- entry shall be made listing the name of the representative as well
C" "` 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. JECC or the ICPD
Stationmaster 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 cannot 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
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
OPS-08.3
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 any required
supplemental reports.
B. OPEN DOORS AND WINDOWS
When an officer comes upon or is made aware of an open door, the
�?> following guidelines should be adhered to:
1. The officer(s) will secure the perimeter. At the officer's request,
JECC or the ICPD Stationmaster will contact a building
representative to come to the location before any officer enters the
r building.
2. If the building representative cannot be contacted or does not
j 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. A
member of Day Watch 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
1. 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.
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.
OPS-08.4
D. BANK ALARMS
Officers responding to bank alarms or other financial institutions shall
utilize the authorized departmental protocol as identified in the
Department's Field Training Manual.
E. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. When assisting an outside agency in their jurisdiction, members of
this department will be guided by this policy. Prior to the search of
the building, an ICPD watch supervisor should authorize any
C' participation by ICPD officers in the actual building search. The
watch supervisor should confirm that the person requesting the
_ search has authority to authorize the search.
2. 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.
3. 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.
Jody Matherly, 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 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.
111r:1.011111i
ADMINISTRATION
OF DEPARTMENT
TRAINING
Original Date of Issue General Order Number
August 14 2001 95-04
Effective Date of Reissue Section Code
November 20 2020 TRN-01
Reevaluation Date Amends
November 2022 I TRN-01 Previous Version
C.A.L.E.A. Reference
Chanter 33 (see 'INDEX AS:")
INDEX AS:
Authority and Responsibility, Department Training
Career Specialty In -Service Training, Definition
Department Training Administration
Department Training Authority and Responsibility
Department Training Committee
Department Training Goals
Department Training Policy
Education and Training Record
PURPOSE
Lodging Reimbursement, Training
Meal Reimbursement, Training
Reimbursement, Training
Training Committee, Department
Training Course Critique
Training Expense Reimbursement
Training Goals, Department
Training Policy Statement
Travel Costs, Training
The purpose of this policy is to establish the policies and procedures for the
administration of the Department Training function.
TRN-01.2
II. POLICY
It is essential that all Department personnel are properly trained to fulfill the Department
responsibility to provide professional law enforcement service to the Iowa City community.
Training stimulates, develops, and improves the skills, knowledge and abilities necessary
for individuals to stay competent in the duties and responsibilities of their respective
positions. The dynamic nature of the law enforcement profession dictates that training
be a continuous process of personal and professional growth and development. While
the Department bears the primary responsibility for personnel training, all supervisors,
officers, civilian employees, and designated Field Training officers have the responsibility
to acquire for themselves and to teach those with whom they work, the skills, knowledge
and abilities necessary to perform their tasks and duties.
III. DEFINITIONS
A. Proficiency In -Service Training - A training process designed to stimulate,
develop, and improve the skills, knowledge, and abilities necessary to stay
competent in the duties and responsibilities of the position. Proficiency and
responsibilities of the job presently being performed enhances the employee's
skills beyond the minimum level and increases the potential for career
advancement.
B. Career Specialty In -Service Training - A training process used to provide an
advance level of instruction in an area of interest and specialization that
enhances the overall potential for job satisfaction and career development.
IV. PROCEDURES
The training goals of the Iowa City Police Department are: -
A. To stimulate, develop, and improve the skills, knowledge, grid abilities of all
Department personnel.
B. To provide new officers with the legally mandated basic training anal with the
necessary Department field training.
C. To provide annual in-service training to all officers for purposes of updating
and enhancing their knowledge, skills and abilities.
D. To present career specialty in-service training on an as needed and/or as
requested basis so as to provide advanced levels of instruction in areas of
specialization necessary to carry out the Department mission and enhance
career development.
E. To identify and utilize the most cost-effective means for providing basic and
in-service training to all personnel.
F. To develop as necessary, in-house training programs designed to meet
unique Department training needs.
DEPARTMENT TRAINING FUNCTION
Authority and Responsibility
A. Unit and Section Supervisors - Each supervisor will assess, on a continual
basis, the skills, knowledge, and abilities of their personnel so as to improve
upon performance levels and to identify potential areas of career interest and
specialization. Whenever a supervisor identifies a specific need for
TRN-01.3
proficiency in-service training or career specialty in-service training, they must
notify their Division Commander, in writing, of that need or interest.
B. Division Commander - Each Division Commander is responsible for updating
minimum proficiency in-service training needs (i.e. CPR, Firearm) and career
specialty training interests in order to assign those individuals to the proper
training courses, when they become available.
C. Chief of Police - The Chief of Police makes the final decisions about the
development of in-house training programs and the assignment of personnel
to particular training courses. These decisions are made based upon the
recommendation and requests of the various division commanders,
supervisors, officers, and civilian employees. In addition to the previously
mentioned responsibilities, the Chief, or his/her designee is responsible for
the overall coordination of the Department training function, to include, but not
limited to:
1. identification of individual, unit and/or Department training needs;
2. assignment of personnel to appropriate and/or necessary training
programs;
3. development and implementation of in-house training programs;
4. maintenance of an inventory of the programs and resources available to
provide in-service training;
5. maintenance of Department training records;
6. review and evaluation of training programs;
7. development of an annual Department training plan.
D. Department Training Committee - On an annual basis, the Chief of Police
shall appoint representatives from the Department and the departmental
training officer to serve on a Department Training Committee. The purpose of
this committee is to review, evaluate, and recommend revisions for the
Department training effort and to identify areas in which training;i lacking.
Representatives each year shall be selected from various divisions and_
watches to better obtain an overall representation of the Department.
Representatives shall have an expressed interest in Department Training.
Supervisors shall submit names of officers / employees to the Chief or
designee who fit these criteria for selection. At the conclusion of their review,
the department training officer will prepare a written report summarizing their
findings. This annual training review report will be submitted to the Chief of
Police for review. The department training officer may use this report as a
basis for the development of on -going training.
E. Department Training Officer - The department training officer is responsible
for ensuring that members of the department receive the minimum mandatory
training as required by law. Additionally, he/she shall continually develop,
implement and evaluate departmental training and assist in assessing the
training needs of the department. He/she shall maintain records of the
training provided "in-house" and records/documentation of training received
outside the department.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING RECORD
Officers assigned to attend a training session shall arrive at the designated training at
the specified time and with any required equipment. Officers shall attend the assigned
TRN-01.4
training in its entirety. In those instances where the officer is required to miss part of the
scheduled training for court or other duty related circumstances, the officer shall notify
the instructor of the course at the beginning of the session. To the extent possible,
officers shall complete any make up assignments as directed by the instructor. The
instructor shall be provided the reason for the absence and the anticipated time of
return. In situations where the officer is absent for other than a duty -related reason, the
officer shall notify his/her supervisor of the absence as soon as possible. Officers
missing mandatory training for which they have been scheduled may be required to
make up the training.
Officers assigned to a training session shall be considered on duty for that day(s). The
officer will be reimbursed consistent with city policy for expenses incurred and related to
the training. All materials obtained at training are the property of the Iowa City Police
Department and the officer may be required to submit the materials for review or to a
departmental library.
For all departmental training conducted by members of the Iowa City Police
Department, the person assigned to conduct the training shall submit a lesson plan or
outline to the training officer for review and approval at least three (3) business days
prior to the training. The lesson plan or outline shall include the following:
A. a statement of performance and job -related objectives;
B. the content of the training, specification of the instructional techniques to be
used, and the anticipated amount of training time;
C. identification of any tests or evaluations used in the training process.
The departmental training officer shall maintain a record of all departmental training.
These records shall include lesson plans/outline, name of attendees, and the
performance of individual attendees as measured by any applicable tests or
performance evaluations.
Personnel assigned to the training function should receive training as available, in the
following areas:
A. lesson plan development;
B. performance objective development;
C. instructional techniques;
D. testing and evaluation techniques;
E. resource availability and use.
For training in which officers are tested or evaluated, officers failing to satisfactorily
complete the training may be required to repeat the training or attend a remedial training
session as directed by their watch commander. In addition, watch supervisors shall
note any training deficiencies or needs when completing the employees annual
evaluation.
Remedial training is personalized training to correct a specific deficiency identified by
testing and other evaluation processes during training or routine job performance.
Remedial training shall occur in the following manner:
Remedial training will be made available by the training coordinator, as the
need arises. Although timetables are difficult to impose upon remedial
efforts due to physical problems, injury, skill development, available seats,
course type and instructor availability, etc., a period of one (1) year from
the point of observed and documented need for remedial training will be
considered reasonable.
2. Exception to the one-year time period may occur, for example, in critical
skill areas such as firearms proficiency. These exceptions will be
addressed on a case -by -case basis with input from instructor(s),
immediate supervisor and the training coordinator.
3. At the end of one year, or earlier in case of a critical skill area, if failure (or
specific deficiency) still exists, then a determination shall be made in
conjunction with the instructor(s), immediate supervisor and training
coordinator, as to the issue of incompetency.
A written recommendation shall be drafted to the Chief of Police.
disciplinary action may result.
Members assigned to remedial training shall display an effort
to participate. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action.
6. Specific remedial training is required for less lethal weapons and firearms.
Upon the completion of a training session the employee shall provide the
departmental training officer copies of any certificates and test scores.
The training officer shall document the completion of the training in the
employee's departmental training file.
PROBATIONARY OFFICER TRAINING
A. Law Enforcement Academy
The department shall primarily utilize police academies approved by the
Iowa Law Enforcement Academy for basic police recruit training. The
department shall only utilize police recruit training programs in academies
offering the state of Iowa mandated training and certification as stated in
Iowa Code section 80B. The curriculum of these programs shall be based
upon state law and a job task analysis of the most frequent assignments in
required skills, knowledge and abilities.
The training officer shall maintain a close liaison with the staff of the
Iowa Law enforcement Academy in order to stay abreast of current
training curriculum, provide input to the academy training program, and
monitor probationary officer progress while in attendance.
3. When requested through the director of the academy, the department may
make available instructors and resources to assist in completing the
training curriculum. The Iowa City Police Department shall maintain
TRN-01.6
contact with all personnel attending basic training classes. In addition, the
departmental training officer shall periodically review the contents of the
training received at any outside basic training academies and forward any
concerns to the Commander of Support Services for review. All
expenses incurred in the attendance of the academy will be paid by the
Iowa City Police Department. All probationary officers attending the
academy are full time employees of the Iowa City Police Department and
receive all applicable benefits and protections provided as such. When
requested and to the extent possible the Iowa City Police Department will
provide instructors to outside academies.
4. Under normal circumstances, liability for any training -related injury or
impairment to a police recruit while attending academy training shall be
borne by the department. The police recruit shall be considered "on duty"
while attending academy training and shall enjoy the same protections
and be compensated the same as other probationary employees with the
department. This does not release the academy from exercising due
diligence in the health and welfare of the employee while attending the
academy. Any employee who feels their health or welfare is not being
properly managed while at the academy shall alert the training officer
as soon as possible.
5. The academy shall be responsible for the administration of the prescribed
training programs and provide for the fair and non-discriminatory testing of
each student. Liability for said administration shall be borne by the
academy.
6. The academy utilized by this department shall provide a guide to all new
police recruit members at the time academy training begins. The
information contained in the guide shall include:
a. The organization of the academy.
b. The academy's rating, testing and evaluation system.
C. Physical fitness and proficiency requirements.
d. Daily training schedules.
e. The academy's rules and regulations.
Specific instruction on departmental policies, procedures, rules and
regulation shall be the responsibility of the department and shall be taught
to the police recruit during the department's field training program.
8. An orientation handbook shall be issued to all new recruit personnel prior
to or at the time academy training begins
B. Recruit Training
All police recruits must comply with the State of Iowa mandatory basic
training requirements, regardless of prior experience or training. In
accordance with the Iowa Code, section 80B, no person shall receive a
TRN-01.7
permanent appointment as a law enforcement officer unless that person
has been awarded a certificate attesting to successful completion of the
minimum standards basic law enforcement training course or received a
waiver of the basic training requirements as a result of the officer having
already successfully completed a basic training program prescribed by the
State of Iowa.
Officers attending police recruit training shall be expected to observe all
rules and regulations set forth by the course director and must maintain
passing grades on police recruit training examinations.
a. Probationary officers shall maintain a liaison with the training officer
during their academy training, keeping the training officer apprised
of their progress and any problems encountered. The training
officer will maintain liaison with the departmental and academy staff
in order to assure an orderly transition from the academy to the
field training program.
b. Serious violations of training academy rules or failure to maintain a
passing grade shall result in dismissal from the department.
All police recruits shall be required to successfully complete the field
training officer (FTO) Program administered by the department. The FTO
program shall train police recruits in the basic tasks required to complete
daily assignments. The training officer shall be assigned to administer the
FTO program and manage the field training officers. As part of ';,
administering the FTO program, the training officer shall
ensure the following:
a. Police recruits are assigned to the FTO program for a minimum of
640 hours.
b. Unless part of the prescribed training of the FTO program, no police
recruits are assigned to carry a weapon or make an arrest until the
completion of the FTO program.
Sworn personnel who have not completed the basic training
academy shall not carry a weapon or be placed in a position where
there is a likelihood of having to take any type of official action.
d. No police recruits are allowed to carry a weapon on duty until
satisfactorily completing training pertaining to the department's use
of force, weapons, and less lethal policies and passing proficiency
testing.
e. When necessary, liaison with academy staff reference recruit
progress and to stay abreast of any training deficiencies.
f. Rotations of police recruit field assignments.
TRN-01.8
Guidelines are established for the evaluation of recruits by field
training officers.
h. Required reports from field training officers and supervisors are
completed.
Probationary officer training will include training of those tasks most
frequently associated with the duties of a patrol officer. Evaluation
of these tasks shall be based on and consistent with the evaluation
system used in the Field Training and Evaluation Process. The
evaluation should assess the probationary officer's knowledge of
the topic as well as the probationary officers abilities and skills
when performing the requisite task.
j. The evaluation techniques used by FTOs and supervisors for police
recruits are consistent and measure competency in the required
skills, knowledge and abilities.
4. Standard Evaluation Guidelines
The Field Training and Evaluation Process uses ten (10) distinct
performance categories to assess the Probationary Officer's quality of
work. Each of the Standard Evaluation Guidelines (SEGs) behaviorally
describes the various criteria for task accomplishment as follows:
a. Exceeds Standards (Consistently meets standards)
i. Without FTO prompting, the Probationer comisterftly
demonstrates knowledge + skill + applicationcompetency.
ii. A single event done exceptionally well does not count.
iii. Must occur on all activities in the evaluated category and
recommended minimum of 3 activities observed in that
category.
b. Meets Standards — YES
Probationary Officer is rated according to the Standard
Evaluation Guidelines. Expectations increase with time and
step advancement.
ii. Teaching and Coaching time does not count against meeting
standards unless the problem is a serious error, not
previously address, or not trained.
C. Meets Standards — NO
TRN-01.9
Probationary Officer is rated according to the Standard
Evaluation Guidelines. Expectations increase with time and
step advancement.
This requires further documentation of the problem in the
Activity Log.
iii. Any indication of Corrective Action Necessary requires a
"Meets Standards -NO" rating for the day.
d. Not Responding to Training
When instruction and additional coaching has been provided but
the probationary officer is still unable to satisfactorily
perform/demonstrate or explain the knowledge/skill area(s), an
NRT (Not Responding to Training) notation (X) will be made on the
front side of the DOR.
Several days of "Meet Standards -NO" with
additional/alternative training provided.
ii. Repeated specific errors with Corrective Action Necessary
with additional/alternative training provided.
iii. Repeated gross errors such as improper judgment;, improper
tactical decision making, indecisiveness, inactivity, etc. with
additional/alternative training provided.
5. Upon completion of basic training, officers shall receive training relating to
departmental Rules and Regulations and Departmental Orders. This
training will be part of the Field Training and Evaluation process and may
be conducted by FTOs or others knowledgeable in this area.
6. Roles and Responsibilities of Members Involved in the FTO Program
a. Commander of Field Operations
i. Oversees Patrol and Investigations, including the Field
Training Unit.
ii. Directly supervises the Watch Commanders
b. Field Training Supervisor
i. Training and Accreditation Sergeant.
ii. Liaison with the Academy for Probationary Officer attending.
iii. Monitors the Probationary Officer's progress at the
Academy.
TRN-01.10
iv. Assigns the Probationary Officers to the Step Rotation and
FTOs.
V. Monitors trainee progress and adjusts schedules
C. Watch Commander/Supervisor
i. Monitors FTO and trainee performance by DOR reviews,
report reviews, video reviews, and field visits.
ii. Ensures FTO observations are properly documented.
iii. Conduct weekly meetings and review End of Week reports.
iv. Conduct special meetings for NRTs and other
circumstances.
V. Approve of training plans for Learning Activity Plans.
d. Field Training Officer
Instruct the Probationary Officer in the field under simulated
and actual situations.
ii. Inspect uniform, appearance, equipment, and completed
documents.
iii. Direct the trainee as needed.
iv. Immediately address and correct deficiencies.
V. Evaluate the Probationary Officer's progress and
performance using feedback and evaluation reports.
vi. Complete required reports in a timely manner. This includes
Daily Observation Reports, Weekly Reports, End of Step
reports, and Training Tasks.
vii. Research ways to provide effective corrective or
enhancement training.
viii. Be a positive role model through leadership by example.
This includes following rules and regulations, methods, and
uniform/appearance. Show a positive attitude toward the
community, trainees, other officers, supervisors, staff, and
the Iowa City Police Department.
X. Perform other staff and administrative duties. Such duties
include teaching assignments, program assessment and
revision, and other duties.
X. Self -Develop by attending quarterly meetings, trainings
provided by the ICPD and other sources, and online
training/research.
e. Probationary Officer
i. Maintain accountability over their trainings.
H. Self -Assess their work and continuously improve.
iii. Become familiar with the Field Training Manual
iv. Complete all paperwork and assignments on time.
V. Complete Daily Activity Logs and Daily Training Plan and
Daily Patrol Plan.
TRN-01.11
vi. Complete all training tasks.
vii. Strive to meet and exceed standards in all evaluation
categories.
viii. Openly communicate and ask questions.
ix. Utilize chain of command appropriately.
C. Field Training Officer Selection and Training
Field training officers shall be selected for the position as a collateral duty
assignment.
FTO Selection Criteria
a. Minimum of three years of service with the Iowa City Police
Department.
b. Consideration will be given to the following areas when determining
the potential of each field training officer candidate:
i. Work history
ii. Educational background
iii. Experience
iv. Ethical integrity
V. Ability to perform the assignment
2. FTO Selection Process
a. When assignment of a field training officer is needed, notice shall
be sent to all officers. The notice shall include details of the duty to
include eligibility, criteria for selection and instructions art, how to
apply.
b. Officers pursuing assignment as a field training officer niirst submit
their interest as specified by the notice of need. The officer should
include the knowledge, skills and abilities that have prepared them
for the assignment. This would include any prior specialized
assignments, temporary assignments or collateral duties in which
the employee has participated.
C. Supervisors should provide recommendations for their direct
reports that are applying to be a field training officer.
d. Command staff shall review all qualified applicants and offer
recommendations to the Chief. After review, the Chief of Police
shall select employees from the list of qualified applicants. The
selection shall be announced to the department by command staff.
e. Any officer that is unsuccessful in the selection process is
TRN-01.12
encouraged to meet with their immediate supervisor and command
staff for information on why they were not selected and how they
can improve their performance in the future.
3. FTO Training
a. All field training officers shall receive instruction on administering
the FTO program prior to being assigned a recruit for training.
Field training officers shall meet regularly with the supervisor in
charge of the FTO program to stay abreast of the latest training
techniques as well as department policy, procedures, rules and
regulations.
CALEA
All agency personnel shall receive accreditation training as follows:
Within 30 days of employment or within 30 days of completion of police
recruit academy training.
2. Prior to an on -site assessment.
IN-SERVICE TRAINING
On a regular basis, officers shall receive update/refresher training as well as training in
new areas. As they become available officers shall receive training in new or changes
in the law — at minimum, legal update training will occur on an annual basis. This
training may be in the form of Watch Training, the training bulletin, Department -wide
training or other formats as determined best suited for the training.
In order to keep officers updated on current trends, techniques, policies, laws etc. and
to address areas of concern, the departmental training officer shall provide regularly
scheduled watch training. Watch training will be conducted by watch supervisors in
conjunction with the regularly scheduled watch meeting.
As needed, the department will provide specialized training to personnel who perform
specialized functions. These shall include but is not limited to crime scene technicians,
accident investigators, canine units, hazardous device technicians, special response
team personnel, and others.
Agency employees assigned to the position of accreditation manager shall receive
specialized accreditation manager training within one year of being appointed.
Newly hired or appointed civilian personnel shall be provided information on the
Departments role, purpose goals, policies and procedures; working conditions and
regulations; and responsibilities and rights of the employee.
TRN-01.13
Prior to being assigned regular duties as a Station Master, the person shall receive
training in the operation, procedures and duties of the position. In addition they shall
receive regular in-service training in this area.
All promoted personnel shall receive training in their new duties and responsibilities
within the first year of their promotion.
Personnel shall receive training in the following areas on an annual basis.
A. firearms
B. defensive tactics
C. motor vehicle operations
D. biased based contacts
E. hazardous materials / critical incidents
F. CPR
G. bloodborne pathogens
H. legal issues
Denise Brotherton, Interim 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 higher legal
standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party claims.
Violations of this directive will only form the basis for departmental administrative
sanctions.
OPS-14.1
ip1UA CITY
04 ', o WS , •
a c+
u � <
fsr. �ss� •
POLICE
Original Date of Issue General Order Number
October 8 1999 99-10
Effective Date of Reissue Section Code
November 20 2020 OPS-14
Reevaluation Date Amends
November 2021
C.A.L. E.A. Reference
1.2.7, 55.1.1 55.1.3 55.2.3 (see "INDEX AS:")
INDEX AS:
Domestic Abuse
Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence Reports
Domestics
No Contact Orders
Protective Orders
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this General Order is to establish policy and procedures for
officers in response to all domestic violence or domestic abuse calls reported to
the Iowa City Police Department. Officers shall be expected to do the following:
• Afford protection and support to adult and child victims of domestic
violence.
• Promote the safety of law enforcement personnel responding to incidents
of domestic violence.
• Establish arrest and prosecution as a preferred means of police response.
• Complete thorough investigations and effect arrest of the primary physical
aggressor upon the establishment of probable cause.
• Officers should not arrest a person who acted in self-defense as defined
by Iowa Code Section 704.3.
OPS-14.2
• Take appropriate action for any violation of any permanent, temporary, or
emergency orders of protection.
• Provide victims or witnesses of domestic violence with support and
assistance through cooperative efforts with community stakeholders in
order to prevent further abuse and harassment or both.
II. POLICY
It is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department to provide a proactive, pro -arrest
approach in responding to domestic violence. The primary focus shall be on the safety
of the victim, officers, and others in proximity of the crime, followed closely by
perpetrator accountability. The law enforcement officer should follow all policies and
procedures of this agency to complete a thorough investigation and analysis of the
complaint with the goal of arresting the person(s) committing an act of domestic
violence and who were not acting in self-defense.
III. DEFINITIONS
A. "Domestic abuse assault' means an assault, as defined in Iowa Code Section
708.1, which is domestic abuse as defined in section 236.2, subsection 2,
paragraph "a", "b", "c", or "d".
B. Iowa Code Chapter 236.2:
2. "Domestic abuse' means committing assault as defined in section 708.1
under any of the following circumstances:
a) The assault is between family or household members who resided
together at the time of the assault. -
b) The assault is between separated spouses or persons divorced from
each other and not residing together at the time of the assault.
c) The assault is between persons who are parents of the same minor
child, regardless of whether they have been married or have lived
together at any time.
d) The assault is between persons who have been family or household
members residing together within the past year and are not residing
together at the time of the assault.
e) The assault is between persons who are in an intimate relationship or
have been in an intimate relationship and have had contact within the
past year of the assault. In determining whether persons are or have
been in an intimate relationship, the court may consider the following
nonexclusive list of factors:
The duration of the relationship.
The frequency of interaction.
Whether the relationship has been terminated.
OPS-14.3
The nature of the relationship, characterized by either parry's
expectation of sexual or romantic involvement.
A person may be involved in an intimate relationship with more than
one person at a time.
C. "Family or household members" means spouses, persons cohabitating,
parents, or other persons related by consanguinity or affinity. "Family or
household members" does not include children under age eighteen.
D. Intimate relationship means a significant romantic involvement that need not
include sexual involvement. An intimate relationship does not include casual
social relationships or associations in a business or professional capacity.
E. Primary Physical Aggressor.
Officers shall, with or without a warrant, arrest the primary physical aggressor
for domestic abuse assault if upon investigation, including a reasonable
inquiry of the victim and other witnesses, if any, the officer has probable
cause to believe the assault:
b) Resulted in a bodily injury
c) Was committed with intent to inflict a serious injury
d) Involved the use or display of a dangerous weapon in connection with
the assault
e) Was committed by impeding the victim's normal breathing or circulation
of the blood by applying pressure to the victim's throat or neck or by
obstructing the nose or mouth of the victim.
f) Was committed by impeding the victim's normal breathing or circulation
of the blood by applying pressure to the victim's throat or neck or by
obstructing the nose or mouth of the victim and causing bodily Injury.
See Iowa Code Section 236.12(2) paragraphs "b", "c", "c", "e"., and "f'.
Considerations relating to an officer's determination of the primary physical
aggressor are set forth in Iowa Code Section 236.12(3).
In identifying the primary physical aggressor, otherwise stated predominant
aggressor, a peace officer shall consider the need to protect the victims of
domestic abuse, the relative degree of injury or fear inflicted on the persons
involved, and any history of domestic abuse between the persons involved.
The officer's identification of the primary physical aggressor shall not be
based on the consent of the victim to any subsequent prosecution or on the
relationship of the persons involved in the incident, and shall not be based
solely on the absence of visible indications of injury or impairment.
A. Discretionary Arrest. Officers may, with or without a warrant, arrest a person
for domestic abuse assault where an assault has been committed which did
not result in any injury to the victim.
OPS-14.4
F. Pro -Arrest Response: The expectation that officers shall arrest a person
unless there is a clear and compelling reason not to arrest (such as a self-
defense determination or lack of probable cause).
Notwithstanding the provisions of Iowa Code Chapter 236.12, officers shall
arrest offenders in cases of domestic assault not resulting in injury to the
victim unless all of the following conditions are met:
a. The offender believed the victim has suffered no injury
b. There is no indication further abuse will take place
c. No weapons were used or displayed
d. The circumstances of the case suggest that neither justice nor domestic
abuse prevention would be served by an arrest, and
e. The decision not to arrest is reviewed and approved by a supervisor on
d uty.
IV. PROCEDURES
Procedures for the following qualifying factors are included in this protocol:
A. Officer Approaching the Scene
B. Officer Responsibility at the Scene
C. Enforcement of No -Contact / Protective Orders
D. Written Reporting
E. Notification of Rights
F. Follow-up Investigation / Domestic Violence Investigator
G. Victim Safety and Protection
H. Hostage Situations
I. Officer Training
J. Officers Charged with Domestic Abuse
A. OFFICER APPROACHING THE SCENE
1. Domestics are a high priority call. Officers will respond immediately with
due consideration of the information available and coordinate their
approach. Two officers should be dispatched to any domestic call -three
officers' is preferred.
2. Remain in contact with the dispatcher, requesting assistance, (see
"Communications" section above) information and updates as needed. If
protective orders are in force, then verification and clarification should be
obtained from the county sheriffs department. (See "protective orders"
section below.)
3. Remain alert for suspect leaving the scene.
B. OFFICER RESPONSIBILITY AT THE SCENE
When officers respond to a call for assistance at the scene of a domestic abuse
incident, they shall:
OPS-14.5
1. Approach the scene safely, and in an alert manner.
2. Identify yourself and give an explanation of your presence. Request entry
into the home when conditions permit. When permission is freely and
voluntarily given by either party, a search of the premises may occur.
3. When entry is refused, exercise persistence in gaining entry based on the
request for assistance received by the department. Request
communications re-establish contact with the complainant, if it has been
lost, and reassess the situation. If entry continues to be refused, contact
the watch commander/supervisor for further guidance if circumstances
permit.
4. Forced entry may be allowed when probable cause exists to suspect that
a felony is occurring, has just occurred, or that a life is in danger. In
evaluating the need for forced entry, the officer (s) must consider the
degree of urgency versus requesting a warrant, the possibility of danger,
whether the suspected offense involved violence and whether the belief
exists that persons may be armed. (See exigent circumstances analysis
in Use of Force G/O)
5. In incidents where a suspect has vacated the scene, and probable cause
exists for an arrest, a complaint and affidavit shall be prepared
immediately, and forwarded to a judge for a request for issuance of an
arrest warrant. However, an officer may arrest a violator within the first 24
hours of an incident without a warrant. (See Iowa Code Section 236.11)
6. Restore order.
7. Take control of all weapons known to be used, or used in a threatening
manner, and safely store them. (See Seizure of Weapons, Iowa Code
Chapter 809.) Iowa Code Section 809.1(1)(c) defines seizable property as
"... property which if not seized by the state poses an imminent danger to
a person's health, safety or welfare." When weapons are seized, the
officer shall notify a supervisor of the seizure prior to the officer going off
d uty.
8. Assess the need for medical attention, and call for assistance if warranted,
and whenever requested by the victim. The officer shall assist the victim
in obtaining transportation to the nearest hospital if requested.
9. Determine complainant, separating all parties if possible, including
suspect, victim, children, and other witnesses.
10.Interview all parties. If necessary, reasonable efforts should be made to
obtain a translator.
11.Following interviews, a conference of the responding officers should
occur, if necessary, with the goal of arriving at a consensus for
determining whether to arrest. Apply appropriate Chapter 236, Domestic
Abuse criteria in making the decision to arrest. If consensus or a
determination is not made, a supervisor shall be called to assist. When an
officer is solo in responding, they may confer with a supervisor as needed.
Identifying the primary physical aggressor is necessary, as persons acting
in self-defense are exempt from this mandatory arrest.
12.If probable cause exists, arrest the suspect. Read suspect Miranda rights.
Place individual in custody. Field release or issuing of citations are not
allowed in the event domestic abuse has occurred. This applies to either /
OPS-14.6
both arrest for domestic abuse, related charges and / or violations of
protective orders. If possible, immediately transport suspect to jail.
Factors that tend to support a finding of probable cause for arrest include:
physical injuries (including bruises or cuts); disheveled clothing or
furniture; a victim's credible statements or visible fear; credible statements
of witnesses, including children; and previous calls to the home. If
probable cause exists, an arrest shall be made, regardless of the stated
wishes of the victim or the apparent use of alcohol or drugs by either the
victim or abuser.
13.If a child is present during an incident of domestic assault in which
charges are filed, a mandatory report shall be made to the Department of
Human Services. Any time a companion charge of "Child Endangerment"
is made, Department of Human Services must be contacted. Notification
shall include contacting DHS by phone prior to the end of the watch and
forwarding copies of the written report. Reports should include names and
DOB of all children present as well as an account of where they were at
time of assault, what they saw, and/or heard.
14.Collect and record evidence, including torn clothing, broken objects, etc.
15. Photograph the following:
a. Victim in a full body picture (front and back).
b. Victim's specific injury(s).
c. Children.
d. Scene, including broken objects, weapons, general disarray, etc.
e. If possible, the suspect's full body and any injuries, in addition to the
mug shot.
f. When photos are taken at a domestic incident, the evidence sheet
should be marked as a domestic along with the incident number being
noted
g. When the property manager receives photos from a domestic incident,
they shall be forwarded to the domestic abuse investigator.
16.When an arrest causes a child(ren) to be without responsible adult
supervision, Department of Human Services shall be ,contacted
immediately. Officers are responsible for the care of children until such
time they are relieved of this obligation by DHS.
17. Upon filling out the complaint, the officer will also complete the victim
section of the incident report, making sure to include name, address,
DOB, SS#, sex and race. A photocopy of the incident report containing
this information will be attached to the complaint.
C. ENFORCEMENT OF NO -CONTACT / PROTECTIVE ORDERS
Violation of a no -contact order or protective order shall be vigorously enforced.
If an officer has reason to believe that domestic abuse has occurred, the peace
officer shall ask the abused person if any prior orders exist, and shall contact the
twenty-four hour dispatcher to inquire if any prior orders exist.
If an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated a no -
contact / protective order the officer shall arrest the person.
OPS-14.7
If an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated a no -
contact / protective order and the officer is unable to arrest the person, the officer
shall issue a warrant of arrest as soon as possible and before the end of the duty
d ay.
D. WRITTEN REPORTING
Officers shall complete reports for all cases involving current or past intimate or
domestic relationships.
Officers shall also complete a report where elements of stalking or potential risk
to the victim, their family, or the public are reported to the police department.
Written reports should be factual, specific and clear so as to present an accurate
portrayal of the domestic abuse incident. Written documentation that will be
made as a result of a domestic abuse arrest are the complaint and affidavit, a
supplementary information report narrative, Iowa City Police Incident Report
Form, and the Domestic Abuse Reporting Form. All officers present at a
domestic shall complete a report including narrative detailing their observations.
In instances where there is a no locate, or the call was incorrectly classified as a
domestic, the primary officer shall complete a report detailing the circumstances
and identifying the correct call classification.
All reports involving a domestic or originally classified as a domestic, or involving
the violation of a domestic abuse no contact order shall be forwarded to the
Department's domestic abuse investigator.
Officers shall make a good faith effort to utilize the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk
Assessment (ODARA) when applicable. If an arrest is made, the ODARA shall
be completed prior to the defendant's initial appearance and officers shall include
the ODARA score (e.g. "ODARA = 4") in the affidavit portion of the criminal
complaint. If the officer fails to record the score on the complaint and the
complaint is submitted, the officer shall write the score on the original complaint
at the jail, and subsequently ensure the same writing on all other copies of the
complaint. Reports will include the documentation of use and scores from the
ODARA.
Reports will, at a minimum, contain narratives which will include the following
information:
1. Full names of parties involved, including dates of birth of the suspect and
victim
2. Address and phone numbers for the victim, witnesses and those present,
including the address and phone number of the location where the victim
will be staying
3. Reports should include names and DOB of all children present as well as
an account of where they were at time of assault, what they saw, and/or
heard
4. The relationship of the victim and suspect
5. Location of the assault
6. Whether no contact orders are known to exist
7. A description of the scene
8. Weapons used
9. Whether a 9-1-1 call was received
10. Documentation of injuries of all parties injured
11.If alcohol is involved, the result of any PBT given to the suspect and victim
12. Whether they received medical treatment
13.An indication of whether the victim was presented their rights
14.Excited utterances should be recorded in quotation marks. Other
statements may be directly recorded or summarized. The demeanor,
spirit and physical description of the suspect should be noted along with
that of the victim
15.If the officer is aware of pending domestic charges, note that fact in the
narrative
16.If the in -car or body -cam recording system was activated
If the victim suffered restriction of the airway or blood flow during the assault, an
officer must complete the "Domestic Abuse Assault Impeding Airway / Circulation
Supplemental Report."
E. NOTIFICATION OF RIGHTS
Chapter 236.12 identifies victim rights which must be provided to the victim in
writing and / or verbally. The Iowa City Police Department will routinely present
the victim their rights in written and verbal form. Officers at the scene will present
the victim a printed copy of their rights (Domestic Abuse Notification of Rights
form) and request the victim sign the sheet. One copy of the form should be left
with the victim and the other included with the domestic abuse supplemental
report and narrative.
F. FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATIONS / DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INVESTIGATOR
All domestic abuse reports shall be completed by the end of the officer's duty day
and forwarded to the Domestic Violence Investigator (DVI) for follow up.
The DVI shall perform follow up investigations on all domestic abuse cases in
Iowa City. The DVI shall attempt to make contact with the victim in each case
and may further the initial investigation by gathering additional evidence,
conducting any follow up interviews, obtaining the 911 dispatch call recording,
obtaining medical records, taking follow up photos, and completing any other
tasks as necessary. The DVI will also conduct risk assessment and safety
planning on a case by case basis. The DVI will work with the Johnson County
Attorney's Office to assist with prosecution as needed.
The DVI will be a member of Coordinated Community Response Teams
(CCRT's) and will provide meaningful participation where efforts are aimed at
OPS-14.9
reviewing and revising local policies and procedures to reflect current realities
and needs in the community, and reducing domestic violence related homicides.
The DVI will be a member of the Domestic Abuse Response Team (DART) and
will work in cooperation with the Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP),
and other victim services in the community to provide service, support, safety,
and advocacy to victims of domestic abuse. The DVI will also be a member of
the Domestic Abuse Investigation Team (DAIT) joined with the county attorney's
office and other local law enforcement agencies. The DVI will additionally
complete, on time, all necessary performance reports and submit any required
grant applications in a manner and quality which will earn the continuance of
grant funding provided to the City of Iowa City for the position.
G. VICTIM SAFETY AND PROTECTION
1. Officers shall work with community resources and advocacy agencies to
connect victims and their children with appropriate services.
2. The officer designated as principal contact for the victim, shall inform the
victim of confidentiality policies and their limitations, and ensure that
confidentiality is maintained throughout the case.
3. All officers shall be aware of possible victim/witness intimidation or
coercion and the increased danger when the victim leaves an abusive
partner. The designated principal contact shall assist the victim and
children in safety planning and caution the victim to be alert to stalking
activities.
4. If an officer suspects intimidation or coercion of the victim/witness is
occurring, the officer shall prepare a written report to be delivered
immediately to the investigator in charge of the case through the chain of
command.
a. In order to determine whether the victim/witness is being
intimidated or coerced, the investigator in charge shall seek out
secondary sources of information.
h. Given the possibility that a victim will recant or choose not to
participate in court proceedings, supplemental evidence shall be
sought out and preserved.
H. HOSTAGE SITUATIONS
As a hostage situation becomes apparent to the investigating officer, and / or
ECO, the watch commander / supervisor shall be immediately notified. Following
an assessment of the circumstances, a determination shall be made as to
strategy for resolution of the call. Special Response Team (SRT) and/or Crisis
Negotiation Team (CNT) protocol and personnel may determine this strategy.
I. OFFICER TRAINING
In addition to initial domestic abuse training at the Iowa Law Enforcement
Academy, the Iowa City Police Department will routinely offer training in regard to
OPS-14.10
domestic abuse. Training will be provided by both in-house staff, as well as
utilizing outside authorities as available.
J. OFFICERS CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC ASSAULT
Concerning application of Iowa Law, should a law enforcement officer be
arrested for domestic abuse, they will be treated equitably as would any other
citizen. Likewise, the Iowa City Police Department will adhere to the Federal
Lautenberg Amendment concerning the possession of firearms should a
domestic abuse conviction occur, within this jurisdiction, or any other within the
United States.
In responding to a domestic abuse call for assistance, should it be known that
any sworn officer of this or any other law enforcement agency, in or out-of-state,
is identified as a suspect, the watch commander / supervisor will be immediately
notified. If the person arrested / suspected is not an Iowa City Police Officer, the
watch supervisor will notify that officer's department. Additionally, the watch
commander / supervisor shall be notified if any other employee of the Iowa City
Police Department is arrested for domestic abuse. Following any of these
notifications, the appropriate division commander will be contacted.
In the event that any officer or employee of the Iowa City Police Department is
arrested for domestic abuse, or involved as a victim of a domestic assault, or is a
suspect but not arrested for a domestic assault, appropriate referrals for services
and assistance will be made. Internal Investigations will be conducted as
warranted. A copy of the report on such an incident shall be forwarded to the
Office of the Chief of Police.
Jody Matherly, 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.
LEG-03.1
FIELD
INTERVIEWS AND
"PAT -DOWN"
SEARCHES
Original Date of Issue General Order Number
January 10, 2001 99-12
Effective Date of Reissue Section Code
December 3, 2020 1 LEG-03
Reevaluation Date Amends
December 2021 1 (reissued without change)
C.A.L. E.A. Reference ;
1.2.3, 1.2.4 (see "INDEX AS:
INDEX AS: =� _
Field Interviews Field Information (FI) Cards
Pat -Down Searches Searches c-;,
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to assist officers in determining when field interviews
and pat -down searches are warranted and the manner in which they shall be
conducted.
II. POLICY
The field interview is an important point of contact for officers in preventing and
investigating criminal activity. But even when conducted with respect for those involved
and in strict conformance with the law, it can be perceived by some as a means of police
harassment or intimidation conducted in a discriminatory manner against groups or
individuals. In order to maintain the effectiveness and legitimacy of this practice and to
protect the safety of officers in approaching suspicious individuals, members of the Iowa
City Police Department shall conduct field interviews and perform pat -down searches in
conformance with procedures set forth in this policy.
LEG-03.2
III. DEFINITIONS
A. Field interview: The brief detainment of an individual, whether on foot or in a
vehicle, based on reasonable suspicion for the purposes of determining the
individual's identity and resolving the officer's suspicions.
B. Pat -Down Search: A "frisk" or external feeling of the outer garments of an
individual for weapons only.
C. Reasonable Suspicion: Articulable facts that, within the totality of the
circumstances, lead an officer to reasonably suspect that criminal activity has
been, is being or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion must be
more than a hunch or feeling, but need not meet the test for probable cause
sufficient to make an arrest.
IV. PROCEDURES
A. FIELD INTERVIEWS
1. Justification for conducting a Field Interview - Officers may stop individuals
for the purpose of conducting a field interview only where reasonable
suspicion is present. In justifying the stop, the officer must be able to point
to specific facts that, when taken together with rational inferences from
those facts, reasonably warrant the stop. Such facts include, but are not
limited to:
a. The appearance or demeanor of a suspect (e.g., nervous behavior)
suggests that he/she is part of a criminal enterprise or is engaged in
criminal activity;
b. The actions of the suspect (e.g., furtive movements) suggest ttaat
he/she is engaged in a criminal activity;
c. The hour of the day or night is inappropriate for the suspect's presence
in the area;
d. The suspect's presence in a location is inappropriate;
e. The suspect is carrying a suspicious object;
f. The suspect's clothing bulges in a manner that suggests he/she is
carrying a weapon;
g. The suspect is in proximate time and place to the alleged crime;
h. The officer has knowledge of the suspect's prior criminal record or
involvement in criminal activity.
2. Procedures for initiating a Field Interview - Based on observance of
suspicious circumstances or upon information from investigation, an
officer may initiate the stop of a suspect if he/she has a reasonable
suspicion to do so. The following guidelines shall apply when making an
authorized stop to conduct a field interview.
a. When approaching the suspect, the officer shall clearly identify
him/herself as a member of the Iowa City Police Department, and if not
LEG-03.3
in uniform, the officer shall announce his/her identity and display
departmental identification.
b. Officers shall be courteous at all times during the contact but maintain
caution and vigilance for furtive movements to retrieve weapons,
conceal or discard contraband, or other suspicious actions.
c. Before approaching more than one suspect, individual officers should
determine whether the circumstances warrant a request for backup
assistance and whether the contact can and should be delayed until
such assistance arrives.
d. Officers shall confine their questions to those concerning the suspect's
identity, place of residence and other inquiries necessary to resolve the
officer's suspicions. The interview shall not take longer than is
reasonably necessary to make these limited inquiries and the person is
always free to leave unless the decision is made to take the person
into custody.
e. Officers are not required to give suspects "Miranda" warnings in order
to conduct field interviews unless the person is in custody and about to
be interrogated.
f. Suspects are not required, nor can they be compelled, to answer any
questions posed during field interviews. Failure to respond to an
officer's inquiries is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to make an
arrest although it may provide sufficient justification for additional
observation and investigation.
3. Reporting - If after conducting a field interview there is no basis for making
an arrest, the officer should record the facts of the interview in the Field
Interview section of TAC 10. This entry will be forwarded to the Lieutenant
of Investigations for dissemination, maintaining in accordance with state
law, or purging.
B. PAT -DOWN SEARCHES
1. Justification for conducting Pat -Down Searches: An officerlias tltg right to
perform a pat -down search of the outer garments of a suspect for'
weapons if he/she has been legitimately stopped with reasonable
suspicion and only when the officer has a reasonable fear for his/her own
or another person's safety. Clearly, not every field interview poses
sufficient justification for conducting a pat -down search. Following are
some criteria that may form the basis for establishing justification for
performing a pat -down search. Officers should note that these factors are
not all-inclusive; there are other factors that could or should be
considered. The existence of more than one of these factors may be
required in order to support reasonable suspicion for the search.
a. The type of crime suspected - particularly in crimes of violence where
the use or threat of deadly weapons is involved.
b. Where more than one suspect must be handled by a single officer.
c. The hour of the day and the location where the stop takes place.
d. Prior knowledge of the suspect's use of force and/or propensity to carry
weapons.
LEG-03.4
e. The appearance and demeanor of the suspect.
f. Visual indications that suggest that the suspect is carrying weapon.
2. Procedures for performing a Pat -Down Search
a. When reasonable suspicion exists to perform a pat -down search, it
should be performed with due caution, restraint and sensitivity. These
searches are only justifiable and shall only be performed to protect the
safety of officers and others and may never be used to harass
individuals or groups of individuals or as a pretext for obtaining
evidence. Under these circumstances, pat -down searches should be
conducted in the following manner.
1) When possible, pat -down searches should be conducted in the
presence of a second officer who provides protective cover.
2) Because pat -down searches are cursory in nature, they should be
performed with the suspect in a standing position. Should a
weapon be visually observed, a more secure search position may
be used.
3) In a pat -down search, officers are permitted only to feel the outer
clothing of the suspect. Officers may not place their hands in
pockets unless they feel an object that could reasonably be a
weapon.
4) If the suspect is carrying an object such as a handbag, suitcase,
briefcase, backpack, book bag or any other item that may conceal a
weapon, the officer should not open the item but instead place it out
of the suspect's reach.
5) If the external feeling of the suspect's clothing fails To -disclose
evidence of a weapon, no further search may be made. If evidence
of a weapon is present, an officer may retrieve that item only. If the
item is a weapon the possession of which is a crime, the officer
may make an arrest of the suspect and complete a full -custody
search of the suspect. <7-,
b. It is emphasized that none of these requirements preclude officers from
requesting consent from the individual for a more thorough search, i.e.:
backpacks, bags etc.
3. If during the course of an authorized pat -down search of an individual. an
officer comes upon an item that the officer readily recognizes through
his/her experience and training is probably contraband, the officer may
remove the item from the suspects clothing. However, the officer may not
manipulate or squeeze an object in order to identify it as contraband. If
upon further examination the seized item is of a nature for which the
possession of is crime, the officer may make an arrest of the suspect and
complete a full -custody search of the suspect.
Denise Brotherton, Interim Chief of Police
LEG-03.5
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.
;•r
w
:n
REDLINE VERSION
Red highlights are deletions
Green highlights are additions
LEG-03.1
FIELD
INTERVIEWS AND
"PAT -DOWN"
SEARCHES
Original Date of Issue General Order Number
January 10, 2001 99-12
Effective Date of Reissue Section Code
December 3, 2020 LEG-03
Reevaluation Date Amends
December 2021 (reissued without change)
C.A.L. E.A. Reference
1.2.3, 1.2.4 (see "INDEX AS:")
INDEX AS:
Field Interviews Field Information (FI) Cards
Pat -Down Searches Searches
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to assist officers in determining when field interviews
and pat -down searches are warranted and the manner in which they shall be
conducted.
II. POLICY
The field interview is an important point of contact for officers in preventing and
investigating criminal activity. But even when conducted with respect for U e involved
.:ns and in strict conformance with the law, it can be perceived by some as a means
of police harassment or intimidation conducted in a discriminatory manner against groups
or individuals. In order to maintain the effectiveness and legitimacy of this practice and
to protect the safety of officers in approaching suspicious individuals, members of the
Iowa City Police Department shall conduct field interviews and perform pat -down
searches in conformance with procedures set forth in this policy.
LEG-03.2
IV
DEFINITIONS
A. Field interview: The brief detainment of an individual, whether on foot or in
vehicle, based on reasonable suspicion for the purposes of determining the
individual's identity and resolving the officer's suspicions.
B. Pat -Down Search: A "frisk" or external feeling of the outer garments of an
individual for weapons only.
MReasonable Suspicion: Articulable facts that, within the totality of the
A
PROCEDURES
A. FIELD INTERVIEWS
1. Justification for conducting a Field
for the purpose of conductin a fie
suspicion is present.
is
Interview - Officers may stop individuals
interview only where reasonable
- In justifying the stop, the officer must be able to oint to s ecific
facts that, when taken together with rational inferences ,
reasonably warrant the stop. Such facts include, but are not limited to:
a. The appearance or demeanor of -
- suggests that he/she is part of a criminal enterprise or is
engaged in criminal activity;
b. The actions of the suspect suggest that
he/she is engaged in a criminal activity;
c. The hour of the day or night is inappropriate for the suspect's presence
in the area;
d. The suspect's presence in a location is inappropriate;
e. The suspect is carrying a suspicious object;
f. The suspect's clothing bulges in a manner that suggests he/she is
carrying a weapon;
g. The suspect is in proximate time and place to the alleged crime;
h. The officer has knowledge of the suspect's prior criminal record or
involvement in criminal activity.
2. Procedures for initiating a Field Interview - Based on observance of
suspicious circumstances or upon information from investigation, an
officer may initiate the stop of a suspect if he/she has I ,
reasonable suspicion to do so. The following guidelines shall apply when
making an authorized stop to conduct a field interview.
a. When approaching the suspect, the officer shall clearly identify
him/herself as a member of the Iowa City Police Department, and if not
LEG-03.3
in uniform, the officer shall announce his/her identity and display
departmental identification.
b. Officers shall be courteous at all times during the contact but maintain
caution and vigilance for furtive movements to retrieve weapons,
conceal or discard contraband, or other suspicious actions.
c. Before approaching more than one suspect, individual officers should
determine whether the circumstances warrant a request for backup
assistance and whether the contact can and should be delayed until
such assistance arrives.
Officers shall confine their questions to those concerning the suspect's
identity, place of residence and other inquiries necessary to resolve th(
reasonably necessary to ma
v shall not take longer than]
e. Officers are not required to give suspects "Miranda" warnings in order
to conduct field interviews unless the person is in custody and about to
be interrogated.
f. Suspects are not required, nor can they be compelled, to answer any
questions posed during field interviews. Failure to respond to an
officer's inquiries is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to make an
arrest although it may provide sufficient justification for additional
observation and investigation.
Reporting - If after conducting a field interview there is no basis for making
an arrest, the officer should record the facts of the interview_
in the Field Interview
I-lhd write the incident number
119� r-N should be submitted to the Rec&IRM
of basic information from the FI card into the record
,ss and telephone number) as well as information re
will be forwarded to the
B. PAT -DOWN SEARCHES
Justification for conducting Pat -Down Searches: An officer has the right to
perform a pat -down search of the outer garments of a suspect for
weapons if he/she has been legitimately stopped with reasonable
suspicion and only when the officer has a reasonable fear for his/her own
or another person's safety. Clearly, not every field interview poses
sufficient justification for conducting a pat -down search. Following are
some criteria that may form the basis for establishing justification for
performing a pat -down search. Officers should note that these factors are
not all-inclusive; there are other factors that could or should be
LEG-03.4
considered. The existence of more than one of these factors may be
required in order to support reasonable suspicion for the search.
a. The type of crime suspected - particularly in crimes of violence where
the use or threat of deadly weapons is involved.
b. Where more than one suspect must be handled by a single officer.
c. The hour of the day and the location where the stop takes place.
d. Prior knowledge of the suspect's use of force and/or propensity to carry
weapons.
e. The appearance and demeanor of the suspect.
f. Visual indications that suggest that the suspect is carrying weapon.
r±
2. Procedures for performing a Pat -Down Search
a. When reasonable suspicion exists to perform a pat -down search, it
should be performed with due caution, restraint and sensitivity. These
searches are only justifiable and shall only be performed to protect the
safety of officers and others and may never be used to harass
individuals or groups of individuals or as a pretext for obtaining
evidence. Under these circumstances, pat -down searches should be
conducted in the following manner.
1) When possible, pat -down searches should be conducted in the
presence of a second officer who provides protective cover.
2) Because pat -down searches are cursory in nature, they should be
performed with the suspect in a standing position. Should a
weapon be visually observed, a more secure search position may
be used.
3) In a pat -down search, officers are permitted only to feel the outer
clothing of the suspect. Officers may not place their hands in
pockets unless they feel an object that could reasonably be a
weapon.
4) If the suspect is carrying an object such as a handbag, suitcase,
briefcase, backpack, book bag or any other item that may conceal a
weapon, the officer should not open the item but instead place it out
of the suspect's reach.
5) If the external feeling of the suspect's clothing fails to disclose
evidence of a weapon, no further search may be made. If evidence
of a weapon is present, an officer may retrieve that item only. If the
item is a weapon the possession of which is a crime, the officer
may make an arrest of the suspect and complete a full -custody
search of the suspect.
b. It is emphasized that none of these requirements preclude officers from
requesting consent from the individual for a more thorough search, i.e.:
backpacks, bags etc.
3. If during the course of an authorized pat -down search of an individual, an
officer comes upon an item that the officer readily recognizes through
his/her experience and training is probably contraband, the officer ma
remove the item from the suspects clothin .
LEG-03.5
upon further examination the seized item is of a nature for which the
possession of is crime, the officer may make an arrest of the suspect and
complete a full -custody search of the suspect.
Denise Brotherton, Interim 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.
TO: Interim Chief Denise Brotherton
FROM: Sgt. Paul Batcheller
RE: October 2020 Use of Force Review
DATE: November 29, 2020
The Iowa City Police Department policy requires an employee to complete a written report for any
reportable use of force. Reportable use of force is defined in the Department's General Order 99-05,
which is titled Use of Force and available for public viewing on the department's website. This policy
provides employees with guidelines on the use of deadly and non -deadly force.
Upon receipt of the report, the supervisor is responsible for completing an administrative critique of the
force. This process includes interviews with involved employees, body wom and in -car cami& review,
review of any additional available video, and review of written reports. The employee's -use of force
report and the supervisor's critique is then forwarded to the Captain of Field Operations and & Chief of
Police for final review and critique. r`)
On a monthly basis, the previous month's use of force reports and supervisor critiques.aio;reviewed by an
administrative review committee consisting of a minimum of three swom personnel. This Use:df Force
Committee consists of two supervisors as designated by the Chief of Police and one officer, ty}ilcally a
certified use of force instructor.
The Use of Force Review Committee met on November 3, 2020. It was composed of Sgt. Batcheller, Sgt.
McKnight, and Officer Fowler.
For the review of submitted reports in September, the Review Committee documented the following:
45 individual officers were involved in 23 separate incidents requiring use of force.
There were no documented cases of an officer exercising his/her duty to intervene and the review
of the incidents did not indicate that an officer failed their duty to intervene
During one incident two officers had activation issues with their body worn cameras.
Reviewing supervisors forwarded the information to Command. The incident was
investigated and it was found that one officer exited their vehicle in response to the
emergent situation and failed to activate the body worn camera. The camera did not
automatically activate because the emergency lights on the vehicle were not activated.
When the officer realized the body worn camera was not activated, they immediately
activated it. The other officer on scene did not intentionally de -activate their camera, but
pushed the activation button too many times and unknowingly de -activated the camera.
Between the video captured from the two officers body cameras the reviewing
supervisors were able to view the majority of the officers' actions. Both officers received
corrective action. No other violations of the body camera policy were noted during this
review period.
• Out of the 23 uses of force, arrests were made 17 times (73.9%).
• Mental health was identified by officers as being a factor in 6 of the uses of force (26%).
• Drugs and/or alcohol was identified by officers as being a factor in 11 of the uses of force
(47.8%).
• 8 of the 18 human subjects force was used on were identified as White (44.4%) and 10 were
identified as Black (55.6%).
• Out of the 23 uses of force, the average number of officers involved in the force was 2.
• In total during this time period, the ICPD had 5,506 calls for service with 23 calls for service
resulting in force being used (.41 %). It is noted that five of the 23 uses of force involved animals
and not humans.
The highest level of force in each incident is reflected below along with the year-to-date:
Force Used
September 2020 Occurrences
2020 Year -to -Date
Hands-on
12
87
Taser Display
2
11
Taser Discharge
1
10
OC Spray Deployment
1
6
Firearms Display
2
--30
Firearms Discharge
0
0
ASP Striking
0
n
0
Officer Striking/KickingStriking/Kicking
0
2
Animal Dispatched
5
21
Special Response Team Callouts
0
4
Vehicle Pursuits
0
1
Officer Injuries
2
22
Suspect Injuries
2
17
Reports to U.S. DOJ
0
0
Total Use of Force incidents to date equal 170. Total calls for service in the same period equals
52,633. This results In a year-to-date use of force being deployed in .32% of our total year-to-date calls
for service.
Ip1YA CITY POLICEIOWA CITY DEPARTMENT IOI9A CITY
C3 w..At
Use
Y�R of Force11
POLICEOctober 2020 POLICE
Watch
Occurred
and
Officers
Involved
Date
Incident
Number
Incident
type
Arrest
Made
Y/N
Force Used
Late Night
10/01
2020006286
Owl Arrest
Y
Subject was told he was under arrest
Watch —
for OWI and ordered to put his hands
five
behind his back, but refused.
officers
Multiple attempts to de-escalate and
garner cooperation were
unsuccessful and the subject fought
by trying to push officers and pull
away. Officers took the subject to
the ground and were able to
handcuff him, however he continued
fighting and ignoring de-escalation
commands. He then refused to get
to his feet and get in the police car
and had to be picked up and
assisted into the car. The suspect
was not injured, but one officer did
receive superficial abrasions to their
knee.
Day Watch
10/02
2020006295
Criminal
Y
Officers responded to a criminal
— two
Trespass
trespass involving a person possibly
officers
armed with a knife. Multiple attempts
at de-escalation occurred, but were
not successful and the subject
attempted to pull away and flee, so
officers grabbed his legs and
shoulders to hoid;him in place.
When attempting to put the subject in
a police car, he refused and had to
be pushed into the car. The subject
spit on officers and kicked the
windows and the cage. The suspect
possibly had a minor abrasion to his
wrist from fighting while handcuffed,
but no other injuries. No injuries to
officers.
2020 Use of Force Report
Late Night
Watch —
one officer
10/04
2020006332
Fight in
Progress
Y
An officer observed a fight in the
downtown area. One person was
attempting to assault a group of
people and threatening to kill/harm
them. He approached another
person and was just getting ready to
strike him when the officer pointed
his Taser at his chest area and
ordered him to stop. The laser sight
and command stopped the person
and he complied and was arrested
without using any force. No injuries
to suspect or officer.
Late Night
10/05
2020006363
Assault
Y
A male who had absconded from a
Watch —
court -ordered psych evaluation
six officers
walked into a restaurant and started
assaulting three employees. Officers
located him running from the scene
and they intervened. The subject
was immediately uncooperative and
told officers he was going to kill
them. Multiple attempts to de-
escalate were unsuccessful. The
subject then attempted to assault
officers by going toward them,
kicking at them, and spitting on them.
A Taser deployment was attempted,
but unsuccessful due to the subject
moving as it was deployed and one
probe missing. The subject
continued actively fighting with
officers as they:called paramedics to
the scene who chemically sedated
him and took him toAhe hospital for
treatment. Superficial injuries to
officer and suspect.
Late Night
10/06
2020006388
Mental
Y
Officers responded to a fight in
Watch —
Illness
progress. One of the people
two
involved had a warrant for her arrest.
officers
She was informed she was under
arrest and refused to put her hands
behind her back. Officers attempted
to de-escalate, but it was
unsuccessful and she physically
resisted by pulling away, and fighting
to et awa .Officers took her to the
2020 Use of Force Report
ground to gain compliance and then
placed her in a police car. Once
there, she began trying to kick the
windows out, so the officers used leg
restraints to keep her from damaging
the car. No injuries to suspect or
officer.
Day Watch
10/7
2020006416
Robbery
Y
Subject had already been arrested
— one
and brought to ICPD awaiting
officer
interviewing when he became upset
and became resistive and assaultive
asking officers to kill him. Officers
decided to restrain him to a restraint
chair to prevent him from injuring
officers or himself and the person
resisted by pulling away. An officer
had to push him down on to the
bench to handcuff and, in doing so,
injured the officer's shoulder. No
injuries to suspect.
Evening
10108
2020006458
Violation of
Y
Officers responded after a witness
Watch —
a No-
reported seeing a subject enter an
two
Contact
ex -girlfriend's residence and had
officers
Order
knowledge this subject had a no -
contact order. Officer located the
subject hiding in a closet in a child's
bedroom and ordered him out, but he
refused. One. officer drew his
weapon to ensure their safety until
they could see the suspect's hands.
Officers attempted to de-escalate,
but were unsuccessful. Officers
eventually had to pull the suspect
out, pull his hands behind his back,
and handcuff him. No injuries to
suspect or officer.
Evening
10/9
2020006484
Wanted
Y
An officer spotted a person who had
Watch —
Subject
two warrants for his arrest for
one officer
violations of a no -contact order. The
subject took off running and the
officer caught up to him, yelled at
him to stop multiple times, then
grabbed his arms and pulled him to
the ground. The subject fought with
the officer and the officer had to pull
the subject's arms behind his back to
2020 Use of Force Report
affect the arrest. No injuries to
suspect or officer.
10/9
2020006488
Intoxicated
Y
Officers were dispatched to a
ffEvening
Subjectgrocery
store for an intoxicated male.
The subject was belligerent with
officers and had an outstanding
warrant for his arrest. While
arresting him, the subject suddenly
attempted to reach for an item and
ignored commands to stop, so an
officer grabbed his arm and the
subject tensed up and attempted to
pull away. The officer pulled him
back away from what he was
reaching for and he fell to the
ground. The suspect sustained a
minor abrasion to his wrist and
forehead that did not require medical
attention. No injuries to officer.
Late Night
10/11
2020006496
Assault
Officers responded for an assault
Watch —
and located a female who had
one officer
TY
received significant injuries from the
male suspect. When the suspect
saw the police, he barricaded himself
inside a residence. Officers
attempted lengthy de-escalation
dialogue with the suspect, deployed
a robot in an attempt to locate where
the suspect was in the residence,
and waited for several hours for the
suspect to calm down. Officers
again ordered the subject to
surrender and he did. One officer
drew his firearm at a low -ready as
cover while the suspect was taken
into custody. No injuries to suspect
or officer.
Evening
10/10
2020006 111 Traffic Stop
Y An officer attempted a traffic stop for
Watch —
speeding and the vehicle took off.
two
The officer did not pursue, but
officers
moments later the vehicle crashed
and the driver fled on foot. Officers
gave chase on foot and caught the
suspect by tackling him to the
ground. The suspect was taken into
custod without injury to him, but the
2020 Use of Force Report
officer sustained abrasions and
lacerations requiring emergency
medical treatment. .
Late Night
10/16
2020006654
Intoxicated
Y (2)
An officer was attempting to issue a
Watch —
Subjects
citation to a female outside of a bar
three
when a male intervened, ignored
officers
commands to stay back, and
ultimately grabbed the officers arm to
prevent him from issuing the citation.
The subject was told he was under
arrest and immediately physically
resisted by pulling away and
squaring off on the officer in an
assaultive manner. Attempts at de-
escalation failed and defendant was
taken to the ground where he was
handcuffed. During this, the original
female attempted to flee and was
subsequently located and the officer
attempted to resume writing the
citation, but she said, "NO!" and
attempted to walk away, ignoring all
attempts to gain compliance through
de-escalation. She was told she was
under arrest, so she then grabbed
onto a chain link fence and resisted.
Officers had to pull her arms behind
her back to affect her arrest. No
injuries to suspects or officers.
Late Night
10/18
2020006722
Assault
Y
Officers responded for an assault
Watch —
and found the suspect was in a
four
residence and had multiple warrants
officers
for his arrest. Officers went into the
residence (with owner's consent) and
located the male hiding in a closet.
He immediately brandished a razor
blade and stated he was suicidal.
Attempts at de-escalation were
unsuccessful and officers tried to
remove the suspect from the closet
at which point he shoved the razor
blade into his mouth and had to be
physically pulled out, placed into
handcuffs, and ordered to spit out
the blade, which he ultimately did.
Officers displayed firearms to provide
2020 Use of Force Report
over Taken into custody and
injuries, but transported
spital for observation. No
pnoapparent
ries to s et orofficer.
Day Watch2020006727
Suicidal
N
Officers assisted the Iowa
— two
Subject
atrol with a suicidal male on (-
officers
80 threatening to walk in front of
cars. Several minutes of attempted
de-escalation transpired. When the
subject motioned he was going to try
and go in front of traffic, officers
grabbed him and pulled him to the
ground and got him into custody.
One officer received minor superficial
abrasions, no injuries to subject.
Late Night
10/21
2020006780
Domestic
Y
Officers responded for a mother and
Watch —
Dispute
daughter fighting. Upon arrival, the
two
mother began assaulting the
officers
daughter and both fell to the ground.
Officers intervened and pulled the
mother's arms behind her back to
handcuff her, but the mother resisted
by trying to pull away. Officers had
to pull her hands behind her back.
Multiple attempts to de-escalate and
commands to stop resisting failed
and the mother would not stand up
so officers had to hold her up by her
arms to get her into a police car. No
injuries to sus ect or officer.
Evening
10/23
2020006844
Wanted
Y
An officer approached a person
Watch —
Subject
during an observed drug deal and
one officer
they knew the subject had warrants
for his arrest and was reportedly
carrying a gun. The officer pointed
their weapon at the subject to gain
compliance and ensure everyone's
safety. The subject complied and
was arrested without incident. No
injuries to sus ect or officer.
Late 10/24
2020006861
Injured N
Injured deer was shot and killed by
Nights —
Animal
officer.
one officer
Day Watch 10/24
2020006869
Injured N
Injured deer was shot and killed by
— one
Animal
officer.
officer
2020 Use of Force Report
Late Night
10/25
2020006883
Fight in
Y
Officers responded to a fight and
Watch —
Progress
found that a bystander was holding
four
the suspect on the ground to prevent
officers
him from assaulting others. De-
escalation failed and the suspect
was ordered to remain on his
stomach to be handcuffed, but
instead attempted to stand up and
fight officers. He was pulled back to
the ground by officers and placed
into handcuffs, but continued to kick
and thrash around and then bit an
officer. Officers administered pepper
spray, but the suspect continued
fighting and paramedics arrived and
sedated him. Paramedics
transported the suspect to the
hospital for evaluation. No injuries to
officers and superficial abrasion to
suspect's face.
Evening
10/25
2020066908
Injured
N
Injured deer was shot and killed by
Watch —
Animal
officer.
one officer
Evening
10/28
2020006982
Injured
N
Sick racoon was shot and killed by
Watch —
Animal
officer.
one officer
Late Night
10/31
2020007040
Injured
N
Sick racoon was shot and killed by
Watch —
Animal
officer.
one officer
2020 Use of Force Report
Chris Olney
From: Carol deProsse <lonetreefox@mac.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:22 PM
To: Community Police Review Board; Community Police Review Board
Subject: Kendole Joseph, father of 2, beaten and tasered to death by police: Judge denies cops
immunity
A
https://www.da ilvkos.com/storV/2020/12/3/1999745/-Fifth-Circuit-den ies-pol ice-i mm u nity-i n-deadly-beating-of-
unarmed-Louisiana-ma n
Chris Olney
From: Carol deProsse <lonetreefox@mac.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:30 AM
To: Council; Geoff Fruin; Community Police Review Board
Subject: Investigate This
RISK
I hope you will investigate the source of this propaganda and commit to insuring that it does not
become a part of Iowa City's attitude and lexicon about BLM.
Police guide that calls BLM a terrorist group draws outrage
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — A prominent law enforcement training group is promoting a lengthy research document
riddled with fa...
Read the full story
Sent from AP News. Download now on the App Store or Gooale Play
DRAFT #5
Date: December_, 2020
To: City Council
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Report and recommendation of proposed changes to the Community Police Review Board
pursuant to Resolution 20-159 (Resolution of Initial Council Commitments addressing the Black Lives
Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis
Police and calls for action from protesters and residents)
The members of the Community Police Review Board submit the following report and recommendation
for proposed changes to the Community Police Review Board to enhance community oversight over the
Iowa City Police Department.
PROPOSED CHANGE 1—THAT IN INSTANCES OF A SUSTAINED MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT, THE CPRB BE
GIVEN INFORMATION ON THE CHIEF OF POLICE/CITY MANAGER'S DECISION ON HOW THE OFFICER(S)
FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT ARE DISCIPLINED, INFORMATION ON THE FACTORS USED
TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF DISCIPLINE TO BE ADMINISTERED, AND THAT THE CPRB REPORT TO
CITY COUNCIL WHETHER IT DETERMINES THE DISCIPLINE TO BE ADMINISTERED IS REASONABLE AND
FAIR.
a. Proposed Change 1
The CPRB is requesting that, upon there being a sustained report of misconduct by the Chief of
Police/City Manager, that it also be provided:
A report from the Chief of Police/City Manager outlining the discipline to the officer
as a consequence of the misconduct. Within the report, the Chief of Police/City
Manager shall detail the factors it used in determining the discipline to administer,
including: (a) The severity of misconduct in the complaint; (b) Whether the officer
was found to have committed the same or similar type of misconduct in the past; (c)
Prior exemplary conduct of the officer; (d) Prior training related to the
circumstances in which the officer was found to have committed misconduct; (e)
Clarity of the ICPD operating procedures for the circumstances in which the officer
conducted misconduct; and (f) Other circumstances that call for enhancing or
mitigating the discipline to be administered.
Copies of the officer's: (a) discipline history; (b) exemplary conduct history, (c) the
officer's training history; (d) any operating procedures relevant to the Chief of
DRAFT #5
Police/City Managers determination of discipline for the misconduct; (e) evidence
or documentation relied on by the Chief of Police/City Manager of enhancing or
mitigating circumstances that impacted the decision on the appropriate level of
discipline to be administered; and (f) any reasonable requests for documents or
other evidence related to any of the above disclosures.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The most critical role of the Community Police Review Board ("CPRB") is to provide an
independent review, on behalf of the community, over the conduct and misconduct of the Iowa City
Police Department ("ICPD") including its Chief and all officers. When a complaint of misconduct is filed,
presently, the CPRB only has authority to agree or disagree with the findings of the Chief of Police
and/or City Manager as to whether or not misconduct has occurred. In cases where misconduct is found,
either by the CPRB or the ICPD, no information is provided to the CPRB about any consequences
administered to the officer for having committed the misconduct.
The CPRB believes having information regarding the disciplining of an officer and any other
consequences in cases where a complaint of misconduct has been sustained is integral to having
effective oversight of the ICPD. The discipline information allows for oversight into whether future
misconduct is deterred, equity in the discipline of officers, and whether the factors cited in determining
the appropriate degree of discipline to be administered are consistent with precedent and the
community's values.
The importance of the CPRB having information is perhaps best explained by a hypothetical of
an officer using excessive force resulting in serious injury to a community member. Assume that the
Chief of Police issued a report finding the officer to have committed grave misconduct. Through the
current CPRB complaint process, the CPRB would review the Chiefs report and file its own findings in
the CPRB report. In the current system, the CPRB would sustain the Chiefs finding of misconduct, and
report the same to City Council, having no information on, and making no finding regarding discipline to
the officer. Assume further, for this hypothetical, that the Chief issued no discipline to the offending
officer, despite the seriousness of the misconduct, and despite such lack of accountability being in clear
contradiction to the goals of the Iowa City Community. Such lack of discipline will go undetected by the
CPRB, and instead of being able to raise public awareness of such mishandling of misconduct within the
ICPD, the CPRB report would be suggestive that the ICPD was correctly managing complaints of
misconduct. This hypothetical shows that it may do little good, or actual harm, to have the CPRB report
its finding as the whether misconduct occurred, but not similarly be provided with information relevant
to what discipline, if any, results to an officer that found to have committed the misconduct.
Establishing a process through which the CPRB can review and report on disciplinary decisions
administered by the Chief of Police/City Manager will greatly improve transparency and community
confidence in the board's effectiveness.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Consensus for proposing this change was reached by the CPRB as the members found it carefully
toed the line of allowing the CPRB to remain an advisory review board and not an administer. This was
attempted to be achieved by proposing changes that restricted the CPRB to reviewing decisions of
2
DRAFT #5
discipline made by the Chief of Police/City Manager, and not having authority to issue discipline. The
issue of how much authority the CPRB should be given to administering discipline was the most debated
subject for the CPRB, with the majority opting to remain an advisory board for reasons that are
explained in more detail in the other proposed changes.
Careful consideration must be given to the confidentiality of private information asked to be
revealed in the disclosures and the reports under this proposed change. In particular, disciplinary
records are confidential, and legislative changes must do its best to try to narrow any exceptions to this
for the well-being of the officer. Further, legislation should also be considered that would limit liability
that may attach to a CPRB volunteer for any accidental disclosure of confidential information.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Some police review boards across the nation have access to disciplinary information and varying
degrees of related authority. In Daytona for example, the Police Department will "provide the board
with the full internal affairs file, unless any portions are determined to be exempt from disclosure or
confidential by law." (Daytona Beach close to launching Citizens' Police Review Board, 2020)'. The
review board will "discuss the allegations of a case, the adequacy of the investigation, the final discipline
that was meted out, and whether the police leadership response was appropriate" during their public
meetings. Id. In addition, "[t]he board will issue a written report that includes the name of the
complainant, the name of the accused officer or officers, a summary of the allegations and board
members' decisions to agree or disagree with the disciplinary findings." Id.
II. PROPOSED CHANGE 2—THAT IN INSTANCES OF A SUSTAINED MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT,
AND ALSO WHEN THE CPRB DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE CORRESPONDING DISCIPLINE
DECISION TO BE ADMINITERED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND/OR CITY MANAGER, THE
CPRB SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE A DISCIPLINARY
HEARING.
a. Proposed Change 2
The CPRB proposes that in instances where all of the following circumstances exist:
1. There has been a finding of misconduct in a Complaint;
2. (Assuming proposed change 1 has occurred) the Chief and/or City Manager have disclosed
the corresponding discipline to the officer along with their report and disclosures in support
of their decision; and
3. The CPRB disagrees with the reasonableness or fairness of the discipline to be administered
by the Chief and/or City Manager
that there be a mandatory meeting within 30 days of the CPRB's request to the Chief of Police/City
Manager, in which to discuss the discipline.
If, as a consequence of the meeting, the CPRB has concluded that the discipline to be administered
is reasonable and fair, (either due to the Chief/City Manager having made an independent decision to
change the discipline to be administered, or the CPRB changing their majority opinion as to the
reasonableness and fairness of the discipline) the reports will note that the meeting occurred and that
3
DRAFT #5
the CPRB agrees to the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline the Chief/City Manager determined
to administer.
If, despite the meeting, the CPRB cannot conclude that the discipline to be administered by the Chief
of Police if reasonable and fair, then the CPRB shall have the discretion to either (1) issue a report
detailing their disagreement with the discipline, or, (2) request that the City Council for Iowa City ("City
Council") conduct a disciplinary hearing to determine the reasonable and fair discipline that should
result to the officer as a consequence of the officer's misconduct. In the event of a hearing, the CPRB
shall be allowed to attend, and, in any event, be informed of all outcomes related to the hearing and/or
disciplining of the officer.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The majority of the CPRB believe that this proposed change would allow for the effective
oversight of the disciplining of officers in cases where misconduct is found, while allowing the CPRB to
remain a agent for community review and not an administrator. The goal of the review is to try to
ensure that the operations of the ICPD are in line with the interests of the community. This goal can be
best achieved, when, in instances of disagreement between the CPRB and the Chief/City Manager as to
the appropriateness of the discipline to be administered when misconduct is found, a meeting can be
held to try to reconcile the discrepancy. The CPRB is not trained or authorized in matters of disciplining
police officers or employment law. Deference to the Chief/City Manager's autonomy in their capacity to
govern the ICPD and their knowledge of inner working in the police department beyond the discipline of
a particular case must also be given. Still, the CPRB speaks on behalf of the community members, and in
instances of incongruity of opinions between the ICPD and the CPRB, a meeting to gain better insight
into the reasoning can hopefully reconcile discrepancies by an independent change of opinion from one
or both sides. The meeting would also serve to potentially save tax -payer money by being an additional
step to cross before discretionary recommendation of an expensive disciplinary hearing.
The meeting is very similar to recent ordinance changes proposed by the CPRB and adopted by
the City Council, to allow a meeting between the Chief/City Manager with the CPRB when there is a
discrepancy between the finding of misconduct by the Chief/City Manager and the CPRB. That
legislation could be mirrored for purposes of effectuating such legislative change to allow for the
meeting in this case.
With regards to the CPRB having new authority to recommend a disciplinary hearing to the City
Council, the CPRB believes that it is at close to having consequence for when the CPRB disagrees with
the Chief/City Manager in their administering of discipline related to found misconduct, as can be
allowed without relegating the CPRB to be an administrative board and all the consequences that come
with it. That is, with such a recommendation, the CPRB is merely reporting to the City Council that in
the CPRB's review of the discipline that it disagrees with the Chief/City Manger, to such a degree that it
recommends the City Council should further investigate. At no point is the CPRB having any authority of
how/when to discipline an officer given to the CPRB. Rather, it exclusively remains with the Chief/City
Manager, for review, at the City Council's discretion, by the City Council. This change, therefore, allows
the CPRB to remain a review agency, but now with the additional capacity in its review to shine a
spotlight on issues of discipline related to found misconduct of ICPD officers it believes the Iowa City
community members would like examined closer.
4
DRAFT #5
The power of this review should not be understated, as it is often found that "sunlight being the
best disinfectant." In addition, this proposed change adds the "teeth" of the threat of a disciplinary
hearing, and consequences that would no doubt result if a large degree of unreasonableness were found
after such a hearing. All of this is accomplished while allowing the discretion for how to administer
discipline to remain with the administrators that are trained to manage the ICPD, unless our elected City
Council members, determine after a fair hearing, to intervene.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
The current CPRB is split on whether the CPRB should be given authority to issue formal
discipline with legal standing for officer misconduct. Members of the opinion that the CPRB should be
an advisory board that makes recommendations only point to the following to support their position:
• The CPRB is not trained in employment law or matters of disciplining officers.
• The CPRB should not over -compromise the Chief of Police from carrying out administrative
functions.
• Privacy laws rightfully protect dissemination of sensitive employment information that would be
required to be disclosed to make a truly informed decision on the administering of discipline in
any situation.
• Liability would attach to members of the CPRB, that are voluntary positions, for
recommendations of discipline made by members of the CPRB as they effect the employment of
officers.
• The CPRB should not usurp the administrative powers of the City Manager or City Council. The
CPRB members are appointed, and not elected as officials to make such a decision for the
community.
Some members of the current CPRB are of the opinion that this proposed change does not go far
enough. It is their position that if the CPRB does not have authority to discipline, that its
recommendations can be ignored without consequence or recourse. They would like the CPRB to have
the authority to:
• Discipline an officer for misconduct;
• Discipline an officer for failing to cooperate with an interview or investigation into the
complaint;
• Require an officer to participate in mediation with a complainant;
• Call for a public hearing to hire/fire an officer or Chief of Police; and,
• If there were a disciplinary hearing that there be opportunities for the public to comment
and the final decision as to the appropriate discipline to administer would be made by a
majority vote of the combined bodies of the CPRB and the City Council.
These CPRB members suggest that this level of authority for the CPRB is necessary to enhance the
understanding of the officers of the ICPD's interactions with citizens, give opportunities to explain
officer actions to citizens, enhance satisfaction with the complaint process, empower the community
members — complainant and non -complainants alike, the opportunity to learn from mistakes of officers,
and enhance the opportunity to meet community goals.
DRAFT #5
The CPRB members that would like to change the CPRB to give them more authority for the
hiring/firing of the Chief of Police than is proposed in this change state in support of their position that
establishing a process through which the CPRB can initiate a public discussion in the case of significant
concerns with the Chiefs suitability for the position and be a part of the decision making process would
improve community confidence in the board's effectiveness. The opportunity to provide commentary
themselves would also facilitate resident empowerment.
Ultimately, the majority consensus was to approve the proposed change as reported in this section.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Regarding the authority to review or administer discipline:
o The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board makes
recommendations to the Sheriff regarding discipline, policies, procedures, and programs
(2020)"
o Columbus, Ohio, has a measure on the ballot that would create a review board that
would "make recommendations to the Division of Police, including recommendations
for disciplinary actions if relevant.""'
o The Virginia State Senate recently advanced a bill that would allow review boards to
""make binding disciplinary determinations in cases that involve serious breaches of
departmental and professional standards.°
o Steven Morrison, a professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law, said
police review "boards are probably better than nothing, but as far as changing things he
believes they have minimal value unless they are given enforcement power."
Regarding the authority of the CPRB to require mediation:
o According to a guide from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, "[m]ediation focuses on mutual understanding, problem solving, and
reconciliation - all vital aspects of increasing trust between parties." °' The guide further
details mutually beneficial outcomes for mediation. Id. The guide reports that, "[i]n a
series of focus groups in Omaha, Nebraska, individuals were asked to discuss whether
they would file a complaint in response to a hypothetical incident of police misconduct
and what they wanted to achieve if they did. Many participants indicated a desire for an
explanation or apology from either the officer or a responsible official, or they wanted
an opportunity to express their views to the officer in person." Id.
o The Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board found that in some instances, "all the
citizen wants is an apology" and that mediation provides the officer with a forum in
which to "explain to a citizen why he or she acted in a particular manner" (Alberta Law
Enforcement Review Board 1997). NEED A FOOTNOTE ON THIS CITATION "Research
indicates that complainants who choose mediation do report higher levels of
satisfaction than those who choose the traditional process." Id.
o "Mediation introduces a new dimension to police accountability. In traditional
complaint procedures, an officer accused of misconduct is directly accountable only to
other police officers: internal affairs investigators, the immediate supervisor, and, in
some instances, the chief of police NEED A FOOTNOTE ON THIS CITATION (Walker 2001).
DRAFT #5
The officer never has to directly face or account to the citizen who has filed the
complaint. In contrast, an officer participating in mediation is directly accountable to the
citizen who filed the complaint. Mediation may help personalize American policing." Id.
o In her report on community justice, restorative justice, and community policing,
Caroline Nichol] explains that community justice "is shifting criminal justice from a
purely adversarial approach to include problem -solving methods" NEED A FOOTNOTE
ON THIS CITATION (Nichol) 2000a).
o The DOJ (NEED THIS FULL CITATION HERE) paper would be a tremendous resource in
planning as it goes beyond the benefits of mediation and details various practical ways
to create a program. It states that "mediation is much less expensive than traditional
complaint investigations. The Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority (CRA) pays a flat
rate of $2,000 a year to the Minneapolis Mediation Center (a community -based
nonprofit organization supported by funding from city and county government agencies,
civic organizations, and individuals and clients) to provide mediators, who work pro
bono, to handle police cases."
o There is a nonprofit mediation center in Iowa City, Mediation Services of Eastern Iowa
(About Us - MSEI, 2020)"�, with the structure in place like (NEED DOJ paper citation)
suggests.
Regarding the authority to hire/fire the Chief of Police:
o In Oakland, California the Mayor is required "to appoint any new Chief of Police from a
list of candidates provided by the Commission" (2020)""
III. PROPOSED CHANGE 3—THAT AN ACCUSED OFFICER BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH A
CPRB INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING THE REQUEST TO BE INTERVIEWED BY THE CPRB
RELATED TO A COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT, THAT THE OFFICER SHALL BE DISCIPLINED BY
THE CHIEF OF POLICE/CITY MANAGER.
a. Proposed change 3—
The CPRB is requesting that in the event an officer does not cooperate with a CPRB investigation
related to a complaint of misconduct, (whether or not the officer is accused of the misconduct), sitting
and thoughtfully responding to interview questions by the CPRB, that the officer be disciplined by the
Chief of Police/City Manager. Further, a mandatory interview should be made under oath.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Currently, as part of the CPRB investigation, the CPRB has the authority to interview witnesses,
including officers — both accused and non -accused alike. However, there is no present duty or order
that requires an officer to participate in the investigation or interview. Similarly, there is no
repercussion to the officer for not participating. Without such a duty or repercussion, it is likely that an
Officer will not participate in the investigation, respond to a request to be interviewed, or participate in
a name -clearing hearing. Indeed, the collective experience of the CPRB over the years has proven this to
be true. With such repercussions, it is much more likely the Officer's participation can be secured,
greatly enhancing the CPRB's investigation and ensuring more accuracy of its findings and reporting.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
DRAFT #5
At least some members of the current CPRB have concerns over the legality of compelling an
officer to testify in instances of alleged misconduct, especially when the officer may be asked to provide
self -incriminating information.
Also, and relatedly, officers may want or need to be represented by legal counsel to protect
their interests. The CPRB, in kind, will likely also need an attorney present for consultation. This has the
potential to add a large amount of taxpayer expense to the review process. It is hoped that the
discretion of the CPRB would be exercised with this expense in mind so that the requirement for
compelling testimony under oath would be used judiciously given the prevalent access to body -cameras,
car -cameras, and other data that may make this part of the investigation largely superfluous. That said,
without question, officers will be interviewed if deemed necessary to complete a thorough investigation
of the facts.
Further, in the interests of fairness, an Officer would reasonably want the Complainant to be
required to be interviewed as well. The Complainant, too, will likely want legal representation as well.
This begs the question of whether a Complainant should be afforded legal representation at the
taxpayer's expense, and how to appoint such legal representation. Hand in hand with this, is the chilling
effect on community members filing a complaint if they may be interviewed by attorneys.
An additional consideration concerns the admissibility of any statements made in any interview
in any subsequent legal proceedings. Such consideration must be given to statements made by both the
officers and the Complainant.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
IV. PROPOSED CHANGE 4 - A COMPLAINANT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO THE
CHIEF'S FINDINGS IN THE CHIEF'S REPORT BEFORE THE CPRB SHALL CONDUCT ITS
INVESTIGATION.
a. Proposed Change 4 —
The CPRB is requesting that, after the Chief of Police/City Manager has issued a report to the
CPRB regarding the findings of fact and whether or not allegations of misconduct are sustained, that a
copy of that report be disclosed to the Complainant. The Complainant would then have the opportunity
to respond to the Chief/City Manager report for the CPRB to consider in advance of their investigation.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Presently, the CPRB conducts its investigation after receiving a copy of the Chiefs report. The
Chiefs report often summarizes a narrative -type complaint and identifies specific allegations of
misconduct, and makes conclusions for the same. In some instances the narrative complaint is clear. In
others, it may be somewhat challenging to ascertain all of the allegations in the Complaint— most likely
prepared without the assistance of legal counsel.
While the CPRB has the capacity in setting its level of review to interview a complainant in the cases
of ambiguity, this is not required. Further, there may be an unintended chilling effect on the filing of
complaints if a complainant is required to be interviewed; many people would be uncomfortable about
1.1
DRAFT #5
speaking to a panel of strangers investigating their sensitive matters. In any event, there is not any
opportunity, otherwise, for a complainant to provide clarifying information or object to
characterizations of the allegations as contained in the Chiefs report. If a complainant were given an
automatic opportunity to review the Chiefs report and respond to the CPRB in a timely fashion, the
CPRB report can be more accurate.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
One can conceive that the response may provide a complainant with a vehicle to keep tacking on
complaints and having "additional bites at the apple." Too, in the interests of equity, the Chief and/or
City Manager may want or need to have an opportunity to respond to any additional report of
misconduct or clarification on the complaint. At some point the process must stop and run its course.
Still, it is believed that with careful procedural guidelines, a response from the Complainant could be
incorporated that would benefit the CPRB's review.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
V. PROPOSED CHANGES —THE ONLINE DATABASE OF OFFICER COMPLAINTS SHALL BE
IMPROVED SO THAT IT CAN BE MORE EASILY SEARCHED TO ASCERTAIN DATA ON ALL
COMPLAINT HISTORY, AND A COMPUTERIZED RISK -MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO ANALYZE
TRENDS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
a. Proposed Change 5 —
The CPRB is requesting that the online public database be enhanced so that one can search
complaints, discipline, and training records of any officer. In order to protect sensitive identifying
information such as the officer's name, each officer of the ICPD shall be assigned an individual tracking
number to which all complaints, reports on complaints, discipline, and training records for the officer
attach. The tracking number shall be used in lieu of the officer's name or other identifiers.
The database shall include all complaints, not just those filed by members of the community or
through the CPRB process. The database shall be searchable for snapshots for the number and type of
complaints in any month or any year, their resolution, and any trends.
In addition, the board recommends the implementation of a computerized risk -management
tracking system to analyze data in search of trends.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The board believes that data tracking is important to its effectiveness of examining trends and
repeated instances of misconduct carried out by a few of the officers. When evidence shows that
officers who engage in misconduct tend to do so repeatedly, it is vital to be able to identify officers who
have emerging patterns of complaints. Treating each complaint as an isolated incident without tracking
data of individual officers makes it impossible to discover problematic officers and remove them from
public engagement.
7
DRAFT #5
Having a database online that allows the public to quickly identify what other complaints, if any,
in which an officer was involved, will allow for patterns of conduct for an individual officer to be
identified and investigated. Similarly, snapshots of the type of complaints over a month, and a year, will
allow for identification of trends and areas where more oversight is needed.
Further, if the CPRB is given authority to review discipline, having access to other complaints,
discipline, and training will be important to assess the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline. The
database should also be searchable type of complaint, and whether misconduct was found on a monthly
and year report, and identify the officers underthe categories. This would allow any member of the
community to see the trends and years so that one can easily ascertain the complaints against an officer
Data will be more accurate if all complaints are included rather than restricting inclusion to
complaints made directly to the board.
While some members of the CPRB would like names to be released, there was not a majority
consensus for this change given privacy laws and concerns for the officer safety by the majority of the
CPRB. A compromise was reached whereby each officer will be assigned a unique, consistent,
anonymous identification number that would accompany each complaint, to allow for more thorough
tracking and review.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None other than extreme caution should be taken to protect against disclosure of identifying
information of officers outside of their tracking number in order to protect the safety of the officer.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
• Regarding the need to identify repeat offenders/trends:
o According to a July, 2001 National Institute of Justice Research Brief (Walker, Alpert and
Kenney, 2020)'x, "10 percent of officers cause 90 percent of the problems," and
investigations have revealed that approximately "two percent of all officers are
responsible for 50 percent of all citizen complaints."
o A publication by the West Virginia Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil
Rights states that "Improving existing accountability procedures will assist in preventing
police misconduct and will provide the public with confidence that such acts of
misbehavior will be documented and that officers will be disciplined accordingly."
NEED A FOOTNOTE ON THIS CITATION
o Computerized tracking systems have been installed in various police departments across
the nation, including the Pittsburgh city police, the Los Angeles Police Department, and
the New Jersey State Police, among others. In Pittsburgh, reports of police misconduct
have dropped by more than half on average since the tracking system was installed."
(Chapter 4: Alternative Models for Police Disciplinary Procedures, 2020)'
VI. PROPOSED CHANGE 6— ALL COMPLAINTS OF MISCONDUCT FILED BY A COMMUNITY
MEMBER DIRECTLY WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND NOT FILED WITH THE CPRB,
SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S MONTHLY DISCLOSURES TO THE CPRB.
10
DRAFT #5
a. Proposed Change 6—
The CPRB is requesting that included with the monthly packet of information the ICPD discloses
to the CPRB, that it include copies of all complaints filed by a community member to the ICPD.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Currently, the CPRB is only given the reports from community members that are made to the
CPRB and a quarterly summary of complaints made to the ICPD. Having all the reports made by a
community member to the ICPD in a timely fashion will give the CPRB discretion to do additional
investigation. This will allow for additional oversight. Data will be more accurate if all complaints are
included rather than restricting inclusion to complaints made directly to the board.
Also, since the George Floyd incident, many community members have expressed that they only
just learned of the CPRB in Iowa City. However, there are quite a few that may not know of the CPRB
when they are filing a complaint. This is especially true with Iowa City being a college town with many
students temporarily transplanted in Iowa City. Having all reports would help protect against these
community members missing out on the oversight of the CPRB when they file a complaint with the ICPD
directly.
C. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
VII. PROPOSED CHANGE 7 - CPRB SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORTS TO REVIEW FOR CERTAIN TRENDS
a. Proposed Change 7 —
The CPRB is requesting that, included in the quarterly reports provided by ICPD, that it also be
given the following information:
i. Total number of detained individuals;
ii. Demographics of the individuals detained;
iii. Total number of arrested individuals; and,
iv. Demographics of those arrested.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Perhaps as important as providing an independent examination and report of individual claims,
is to provide such oversight for trends and larger ways in which the Iowa City Police are executing its
duties on a day to day basis. While the CPRB is provided with some information already to assist with
such larger oversight, some additional information would be useful to help protect against intentional or
unintentional racist bias or racially disproportionate outcomes.
C. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
11
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
DRAFT #5
Vill. PROPOSED CHANGE 8 — CPRB SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE AN INDEPENDENT
AUDITOR TO REVIEW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S INTERNAL INVESTIGATION
PROCEDURES.
a. Proposed Change 8—
The CPRB is requesting that it be given authority and sufficient funding to hire an independent
auditor to review ICPD's internal investigation procedures.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Since ultimate authority for investigatory outcomes is held by the ICPD, it is vital to ensure that
its procedures are unbiased, complete, and follow best practices. A regularly scheduled independent
audit (every 1-2 years at the CPRB's discretion) would provide an opportunity for the Police Department
to receive consistent review and recommendations for improvement that can be implemented in the
interims. In addition, the CPRB should have the authority to recommend an audit if they believe that
there is an immediate procedural issue that cannot be reconciled through other means.
None.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Other cities that have used independent auditors to review police procedures include but are
not limited to:
o Charleston SC (https://www.charleston-sc.gov/2250/Racial-Bias-Audit),
o North Charleston SC, (Yee, 2020)x' (Dennis and Yee, 2020)x"
o Salem NH, ((Audit of Community Policing Policies, Procedures and Programs, 2020)x"'
(Police Audit I Salem NH, 2020)x",
o Albany NY (https://www.timesunion com/news/article/Albany-hiring-firm-to-study
racial-bias-in-police-15509749 php),
o Roswell (https://www.ajc.com/news/local/roswell-pay-77k-for-external-audit-police-
department/EfCl6kzsYigRhzhIOBUYSK/ ),
o Vallejo CA (https://www.nbcbavarea com/news/local/north-bay/vallemo-to-release-
th i rd-pa rtv-a ud it-of-police-dent-next-week/2308338/),
o Eugene OR(https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18785/Civilian-Review
Board -Policies),
o Los Angeles CA,
(http://www.lapdonline.org/inside the land/content basic view/8772)
12
DRAFT #5
IX. PROPOSED CHANGE 9 — CPRB SHALL BE PROVIDED CITY FUNDING TO PROMOTE
AWARENESS OF THE CPRB AND ENHANCE ACCESSIBILITY TO ITS SERVICES.
a. Proposed change 9—
The CPRB is requesting that it have sufficient funds provided to advertise its existence, services,
and make its services more accessible to the public. This would include but not be limited to funds for
outreach activities, meetings being streamed live, enhancements to the web -site to make them more
user friendly.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
It is often explained to the CPRB from members of the community that they did not even know
of our existence. After the George Floyd incident and the protests, attendance at our meetings and
public forum was high, and a common report from feedback from the community was that they did not
know of the CPRB. It was also obvious many in the community who were informed enough to attend
the CPRB forum did not have a clear understanding of the purpose or function of the CPRB. Presently,
there is little effort into providing info about the CPRB other than through the City website.
In order to be effective, the CPRB needs to improve public engagement. This could be
accomplished in ways such making our website more user friendly, having all CPRB meetings live
streamed on the City of Iowa City Facebook page (and posted about on that page in advance), holding
community forums (and possibly other events) twice a year, providing information about filing a
complaint at the public library, recreation centers, and community centers, and having basic CPRB
contact info printed on the back of every police officer card. The last suggestion was offered during our
2020 Community Forum by one of the longtime community members who just recently learned of the
CPRB.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
The Eugene, OR CRB Code states that its board is to "conduct outreach activities and
disseminate information throughout the community' and "seek open, candid and non -defensive
dialogue with stakeholders to both educate and learn from different communities in Eugene."
(https://www.e ugene-or.gov/Docu mentCenter/View/18785/Civi I is n-Review-Boa rd-Policies).
NEED FOOTNOTE CITATION HERE
X. PROPOSED CHANGE 10 —COMPLAINANTS SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO A LAWYER AND SOCIAL
WORKER/MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WITH TRAUMA AWARENESS TRAINING FOR PURPOSES
OF ASSISTING COMPLAINANTS THROUGHOUT THE COMPLAINT PROCESS.
a. Proposed Change 10—
The CPRB proposes that community members wanting to file a complaint through the CPRB
have access to both legal counsel and a social worker or other medical professional with trauma
13
DRAFT #5
awareness training for purposes of facilitating and assisting complainants with their complaint
throughout the complaint process.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
It is reasoned that community members file complaints against officers because they believe
they have been wronged. It is therefore important to acknowledge that the experience may have been
traumatic for a complainant. Indeed, some community members have reported the trauma from the
underlying event, and a separate trauma from fear associated with reporting the complaint, including
fear of retaliation, fear of sharing a personal traumatic event, and fear of their claims being judged as
either validated or invalidated. Such trauma deserves a trained professional to help a complainant at
the outset of the complaint process and through to its resolution.
In CPRB complaints, there is an inherent imbalance of power due to the complaints being
against an officer who has several advantages including access to reports and information, familiarity
with procedures and personnel, and levels of tort immunity. While the CPRB tries to be accessible to all
members of the community and strives to make the complaint process as straight forward as possible,
the process can be daunting and pose certain challenges. This may be especially true for marginalized
populations such as community members that are undocumented, unhoused, sex workers, drug users,
and/or formerly incarcerated. Put simply, some members of the community simply do not have the
capacity or resources to file an effective complaint. Having access to legal counsel would greatly assist
community members with the filing of complaints. They will be informed of legalities, have clarity of the
process, as well as other assistance that would greatly enhance the complaint process.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
At least some members of the CPRB are of the opinion that If Iowa City provides the
complainant services such as, to make use of a lawyer and/or social worker/medical professional with
trauma awareness training, that in doing so, Iowa City would be acknowledging that there is culpability
on behalf of the ICPD for its alleged conduct in the complaint. Further, such services could be laying a
foundation for a complainant to initiate legal actions against an officer and/or Iowa City regardless of
the actual merits of the Complaint.
The majority of the CPRB believe that Iowa City can provide the legal and medical services for a
Complainant without acknowledging culpability. To the contrary, legal counsel and trauma/medical
professionals for the complaint process might facilitate a more thorough and meaningful resolution of
the complaint for the complainant in instances whether or not the complaint is sustained. Having
assistance to understand the events and processes might reduce the need for additional litigation and
draw a sense of closure and completeness to the incident in which the community member perceived to
be harmed.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
• Evidence suggests that individual -level secondary prevention interventions aimed at bolstering
resilience and reducing the likelihood of adverse effects following trauma are effective."
(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20008198.2017.1375338), NEED FOOTNOTE
CITATION HERE.
14
DRAFT #5
• "Trauma affects how victims see themselves" and "these beliefs affect how victims respond to
services and the criminal justice system, and underscore the importance of task forces taking a
trauma -informed approach, not only through service delivery but also throughout the
investigation" process.(https://www.ovcttac.gov/taskforceffuldeleguide/4-supporting
victims/41-using-a-trauma-informed-approach/) NEED FOOTNOTE CITATION HERE.
• "Public health impact of trauma exposure is staggering for both communities and individuals"
and that "the social environment can stimulate recovery after trauma."
(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20008198.2017.1375338) NEED FOOTNOTE
CITATION HERE.
• "The perception of social support has been found to be an influential factor for the effects of
traumatic events on the individual as well as the community"
(https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00451/full). NEED FOOTNOTE
CITATION HERE.
• "Many suggest that a true public health approach requires mental health integration beyond
primary care to include sectors such as education, justice, welfare, and labor through
partnerships with government, non -governmental organizations, and the faith -based
community." (Collins, Insel, Chockalingam, Daar, & Maddox, 2013; Ko et al., 2008) Providing a
professional trained in trauma awareness to complainants would be a step towards such
integration.
• Urbana, Illinois Community Police Review Board has a designated representative to provide
mental support and other relevant assistance with the complaint process for the complainant.
(https://www.city.urbana.il.us/ Agendas - Packets - Minutes/Agendas 2006/07 10
2006/Citizen Police Review Ordinance Draft pdf). See, also: Columbia, Missouri
(httijs://www.como gov/law/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016Z04/CPRB Brochure pdf), Dallas,
Texas(http://mothersagainstoolicebrutaIity org/wo-content/uploads/2018/03/Task Force
Report-on-Citizen-Review-of-Police-15-February-2017-FINAL Pdf).
XI. PROPOSED CHANGE 11— EXPAND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CPRB FROM FIVE TO NINE
MEMBERS, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON MINORITY REPRESENTATION AND REPRESENTATION
FROM A CURRENT OR FORMER MEMBER OF THE POLICE OR POLICE POLICY EXPERT.
a. Proposed Change 11—
The CPRB requests to change its membership from the current five member board to one with
additional members.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Having additional members increases the diverse opinions of the board, will disperse the
workload, and allow for larger subgroups to meet without constituting a quorum that requires a public
meeting for all members. As is, the current members are volunteering time to review individual
complaints. This almost always entails watching hours of video footage, possible additional
investigations, procedural discussions, voting, report writing, and review of report before its filing.
Members also review various police ordinances and policies, as well as quarterly reports from the police.
15
DRAFT #5
Besides this, members are tasked with writing public forum reports, and, from time to time, having
various sub -committees for purposes of completing tasks. Presently, subcommittees can only be
comprised of two members as more would entail a forum requiring a public meeting.
The proposals outlined in this document would only increase, in some cases dramatically, the
amount of work being carried by a five -member volunteer board. With the additional two or four
members, the individual burden would be lessened.
With regard to the composition being favorable to minority groups, this stems from an agenda
to help achieve racial equality in the justice system. Objective data points to clear racial disparities in
policing on a statewide and national level. Having a minimum composition of members from minority
groups for overseeing the police would help protect minority interests in the carrying out of CPRB
reviews. The Board feels there should be no less than three members who are from a minority race for
its composition.
To help ensure fairness and equity in the review process, the recommendation that one
member of the board have a police background shall become mandatory. It is important that, when
reviewing police conduct, someone with police experience and training be consulted. If there were
concerns over objectivity, perhaps the residency requirements for this member should be waived,
and/or a police procedure expert be retained for the CPRB to consult with regularly during the closed
sessions.
C. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
MI. PROPOSED CHANGE 12 - CPRB complaints should be permitted whether filed
anonymously or through third persons so long as there is sufficient knowledge of the
underlying circumstances.
a. Proposed Change 12 —
The CPRB is requesting that complaints be permitted whether they are filed anonymously or
through third persons without naming individual complainant, so long a sufficient personal knowledge
of the underlying circumstances is alleged in the complaint. This timeline for filing a complaint may be
extended further by showing of good cause, as the ordinance currently provides.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The purpose of the CPRB is to provide effective community oversight of the ICPD. If information
can be brought forward to help identify instances of misconduct, it should be brought forward without
the need of the person who was perceived to have been harmed being personally named. Allowing for
anonymity may well remove a very real obstacle preventing community members from filing
complaints: fear of public humiliation and/or retaliation by those implicated in the complaint. This could
16
DRAFT #5
especially be true with several marginalized members of the community including those that are
undocumented, unhoused, sex workers, drug users, and/or those formerly incarcerated. These
members statistically have a higher number of interactions with the police and are more likely to be
subject to police misconduct. This change would provide some assurances that they can file a complaint
without retaliation.
Perception of fairness and equity is also important for the community members to have faith in
the CPRB system. Currently, for a CPRB complaint, the identity of the complainant is disclosed while the
identity of an officer implicated in a complaint of misconduct is not. This seems inequitable, especially
considering the inherent power imbalance in filing a complaint against a police officer, and can be
resolved with the option to file anonymously.
To protect against an unfettered amount of complaints being filed against officers, a threshold
of requiring sufficient facts to demonstrate a complainant has personal knowledge of the underlying
circumstances alleged in the Complaint should be put in place.
a. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Some members of the CPRB are fearful that allowing a complaint without attesting to the truth of
the statements —something that can only be done by identifying oneself — will open the floodgates for
frivolous complaints. The CPRB complaint process could be used to harass officers and deter them from
interacting with certain members of the community that might try to use the process to retaliate against
officers themselves. The majority of the CPRB believes that it is far more likely that the requirement for
alleging details demonstrating personal knowledge of the events will check such potential abuses.
Further, until such abuses would occur with regularity, the benefits for incorporating this change
outweigh the costs.
b. Additional sources relevant to consideration of the proposed change
The National Association For Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) supports
anonymous reporting and complaints of police misconduct may be filed anonymously in:
Cleveland, OH
(httos://www.naccle.ore/fans?fbclid=IWAR2fuO70U7ixwr0kZIrisKZkhbx8iBig i0G06epR1wO
z8RuQ 1TUvleo9l),
(htti2://www.clevelandohio.gov/sites/default/files/ops publications/OPS BrochureEnglish o
df). NEED FOOTNOTE CITATION
Anonymous reporting in Seattle, WA, (httPs://www.seattle eov/opa/complaints/file a
complaint/anonymous-complaint-form). NEED FOOTNOTE CITATION
Anonymous reporting in Wolcott, CT (https://www.wolcottpd or¢/about/civilian-police
review -board/). NEED FOOTNOTE CITATION
XIII. PROPOSED CHANGE 13 —THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR FILING A CPRB COMPLAINT
SHALL BE LENGTHENED FROM 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT,
TO 180 DAYS AFTER THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT.
a. Proposed Change 13-
17
DRAFT #5
The CPRB requests that the timeline for allowing a member of the community to file a complaint
with the CPRB be extended from 90 days after the underlying incident of misconduct alleged in the
complaint to 180 days from the same.
b. Reason for the proposal
When a community member has had an interaction with a police officer that may warrant the
filing of a complaint, there needs to be time to process the occurrence, perhaps handle other ways the
encounter impacted them including loss of job, criminal charges, trauma. The CPRB believes 180 days
better accommodates complainants with those circumstances. They further believe that such an
extension still preserves the recency of the events so that memories may be recalled and evidence
gathered. In comparison, the deadline to file a complaint to either the Iowa Civil Rights Commission
(https://www.icgov.org/city-government/departments-and-divisions/equity-and-human-rights) or the
Iowa City Office of Equity and Human Rights (https://icrc.iowa.gov/file-complaint) is 300 days.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Some members of the CPRB support having no statute of limitations. In support they site the
trauma and fear that may be associated with being a victim of police misconduct that would take
perhaps several years or more to bring forward. The majority of the CPRB members, however, believe
the 180 days is a better balance between allowing sufficient time to file a complaint and the ability to
investigate a complaint with recent evidence.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
The Daytona Beach News -Journal. 2020. Daytona Beach Close To Launching Citizens' Police Review Board. [online]
Available at: <https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/local/volusia/2020/09/24/daytona-beach-to-choose-
citizens-police-review-board-members/5850368002/> [Accessed 28 October 2020].
"2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-CitizenReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020].
0 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-CitizenReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020].
'v 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-Citizen ReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 20201.
v 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-CitizenReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020].
'i Walker, Samuel, Carol Archbold and Leigh Herbst, Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Police Officers: A Guide
for Police and Community Leaders Web Version (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, (2002)
v" MSEL 2020. About Us - MSEl. [online] Available at <httPs:Hmediateiowa.org/about-us/> [Accessed 6 November
2020].
"" Cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com. 2020. [online] Available at: <https://cao-
94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/oakO62931.pdf> [Accessed 1 November 2020].
"Walker, S., Alpert, G. and Kenney, D., 2020. Early Warning Systems: Responding To The Problem Police Officer.
[online] Ncjrs.gov. Available at: <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesi/nij/188565.pdf> [Accessed 6 November 20201.
" Usccr.gov. 2020. Chapter 4: Alternative Models For Police Disciplinary Procedures. [online] Available at:
<https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/wv0104/ch4.htm> [Accessed 6 November 2020].
18
DRAFT #5
"Yee, G., 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charieston-officials-cast-first-
votes-toward-racial-bias-audit-of-police-department/a rticle_682b6916-Old b-lleb-b325-d38SSfS9169e.html>
[Accessed 31 October 2020].
""Dennis, R. and Yee, G., 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-
a wa rds-contra ct-fo r-lo ng-awa ited-ra ce-bias-audit-of-police-force/a rt i cle_9841779e-09a 6-1 l a b-bO38-
cb026ceed72b.html> [Accessed 2 November 2020].
"" Cityofsalem.net. 2020. Audit Of Community Policing Policies, Procedures And Programs. [online] Available at:
<https://www.cityofsalem.net/Pages/police-audit.aspx> [Accessed 1 November 2020].
"• 7ownofsalemnh.org. 2020. Police Audit / Salem NH. [online] Available at:
<https://www.townofsalemnh.org/home/news/police-audit> [Accessed 30 October 2020].
19
DRAFT #4
To: City Council
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Report and recommendation of proposed changes to the Community Police Review Board by the
Community Police Review Board in order to enhance its civilian oversight of the loCity Police
Department
PROPOSED'CHANGE 1— THAT IN INSTANCES OF A SUSTAINED SCONDUCT COMPLAINT,
THE CPRB BE i"il`VEN INFORMATION ON THE CHIEF OF POUCE15CITY MANAGER'S DECISION
ON HOW THE OFF(CER(S) FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED MI CONDUCT ARE DISCIPLINED,
INFORMATION ON lE FACTORS USED TO DETERMINE TK DEGREE OF DISCIPLINE TO BE
ADMINISTERED, AND WH�AT� THE CPRB REPORT TO CITy�UNCIL WHETHER IT DETERMINES
THE DISCIPLINE TO BE ADI1g�STERED IS REASONABLF7eAND FAIR.
a. Proposed Change 1 d
The CPRB is requesting that, upon there b ' g a sµttained report of misconduct by the Chief of
Police/City Manager, that it also be provided: a
A report from the Chief of Police9kitkAanager outlining the discipline to the officer
as a consequence of the misco duct.%ne
he report, the Chief of Police/City
Manager shall detail the fac rs it usermining the discipline to administer,
including: (a) The severity�f misconducomplaint; (b) Whether the officer
was found to have comfAitted the same or sire r type of misconduct in the past; (c)
Prior exemplary con ct of the officer; (d) Prior t ning related to the
circumstances in ich the officer was found to hav2pcommitted misconduct; (e)
Clarity of the ICPp operating procedures for the circum ances in which the officer
conducted mis0onduct; and (f) Other circumstances that N1 for enhancing or
mitigating the discipline to be administered.
Copies of the officer's: (a) discipline history; (b) exemplary con history; (c) the
officer's training history; (d) any operating procedures relevant to a Chief of
Police/City Manager's determination of discipline for the misconduct; ) evidence
or documentation relied on by the Chief of Police/City Manager of enhan\ng or
mitigating circumstances that impacted the decision on the appropriate level of
discipline to be administered; and (f) any reasonable requests for documents or
other evidence related to any of the above disclosures.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The most critical role of the Community Police Review Board ("CPRB") is to provide an
independent review, on behalf of the community, over the conduct and misconduct of the Iowa City
Police Department ("ICPD") including its Chief and all officers. When a complaint of misconduct is filed,
presently, the CPRB only has authority to agree or disagree with the findings of the Chief of Police
DRAFT #4
and/or City Manager as to whether or not misconduct has occurred. In cases where misconduct is found,
either by the CPRB or the ICPD, no information is provided to the CPRB about any consequences
administered to the officer for having committed the misconduct.
The CPRB beli ves having information regarding the disciplining of an officer and any6ither
consequences in cases there a complaint of misconduct has been sustained is integral aving
effective oversight of th ICPD. The discipline information allows for oversight into ether future
misconduct is deterred, a uity in the discipline of officers, and whether the fact cited in determining
the appropriate degree of i'iscipline to be administered are consistent with p cedent and the
community's values. X
The importance of the PRB having information is perhaps be,9f explained by a hypothetical of
an officer using excessive force resulting in serious injury to a comveunity member. Assume that the
Chief of Police issued a report findg the officer to have commit(ed grave misconduct. Through the
current CPRB complaint process, the�QRB would review thexef's report and file its own findings in
the CPRB report. In the current systen\the CPRB would stain the Chiefs finding of misconduct, and
report the same to City Council, having nth informations, and making no finding regarding discipline to
the officer. Assume further, forthis hypothetical, t the Chief issued no discipline to the offending
officer, despite the seriousness of the miscor�duc and despite such lack of accountability being in clear
contradiction to the goals of the Iowa City Co * unity. Such lack of discipline will go undetected by the
CPRB, and instead of being able to raise pub, aarareness of such mishandling of misconduct within the
ICPD, the CPRB report would be suggestiv that th&,,ICPD was correctly managing complaints of
misconduct. This hypothetical shows t4�t it may do Ottle good, or actual harm, to have the CPRB report
is finding as the whether miscondu t`occurred, but no't similarly be provided with information relevant
to what discipline, if any, results tan officer that found'to have committed the misconduct.
Establishing a process6rough which the CPRB can review and report on disciplinary decisions
r,
administered by the Chief,9f Police/City Manager will greatly irnprove transparency and community
confidence in the boarVeffectiveness. a
4r
c. Add' onal comments/concerns for consideration*
s
Consens_ for proposing this change was reached by the CPRB as the members found it carefully
toed the line allowing the CPRB to remain an advisory review board and not an administer. This was
attempted be achieved by proposing changes that restricted the CPRMto reviewing decisions of
disciplin ade by the Chief of Police/City Manager, and not having authorty to issue discipline. The
issue o ow much authority the CPRB should be given to administering disc line was the most debated
subj t for the CPRB, with the majority opting to remain an advisory board freasons that are
e ained in more detail in the other proposed changes.
' Careful consideration must be given to the confidentiality of private information asked to be
revealed in the disclosures and the reports under this proposed change. In particular, disciplinary
records are confidential, and legislative changes must do its best to try to narrow any exceptions to this
for the well-being of the officer. Further, legislation should also be considered that would limit liability
that may attach to a CPRB volunteer for any accidental disclosure of confidential information.
d. Additional sources relevant to consideration of the proposed change
� i 1
Some polk`review boards across the nation have access to disciplinary information and varying
degrees of related autl Ority. In Daytona for example, the Police Department will "provide the board
with the full internal affait*sfile , unless any portions are determined to be exempt from disclosure or
confidential by law." (Daytosta Beach close to launching Citizens' Police Review Boar , 202%. The
review board will "discuss the\aklegations of a case, the adequacy of the investigat' n, the final discipline
that was meted out, and whether'the police leadership response was appropria "during their public
meetings. Id. In addition, "[t]he board will issue a written report that include he name of the
complainant, the name of the accused'officer or officers, a summary of the legations and board
members' decisions to agree or disagree Tenth the disciplinary findings." I .
II. PROPOSED CHANGE 2 — THAT KINSTANCES OF A SUST/4IED MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT,
AND ALSO WHEN THE CPRB DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE CORRESPONDING DISCIPLINE
DECISION TO BE ADMINITERED BY THE CHIEF OF
CPRB, SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST
HEARING. �. e
a. Proposed Change 2
The CPRB proposes that in instances where#fl of the
1. There has been a finding of mis
2. (Assuming proposed change 1 I
the corresponding discipline to
of their decision; and
3. The CPRB disagrees with the
d�Et in a Complairh
Sccurred) the Chief
officer along with t
fCE AND/OR CITY MANAGER, THE
CITY COUNCIL HAVE A DISCIPLINARY
bleness or fairness of
circumstances exist:
City Manager have disclosed
)ort and disclosures in support
by the Chief and/or Ci7ing
nager
datory that there be a manmewithin 30 days of the CPRB's request
Manager, in which to discuss tl
If, as a consequence of
is reasonable and fair, (eith
change the discipline to bfp
!eting, the CPRB has concluded that the dis
to the Chief/City Manager having made an
to be administered
Chief of Police/City
be administered
ent decision to
istered, or the CPRB changing their majority opinions to the
reasonableness and fair ss of the discipline) the reports will note that the meeting oc&rred and that
the CPRB agrees to thyreasonableness and fairness of the discipline the Chief/City Manager determined
to administer. l/
If, despite thts meeting, the CPRB cannot conclude that the discipline to be administered by the Chief
of Police if reasonable and fair, then the CPRB shall have the discretion to either (1) issue a report
detailing their disagreement with the discipline, or, (2) request that the City Council for Iowa City ("City
Council") conduct a disciplinary hearing to determine the reasonable and fair discipline that should
result to the officer as a consequence of the officer's misconduct. In the event of a hearing, the CPRB
shall be allowed to attend, and, in any event, be informed of all outcomes related to the hearing and/or
disciplining of the officer.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
DRAFT #4
The majority of the CPRB believe that this proposed change would allow for the effective
oversight of the disciplining of officers in cases where misconduct is found, while allowing the CPRB to
remain a agent for community review and not an administrator. The goal of the review is to try to
ensure that operations of the ICPD are in line with the interests of the community. This goal can be
best achieved, w in instances of disagreement between the CPRB and the Chief/City anager as to
the appropriateness the discipline to be administered when misconduct is found, a m ling can be
held to try to reconcile t discrepancy. The CPRB is not trained or authorized in matt s of disciplining
police officers or employme law. Deference to the Chief/City Manager's autonom in their capacity to
govern the ICPD and their kno dge of inner working in the police department b and the discipline of
a particular case must also be give , Still, the CPRB speaks on behalf of the co unity members, and in
instances of incongruity of opinions b ween the ICPD and the CPRB, a meeti to gain better insight
into the reasoning can hopefully reconci discrepancies by an independen change of opinion from one
or both sides. The meeting would also se to potentially save tax -pay money by being an additional
step to cross before discretionary recommen tion of an expensive d' iplinary hearing.
The meeting is very similar to recent ordirV ' ce changes prXposed by the CPRB and adopted by
the City Council, to allow a meeting between the C
discrepancy between the finding of misconduct by
legislation could be mirrored for purposes of effec
meeting in this case.
With regards to the CPRB having new au
Council, the CPRB believes that it is at close to h,
the Chief/City Manager in their administering of
allowed without relegating the CPRB to be an ad
with it. That is, with such a recommendation h
rigger with the CPRB when there is a
ty Manager and the CPRB. That
legislative change to allow for the
?rid a disciplinary hearing to the City
for when the CPRB disagrees with
ikipline related hound misconduct, as can be
inistrative board an) all the consequences that come
CPRB is merely report to the City Council that in
the CPRB's review of the discipline t/iitd*grees with the Chief/City MaNger, to such a degree that it
recommends the City Council shouldnvestigate. At no point is the C B having any authority of
how/when to discipline an officer giCPRB. Rather, it exclusivelyrem.nswith the Chief/City
Manager, for review, at the City Couretion, by the City Council. This cha e, therefore, allows
the CPRB to remain a review agenc ,' but now with the additional capacity in its rew w to shine a
spotlight on issues of discipline r� 6ted to found misconduct of ICPD officers it believe the Iowa City
community members would like`examined closer.
The power of this review should not be understated, as it is often found that "sunlig being the
best disinfectant." In addition, this proposed change adds the "teeth" of the threat( a disciple ry
hearing, and consequences that would no doubt result if a large degree of unreasonableness were found
after such a hearing. All of this is accomplished while allowing the discretion for how to administer
discipline to remain with the administrators that are trained to manage the ICPD, unless our elected City
Council members, determine after a fair hearing, to intervene.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
The current CPRB is split on whether the CPRB should be given authority to issue formal
discipline with legal standing for officer misconduct. Members of the opinion that the CPRB should be
an advisory board that makes recommendations only point to the following to support their position:
DRAFT #4
• The CPRB is not trained in employment law or matters of disciplining officers.
• The CPRB should not over -compromise the Chief of Police from carrying out admin
functions. ,o
• Priva laws rightfully protect dissemination of sensitive employment i
require be disclosed to make a truly informed decision on the adm
any situ ati0 .
• Liability would a 4cf
recommendations
officers.
• The CPRB should not
CPRB members are a
community.
to members of the CPRB, that are voluntary posi
iiscipline made by members of the CPRB as they
administrative powers of the City
and not elected as officials to m6
;n that would be
of discipline in
for
the employment of
er or City Council. The
a decision for the
Some members of the current CPRB are 6Mhe opinion that thisyoposed change does not go far
enough. It is their position that if the CPRB dos not have authorit to discipline, that its
recommendations can be ignored without consequ ce or reco 'se. They would like the CPRB to have
the authority to:
• Discipline an officer for misconduct;
• Discipline an officer for failing to cooperat, ith interview or investigation into the
complaint;
• Require an officer to participate in mediation with a co lainant;
• Call for a public hearing to hire/fi�yrean officer or Chief of Ptgice; and,
• If there were a disciplinary hearifig that there be opportunities for the public to comment
and the final decision as to tVappropriate discipline to administer would be made by a
majority vote of the comb d bodies of the CPRB and the City 6uncil.
These CPRB members suggest that this level of authority for the CPRB is necks ary to enhance the
understanding of the officers of t4 ICPD's interactions with citizens, give opportu ies to explain
officer actions to citizens, enhance satisfaction with the complaint process, empowe he community
members— complainant and non -complainants alike, the opportunity to learn from mi kes of officers,
and enhance the opportunity to meet community goals.
The CPRB members that would like to change the CPRB to give them more authority for the
hiring/firing of the Chief of Police than is proposed in this change state in support of their position that
establishing a process through which the CPRB can initiate a public discussion in the case of significant
concerns with the Chiefs suitability for the position and be a part of the decision making process would
improve community confidence in the board's effectiveness. The opportunity to provide commentary
themselves would also facilitate resident empowerment.
Ultimately, the majority consensus was to approve the proposed change as reported in this section.
d. Additional sources relevant to consideration of the proposed change
• Regarding the authority to review or administer discipline:
61
DRAFT #4
o The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board makes
recommendations to the Sheriff regarding discipline, policies, proce27ew
, and programs
(2020)"
o Columbus, Ohio, has a measure on the ballot that would create a r board that
w Id "make recommendations to the Division of Police, includi recommendations
for di iplinary actions if relevant.""'
o The Vir ' is State Senate recently advanced a bill that would Ilow review boards to
""make bi ding disciplinary determinations in cases that in olve serious breaches of
department and professional standards.°
o Steven Morris n, a professor at the University of Nortly- akota School of Law, said
police review' b ards are probably better than noVen
;, but as far as changing things he
believes they have minimal value unless they are genforcement power.
• Regarding the authority of th CPRB to require mediatyh:
o According to a guide fr&T the U.S. Departm . t of Justice Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, "[m]edi tion focuses on yfutual understanding, problem solving, and
reconciliation - all vital asp is of increa ' g trust between parties." vi The guide further
details mutually beneficial o comes f9f, mediation. Id. The guide reports that, "[i]n a
series of focus groups in Oma , Ne aska, individuals were asked to discuss whether
they would file a complaint in re se to a hypothetical incident of police misconduct
and what they wanted to achiev they did. Many participants indicated a desire for an
explanation or apology from ei> er a officer or a responsible official, or they wanted
an opportunity to express thgrr views o the officer in person." Id.
o The Alberta Law Enforceme�/St Review and found that in some instances, "all the
citizen wants is an apolo �" and that me iation provides the officer with a forum in
which to "explain to a c'zen why he or sh acted in a particular manner" (Alberta Law
Enforcement Review 48ard 1997). NEED A OTNOTE ON THIS CITATION "Research
indicates that comp�inants who choose med tion do report higher levels of
satisfaction than tl3 se who choose the traditio al process." Id.
o "Mediation intro uces a new dimension to polic accountability. In traditional
complaint proc ures, an officer accused of misco duct is directly accountable only to
other police ice internal affairs investigators, t immediate supervisor, and, in
some instan yes, the chief of police NEED A FOOTNOT ON THIS CITATION (Walker 2001).
The office never has to directly face or account to the t itizen who has filed the
complai . In contrast, an officer participating in mediation is directly accountable to the
citize ho filed the complaint. Mediation may help personalize American policing." Id.
o In h r report on community justice, restorative justice, and community policing,
C oline Nicholl explains that community justice "is shifting criminal justice from a
urely adversarial approach to include problem -solving methods" NEED A FOOTNOTE
o
ON THIS CITATION (Nichol) 2000a).
The DOJ (NEED THIS FULL CITATION HERE) paper would be a tremendous resource in
planning as it goes beyond the benefits of mediation and details various practical ways
to create a program. It states that "mediation is much less expensive than traditional
complaint investigations. The Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority (CRA) pays a flat
F.a
T i I
rate of $2,000 a year to the Minneapolis Mediation Center (a community -based
nonprofit organization supported by funding from city and county government agencies,
Nic organizations, and individuals and clients) to provide mediators, who work pro
bonX to handle police cases."
o There' a nonprofit mediation center in Iowa City, Mediation Services 9kastern Iowa
(About MSEI, 2020)"', with the structure in place like (NEED DOl apercitation)
suggests.
Regarding the authority to hire/fire the Chief of Police:
o In Oakland, C ifornia the Mayor is required "to appoint any ew Chief of Police from a
list of candidatdkprovided by the Commission" (2020)""
III. PROPOSED CHANGE 3 -HAT AN ACCUSED OFFICER
CPRB INVESTIGATION, IN&,UDING THE REQUEST TO
TO COMPLY WITH A
INTERVIEWED BY THE CPRB
RELATED TO A COMPLAINT OkMISCONDUCT, TH THE OFFICER SHALL BE DISCIPLINED BY
THE CHIEF OF POLICE/CITY MAN�GER.
a. Proposed change 3—
The CPRB is requesting that in the event an icer does not cooperate with a CPRB investigation
related to a complaint of misconduct, (whether not a officer is accused of the misconduct), sitting
and thoughtfully responding to interview questions by th CPRB, that the officer be disciplined by the
Chief of Police/City Manager. Further, a mXatory intervi should be made under oath.
b. Reasoningforthe
Currently, as part of the CP B investigation, the CPRB hasthe authority to interview witnesses,
including officers — both accuse and non -accused alike. However, ere is no present duty or order
that requires an officer to participate in the investigation or interview:�§imilarly, there is no
repercussion to the officer f r not participating. Without such a duty or` percussion, it is likely that an
Officer will not participat n the investigation, respond to a request to be terviewed, or participate in
a name -clearing hearing Indeed, the collective experience of the CPRB overloe years has proven this to
be true. With such repercussions, it is much more likely the Officer's participation can be secured,
greatly enhancing thyCPRB's investigation and ensuring more accuracy of its findings and reporting.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
At I t some members of the current CPRB have concerns over the legality of compelling an
officer t stify in instances of alleged misconduct, especially when the officer may be asked to provide
self= criminatine information.
Also, and relatedly, officers may want or need to be represented by legal counsel to protect
their interests. The CPRB, in kind, will likely also need an attorney present for consultation. This has the
potential to add a large amount of taxpayer expense to the review process. It is hoped that the
discretion of the CPRB would be exercised with this expense in mind so that the requirement for
compelling testimony under oath would be used judiciously given the prevalent access to body -cameras,
car -cameras, and other data that may make this part of the investigation largely superfluous. That said,
DRAFT #4
without question, officers will be interviewed if deemed necessary to complete a thorough investigation
of the facts.
Further, in the interests of fairness, an Officer would reasonably want the Complainant to be
required to be interviewed as well. The Complainant, too, will likely want legal representation as well.
This begs the question of whether a Complainant should be afforded legal representation the
taxpayer's expense, and how to appoint such legal representation. Hand in hand with t s, is the chilling
effect on commu ity members filing a complaint if they may be interviewe/nartc
ys.
An additiona onsideration concerns the admissibility of any statee in any interview
in any subsequent lega roceedings. Such consideration must be given to s made by both the
officers and the Complain t.
d. Additional so , es relevant to consideration of the pr osed change
None.
IV. PROPOSED CHANGE 4 - A MPLAINANT SHALL HOE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO THE
CHIEF'S FINDINGS IN THE CH 'S REPORT BEFOP4THE CPRB SHALL CONDUCT ITS
INVESTIGATION.
a. Proposed Change 4—
The CPRB is requesting that, after the Chief& . lice/City Manager has issued a report to the
CPRB regarding the findings of fact and whether,¢r not a ations of misconduct are sustained, that a
copy of that report be disclosed to the Complainant. The C . plainant would then have the opportunity
to respond to the Chief/City Manager report for the CPRB to c sider in advance of their investigation.
b. Reasoning for the propogal
Presently, the CPRB conducts its investigation after receiving a co of the Chiefs report. The
Chiefs report often summarizes a narrative -type complaint and identifie specific allegations of
misconduct, and makes conclusions for the same. In some instances the n rative complaint is clear. In
others, it may be somewhat chaflenging to ascertain all of the allegations in t Complaint— most likely
prepared without the assistal;& of legal counsel.
While the CPRB has th€ capacity insetting its level of review to interview a corn ainant in the cases
of ambiguity, this is not required. Further, there may be an unintended chilling effect the filing of
complaints if a complainant is required to be interviewed; many people would be uncom rtable about
speaking to a panel of strangers investigating their sensitive matters. In any event, there is not any
opportunity, otherwise, for a complainant to provide clarifying information or object to
characterizations of the allegations as contained in the Chiefs report. If a complainant were given an
automatic opportunity to review the Chiefs report and respond to the CPRB in a timely fashion, the
CPRB report can be more accurate.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
One can conceive that the response may provide a complainant with a vehicle to keep tacking on
complaints and having "additional bites at the apple." Too, in the interests of equity, the Chief and/or
93
DRAFT #4
City Manager may want or need to have an opportunity to respond to any additional report of
misconduct or clariRr�ation on the complaint. At some point the process must stop and run ' course.
Still, it is believed that th careful procedural guidelines, a response from the Complain t could be
incorporated that would b efit the CPRB's review.
d. Additional sou'rees relevant to consideration of the proposed
kl m
V. PROPOSED CHANGE 5 — THE ONLINE DATABASE OF OFFICER
IMPROVED SO THAT IT CAN
COMPLAINT HISTORY, AND
TRENDS SHOULD BE IMPLEI
a. Proposed Change 5—
MORE EASILY SEARCHED TO
AINTS SHALL BE
AIN DATA ON ALL
SYSTEM TO ANALYZE
The CPRB is requesting that the online public database a enhanced so that one can search
complaints, discipline, and training records of any officer. In der to protect sensitive identifying
information such as the officer's name, each officer ofthe I D shall be assigned an individual tracking
number to which all complaints, reports on complaints; di ipline, and training records for the officer
attach. The tracking number shall be used in lieu of the ficer's name or other identifiers.
The database shall include all complaints, not ust t' se
hall filed by members of the community or
through the CPRB process. The database sbe sse rchable r snapshots for the number and type of
complaints in any month or any year, their resolui n, and any' {ends.
In addition, the board recommends
tracking system to analyze data in search of
b. Reasoningforthe
plementation df a computerized risk -management
The board believes that data tralyking is important to its effective ess of examining trends and
repeated instances of misconduct carr' d out by a few of the officers. Wh evidence shows that
officers who engage in misconduct d to do so repeatedly, it is vital to be le to identify officers who
have emerging patterns of comp) ' ts. Treating each complaint as an isolate 'ncident without tracking
data of individual officers make t impossible to discover problematic officers a d remove them from
public engagement.
Having a databa online that allows the public to quickly identify what othbr complaints, if any,
in which an officer wa nvolved, will allow for patterns of conduct for an individual officer to be
identified and inves ated. Similarly, snapshots of the type of complaints over a month, and a year, will
allow for identific4eion of trends and areas where more oversight is needed.
Further, f the CPRB is given authority to review discipline, having access to other complaints,
discipline, and jaining will be important to assess the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline. The
database should also be searchable type of complaint, and whether misconduct was found on a monthly
and year report, and identify the officers under the categories. This would allow any member of the
community to see the trends and years so that one can easily ascertain the complaints against an officer
0
DRAFT #4
Data will be more accurate if all complaints are included rather than restricting inclusion to
complaints made directly to the board.
While some m bers of the CPRB would like names to be released, there was not a majority
consensus for this change iven privacy laws and concerns for the officer safety by the y<bTity of the
1.
CPRB. A compromise was re*ched whereby each officer will be assigned a unique, co istent,
anonymous identification nurnker that would accompany each compl/stdisclosure
r more thorough
tracking and review.
c. Additional commen /concerns for consideration
N.
None other than extreme cauti should be taken to protect of identifying
information of officers outside of their trai ,king number in order to pr" of the officer.
d. Additional sources relevant19, consideration of thofproposed change
• Regarding the need to identify repeat offs
o According to a July, 2001 National
Kenney, 2020)", "10 percent of of
investigations have revealed that
responsible for 50 percent of all ci
o A publication by the West Virginia
Rights states that "Improving e�s1
Of Justice Research Brief (Walker, Alpert and
e 90 percent of the problems," and
Rely "two percent of all officers are
plaints."
Committee to the US Commission on Civil
ntability procedures will assist in preventing
police misconduct and will p vide the public \th confidence that such acts of
misbehavior will be docu ented and that officer`, will be disciplined accordingly."
NEED A FOOTNOTE O HIS CITATION
o Computerized tracki systems have been installed
the nation, includi g the Pittsburgh city police, the Lo
the New Jersey ate Police, among others. In Pitts
have dropp>e =16y more than half on average since the
(Chapter 4 Iternative Models for Police Disciplinary
various police departments across
Angeles Police Department, and
reports of police misconduct
tra king system was installed."
roc ures, 2020)'
VI. PROPOSEDtHANGE 6—ALL COMPLAINTS OF MISCONDUCT FILE BY A COMMUNITY
MEMBE IRECTLY WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND NOT FILkD WITH THE CPRB,
SHALL E INCLUDED IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S MONTHLY DISCBOSURES TO THE CPRB.
Change 6 —
To@ CPRB is requesting that included with the monthly packet of information the ICPD discloses
to the CPRB, that it include copies of all complaints filed by a community member to the ICPD.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Currently, the CPRB is only given the reports from community members that are made to the
CPRB and a quarterly summary of complaints made to the ICPD. Having all the reports made by a
community member to the ICPD in a timely fashion will give the CPRB discretion to do additional
10
DRAFT #4
investigation. This will allow for additional oversight. Data will be more accurate if all complaints are
included rather than restricting inclusion to complaints made directly to the board.
Also, since the George Floyd incident, many community members have expressed they only
just learned of the CPRB in Iowa City. However, there are quite a few that may not kn of the CPRB
when they are filing complaint. This is especially true with Iowa City being a colle town with many
students temporarily ansplanted in Iowa City. Having all reports would help pr, ect against these
community members m sing out on the oversight of the CPRB when they fil complaint with the ICPD
directly.
c. Additional c"Tments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sou\1H
to consideration the proposed change
None.
VII. PROPOSED CHANGALL BE P VIDED WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN
THE POLICE DEPARTERM- EPORTS TO REVIEW FOR CERTAIN TRENDS
a. Proposed Change 7 —
The CPRB is requesting that, i uded in th quarterly reports provided by ICPD, that it also be
given the following inform on:
i. Total mber of detained individuals;
ii. De graphics of the individuals tained;
iii. T al number of arrested individual and,
iv. emoRraphics of those arrested.
b. Rybsoning for the proposal
Perha ' as important as providing an independent examina n and report of individual claims,
is to provid such oversight for trends and larger ways in which the to City Police are executing its
duties o day to day basis. While the CPRB is provided with some inf ation already to assist with
such la er oversight, some additional information would be useful to he] �rotect against intentional or
uninjOntional racist bias or racially disproportionate outcomes.
None.
None.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
d. Additional sources relevant to consideration of the proposed change
11
DRAFT #4
Vill. PROPOSED CHANGE 8— CPRB SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE AN INDEPENDENT
AUDITOR TO REVIEW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S INTERNAL IN STIGATION
PROCEDURES.
a. Proposed Change 8—
The CPRB is requesting that it be given authority and sufficie funding to hire an independent
auditor t view ICPD's internal investigation procedures.
b�easoning for the proposal
Since ultimo authority for investigatory outcomes i eld by the ICPD, it is vital to ensure that
its procedures are unbi ed, complete, and follow best pro ices. A regularly scheduled independent
audit (every 1-2 years at t CPRB's discretion) would pr. _ ide an opportunity for the Police Department
to receive consistent review a recommendations for�fnprovement that can be implemented in the
interims. In addition, the CPRB sNizuld have the auth fity to recommend an audit if they believe that
there is an immediate procedural is a that cannot a reconciled through other means.
None.
c. Additional
d. Additional sources
• Other cities that have used
not limited to:
o Charleston SC (htt
o North Charleston,
o Salem NH, ((A it
(Police Audit Sal
o Albany NY tt s:
Sale
F
�' 1C?i�Z�LI
o Eugene OR
consideration
of the proposed change
inde pendent audit s to review police procedures include but are
:://www.charleston-sc. v 2250 Racial -Bias -Audit),
C, (Yee, 2020)•' (Dennis an ee, 2020)"",
of Community Policing Policie Procedures and Programs, 2020)""'
NH, 2020)'"
o Los Angeles CA,
(htto://www.lapdonline.org/inside the laod/content basic view/8772)
IX. PROPOSED CHANGE 9 —CPRB SHALL BE PROVIDED CITY FUNDING TO PROMOTE
AWARENESS OF THE CPRB AND ENHANCE ACCESSIBILITY TO ITS SERVICES.
a. Proposed change 9—
The CPRB is requesting that it have sufficient funds provided to advertise its existence, services,
and make its services more accessible to the public. This would include but not be limited to funds for
12
DRAFT #4
outreach activities, meetings being streamed live, enhancements to the web-si to make them more
user friendly.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
It is often explained to the CPRB from members of the commu y that they did not even know
sts
of our existence. After the George Floyd incident and the prote, att ndance at our meetings and
public forum was high, and a common report from feedback from th� community was that they did not
know of the CPRB. It was also obvious many in the community wh/ were informed enough to attend
the CPRB f&, m did not have a clear understanding of the purpos�or function of the CPRB. Presently,
there is little e rt into providing info about the CPRB other th# through the City website.
In order to b-"ffective, the CPRB needs to improve p rblic engagement. This could be
accomplished in ways s making our website more user'fr ndly, having all CPRB meetings live
streamed on the City of low ity Facebook page (and posped about on that page in advance), holding
community forums (and possib other events) twice a y r, providing information about filing a
complaint at the public library, rec ation centers, and Znmmunity centers, and having basic CPRB
contact info printed on the back of evN police office card. The last suggestion was offered during our
2020 Community Forum by one of the loNtime corriunity members who just recently learned of the
CPRB.
c. Additional
None.
d. Additional sources
• The Eugene, OR CRB Code s
disseminate information th
dialogue with stakeholders
NEED FOOTNOTE CITATION HERE
consideration
t to consideration of the proposed change
at its board is to "Mriduct outreach activities and
v
it the community" ania."seek open, candid and non -defensive
educate and learn from different communities in Eugene."
X. PROPOSED CHANGE 10 - CPRB SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH FUNDING AND AUYIORITY TO
ALLOW COMPLAINANTS TO MAKE USE OF A SOCIAL WORKER OR MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
WITH TRAUMI# AWARENESS TRAINING FOR ASSISTING COMPLAINANTS THROUGHOUT
THE COMPLAINT PROCESS.
a. Reasoning for the proposal
Funding should be allocated for this
Individuals who file complaints against officers do so because they believe they have
been wronged. It is therefore important to acknowledge that the experience may have
been traumatic for the complainant. As "evidence suggests that individual -level secondary
prevention interventions aimed at bolstering resilience and reducing the likelihood of
adverse effects following trauma are effective"
13
DRAFT #4
(https://www.tandfonline. com/doi/full/10. 1080/20008198.2017 375338), a professional
with specialized training should be made available in any situa on that involves a person
who has experienced trauma. This is especially important in PRB procedures as the
inherent power imbalance involved with filing a complaint gainst an officer can in itself be
anxiety provoking for a complainant. 'Trauma affects ho victims see themselves" and
"these beliefs affect how victims respond to services and " e criminal justice system, and
underscore the importance of task forces taking a trau informed approach, not only
thWugh service delivery but also throughout the inves#gation" process.
staggering
(https://w,
social env
It is known that "the public alth impact of trauma exposure is
communities and individuals"
stimulate
support has been fodud to be an i
on the individual as weil;,as the cc
(https://www.frontiersin:ba:g/art
when a resident has experience4,tra
responsibility to provide some type,
health approach requires mental he.
such as education, justice, welfare,
governmental organizations, and tA(
Daar, & Maddox, 2M Ko et al. 0(
t 20008198.2017.1375338) and that "the
Ifter trauma. The perception of social
factor for the effects of traumatic events
;/ 10.3389/fpsyt.2ot9.00451/full). Therefore,
due to the actions of a city employee, it is the city's
>cial support. "Many suggest that a true public
integration beyond primary care to include sectors
hour through partnerships with government, non-
th ased community." (Collins, Insel, Chockalingam,
�rov ing a professional trained in trauma
awareness to complainants w Id be a step to\di
ch integration. This advocate should
also be permitted to serve as a complainant'ated representative and have the
same authority as the CPRB ")and Urbana,I
(Iowa City Code 8-8-3-B)(lrhe Columbia, Missouri
b. Voiced conyerns for additional consideration
IRIIIUICJ H CIIU0� LVVV U/-1V-
CPRBs rrently utilize advocates. "
tt s: ww como. ov law w -
idf), Dallas, N
as
ant u loads 201 3 ask -Force -RE
IL.pdf), and Urbana, I is
Minutes/Agendas 2006/07-10-
CPRBs currently utilize advocates.
XI. PROPOSED CHANGE 11— EXPAND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CPRB FROM FIVE TO NINE
MEMBERS, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON MINORITY REPRESENTATION AND REPRESENTATION
FROM A CURRENT OR FORMER MEMBER OF THE POLICE OR POLICE POLICY EXPERT.
a. Reasoning for the proposal
Having additional members helps disperse some of the workload for the volunteer position. As
is, the current members are volunteering time to review individual complaints. This almost always
entails watching hours of video footage, in addition to possible additional investigations, and the
procedural discussions, voting, report writing, and review of report before its filing. Members also
14
I17IDAM0E A!
review various police ordinances and policies and quarterly reports from the police. Besides this,
members are tasked with writing public forum reports, and, from time to time, having various sub-
committees for purposes of completing tasks. Presently, subcommittees can p(ify be comprised of two
members as more would entail a forum requiring a public meeting.
The posals outlined in this document would only increasin/me cases dramatically, the
amount of work mg carried by a five -member volunteer board. Wadditional two or four
members, the indivi ,pl burden would be lessened.
With regard to thkomposition being favorable to minory groups, this stems from an agenda
to help achieve racial equalit kn the justice system. Objective Jbta points to clear racial disparities in
policing on a statewide and natif3oal level. Having a minimu 'composition of members from minority
groups for overseeing the police w Id help protect minori, interests in the carrying out of CPRB
reviews. The Board feels there shoul be no less than thr46 members who are from a minority race for
its composition. y
To help ensure fairness and equity" the rev' w process, the recommendation that one
member of the board have a police backgrouft shbecome mandatory. It is important that, when
reviewing police conduct, someone with police erience and training be consulted. If there were
concerns over objectivity, perhaps the residenGV raOuirements for this member should be waived,
and/or a police procedure expert be retainer] or th PRB to consult with regularly during the closed
sessions.
With increased responsibilities, a Iargerfioard will help wii spreading out workload. It will also deal
with quorum issues
b. Voiced concerns fe additional consideration
XII. PROPOSED CHANGF15 - CPRB complaints should be 4rmitted whether filed
anonymously or through third persons so long as there's sufficient knowledge of the
underlying circuFostances.
a. Reasoning fir the proposal
b. Voiced con erns for additional consideration
We have thir arty witness reporting but we need to advocat\fanonymous reporting
forthose w fear retaliation or future arrest. We should espeink about
marginaliz d populations (undocumented, unhoused, sex workers, drug users, formerly
incarcerated). The National Association For Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE)
supports anonymous reporting
(https://www.nacole.org/fags?fbclid=IwAR2fuO70U7ixwrOkzlrisKZkhbx8iBla i0GO6eoR1wO
z8RuQ 1TUv1eo9l) and complaints of police misconduct may be filed anonymously in
Cleveland, OH
(http://www.clevelandohio.gov/sites/default/files/ops publications/OPS BrochureEnglish.p
df), Seattle, WA (https://www.seattle.gov/opa/complaints/file-a-complaint/anonvmous-
complaint-form), Wolcott, CT (https://www.wolcottpd.org/about/civilian-police-review-
board ), and other cities.
15
DRAFT #4
XIII. PROPOSED CHANGE 19-THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR FlUl
SHALL BE LENGTHENED FROM 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE
TO 180 DAYS AFTER THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT.
a. Reason for the proposal
The deadline to file a complaint to either the Iowa Civil Ri is
ttps://www.icgov.org/city-government/departments-a d-d
h n-rights) or the Iowa City Office of Equity and
(htt s. icrc.iowa. ov file-com laint) is 300 days. V
with a p\tir
hat had a negative affect on tl
going ons that prevent filing a report fr
should aat and allow people time to ptheir cir
b. Voiced concerns for Aftl[t[onal consideration
180 days is good but what about c es where s,
complaint in this time frame (ie coma Should
support no statute of limitations.
G A CPRB COMPLAINT
PGED MISCONDUCT,
Commission
visions/equity-and-
n Rights
a person has had an interaction
they likely have other things
being a top priority. The process
ass and attend to other aspects of
c impede the person from making a
no statute of limitation? I would
' The Daytona Beach News -Journal. 2020. Daytona Be ch Close To Launc Citizens'Police Review Board. [online]
Available at: <https://www.news-iournalonline.co _ tc rm/newc/inral/vnh mmn/none/d..m...� k—k «- .k--
" 2020. [online] Available at: <https://w
28 October 2020].
"' 2020. [online] Available at: <https://w
28 October 20201.
"' 2020. [online] Available at: <https://w
28 October 2020].
"2020. [online] Available at: <https://w
28 October 20201.
'Walker, Samuel, Carol Archbold and
for Police and Community Leaders Wf
"' MSEI.2020. About Us -MSEI. [onlinel
[Accessed 28 October
[Accessed
[Accessed
[Accessed
[Accessed
!igh Herbst, Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Polic fficers: A Guide
Version (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, (2
,ailable at: <https://mediateiowa.org/about-us/> [Accessed 6 NoNmber
2020].
"" Cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com. 20 . (online] Available at: <https://cao-
94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documen /oak062931.pdf> [Accessed 1 November 2020].
" Walker, S., Alpert, G. and Kenne , D., 2020. Early Warning Systems: Responding To The Problem Police Officer.
[online] Ncjrs.gov. Available at: <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/188565.pdf> [Accessed 6 November 20201.
" Usccr.gov. 2020. Chapter4: Alternative Models For Police Disciplinary Procedures. [online] Available at:
<https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/wv0104/ch4.htm> [Accessed 6 November 2020].
"Yee, G., 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charieston-officials-cast-fiirst-
votes-toward-racial-bias-auditof-pal ice-department/article_682b6916-0idb-lleb-b325-d3855f59169e.html>
[Accessed 31 October 20201.
16
DRAFT #4
"" Dennis, R. and Yee, G., 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-
cb026ceed72b.html> [Accessed 2 November 2020].
"' ofsalem.net. 2020. Audit Of Community Policing Policies, Procedures
<https. ww.cityofsalem.net/Pages/police-audit.aspx> [Accessed 1 Nove
"" Towno mnh.org. 2020. Police Audit J Salem NH. [online] Available a�
17
Programs. [online] Available at:
2020].
October 2020].
Page 17
from the community and, uh, so we're gonna certainly do the best we can, but we really do need
the help of the community.
Wilson: (garbled) Wilson ... we have deployed a couple (garbled) to Mercy Iowa City. (garbled) Uh,
there have been no shortages that we've been made aware of locally.
Scheckel: The Health Department has really been a big help with us, initially when we were having
shortages. So we kind of made it through that initial period without that. So thank you.
Teague: Anything else for the ... for this time together?
Public Comment
None.
Future Joint Entity Meeting
Eyestone: Mayor Teague, I was just curious, the... housekeeping wise, the January 18th is Martin Luther
King, Jr. Day. Are we going to have the meeting on that day? Or do we wanna move it?
Teague: I'm happy you mentioned that. (laughs)
Eyestone: I think this came up last year as well, cause you know... that, meaning the third Monday of
the month, and it lands that way almost every year.
Teague: So we pulled an emergency meeting now. Would people be willing to go to the fourth Monday
of that month, of January? I'm seein' some noddin' of heads and some ... all right. All right, we
have a consensus. So we'll ... we'll connect with Coralville and had ... see, um, I'm sure it'll work
out. So we'll have it the fourth Monday of January, and my assumption is we should probably
just have this the fourth Monday of January every year, moving forward. Because I'm assuming
it's gonna come up every year. All right, so yes. All right. Great. If nothin' else, thanks to
everybody again. We all have our charge today. Our elected officials, everybody that has
spoken on behalf of their entity their hospital, the University of Iowa, and then those that are in
the public. You have your charge: wear your mask, distance, and wash your hands, and as
Mayor Donahue has said, I mean, he couldn't have said it better. So thanks to everybody for
bein' here today. We are adjourned.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Emergency Joint
Entities meeting of November 12, 2020.
Ordinance No.
Unbiased Policing Ordinance
Whereas, in 2001 the Iowa City Council passed Resolution No. 01-41 adopting a City of Iowa City
Law Enforcement Non -Discrimination Policy which required the Iowa City Police Department to
continually conduct an examination of traffic enforcement strategies, and if appropriate, refine
mission and value statements, training programs, field supervision, and the evaluation and
documentation of citizen complaints and related responses to citizens, to ensure that racial profile
traffic and pedestrian stops are not being employed by individuals within the Police Department
and that citizens are treated equally and fairly pursuant to the Iowa and United States
Constitutions."; and,
Whereas, the City Council reaffirmed the City's law enforcement non-discrimination policy in 2017
by resolution No. 17-183; and,
Whereas, since 2001 the Iowa City Police Department has had a General Order that prohibits
biased based policing; and,
Whereas, the Iowa City Police Department has collected demographic data on traffic stops since
1999, has had that data analyzed to determine the level of disproportionality, and has refined
employee training programs, updated policies and operational standards, and conducted
outreach programs aimed at eliminating racial profiling, heighten awareness of implicit bias, and
build trust and respect between law enforcement and all communities and persons in Iowa City;
and,
Whereas, Iowa City has had a Community Police Review Board since 1997; and,
Whereas, on June 16, 2020 the City Council passed a Resolution of Initial Council Commitments
addressing the Black Lives Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of
George Floyd by the Minneapolis police and calls for action from protesters and residents
(Resolution No. 20-159), in which it committed to a plan to restructure the Iowa City Police
Department towards community policing and review of various police policies and procedures;
and,
Whereas, the NAACP has been instrumental in encouraging cities in Iowa to address unbiased
policing and measures to address the same by ordinance and has proposed measures at the
state level to address unbiased policing, including an amendment to the Iowa Civil Rights Act
(ICRA) to specifically prohibit discriminatory pretextual stops; and,
Whereas, currently the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) has jurisdiction over racial profiling
complaints against law enforcement because such complaints allege discrimination in public
accommodations by a local government unit that offers services to the public based on the
individual demographics prohibited by the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Sec. 216.7. While the
Iowa City Human Rights Commission may not address complaints against Iowa City police
officers, the commission staff may educate the public about the complaint process at the state
level regarding bias -based policing and may offer to assist, and shall assist individuals in filing a
biased policing or racial profiling complaint with the ICRC and complaints regarding discriminatory
Page 2
Ordinance
pretextual stops in the event the ICRA is amended to include the proposed prohibition on
discriminatory pretextual stops; and,
Whereas, considering the Council's recent commitments to address systemic racism in
Resolution No. 20-159, the City Council of the City of Iowa City believes it is in the best interests
of the residents of the city to codify its policies prohibiting bias -based policing by ordinance.
Now therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City:
Section I. Amendment: The City Code of the City of Iowa City is hereby amended to add the following
new Chapter 9 to Title 8 entitled "Police Regulations"
CHAPTER 9 UNBIASED POLICING
8-9-1 Policy Statement.
8-9-2 Definitions.
8-9-3 Prohibitions and Procedures.
8-9-4 Complaints and Compliance.
8-9-5 Data
8-9-6 Training.
8-9-7 Penalty
CHAPTER III. UNBIASED POLICING
Sec. 8-9-1. Policy Statement.
The City of Iowa City and the Iowa City Police Department shall be committed to the unbiased,
equitable treatment of all. Department employees ("employees") shall treat all in a fair, impartial and
objective manner, in accordance with law, and without consideration of their individual demographics as
defined in this Chapter.
Sec. 8-9-2 Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed
to them below, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Biased Policing means differential treatment in the performance of law enforcement duties or
delivery of police services towards a person or classes of persons when one or more individual
demographics was a motivating factor in the action taken. If a person's individual demographics played
a part in the employee's decision, then that personal characteristic was a motivating factor of the action
taken.
Fair and Impartial Treatment means persons, irrespective of individual demographics, are
treated in the same manner under the same or similar circumstances. Reasonable concessions and
accommodations may be made, when dealing with individuals with physical, developmental or mental
Page 3
Ordinance No.
disabilities, injury, illness, deafness, blindness, substance abuse disorders or similar conditions,
individuals whose primary language is a language other than English, individuals of various cultural
backgrounds, and individuals of youthful age, or when information about a person legally necessitates
different treatment.
Individual Demographics means personal characteristics to include, but not limited to: race,
creed, color, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, religion, age, gender, sex, gender identity/ expression,
sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, disability, immigration status, familial status, marital status,
housing status, occupation, language fluency, cultural group, political status, or source of income, or
any other identifiable characteristics.
Police Services means actions and activities that contribute to the overall well-being and safety
of the public. These tasks include but are not limited to: crime prevention and investigation, preventive
patrol, traffic control, traffic accidents, medical emergencies and lifesaving services, assistance at fire
scenes, public information and education.
Racial Profiling means that form of biased policing where a motivating factor of the action taken
is based on an individual's race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin rather than on the individual's
behavior or on information of the type and kind customarily and reasonably relied upon in identifying the
individual as having engaged in prohibited activity. Racial profiling includes but is not limited to vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle stops where race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin was a motivating
factor for the stop or enforcement action taken during the stop.
Specific subject description -based identification means a reasonably detailed physical
description of the personal identifying characteristics of a potential suspect or victim, including but not
limited to age, sex, ethnicity, race, or English language proficiency.
Sec. 8-9-3. Prohibitions and Procedures.
(a) Fair & Impartial Treatment.
(1) Biased policing is prohibited both in enforcement of the law and the delivery of police
services by any employee.
(2) Racial Profiling is prohibited both in enforcement of the law and the delivery of police
services by any employee. Discriminatory pretextual stops are prohibited under state and federal law
and are also prohibited by this ordinance.
(3) Employees shall exercise their authority and act to accord fair and impartial treatment to all
persons.
(4) Employees shall not consider individual demographics when performing law enforcement
duties or delivering police services except when such characteristics are part of a specific subject
description -based identification.
(5) Employees shall not use any terms, language or remarks that are derogatory, tend to
belittle, show contempt for or defame any individual demographic, except when necessary to include
such terms, language or remarks used by another for the preparation of official reports or testimony.
(6) Employees must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause supporting
any police action.
Page 4
Ordinance No.
(7) Employees shall not take any law -enforcement action based on information from members
of the public or other employees that they know, or reasonably should know, under all circumstances
present is the product of, or motivated by, bias based on individual demographics unless the
circumstances indicate that harm is imminent or a crime has been committed.
(b) Department Policies and Procedures Accessible to the Public. The Department's General Orders
shall be made available to the public through publication on the City's website and hard copies shall be
available upon request in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Sec. 8-9-4. Complaints and Compliance.
(a) Employees who witness or who are aware of instances of biased policing or racial profiling shall
report the incident to a supervisor and shall provide all information known to them before the end of the
shift during which they make the observation or become aware of the incident or as soon thereafter as
practicable under the circumstances. Where appropriate, employees are encouraged to intervene at
the time the biased policing or racial profiling incident occurs and, in any event, shall report such biasec
policing or racial profiling to a supervisor as soon as practicable under the circumstances. Where
unreasonable use of force occurs, officers have a duty to immediately physically intervene, when in a
position to do so, to prevent the use of unreasonable force.
(b) Any employee who opposes any practice occurring in violation of this Chapter shall not be
discriminated against in any manner for opposing such practice, testifying, assisting or participating in
any investigation, proceeding or hearing arising out of this Chapter.
(c) Supervisors shall ensure the working environment is free of bias and free of racial profiling. This
oversight responsibility may include periodic inspections of body and in -car audio/video systems, traffic
stop data, reports and field inspections during police interactions with members of the public.
Supervisors shall:
(1) Take the appropriate action when a violation of this Chapter occurs.
(2) Ensure that there is no retaliation for individuals reporting such violations.
(d) Any person claiming to be aggrieved or to have witnessed biased policing or racial profiling may file
a complaint. No person shall be discouraged, intimidated, or coerced from filing such a complaint, nor
shall any person be discriminated or retaliated against because he or she has filed a complaint of this
nature.
(1) While the Iowa City Human Rights Commission will not have jurisdiction to investigate or
adjudicate alleged violations of this ordinance, the commission staff shall educate the public about the
complaint process and shall assist individuals in filing a biased policing or racial profiling complaint with
the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC). The ICRC has jurisdiction over racial profiling complaints
against law enforcement as such complaints allege discrimination in public accommodations by a local
government unit that offers services to the public based on the individual demographics prohibited by
the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Iowa Code Sec. 216.7; see also, Iowa Code Sec. 216.2(13) as now adopted
or hereinafter amended. The remedies afforded by the Iowa Civil Rights Act are not exclusive and do
not foreclose a person from asserting any remedies he or she may have based on the Federal or Iowa
Constitutions, Federal or Iowa Codes, or common law.
Page 5
Ordinance
(2) All complaints of biased policing or racial profiling brought to the City shall be filed directly
with the Police Department or the Iowa City Community Police Review Board.
Sec. 8-9-5 Data
The Iowa City Police Department shall collect, analyze and publicly report data related to policing
activity. Such data shall include information on calls for service, related contacts with members of the
public, and outcomes of such contacts. Race, ethnicity, gender, age and other available demographic
or personal characteristic information should be analyzed in aggregate in order to ascertain trends in
disproportionality.
Sec. 8-9-6 Training.
At least annually all sworn officers shall receive and participate in training and guidance in regard to
unbiased policing and prohibited racial profiling while conducting law enforcement activities and police
services, which training shall include de-escalation, cultural diversity, cultural competency, and implicit
bias and may include, but is not limited to: training on subjects related to police ethics, police -citizen
interaction, active by-stander intervention, standards of conduct, conducting motor vehicle stops, and
related topics suitable for preventing incidents of biased policing and racial profiling.
Sec. 8-9-6 Penalties.
Racial profiling and biased policing are violations of this Chapter. Any penalty for violation of this Chapter
related to any employee not acting in conformity therewith shall be limited to that provided under state or
federal law, which violation may include serving as cause for discipline up to and including termination
from employment as consistent with federal and state law requirements including Iowa Code Chapters
400, 80F and 20 as applicable. The limitation related to violations of this Chapter related to employee
violations is not intended to expand or limit any other remedy or cause of action available under state or
federal law, nor to expand or restrict the time for seeking such remedy or cause of action and shall not
be construed as doing so, nor as conferring jurisdiction on the Iowa City Human Rights Commission but,
pursuant to Section 8-9-4 hereof, Commission staff shall assist individuals who desire to file any
complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for investigation and resolution. The declaration of the
prohibitions set forth in this Chapter shall not create any new or separate legal rights or claims by or on
behalf of any third party and shall not be construed as a waiver, modification, or alteration of any available
defense or governmental immunity of the city under federal or state law.
Section It. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance
are hereby repealed.
Section III. SeverabilitV. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section,
provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication,
as provided by law.
Page 6
Ordinance
Passed and approved this day of , 2020.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by
City Attorney's Office — 11/12/2020
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
OFFICE CONTACTS
November 2020
Date Description
None
December 8, 2020 Mtg Packet
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
COMPLAINT DEADLINES
CPRB Complaint #20-02
Filed:
06/04/20
Chief's report due (90 days):
09/02/20
Extension Request:
12/15/20
Chiefs report filed:
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB report due (90 days): ??/??/20
CPRB Complaint #20-04
Filed: 07/27/20
Chief's report due (90 days): 10/26/20
Chief's report filed: 09/15/20
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
10/15/20
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
11/10/20
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
12/08/20
CPRB report due (90 days): 12/14/20
CPRB Complaint #20-05
Filed: 08/14/20
Chief's report due (90 days): 11/12/20
Extension Request: 12/15/20
Chiefs report filed: ??/??/20
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB report due (90 days): ??/7?/20
CPRB Complaint #20-06
Filed:
08/19/20
Chief's report due (90 days):
11/17/20
Extension Request:
12/15/20
Chief's report filed:
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB report due (90 days): ??/??/20
December 8, 2020 Mtg Packet
CPRB Comolaint #20-07
Filed:
08/27/20
Chief's report due (90 days):
11/25/20
Extension Request:
12/15/20
Chief's report filed:
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB report due (90 days): ??/??/20
CPRB Comolaint #20-08
Filed:
08/27/20
Chief's report due (90 days):
11/25/20
Extension Request:
12/15/20
Chief's report filed:
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
??/??/20
CPRB report due (90 days): ??/??/20
CPRB Complaint #20-09
Filed: 11/24/20
Chief's report due (90 days): 02/22/21
Chief's report filed: ??/??/21
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
??/??/21
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
??/??/21
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
??/??/21
CPRB report due (90 days): ??/??/21
CPRB Complaint #20-10
Filed: 12/02/20
Chief's report due (90 days): 03/02/21
Chief's report filed: ??/??/21
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
??/??/21
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
??/??/21
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
??/??/21
CPRB report due (90 days): ??/??/21
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
January 12, 2021
February 9, 2021
March 9, 2021
April 13, 2021