The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-10-2024 CPRB Meeting PacketCommunity Police Review Board’s Community Forum Summary Letter Iowa City Public Library, October 16, 2024 Present: Colette Atkins, Jessica Hobart, Jerri MacConnell, Saul Mekies. Staff present: Connie McCurdy, staff; Patrick Ford, Legal Counsel. Others present: Dustin Liston, ICPD Police Chief. Public: members of the public Absent: Ricky Downing, Melissa Jensen, David Schwindt. Rollcall was taken. The Chair CPRB Chair gave a brief explanation of the purpose and procedures of the Board, pointing out that those procedures were also explained in a pamphlet available at the forum and distributed to the public. With that information in mind, the Chair noted that the intent of the forum is to listen to the public in attendance and receive feedback. Members of the Board and Legal Counsel were introduced. The Chair invited anyone on the Board to add any remark. One of the Board members further described the steps taken once a complaint is received. Public’s questions and comments Do we have an “audit”? What is the role of the staff attorney? Report is sent to the counsel. Counsel attends all the meetings and gives advice to the Board. What is the Board’s authority? Police Chief explained that the complaint goes to the Board then to the Chief who does the initial investigation. He then sends the results of the investigation (summary and evidence) to the Board. The Board reviews that investigation and makes a determination. Has the Board ever subpoenaed anyone? Our collective memory did not recall any instance of subpoena use by the Board. The Board was reminded that we may make use of it. The Chair explained that at times the Board may disagree with the Chief’s conclusion; and even when agreeing, at times the Board may point to some misgiving on the handling of the matter. The significant amount of time the police force spends on various matters some of which not usually known as associated with police work: A person in attendance cited data from September to October was: incidents’ reports, public assistance, welfare checks, investigation follow-ups, foot patrol, 222 mental distress or impairment calls, 130 calls related to pets, 29 missing adults and juveniles, 200 motor vehicle accidents, 14 thefts of motor vehicles, shoplifting incidents, 160 instances of fraud and identity theft, amounting to some1848 times of police contact and communication with the public in those few weeks. These findings will be sent to the Board. Procedures and follow up: After a person is found “in the right” by the Board, what happens then? What recourse does that person have? The Board has no authority to discipline an officer; the Chief of Police does. The Board can recommend disciplinary action. That, in effect, is the Board’s limited power. However, the persons in question are free to use the Board’s findings to support their case in a court of law or other setting. Concerns about bicycles and scooters meandering on sidewalks are endangering pedestrians in the downtown/Ped Mall area: The Chief of Police assured the public that the behavior described is illegal and signs are posted to that effect. The police department is aware of the infractions: the law is enforced, and citations are given. A downtown liaison officer is also assigned to the area. Concerns with cameras not available to attest to an accident: The Chief noted that while cameras are useful, the challenge is the limited data storage available which is a source of frustration for the police department in addition to the public expecting to have that evidence. The Chief remarked that the amount of data storage is significant and so is the cost, limiting the storage availability to about 7 days. The Counsel pointed out that the Board is limited to complaints made about officers, not complaints between private citizens. However, the Chief added that complaints can be addressed to him directly. The importance of the Board to the community: It was expressed that the Board’s mission is important in many ways, dispelling distrust, and instilling confidence in the public. As such a report to that effect is necessary to disseminate and inform the public. The Counsel remarked that a report is issued annually, summarizing the complaints and the process that was followed. That report is public and posted on the Board’s website. The possibility of mediation between the complainants and the officer: The Chief pointed to the limitation of the code: while criminally some mediation may take place, administratively the code prevents the police department from releasing personnel records (i.e. officer’s identity). Moreover, this Board is empowered and limited by City ordinance which does not provide for engaging in mediation. It was also pointed out that the police department has a coordinator who can make referrals to appropriate agencies. The Board’s responsibilities beyond complaints and into advocacy at the City or State level: The Board’s is limited by ordinance to two areas: 1) Review complaints; 2) review existing policies that the police department has put in place. The Board may make recommendations for changes. For example, the Chair noted that the Board had inquired to the Chief of Police about the status of the chokehold policy. That practice, however, was outlawed by the state as well as the City which had outlaw it a decade before. The Chief noted that all the policies are online and available to the public. He also noted that the Board has a direct conduit to him and can review policies and procedures and follow up with recommendations. Members of the public were reminded that the Board meets every second Tuesday of the month at City Hall, 5:30 p.m. The public is invited to participate during the public session. Forum meeting adjourned at 59:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Saul Mekies December 10, 2024 Mtg Packet Community Police Review Board Complaint Deadlines CPRB Complaint #24-06 Complaint Filed: 10/07/24 Chief’s report due (90 days): 01/06/25 Chief’s report filed: 11/15/24 Complainant’s response to the Chief’s report due (21 days): ??/??/?? (no response received) Chief/City Manager response to the Complainant’s response (10 days): ??/??/?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPRB Meeting #1 (Set level of review and board member to draft report): ??/??/?? Draft Report due to staff: ??/??/?? (received ??/??/??) CPRB Meeting #2 (Review draft report): ??/??/?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPRB Public Report due ??/??/?? (90 days from the date of the Chief/City Manager’s response to the complainant OR if no response is received from the Complainant, then it’s 90 days from the Complainant’s 21 days due date) CPRB Complaint #24-07 Complaint Filed: 10/07/24 Chief’s report due (90 days): 01/06/25 Chief’s report filed: ??/??/?? Complainant’s response to the Chief’s report due (21 days): ??/??/?? (no response received) Chief/City Manager response to the Complainant’s response (10 days): ??/??/?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPRB Meeting #1 (Set level of review and board member to draft report): ??/??/?? Draft Report due to staff: ??/??/?? (received ??/??/??) CPRB Meeting #2 (Review draft report): ??/??/?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPRB Public Report due ??/??/?? (90 days from the date of the Chief/City Manager’s response to the complainant OR if no response is received from the Complainant, then it’s 90 days from the Complainant’s 21 days due date) December 10, 2024 Mtg Packet CPRB Complaint #24-08 Complaint Filed: 11/18/24 Chief’s report due (90 days): 02/17/25 Chief’s report filed: ??/??/?? Complainant’s response to the Chief’s report due (21 days): ??/??/?? (no response received) Chief/City Manager response to the Complainant’s response (10 days): ??/??/?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPRB Meeting #1 (Set level of review and board member to draft report): ??/??/?? Draft Report due to staff: ??/??/?? (received ??/??/??) CPRB Meeting #2 (Review draft report): ??/??/?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPRB Public Report due ??/??/?? (90 days from the date of the Chief/City Manager’s response to the complainant OR if no response is received from the Complainant, then it’s 90 days from the Complainant’s 21 days due date) TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE January 14, 2025 February 11, 2025 March 11, 2025 April 8, 2025 May 13, 2025