HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2023 CPRB CommissionMEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
DATE:
December 7, 2023
TO:
CPRB Members
FROM:
Tammy Neumann
RE:
Board Packet for meeting on TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2023
The following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting are included in the
Agenda Packet emailed to you on December 7, 2023.
Minutes of the meeting on November 14, 2023
Office Contacts — November 2023
Complaint Deadlines
AGENDA
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2023 — 5:30 P.M.
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM
410 E. Washington Street
You can watch the meeting online at any of the following websites:
httos://citychanne[4.com/live
hfti)s://www.youtube.com/user/citychannel4/live
In order to encourage greater input from the public, the Commission intends to offer the opportunity to
participate in the meeting remotely. However, this meeting is an in -person meeting. In the event of
technological problems, the meeting will continue in -person, so those wishing to ensure their ability to
participate should attend the meeting in -person.
If you wish instead to participate remotely, you may attempt to do so by joining the meeting via Zoom by
going to the link below to visit the Zoom meeting's registration page and submit the required information.
Once the registration is complete, 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.
Link: httos://usO6web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN eFHH3s4xSOVLrLFW1Voxig
Meeting ID: 841 9426 0761
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 November 14, 2023
• Office Contacts — November 2023
• Complaint Deadlines
ITEM NO. 3 NEW BUSINESS
• None
ITEM NO. 4 OLD BUSINESS
• Follow-up on Meeting Processes
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
If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this program/event, please contact
Tammy Neumann at 319-356-5043, tneumann@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged
to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
CPRB-Page 2
December 12, 2023
ITEM NO. 8 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS
• January 9, 2024, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room
• February 13, 2024, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room
• March 12, 2024, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room
• April 9, 2024, 5:30 p.m. —Helling Conference Room
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 disability -related accommodations to participate in this program/event, please contact
Tammy Neumann at 319-356-5043, tneumann@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged
to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
DRAFT
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — NOVEMBER 14, 2023
CALL TO ORDER Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ricky Downing, Jessica Hobart, Melissa Jensen, Jerri MacConnell, Saul
Mekies, Amanda Remington (arrived at 5:40 p.m.), Orville Townsend
(arrived at 5:35 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Tammy Neumann, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford
OTHERS PRESENT: ICPD Chief Dustin Liston
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB 23-07 Public Report
(2) Accept CPRB 23-08 Public Report
(3) Accept CPRB 23-09 Public Report
(4) Accept CPRB 23-14 Summary Dismissal
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by MacConnell, seconded by Downing, to adopt the consent calendar as presented.
• Minutes of the meeting on October 10, 2023
• Email to Board re Police Officer Compliment— Received October 1, 2023
• Community Forum Summary for meeting on October 3, 2023
• ICPD Use of Force Review/Report — August 2022, September 2022, October 2022, November
2022, & December 2022
• Office Contacts — October 2023
• Complaint Deadlines
Townsend arrived at 5:35 p.m.
Motion carried 6/0, Remington absent.
Motion by Mekies, seconded by Downing, to reconsider the motion to adopt the consent calendar.
Voice vote 6/0. Remington absent.
Mekies requested an addition to the October 2023 minutes regarding his abstention from the motion
titled "Motion to Close Nominations' to read as follows: Mekies abstained due to pending proposed
changes to the process to be discussed at the November meeting and because he was on the
nominating committee.
Motion by Townsend, second by Mekies, to accept the October minutes and the Consent Calendar as
amended.
Motion carried 6/0. Remington absent.
Remington arrived at 5:40 P.M.
CPRB
November 14, 2023
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion of ICPD Policy re: Use of Facial Recognition Technology — Dean Abel, Iowa City Resident,
proposed a question at the October 2023 CPRB meeting asking if the Iowa City Police Department
uses facial recognition technology. The item was deferred to the November meeting. Police Chief
Liston reported that the Police Department does not use facial recognition technology, and as such,
there is no department policy. He further noted that the Police Department follows the City's camera
policy which does not address facial recognition specifically. Liston acknowledged that there are
cameras being installed downtown, however, those belong to the Transportation Department. Abel
asked how the cameras are being used and if the Police Department has access to the footage. Liston
responded that Police Department investigators, station masters, and supervisors have access upon
request. He further noted that any footage from private business cameras must be requested as well.
Abel asked if the downtown cameras run continuously. Liston said that some are motion activated and
some run all the time. Abel shared his concern with facial recognition technology noting it has been
proven to be inaccurate.
Discussion of CPRB Nominating Process — Mekies proposed that members of a CPRB nominating
committee not be eligible for nomination. He also suggested that nominees be expected to share why
they are a good candidate for the chair or vice chair position. Jensen said there needs to be more
clarity on what is expected of the nominating committee. Jensen volunteered to write guidelines for
future nominating committees. Townsend does not see an issue with nomination committee members
nominating themselves as the outcome is based on a majority vote. Downing said that attending
meetings with fellow board members provides enough information as to why they should be nominated
without further explanation. Counselor Ford explained that there is nothing in the CPRB by-laws or in
the ordinance that states there must be a nominating committee. Both Jensen and Townsend spoke of
the value of having a nominating committee. It was determined that the board would visit this
discussion again prior to the 2024 nominating committee selection in September 2024.
Discussion of Process for Complaints that are Determined to be Untrue — MacConnell noted that at the
bottom of the complaint form it states that filing a false complaint is punishable by law etc. She asked
what the process is when a complaint is determined to be false. Remington stated she believes that
determination would be the responsibility of the County Prosecutor. Liston agreed and explained that
this is a standard statement that is included on many City forms. He noted that it is difficult to determine
if it is an intentional false report or if the complainant simply misremembers the incident. He shared that
all complaints that come into the Police Department are investigated, whether it be through the CPRB
process or through other means, stating that he believes it to be his responsibility to do so. MacConnell
suggested that perhaps the statement be removed from the complaint form. Liston again noted that it is
a standard statement, and he hopes it encourages the complainant to be as truthful in their complaint
as they can recall. Counselor Ford noted that there was a request in the past to include a box that must
be checked prior to a person signing off on a complaint. He wondered if that was ever added. Neumann
will follow up with the City Clerk.
Discussion of CPRB Meeting Flow and Processes - Hobart said there seems to be some confusion at
the CPRB meetings that may relate to Robert's Rules of Order. She questioned when it is appropriate
to make a motion and ask for a roll call and when it is appropriate to simply ask for a voice vote.
Discussion ensued amongst members about what the onboarding process was for each of them. There
were various answers. Some sat down with Board Chairs, others were trained by the person they were
replacing, and some were trained by the City Clerk or Clerk's office staff through in -person or virtual
CPRB
November 14, 2023
Page 3
meetings. Hobart received much of her training through documents that were emailed. Townsend
believes the flow of the meeting is up to the Chair and how extensive their knowledge is of meeting
processes. Mekies suggested that the Chair and/or Vice -Chair meet with new board members. Hobart
said her observation is that there is some confusion amongst existing members, in addition to new
members. Remington volunteered to put a summary of Roberts Rules and other meeting processes
together to share with board members.
Discussion of Legal Fees — Jensen explained that one of the responsibilities of the Chair is to review
and approve the monthly legal invoices. She reminded the Board that requests to Counselor Ford
should be reviewed by the Board or City Clerk Staff prior to reaching out directly.
OLD BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Abel asked when the Board started streaming the meetings. Remington explained that during the
pandemic meetings were held via Zoom. Recently the Board began offering hybrid meetings again in
hopes to offer better accessibility to the public. Abel asked if it is available to the public to watch.
Remington said they are and that the public may participate in the meetings virtually as well. Remington
asked if a media release was ever created and sent out letting the public know that these meetings are
now available virtually. Neumann said she asked Communications previously to do so and will follow-
up.
BOARD INFORMATION
None
STAFF INFORMATION
None.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to chance)
• December 12, 2023, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room
• January 9, 2024, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room
• February 13, 2024, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room
• March 12, 2024, 5:30 PM, Hailing Conference Room
Mekies will be absent from the December 12, 2023 meeting and Jensen will be absent from the March
12, 2024 meeting. The Board agreed that no changes are necessary to the existing meeting schedule.
Motion by MacConnell, seconded by Remington, 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.
CPRB
November 14, 2023
Page 4
Motion carried 7/0. Open session adjourned at 6:30 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 7:00 P.M.
Motion by Remington, seconded by Downing, to accept the Public Report for CPRB Complaint 23-07
as written and to forward to City Council.
Motion carried 7/0.
Motion by Remington, seconded by MacConnell, to accept the Public Report for CPRB Complaint 23-
08 as written and to forward to City Council.
Motion carried 7/0.
Motion by Jensen, seconded by MacConnell, to accept the Public Report for CPRB Complaint 23-09 as
amended and to forward to City Council
Motion carried 7/0.
Motion by Remington, seconded by Townsend, to summarily dismiss CPRB Complaint 23-14 per
8-8-3(D) "Complaints to the Board must be filed with the City Clerk within one hundred eighty (180)
days of the alleged misconduct."
Motion carried 7/0.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Hobart, seconded by Mekies to adjourn.
Motion carried 7/0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:06 P.M.
r+
rn
0
N
N
O
N
R
M
N
X
k
k
x
x
x
0
e�
a
r
x
I
k
c
c
x
x
i
M
c
x
I
k
k
x
x
x
i
M
k
I
k
X
X
X
X
O
3
N
g
c
I
x
x
x
x
x
o
e
N
r a
x
I
x
x
x
x
X
x
e�
N
x
I
x
x
x
x
x
x
zi
e
N
x
I
k
x
x
x
x
x
0
M
N
a
x
I
c
x
x
x
x
x
N
O
c
I
x
x
x
c
c
x
0
N
a
n
c
w�
e
e
o
o
e
e
Fk
v
0
3
3
3
e
3
e
w
Y
PC
07 Y�
m y
Q Q
Y� rrX''SE
Q g
-04
�+ II II II II
�ooz
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
DATE: November 14, 2023
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #23-07
IM NOV 15 i.11 22
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #23-07 (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 Chief's professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(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(B)(3)).)
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 May 17, 2023. 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 fled with the City Clerk on August 10, 2023. As per Section 8-8-6(D) of the City
Code, the Complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the Chief's report.
The Board voted on September 12, 2023 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: On
the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(a).
The Board met to consider the Report on September 12, 2023 and November 14, 2023.
Prior to the September 12, 2023 meeting, the Board had the opportunity to review the complaint, the
Police Chiefs report, and to watch and listen to body worn camera and/or in -car camera footage
showing the interaction between the officers and the complainant.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
On the evening of May 8, 2023, the complainant reported to the Calumet City Police Department in
Illinois that her Smith & Wesson handgun was stolen from her apartment. She advised that her ex was
the only one who had access to the firearm and could have taken it. On May 10t', 2023, the
complainant reported that her ex was on his way to Iowa City on a bus and was in possession of a
firearm he had stolen from her.
Iowa City Police Investigators located the complainant's ex sitting on a bench in downtown Iowa City.
He was arrested on outstanding warrants and the firearm was found in a bag he was carrying. The
complainant later called and attempted to retract her report, claiming that she had just learned that the
housekeeper had placed the firearm in her ex's bag without his knowledge. The officer explained that
some of the charges were unrelated to the firearm, told her that if she wanted to rescind hettnitial
report, she would need to do it with the agency she made the report to, and added the additrdnal
information to the report.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #1 — Performance — 320.8.
Chief's conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion:
The officer reported information as it was presented to him, including the statements made by
the complainant when she tried to rescind her report five days after the arrest. The officer did
not falsify any information or engage in concerning conduct. The officer explained to the
complainant multiple times that if she wished to rescind a report, she would need to do so with
the agency she initially made the report with, which was not the Iowa City Police Department.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #2 — Conduct.
Chief's conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion:
Upon listening to the recorded phone calls, the Board found no evidence that the officer was
rude, racist, or disrespectful. There was no evidence that he engaged in any inappropriate
conduct.
COMMENTS:
None
W
C
f
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
DATE November 15, 2023
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #23-08
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #2308 (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(B)(3).)
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 May 18, 2023. 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 10, 2023. As per Section 8-8-6(D) of the City
Code, the Complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the Chief's report.
The Board voted on Tuesday, September 12, 2023, to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs
Report: Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance
in the Board's own investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(d).
The Board met to consider the Report on September 12, 2023, October 10, 2023, and November 14,
2023.
Prior to the September 12, 2023 meeting, the Board had the opportunity to review the complaint, the
Police Chief's report, and to watch and listen to body worn camera and/or in -car camera footage
showing the interaction between the officers and the complainant.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
During the processing of booking, the complainant became more vocal and uncooperative -.with the
officer's requests. The complainant continued to ignore orders from the officer, and when trj) officer
attempted to escort the complainant back to the bench a physical altercation ensued. The:-_,
complainant was placed in handcuffs and the process continued. CD
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #1 — Use of Force.
Chief's conclusion: Not sustained
cn
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion: The CPRB reviewed the document submitted by the Chief
of Police regarding use of force, and discussed the incident with the new information. After the
discussion and viewing available videos the complainant's allegation is unsubstantiated.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #2 — Unprofessional Conduct.
Chief's conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion: After viewing available video footage, the complainant's
allegation is unsubstantiated. The officers' were professional and courteous throughout their
altercation.
COMMENTS:
None
o ,
Cn
kz�
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
DATE: November 14, 2023
To: City Council w
Complainant
LD
City Manager
Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint -
From: Community Police Review Board c>
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint 923-09
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #23-09 (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.
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(B)(3)).)
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 May 31, 2023. As required by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chiefs Report was filed with the City Clerk on August 29, 2023. As per Section 8-8-6(D) of the City
Code, the Complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the Chiefs report.
The Board voted on October 10, 2023 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: On the
record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1 xa).
The Board met to consider the Report on October 10, 2023 and November 14, 2023.
Prior to the October 10, 2023 meeting, the Board had the opportunity to review the complaint, the
Police Chiefs report, and to watch and listen to body worn camera and/or in -car camera footage
showing the interaction between the officers and complainant.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
On May 31, 2023, an Individual filed the following on-line CPRB complaint stating that an officer pulled
in front of his parked moped. The officer stepped out, did not attempt to confirm his identity, and simply
told him he had a warrant for his arrest. The Individual states he asked what the warrant charge was,
and the officer responded, "driving while barred." The Individual asked what he was barred for, and the
officer stated, "I don't know." The officer asked the Individual if he was coming with him and he refused,
stating that without a basis for charging him he had no obligation to comply. The Individual stated that
the officer grabbed him, twisted his arm, handcuffed him so tight that he had bruises, and threw him in
the back of his vehicle. The Individual states that several officers were present and when he stated that
his ID, glasses, and medication were in his moped they beat his moped trying to open the seat.
The Individual mentioned to the officers that he had the right to view and know the charges on the
warrant and further asked why he had not been read his Miranda rights. The Individual stated that one
officer laughed and stated he didn't have to read him his rights. The Individual indicated that he stated
to the officers that they were arresting him on unclear charges without his name was objectively racist,
and ignoring his rights and depriving him of his freedom because he was poor and black was unjust.
The Individual stated that one of the officers laughed and began to call him "stupid and ignorant".
vvmr Gllu�M1�1 V MGGGVM 11V11 MI—MUUIIUaLlun U
situations, handcuffs should be applied with the hands
double locked to prevent tightening, which may cause
Chiefs conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion:
The Individual submitted to handcuffing and
handcuffs normally, without undue tightness
f Handcuffs or Plastic Cuffs. 302.4 - In most
behind the person's back. Handcuffs should be
undue discomfort to the hands or wrists.
c'r.
did not physically resist. The officer Qp'plied the
and was able to fit two fingers betwfen the..
handcuffs and the individuals' wrists. The officer did not use force or handcuffing techniques
that would have injured the individual, nor were there any visible injuries on his wrists based on
the officers' body-wom camera video.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #2 — Conduct 320.5.9(f). - Discourteous, disrespectful, or
discriminatory treatment of any member of the public or any member of this department or the city.
Chiefs conclusion: Sustained
Board's conclusion: Sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion: - Allegation #2 is sustained regarding the volume of the
music and the "stupid and ignorant "comments.
The Individual made repeated requests for the officer to lower the volume or turn off the music.
Although the volume was not at an objectively egregious level that still allowed them to
communicate, the Individual felt it was too loud and upsetting him. The officer should have
lowered the volume and not disregarded additional requests to decrease the volume or shut it
off. The officer told the Individual that he would increase the volume in response to comments
the Individual made about the arrest being based on race. The officer proceeded to increase the
volume but lowered it again fourteen seconds later. However, regardless of the duration of the
higher volume, the officer's response to the Individual's comments to drown him out was
unprofessional and discourteous. The officer referred to the individuals comments as stupid and
ignorant, not the individual himself. Regardless, the officer's comments were unprofessional.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #3 — Biased -Based Policing, GO 01-01. - To patrol in a proactive
manner, to investigate suspicious persons and circumstances, and to actively enforce the laws, while
insisting that members of the public will only be detained when there exists reasonable suspicion (i.e.,
articulable objective facts) to believe they have committed, are committing, are about to commit an
infraction of the law, or there is a valid articulable reason for contact. Members are prohibited from
using bias -based policing in all aspects of work including, but not limited to, traffic contacts, field
contacts, asset seizure, and asset forfeiture.
Chiefs conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion:
There is no evidence that the officers' arrest of the Individual was based on race. The officer
knew the Individual, had a valid warrant for his arrest and recognized him from a -previous.
encounter. The officer took the Individual to jail on the warrant only and did:not cRrge him with
additional offences. In addition, the officer did not make any comments based orkbce,
disparage the individual in any way, or otherwise indicate that his actions were based on the
Individuals race or socioeconomic status.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #4 — Civil Rights, GO 89-04. - It is the policy of the City of Iowa City
and the Iowa City Police Department to ensure the civil rights of the residents of Iowa City are upheld.
Members of the department shall ensure that all constitutional protections are afforded those parties
with whom the department is involved.
Chiefs conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion:
The officer arrested the individual on a valid arrest warrant, based on a driving while barred
charge from three days earlier. The officer told the individual multiple times the warrant was for
driving while barred but did not provide specific reasons for the warrant paperwork. There was
no requirement that the officer advised the individual of the Miranda warnings because he was
not subject to custodial interrogation for the driving while barred charge or other offenses. Thus,
the individual's rights to due process and his protection against self-incrimination were not
violated.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #5 — Personal Use of Social Media, Personnel Policy 8.13. -
Employees are prohibited from using the internet or social media to post content that violates the City's
harassment or discrimination policies even if occurring outside work hours, from home, and on personal
devices. Such behaviors include but are not limited to posting comments on other content that is
derogatory with respect to race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation,
gender identity, marital status, mental or physical disability, genetic information, veteran status, or other
classes or categories protected by federal, state, and law including epithets, slurs, and negative
stereotyping, sexually suggestive, humiliating, or demeaning comments; or other behaviors that could
constitute harassment or bullying.
Chiefs conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion:
The Twitter post to which the individual referred to in his complaint was a retweet on the officers'
account. Although the post relates to race in some form, it does not contain racist or derogatory
language. An internet search was performed, and the same post was found after receiving the
individuals complaint. The post could not be located after the officers' interview on August 4,
indicating that he may have changed the settings on his account to more private filters. In
addition, the post was not directed at the individual or any specific individual, nor did the officer
include additional comments on the retweet.
COMMENTS:
None
w
o -
CD
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
CPRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL
Re: Investigation of Complaint CPRB 23-14
PCRB Complaint #23-14, filed October 20, 2023 was summarily dismissed as
required by the City Code, Section 8-8-3 D and 8-8-3 E. The complaint was
not filed within 180 (one hundred eighty) days of the alleged misconduct.
DATED: November 15, 2023
PUB/Timeliness Report Form:4/13/99
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
OFFICE CONTACTS
November 2023
Date Description
NONE
December 12, 2023 Mtg Packet
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
COMPLAINT DEADLINES
CPRB Complaint #23-10
Filed: 06/22/23
Chief's report due (90 days): 09/30/23
Chief's report filed: 09/26/23
Complainant's response to the Chief's report 10/17/23
(21 days to respond, no response received)
CPRB meeting #1 (Review): 10/10/23
CPRB meeting #2 (Review): 11/14/23
CPRB report due 01/15/24
(90 days from the date of the Chief/City
Manager's response to the complainant
or Complainant's response deadline if
no response received)
CPRB Complaint #23-11
Filed: 07/24/23
Chief's report due (90 days): 10/22/23
Chief's report filed: 10/10/23
Complainant's response to the Chief's report 10/31/23
(21 days to respond, no response received)
CPRB meeting #1 (Review): ??/??/23
CPRB meeting #2 (Review): ??/??/23
CPRB report due 01/29/24
(90 days from the date of the Chief/City
Manager's response to the complainant
or Complainant's response deadline if
no response received)
December 12, 2023 Mtg Packet
CPRB Complaint #23-12
Filed:
Chief's report due (90 days):
Chief's report filed:
Complainant's response to the Chief's report
(21 days to respond, no response received)
Chief/City Manager response to the
Complainant's response (10 days to respond):
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
CPRB report due
(90 days from the date of the Chief/City
Manager's response to the complainant
or Complainant's response deadline if
no response received)
CPRB Complaint #23-13
Filed:
Chief's report due (90 days):
Chief's report filed:
Complainant's response to the Chief's report
(21 days to respond, no response received)
Chief/City Manager response to the
Complainant's response (10 days to respond):
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
CPRB report due
(90 days from the date of the Chief/City
Manager's response to the complainant
or Complainant's response deadline if
no response received)
08/13/23
11/11/23
11 /06/23
11 /2723
11 /29/23
77/77/77
??/??/23
??/??/23
02/27/23
08/31 /23
09/29/23
09/20/23
??/??/23
??/??/23
??/??/23
12/19/23
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
January 9, 2024
February 13, 2024
March 12, 2024
April 9, 2024