HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2021 Meeting PacketMEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
DATE: September 15, 2021
TO: CPRB Members
FROM: Chris Olney
RE: Board Packet for meeting on MONDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting:
• Agenda for 9/20/21
• Minutes of the meeting on 8/2/21
■ Minutes of the meeting on 8/30/21
■ ICPD General Order 99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits)
■ ICPD Use of Force Review/Report June
■ ICPD Use of Force Review/Report July
• Correspondence from Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney Re: CPRB recommendations ICPD
General Order 01-01 (Bias -Based Policing)
• Memo to City Council from Eric Goers, City Attorney Re: CPRB proposals for changes
to Ordinance.
• Office Contacts — August 2021
• Complaint Deadlines
AGENDA
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 — 5:30 P.M.
EMMA J HARVAT HALL
410 E. Washington Street
ITEM NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR
AMENDED
• Minutes of the meeting on 8/2/21
• Minutes of the meeting on 8/30/21
■ ICPD General Order 99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits)
• ICPD Use of Force Review/Report June
• ICPD Use of Force Review/Report July
■ Correspondence from Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney Re: CPRB
recommendations ICPD General Order 01-01 (Bias -Based Policing)
ITEM NO. 3 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. 4 NEW BUSINESS
• Select Nominating Committee
• Discussion CPRB role and purpose defined
ITEM NO. 5 OLD BUSINESS
• Discussion of CPRB Recommendations to City Council
ITEM NO. 6 BOARD INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 7 STAFF INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 8 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS
• October 12, 2021, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall
• November 9, 2021, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall
• December, 14, 2021, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall
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 in order to participate in this program/event, please contact
Chris Olney at 319-356-5043, christine-olney@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow
sufficient time to meet your access needs.
CALL TO ORDER:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
STAFF ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
DRAFT
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — August 2, 2021
Vice Chair Orville Townsend called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Jerri MacConnell, Amanda Nichols, Theresa Seeberger,
Saul Mekies (Electronically)
None
Staff Chris Olney, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford
None
Iowa City Police Chief Dustin Liston
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Nichols, seconded by MacConnell, to adopt the consent calendar as amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 7/13/21
• ICPD General Order 00-10 (Evidence and Property Handling Procedures)
Nichols noted that a correction to the minutes needed to be made, the vote count for General
Order 01-01 (Bias -Based Policing) recommendation should have been 3/1/1 with MacConnell
opposed and Mekies abstaining.
Motion carried, 5/0.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
Discussion of CPRB Recommendations to the City Council
Recommendations to be considered after information is received from the CPRB
on items #9 and 10.
Item #9. The CPRB shall be provided city funding to promote awareness of the CPRB and
enhance accessibility to its services. (l. e. outreach, streamed meetings on Facebook, website
enhancements, bl-annual community forums, CPRB contact info printed on all Officer cards,
awareness events, and CPRB information provided to each person issued a citation or at the
time they are released from custody in the event they were arrested) - City Council requested
that the CPRB propose an annual budget amount for consideration.
BUDGET ITEMS —
Townsend asked members to report on the assigned items that needed cost researched in
order to provide City Council with an annual budget for funding to promote awareness of the
CPRB and enhance accessibility to its services.
CPRB
August 2, 2021 Draft
CPRB contact information printed on police officer business cards -
Townsend recapped his previous report of the cost as $3,314.15 which is a one-time cost to
replace all officer business cards. Seeberger questioned what information would be printed on
the back and how often the cards were given out. Chief Liston explained it is at the officer's
discretion, so it was hard to determine the number handed out.
Seeberger stated she had concerns with putting CPRB information on the back of an officer's
card and felt there were other options to promote CPRB awareness to the general public.
MacConnell agreed with Seeberger and felt saying "if you have a complaint contact the CPRB"
would be inappropriate and suggested if the Board wants to have CPRB information on officers'
cards it should only have the Board name and contact information.
Nichols stated she wanted the public to be informed and felt the back of police cards would
reach the people who would have direct interactions with the police. Townsend agreed with
Nichols and wants to have CPRB information available to as many people as possible.
CPRB information provided to each person issued a citation or at the time they are released
from custody in the event they were arrested
MacConnell suggested police officers could handout CPRB brochures which provides
information about the CPRB and the entire complaint process.
Bi -annual community forums and outreach awareness events —
MacConnell asked the Board for input as to what type of outreach events were wanted and
should food to be provided. Seeberger felt that serving refreshments would be helpful. The
Board agreed to have MacConnell report back at the next meeting with an estimate on serving
food and drinks at two community forums.
Seeberger reported she had reached out to the Board of Supervisors regarding making CPRB
fliers and brochures available at the courthouse. She understood it would be possible but was
waiting to officially hear back.
Nichols suggested the brochure and compliant form be made available in multiple languages
and MacConnell suggested to have them available in more locations. Olney will research the
cost and report back to the Board at the next meeting.
Item #10. The City shall provide complainants access to a lawyer and social worker/medical
professional with trauma awareness training for purposes of assisting complainants throughout
the complaint process. - The City Council requested that the CPRB investigate how the social
worker/medical professional services would be secured and provide an estimated cost for such
services in the above-mentioned budget request.
Access to a lawyer for ur oses of assisting complainants throughout the complaint process —
Townsend reported he had reached out to the Public Defender's office and the type of service
the Board is wanting would be outside of their duties.
MacConnell stated she was confused what the actual role a lawyer would offer and had
understood they would not be providing any legal advice and would only provide assistance with
the complaint process. Townsend also had concerns and felt the brochure and complaint form
were a good resource.
CPRB
August 2, 2021 Draft
Nichols stated she did not recall where the recommendation for access to a lawyer originated.
She had advocated for the recommendation of providing a social worker with trauma awareness
training.
After further discussion the Board agreed to not pursue the recommendation for access to a
lawyer for purposes of assisting complainants throughout the complaint process and to instead
focus on providing a social worker with trauma awareness training.
Access to a social worker/medical professional with trauma awareness training for purposes of
assisting complainants throw trout the complaint process -
Nichols reported she had reached out to multiple non-profit social services such as Guidelink,
National Alliance on Mental Illness (Nami) and Abby Center for providing social worker
assistance. These agencies were interested, however would not be able to offer services at this
time due to staffing issues.
MacConnell reported the cost of a Social Worker would be $80-$100 per hour, however she felt
it was hard to determine what the need would be as there is not a past reference to how many
hours or the number of cases.
Townsend agreed there was no foundation to build the budget and suggested that instead of
providing the service, the CPRB could be a source for referrals. MacConnell suggested waiting
to submit a budget request until it was determined what the need would be and how many
people would use the service.
MacConnell noted that in order to provide a social worker specialized with trauma awareness, it
would require a professional with advanced training and most likely would be a specialty private
practice not a volunteer position. MacConnell volunteered to check into the cost of obtaining a
professional service with trauma awareness training. She will report back to the Board at the
next meeting.
Nichols noted she will reach out to Domestic Violence Intervention (DVI) services as a possible
option for a social worker with trauma awareness training and report back to the Board at the
next meeting.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
MacConnell suggested adding a discussion defining the CPRB's role and purpose to the next
meeting agenda. The Board agreed to add the discussion to the next meeting new business.
STAFF INFORMATION
None.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS subject to change)
• August 30, 2021, 5:00 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall
• September 20, 2021, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall
• October 12, 2021, 5:30 PM, Emma J Harvat Hall
• November 9, 2021, 5:30 PM, TBD
• December 14, 2021, 5:30 PM, TBD
CPRB
August 2, 2021 Draft
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Nichols, seconded by MacConnell to adjourn into Executive Session based on
Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or
authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition
for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11)
personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited
to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative
reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18)
Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or
to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the
government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government
could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 6:25 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:48 P.M.
Motion by MacConnell, seconded by Mekies to schedule a special executive session meeting
on August 301h at 5:00 p.m.
Motion carried, 5/0.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by MacConnell, seconded by Seeberger.
Motion carried, 5/0.
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M.
.y
N
N
^• o
v� w
N
M
M
a
N
N
N
rl
M
tn
N
Na
o, w
d
C
H
43
Cd
V
=
z
4 7
I
Indz
F�
o`H
cam
a
DRAFT
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — AUGUST 30, 2021
CALL TO ORDER: Orville Townsend called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerri MacConnell, Saul Mekies, Amanda Nichols, Theresa Seeberger
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Chris Olney, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: None
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Nichols, seconded by MacConnell 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 5:04 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:35 P.M.
Motion by Seeberger, seconded by Nichols to expand level of review 8-8-7(B)(1)(d), request additional
investigation by Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own
investigation for CPRB Complaints #20-02, 20-05,20-06,20-07,20-08.
Motion carried, 4/1.
AYES: Mekies, Nichols, Seeberger, Townsend.
NAYS: MacConnell.
Motion by Nichols, seconded by Mekies requesting a 90 -day deadline extension for the filing of the
Public report with the City Council on Complaints #20-02,20-05,20-06,20-07,20-08.
Motion carried, 5/0.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by MacConnell, seconded by Townsend.
Motion carried, 5/0.
Meeting adjourned at 6:36 P.M.
A
N
00
00
r
b
'+
N
ti
� Q
kn Lz
ti
N
ti
7
N
M
M
N
x
j
x
j
x
x
x
N
x
I
x
x
x
N
E
O
M
N
N
0
O
C
y
C
d
cc
cc
OPS -02.1
POLICE
VEHICLE
PURSUITS
Original Date of Issue General Order Number
Februay 10, 1999 99-01
Effective Date of Reissue Section Code
August 27, 2021 1 OPS -02
Reevaluation Date Amends
Alinlict 9n22 JPrevious version of 99-01
C.A.L. E.A. Reference
1.2.7, 1.3.2, 41.2.1, 41.2.2, 41.2.3 see "INDEX AS:"
INDEX AS:
Use of Force Tire Deflation Devices
Vehicle Pursuits
Reports
I. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this policy to state the guidelines to be followed during vehicular
pursuits.
II. POLICY: The Iowa City Police Department does not -allow"
pursuits except in extreme circumstances. The initiation of a pgrsuit isjostifled
only when, in the officer's judgment, the necessity of immediatd appretiension
outweighs the level of danger to the officer and public created'by the -pursuit
and the pursuit would be allowed by the pursuit matrix contained:here�. This
evaluation must continue throughout the course of the pursuit by he officer and
his/her supervisor. All pursuits will be conducted in strict accordance with
section 321.231 of the Code of Iowa and all emergency vehicles will utilize both
audible and visual signaling devices when engaged in pursuits.
OPS -02.2
III. DEFINITIONS
321.231 Authorized emergency vehicles and police bicycles.
1. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to
an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected
perpetrator of a felony or in response to an incident dangerous to
the public or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire
alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section.
2. The driver of any authorized emergency vehicle, may:
a. Park or stand an authorized emergency vehicle, irrespective of
the provisions of this chapter.
b. Disregard laws or regulations governing direction of movement
for the minimum distance necessary before an alternative route
that conforms to the traffic laws and regulations is available.
3. The driver of a fire department vehicle, police vehicle, or
ambulance, or a peace officer riding a police bicycle in the line of
duty may do any of the following:
a. Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after
slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.
b. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as the driver does
not endanger life or property.
4. The exemptions granted to an authorized emergency vehicle under
subsection 2 and for a fire department vehicle, police vehicle or
ambulance as provided in subsection 3 shall apply only when such
vehicle is making use of an audible signaling device meeting the
requirements of section 321.433, or a visual signaling device
approved by the department except that use of an audible or visual
signaling device shall not be required when exercising the
exemption granted under subsection 3, paragraph "b" of this
section when the vehicle is operated by a peace officer, pursuing a
suspected violator of the speed restrictions imposed by or pursuant
to this chapter, for the purpose of determining the speed of travel of
such suspected violator.
5. The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an
authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due
regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions
protect the driver from the consequences of the driver's reckless
disregard for the safety of others.
77
NOTE Police bicycles shall be operated in accordance with General.
Order 00-07 Police Cyclist.
The operator of a police bicycle, may, in the line of duty, do -•any of-,'
the following: Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sigh; but
only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe`operon;
Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as the driver does not
endanger life or property.
OPS -02.3
Pursuit - For this policy, pursuit means chasing a fleeing suspect who is exceeding the
posted speed limit or driving in an evasive or unsafe manner.
Violent Felony Imminent Threat — For this policy, violent felony imminent threat means a
person has used or threatened to use deadly force/inflict serious injury on another or an
officer reasonably believes that a person would use deadly force/inflict serious injury
against any person unless immediately apprehended.
Violent Felony Crimes- For this policy, a violent felony crime is defined as any crime
designated as a felony under Iowa law that has as an element of the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against another, or is burglary, arson, or
extortion, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical
injury to another.
Felony Property Crimes- For this policy, felony property crime means any property
felony crime. This definition specifically includes (officers shall not pursue) a bank
robbery where only a note was displayed, shoplifting related calls where no weapon
was displayed, stolen vehicles, and suspected impaired drivers.
Serious Injury- For this policy serious injury means bodily injury which does any of the
following: creates a substantial risk of death, causes serious permanent disfigurement,
causes protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
IV. PROCEDURES
A. Initiation: The pursuing officer must carefully consider the safety of
persons and property before engaging in a vehicular pursuit. -some of the
factors that should be considered when determining whether to initiate,
continue or terminate a vehicular pursuit are:
1. Time of day — high speed pursuits occurring during a time when
there is a high level of activity (businesses, schools), are normally
more hazardous than those occurring during periods.of loyv activity.
2. Volume of vehicular traffic — pursuits occurring during periods of
heavy traffic flow are more hazardous than those occurri�g at other
times.
3. Location of pursuit — pursuits through residential areas or along
streets near or adjacent to schools are normally more hazardous
than those in lightly populated areas.
4. Weather conditions.
5. Road conditions.
6. Speed involved.
7. Nature of the offense — pursuits for persons suspected of
involvement in crimes against persons are viewed as more
justifiable than those for persons suspected of traffic or other
misdemeanor violations or property crimes. However, there shall
be no assumption that the commission or suspected commission of
a felony constitutes automatic authorization to pursue by vehicle.
8. The condition of the police vehicle should be considered.
9. Consideration should be given to the driving skills of the pursuing
officer.
OPS -02.4
10. Consideration should be given to whether the offender can be
identified and therefore apprehended by other means.
B. Officers shall be familiar with and use the following Pursuit Decision Matrix
as guidance in determining whether to initiate or continue a pursuit. The
Pursuit Decision Matrix is very similar to the Use of Force Continuum as
set out in the Department's Use of Force policy. It is a guide designed to
assist the officers in their use of discretion and shall be followed when
making vehicular pursuit decisions. The degrees of risk associated with
vehicular pursuit in specific circumstances are defined as follows:
PURSUIT DECISION MATRIX GUIDES
LOWER RISK
1. Marked vehicles
2. Straight roads, good surfaces, clear line of sight
3. Few intersections
4. Few or no pedestrians
5. Good weather
6. No hazardous maneuvers by violator
7. Speeds at or less than 20 m.p.h. over the posted limit
8. Officer is calm and in control
9. Lack of special circumstances (i.e., school zones, hospitals, etc.)
MODERATE RISK
1. Some intersecting streets (i.e., residential area)
2. Light pedestrian traffic
3. Moderate traffic, little congestion
4. Speeds 20 m.p.h. greater than the posted speed limit
5. Officer generally calm, under control
6. Some hazardous, but not extreme maneuvers (i.e., crossing center
line to pass vehicles, sudden lane changes) by the violator.
:I><el:■:7[.9:1
1. Frequent intersecting streets (i.e., a business district)
2. Poor weather, slippery streets, low visibility
3. Blind curves or intersections, narrow streets
4. Numerous pedestrians
5. Heavy, congested traffic
cs
6. Speed twice the posted speed limit, or greater than. 80 m.p.h.
7. Extremely hazardous maneuvers (i.e., driving against -oncoming r --
traffic, failing to stop for red lights) by the violator
8. Numerous vehicles in pursuit
9. Officer excited, not in full control of emotions -
10. Existence of special circumstances (i.e., school zones, hospitals,
etc.)
NOTATION
The courts have decided that the officer will be judged from the perspective of a
reasonable officer on the scene (Graham V. Conner). With this in mind, officers should
OPS -02.5
give serious consideration to all of the factors before deciding to initiate a pursuit and
continue to evaluate the need to pursue versus terminating the pursuit.
OPS -02.6
PURSUIT DECISION MATRIX
NATURE OF LOWER RISK-
N
HIGH RISK
OFFENSE F649FRL=
VIOLENT FELONY May Pursue. May Pursue.
IMMINENT Continue To Assess Continue To Assess
1b �tbrlr��'
THREAT Risk. Risk.
'i!trireat T�'fi,
jA qd.
VIOLENT FELONY
Discontinue
Discontinue
Discontinue
CRIMES
OR
OR
OR
Do Not Pursue
Do Not Pursue
Do Not Pursue
FELONY
Discontinue
Discontinue
Discontinue
PROPERTY
OR
OR
OR
CRIMES
Do Not Pursue
Do Not Pursue
Do Not Pursue
MISDEMEANOR
Discontinue Discontinue
Discontinue
OR TRAFFIC
OR OR
OR
VIOLATIONS THAT
Do Not Pursue i Do Not Pursue
Do Not Pursue
ARE SAFETY
RELATE D-inclLEdes
all OWIs
MINOR
DO NOT PURSUE
DO NOT PURSUE
DO NOT PURSUE
INFRACTIONS
THAT ARE NOT
SAFETY RELATED
Officers must continually assess the nature of the offense against the risk factors. An
officer's response must be consistent with the Pursuit Decision Matrix.
C. Notification - When a motor vehicle pursuit is initiated, it shall be
immediately reported to the Emergency Communications Operator by the
initiating officer. The initial information will include:
1. The reason for the pursuit
2. The location, speed, and direction of travel
3. The description of the fleeing vehicle, including license plate
number.
4. The number of occupants and description of occupants if observed.
5. The officer will update the information as it becomes available or
changes.
D. Communication Center Responsibilities - Communications..during.,a pursuit
is vital to the safe apprehension of the offender as well as -the safety of the
officers and bystanders. Emergency communications during pursuits will
be conducted according to the established policies and practices. -Of the
Joint Emergency Communications Center and currently includeSN6
following: _0
.
OPS -02.7
1. Immediately upon receiving information that an officer is in pursuit,
the ECO will advise all other non -emergency radio traffic to move to
another channel and give the pursuing officer priority use of Law 1.
The ECO will advise the pursuing officer of any pertinent
information concerning the area of the pursuit.
2. Notify a watch commander/supervisor of the pursuit in progress.
3. The ECO shall record on the CAD log all the information furnished
by the officer during the pursuit.
4. As long as the pursuit is continued, the ECO will manage the
pursuit communications by re -broadcasting transmissions of
relevance to other units involved.
5. Contact surrounding agencies and advise them of the pursuit. We
do not encourage involvement of other agencies in the pursuit other
than for perimeter control and assistance in attempts to identify the
violator unless specifically requested otherwise.
6. When the pursuit leaves the city limits, or it is reasonably imminent
that it will, the ECO will contact the appropriate law enforcement
agency with necessary information.
7. As time permits, the ECO will run vehicle and registered owner
information and broadcast pertinent information.
E. Supervisory Responsibilities
1. A supervisor shall assume control of all pursuits. This can be
accomplished through radio communications. Supervisors will
monitor all pursuits and approve any special tactic that will be used.
2. In the event the supervisor initiates the pursuit, they should
relinquish that position as soon as another unit becomes available
and assume control of the pursuit as specified in subparagraph (1)
above.
3. The supervisor's foremost considerations shall be officer and
bystander safety, methods of identifying the fleeing suspect, tactics
to stop the fleeing vehicle, and coordination of all officers.
4. Supervisors shall intervene and correct any misuse..of police
personnel involved in the pursuit. -_
5. The supervisor may, at any time, order the terminafan of the
pursuit when, in their judgment, the necessity of apor6hension is
outweighed by the level of danger created by the pursuit.
6. Supervisors shall also assure that sufficient patrol stitength is -
maintained within the city to handle routine caflsfor service. '
7. The supervisor in charge of the incident shall approve -any special
tactics to stop the vehicle.
F. Pursuit Tactics
NOTE: Pursuit at high speeds under the best of conditions is an
extremely dangerous situation. Any tactic contemplated when high
speed is involved, requires advance planning, taking into
consideration the factors surrounding the incident at hand. Safety is
the foremost consideration. The following are some possible
OPS -02.8
alternatives to consider when determining methods of stopping the
fleeing vehicle.
1. Consider alternatives, through radio communication and the
assistance of other police officers. A determination should be
made as to whether the offender can be identified and
apprehended later.
2. Use fuses or traffic cones to set up an apparent roadblock in
advance of the pursued vehicle. Remember to clear the road and
select a safe location.
3. Use tire deflation devices to bring vehicles to a controlled stop.
Prior to deploying tire deflation devices, the officer should use the
police radio to notify others of the pending deployment to include
location of deployment.
4. Do not use the spotlight focused on the back window of the
pursued vehicle.
5. Stationary roadblocks are prohibited
6. Moving roadblocks are prohibited.
7. Ramming is prohibited.
8. Specialized Police Vehicles
a) Officers operating unmarked vehicles, equipped with visual
and audible signaling devices, may engage in pursuits only
when the fleeing vehicle presents an immediate threat to
persons or property and then only until a marked unit is
available to assume the pursuit, at which point the unmarked
will withdraw and serve only in a support role.
b) Police vehicles without emergency equipment, i.e., visual or
audible signaling devices, SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN
PURSUITS with one exception. In those cases where the
fleeing vehicle presents an immediate threat of death or
serious injury, they may participate until marked police units
arrive.
9. Following the Fleeing Vehicle
a) All units will be spaced in such a manner to allow time to
react to evasive maneuvers of the fleeing vehicle or another
police vehicle.
b) Officers will not pursue the fleeing vehicle the wrong way on
interstate or controlled access roadways, or one�way streets,
unless specifically authorized to do so by a supq visory
officer. ;
10. Aid to Outside Agencies
a) Whenever units of another law enforcement agency are
engaged in a pursuit and request assistance from the
Department, the requesting agency shall advise the
emergency communications center of the nature of the
offense and the description of the fleeing vehicle before a
police vehicle from the Department joins in the pursuit. If an
outside agency contacts an Iowa City officer directly,
requesting assistance in a pursuit, it will be the responding
OPS -02.9
13. Procedure: Inter -Jurisdictional Pursuits
officer's responsibility to advise a watch supervisor and
communications of the request and the circumstances
surrounding it.
b)
The watch commander/supervisor must approve the request
before any action is taken.
c)
No more than two Iowa City Police Vehicles will actively
become involved in a pursuit initiated by an outside agency.
This DOES NOT preclude other officers from deploying tire
deflation devices, blocking intersections or otherwise
assisting the outside agency.
d)
In instances where a vehicle is pursued by two or more
vehicles from an outside agency only one Iowa City Police
Vehicle may actively become involved in the pursuit. The
operator of this vehicle shall communicate the speed,
direction of travel and other information to the Iowa City
Emergency Communications Center.
11. Firearms
a)
Except under the following circumstances, shooting from or
at a moving vehicle is prohibited.
(1) When an occupant of the fleeing vehicle is utilizing
deadly force against the police officer or other persons.
(2) As a last resort to prevent death or serious injury to the
officer or other person(s).
(3) As a last resort to apprehend a person who has just
committed a felony resulting in death or serious injury.
b)
The discharge of firearms shall not be utilized when the
circumstances do not provide a high probability of'�-iking
the intended target or when there is a substantial rj(sj to the
safety of other persons, including risks of causing vehicle '
J
accidents.
12. Number of Pursuit Vehicles
a)
The number of Iowa City Police vehicles actively irrmolved in
a pursuit should be limited to two vehicles, a primary: unit
and a secondary unit. Other officers will be :kept infgrmed of
the pursuit and should be in a position to assist if the pursuit
enters their area of responsibility.
b)
There will be no caravan of police vehicles attempting to join
the pursuit.
c)
There will be no attempt by officers engaged in the pursuit to
pass other units involved in the pursuit unless permission is
given by the supervisor in charge of the pursuit.
d)
Secondary units shall provide backup to the primary unit and
may assume the pursuit should the primary unit become
disabled. Secondary units should also ensure that
communications of pursuit status is maintained.
13. Procedure: Inter -Jurisdictional Pursuits
OPS -02.10
a.) An inter -jurisdictional pursuit is a pursuit that is initiated by
an Iowa City officer and crosses into another jurisdiction or a
pursuit initiated by an outside jurisdiction and crosses into
Iowa City. The agency initiating the pursuit shall remain the
primary unit and retain command and control over the
pursuit. Under normal circumstances, the role of the
jurisdiction being entered shall be a support role (e.g. traffic
control, stop sticks). When a pursuit is initiated by another
agency, officers shall obtain supervisor approval to become
actively engaged in the pursuit as the second or
subsequent pursuing officer. Only under the most extreme
circumstances and only by supervisory approval shall the
Iowa City Police Department take command and control or
become the primary unit of a pursuit initiated by another
agency.
b.) Dispatch for the jurisdiction being entered will be notified
immediately and a description of known charges will be
given.
c.) The agency initiating the pursuit shall ensure the jurisdiction
being entered is able to monitor radio communications.
d.) The jurisdiction being entered has the option to participate in
the pursuit or not participate. Iowa City officers and
supervisors may terminate their participation in a.,pter-
jurisdictional pursuit at any time. Communications.—shall be
immediately notified of termination by any unit peMe
requirements of this policy.
e.) The pursuit policy of each law enforcement:agencywill b'e'
adhered to by their employees, regardless of where the
pursuit takes place.
g.) No more than four (4) vehicles shall be directly involved in
an inter -agency pursuit regardless of the number of agencies
involved. If a supervisor becomes aware that more than four
(4) police vehicles are actively involved in a pursuit, they
shall immediately terminate active participation by Iowa City
police units until the total number of police units is four (4).
An exception to limiting the Iowa City units may be made by
the supervisor if the only Iowa City police unit involved in the
pursuit is currently acting as the primary unit. Officers shall
also recognize the need to limit the number of pursuing
vehicles to four (4). Unless they are the primary unit, officers
shall terminate any active involvement if they become aware
that the total number of police vehicles involved in the
pursuit is more than four (4). Communications shall be
OPS -02.11
immediately notified of termination by any unit per the
requirements of this policy.
V. TERMINATION OF PURSUIT
A. Pursuit shall be terminated under any one of the following reasons:
1.
A supervisor or higher authority orders the pursuit terminated.
2.
Upon the determination of the pursuing officer that, the danger to
the officers or others in the area outweighs the necessity for
immediate apprehension.
3.
The offense is a traffic infraction, misdemeanor or other non-violent
felony and the identity of the violator is known.
4.
Visual contact is lost or the distance between the officer and the
pursued vehicle is so great that further pursuit is futile.
5.
The pursuing officer believes that the fleeing vehicle is being
operated by a juvenile and the offense constitutes a traffic
infraction, misdemeanor, or non-violent felony.
6.
When there is an equipment failure involving the emergency lights,
siren, radio, brakes, steering or other essential mechanical
equipment.
B. While not necessarily dictating immediate action, serious and continuing
consideration should be given to termination of a pursuit under the
following conditions:
1. Environmental factors such as rain, fog or darkness substantially
increase the danger of the pursuit.
2. Road conditions are congested by traffic or pedestrians, such as, at
rush hour or in the area of any school.
C. The termination of a pursuit does not prohibit following the pursued vehicle
while obeying all traffic laws, or remaining in the area to re-initiate contact
if circumstances dictate.
VI. REPORTING
A. The pursuing officer will forward a written report detailing the pur§uit to tine
Division Commander before completing their tour of duty. -The watch
supervisor will forward a written report to the Division Commanderwithin
10 days unless an extension is allowed by the Commander of Field
Operations. The reports shall include:
1. Evaluation of the circumstances involved.
2. If the initiating officer followed the required procedures.
3. Were there other units involved and did they follow procedures?
4. Did communications perform their responsibilities?
5. Did supervisors perform their responsibilities?
6. Was force used to stop the vehicle, i.e. controlled stopping
devices?
7. Were procedures followed regarding termination of pursuits?
OPS -02.12
B. The supervisor of the unit initiating the pursuit shall be responsible for
submission of a written analysis and critique of the pursuit through the
chain of command to the Chief of Police. The report shall include an
evaluation of the pursuit referring to the circumstances and adherence to
this policy.
C. A vehicular pursuit is deemed a "use of force", hence a Use of Force
report must be completed. The "Supervisory Review" needs only to note
that a separate pursuit analysis was completed and list any policy
violations.
D. As a vehicular pursuit is deemed a "use of force", the Department's Use of
Force policy and Use of Force continuum apply to vehicular pursuits.
E. On an annual basis a documented analysis of all pursuits for the past
calendar year shall be completed. This report shall be completed by the
Sergeant of Planning and Research and be forwarded to the Chief of
Police. The analysis is intended to reveal patterns or trends that indicate
training needs and/or policy modifications.
VII. TRAINING
Officers shall receive annual training in the use of forcible stopping
techniques, i.e. STOP STICK® or any other device/technique authorized by the
Chief of Police or designee.
Dustin Liston, 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.
TO:
Chief Dustin Liston
FROM:
Sgt. Andrew McKnight
RE:
June 2021 Use of Force Review
DATE:
August 4, 2021
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 worn and in -car camera 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 the Chief of Police for
final review and critique.
On a monthly basis, the previous month's use of force reports and supervisor critiques are reviewed by an
administrative review committee consisting of a minimum of three sworn personnel. This Use of Force
Committee consists of two supervisors as designated by the Chief of Police and one officer, typically a
certified use of force instructor.
The Use of Force Review Committee met on August 4''', 2021. It was composed of Sgt. McKnight, Sgt.
Roling, and Officer Bratek.
For the review of submitted reports in June, the Review Committee documented the folli.
• 20 individual officers were involved in 14 separate incidents requiring use of force. C ; y- -�--
• There were no documented cases of an officer exercising his/her duty to intervene and thexevlew Wthe
incidents did not indicate that an officer failed their duty to intervene. - l
• Out of the 14 uses of force, 11 involved Force being used against people. The other threecveri�animals being
euthanized by an officer. -
Out of the 20 officers involved in the 14 uses of force against people, two superficial injuries were sustained to
suspects and 0 superficial injuries were sustained by officers.
• No violations of policy were noted during this review period.
• Out of the 11 uses of force against people, arrests were made 8 times (72%).
• Mental health was identified by officers as being a factor in one of the uses of force used against persons
(9%).
■ Drugs and/or alcohol was identified by officers as being a factor in five of the 11 uses of force against persons
(45%).
• Out of the 11 times force was used on a person, three were identified as White (28%), eight were identified as
Black (72%).
■ Out of the 14 uses of force, the average number of officers involved in the force was 1.4
■ In total during this time period, the ICPD had 5.880 calls for service with 14 calls for service resulting in force
being used. It is noted that three of the 14 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 !
June 2021 Occurrences
2021 Year -to -Date
Hands-on
7
39
Taser Display
1
2
Taser Discharge
1
5
OC Spray Deployment
0
2
Firearm(s) Dis la
2
13
Firearms Discharge
0
0
ASP Striking
0
0
Officer Strikin /Kicking
3
3
Animals Euthanized by Officer
3
23
Special Response Team Callouts
0
0
Vehicle Pursuits
0
0
Officer Injuries
0
3
Suspect Injuries
2
6
Reports to U.S. DOJ
0
0
Total Use of Force incidents to date equal 104. Total calls for service in the same period equal 35,865.
This results in a year-to-date use of force being deployed in .28% of our total year-to-date'calls for
service. -
}
_
r
N
P?
CD
�-
14 IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Use of Force Report
June 2021
Watch Date
Occurred
and
Officers
Involved
Late Nights 16/1/20
One Officer 21
Evenings 6/3/20
Two 21
Officers
Incident Incident Arre
Number type st
Mad
e
Y/N
20210038171 Fight Y
2021003872
Assault
IN
June 2021 Use of Force Report
Force Used
One officer intervened while
subjects were engaged in a
fight. The officer gave several
verbal commands for the
subjects to stop fighting but
the commands were ignored.
One officer removed their
Electronic Conductive Device
from the holster and pointed
the red dot towards a subject
directing him to stop fighting.
The subject ignored the
officer's commands. The
officer holstered the device,
took hold of the sqjecfs
arms with their hanK turned
the subject amu0.- and
placed them into handcuffs by
pulling their arras b6l�nd their
back. The subject was taken
into custody withouLlhjuryto
the sus e'cfot- officer.
Officers were dispatched to
address a large juvenile fight.
Upon arrival, two individuals
ran from officers ignoring their
commands to stop. Officers
chased and caught the
individuals. One officer
pushed an individual with
both hands on his upper
body, knocking him to the
ground. Once on the ground
the subject complied and was
placed into handcuffs.
June 2021 Use of Force Report
Another officer caught up with
an individual and gave him
several commands to get on
the ground. The commands
were ignored. The officer
took hold of the subject's
shoulders and lowered him to
the ground. Once on the
ground the officer pulled the
subject's hands behind his
back and the subject was
laced into handcuffs.
Officers responded to an area
Late Nights
6/6/20
2021003930
Shots Fired
N
Two
21
after a confirmed report of
Officers
shots fired. Two officers drew
their service weapons and
pointed their weapons in the
direction of a subject who was
running away from the area
where the gunshots were
heard. The subject complied
with officer commands and
was later found not to have
been involved in the incident.
Late Nights
6/7/20
2021003972
Domestic
Y
One officer attempted to take
One Officer
21
a subject into custody for a
domestic disturbance. The
subject pulled awzly from an
officer and the officer took
hold of the subject's; right arm,
turned the subject around and
completed-tKe_ handcuffing
process by pulling 66th arms
behind his baic� , TM subject
was taken into c6�stody
without injury to therafficer or
the subject.
Late Nights
6/8/20
2021003975
Traffic
Y
An officer encountered an
One Officer
21
Investigation
individual they saw previously
driving a vehicle with no
license plates. Upon contact
with the individual, the subject
provided a false name and
attempted to walk away from
the officer. After telling the
subject to stop walking away
June 2021 Use of Force Report
June 2021 Use of Force Report
and to place his hands behind
his back the subject
continued to ignore the
commands. One officer
wrapped their hands around
the subject's body, lowering
the subject to the ground in
order to complete the
handcuffing process. One
officer grabbed the subject's
hands, pulled them behind his
back and completed the
handcuffing process. The
subject was transported to jail
without injury to the officers or
the subject.
Evenings
6/8/20
2021003993
Fight
Y
Officers were dispatched to
Four
21
Elray's Bar for reports of an
Officers
intoxicated subject engaged
in a disturbance. Officers
located the male involved in
the disturbance sitting in a
nearby alley. Officers
attempted to identify the male
who provided false
information. When officers
asked the male to stand, he
lunged towards them. Two
officers pushed the=subject
back up against a_vVall to
prevent him from leaving.
One officer took hold -of the
subject's left arm_ .and pulled it
behind his back inr prep xation
for handcuffing. The subject
was handcuffed however he
had a backpack on, and the
backpack needed to be
removed. The handcuffs
were taken off and the
backpack was removed, and
the subject was handcuffed
again as officers pulled his
arms behind his back
completing the handcuffing
Process. While in handcuffs
June 2021 Use of Force Report
the subject reached back and
grabbed an officer's Taser.
One officer punched the
subject with a closed fist on
the back of his thigh, another
two officers delivered Five
knee strikes to the back of the
subject's thigh causing the
subject to let go of the Taser.
Two officers pulled the
subject backwards causing
him to sit on the ground. The
subject's pants had fallen off
so one officer, rolled the
subject onto his side, pulled
his pants up, placed their
hand under the subject's arm
and took hold of his waistline
and lifted him to his feet.
Once in a standing position
the subject was pushing back
in attempts to avoid being
placed into the vehicle. One
officer used their hands to
push the subject into the back
of the vehicle as the subject
continued to kick -gut at
officers. The door' -:was
closed, and the subject was
transported to'ail.
Late Nights 6/10/ 2021004013 Suspicious N Officers respander:fo the
One Officer 2021 Activity Capitol St ramp;for reports of
two males and two females
throwing beer 'Ori=people from
the top of the ramp. Officers
attempted to identify a male
who refused to identify
himself. The male was
detained and placed into
handcuffs. Once in handcuffs
the male began to pull away
from officers. One officer
placed the subject's hands
over his head in an attempt to
unbalance the subject so that
he couldn't fiaiht with officers.
June 2021 Use of Force Report
Days Two 16/12/2
Officers 021
2021004106 ` Public
Intoxication
R
June 2021 Use of Force Report
The subject was escorted and
placed into the patrol car and
transported to a guardian.
Officers were dispatched to
an intoxicated male who was
out of control, breaking
windows at a bar. Upon
arrival, staff were holding the
subject on the ground outside
the bar. One officer took hold
of the subject's arms, placed
them behind his back and
handcuffed the subject. The
subject was taken to a patrol
car where he continued to yell
profanity towards those in the
area and refuse to sit in the
vehicle. One officer took hold
of the subject under his right
arm and the subject pulled
away. One officer put both
hands on the subject's arms
and lowered him to the
ground on a grassy area. One
officer put his hands under his
right arm pit, placing the
subject facing away from him
on his side. Anoth!r officer
arrived and loath officers put
their hands underneath the
subject's armpits raising him
to his feet acid walki6b him
back towards - the patrol
vehicle. Once atthe i hicle
the subject stuck eut his leg
refusing to sit in the verhicle.
One officer took hold of the
subject's right foot, rotated
the foot until the subject's leg
bent. Another officer opened
the other door of the vehicle,
leaned in, took hold of the
subject's armpits and pulled
him into the vehicle. The
subject was placed inside the
vehicle and transported to jail.
June 2021 Use of Force Report
At the jail, the subject refused
to follow instructions to walk
into the jail, attempted to
break away from jail staff and
barge his shoulder into jail
staff. One officer took hold of
the subject's wrist, placing it
in a wrist lock until the subject
complied. The subject
walked into the jail, however,
once inside the subject
continued to pull free of jail
staff and resisted being
placed into the prone position
for searching. An officer took
hold of the subject's legs,
bending his right ankle
placing it behind his left knee
locking the subject in place.
One officer then held the
subject's hands in place while
the subject was searched.
There were no injuries to the
suspect or officers.
Evenings
6/13/
2021004130
Warrant
Y
After a brief foot chase an
One Officer
2021
service
officer gave several verbal
commands to a subject to
stop running but the subject
failed to comply,,, The officer
had prior knowledge of the
subject's prdpensity to
illegally pas"cess-firearms and
the subjedi had several active
arrest warrants. During the
chase the subject tg3ped and
fell to the ground. One officer
drew their sidearm and
pointed it towards the subject.
The subject was found not to
have a weapon and the
officer holstered their
weapon. The subject was
arrested on the outstanding
warrants. There were no
injuries during this incident.
June 2021 Use of Force Report
Late Nights
6/16/
2021004221
Injured
N
Injured deer shot and killed
One Officer
2021
6/17/2
Animal
Injured Raccoon shot and
Day Shift
2021004228
Injured
N
One Officer
021
Animal
killed
Late Nights
6/20/2
2021004310
Owl
Y
The driver smelled strongly of
One Officer
021
alcohol and was directed by
an officer to get out of the
vehicle and the driver
refused. One officer reached
into the vehicle, took hold of
the driver's left arm with both
hands and pulled the driver
from the vehicle. The driver
continued to tense his body
and pull away from the officer.
The officer pulled the
subject's hands behind his
back and one officer
completed the handcuffing
process. There were no
injuries to the subject or the
Y
officer.
Late Nights
6/21/2
_
2021004363
Weapons
Officers responded to reports
One Officer
021
Offense
of a man with a gun. One
officer arrived on scene and
observed a subj( cO throw
something into the- Tushes.
The officer drew their -.sidearm
and gave_the sii6ect
commands -'to- lift hig shirt.
The subject attempted to run
:b
from the officer, thenurned
adopting a fighting_ stance
towards the officer. The
subject started to run once
again, then turned towards
the officer with clenched fists.
The officer announced that
they were going to deploy
their taser. The taser was
deployed but the subject
continued to run. The officer
deployed the Taser a second
time and this had the desired
effect, causing the subject's
body to lock up and fall to the
June 2021 Use of Force Report
June 2021 Use of Force Report
ground. The subject was
then handcuffed without
incident. The subject received
scrapes to his left elbow and
there were small holes where
the Taser prongs struck the
subject. A gun was
recovered.
Days One
6/28/2
2021004547
Injured
N
Injured raccoon, shot and
Officer
021
Animal
killed.
June 2021 Use of Force Report
TO: Chief Dustin Liston
FROM: Sgt. Andrew McKnight
RE: July 2021 Use of Force Review
DATE: September 3rd, 2021
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 worn and in -car camera 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 the Chief of Police for
final review and critique.
On a monthly basis, the previous month's use of force reports and supervisor critiques are reviewed by an
administrative review committee consisting of a minimum of three sworn personnel. This Use of Force
Committee consists of two supervisors as designated by the Chief of Police and one officer, typically a
certified use of force instructor.
The Use of Force Review Committee met on September 3', 2021. It was composed of Sgt. McKnight, Sgt.
K. Bailey, and Officer Arcenas.
For the review of submitted reports in June, the Review Committee documented the following: r:-
• 26 individual officers were involved in 16 separate incidents requiring use of force. - - C/3
- jet
• There were no documented cases of an officer exercising his/her duty to intervene and the revlcw ofie
incidents did not indicate that an officer failed their duty to intervene.
■ Out of the 16 uses of force, 13 involved force being used against people. The other three Wene'animals being', i
euthanized by an officer., ._
• Out of the 26 officers involved in the 13 uses of force against people, three superficial injurfji' Terre SaMained
to officers and two superficial injury was sustained by suspect.
• No violations of policy were noted during this review period.
• Out of the 13 uses of force against people, arrests were made 9 times (69%).
• Mental health was identified by officers as being a factor in three of the uses of force used against persons
(23%).
• Drugs and/or alcohol was identified by officers as being a factor in seven of the 13 uses of force against
persons (53%).
■ Out of the 13 times force was used on a person, seven were identified as White (53%), six were identified as
Black (46%).
• Out of the 16 uses of force, the average number of officers involved in the force was 1.5
• In total during this time period, the ICPD had 5.831 calls for service with 16 calls for service resulting in force
being used. It is noted that three of the 16 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
July 2021 Occurrences
2021 Year -to -Date
Hands-on
9
48
Taser Display
0
2
Taser Discharge
1
6
OC Spray Deployment
0
2
Firearm(s) Display
2
15
Firearms Discharge
0
0
ASP Striking
0
0
Officer Striking/Kicking Striking/Kicking
0
3
Animals Euthanized by Officer
3
26
Special Res onse Team Callouts
1
1
Vehicle Pursuits
0
0
Officer Injuries
3
6
Suspect Injuries
2
8
Reports to U.S. DOJ
0
+- ro
0
Total Use of Force incidents to date equal 120. Total calls for service in the same period,.equal 41,696.
This results in a year-to-date use of force being deployed in .29% of our total year-to-date calls fbr
service.
0
' IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT '
Use of Force Report
July 2021
Watch
Occurred
and
Officers
Involved
Date
Incident
Number
Incident
type
Arre
st
Mad
e
Y/N
Force Used
Late Night
7/2/20
2021004648
Violation of a
Y
Officers were dispatched to
Watch -
21
No Contact
an address where an order of
Two
Order
protection had been violated.
Officers
In an attempt to take the
subject into custody, an
officer told the subject to put
his hands behind his back.
The subject was intoxicated
and tensed his arms and
pulled them away from the
officer. One officer took hold
of the subject's left arm and
another officer placed a
handcuff around the .subject's
right wrist as the rwbject
continued to struggle., -and pull
away. An officer grabbed hold
of the subject's left fb�earm
and pulled the -subject's arm
behind his back, -,completing
the handcuffing :process.
During the artett th"fficer
sustained a small scratch on
top of their hand during the
handcuffing process. The
subject was transported to
7/2/20
Y
jail.
An officer made an attempt to
Evening
2021004670
Suspicious
Watch -
21
Activity
contact an individual who was
One Officer
walking in the middle of the
highway. The subject ran
from the officer. After a brief
foot chase the officer took
hold of the subject's left arm
and right shoulder and placed
June 2021 Use of Force Report
June 2021 Use of Force Report
the subject on to the ground.
The subject's arms were then
pulled behind his back and he
was placed into handcuffs.
The subject complained of
pain to his neck but refused
medical attention. During the
chase the subject dumped a
backpack containing multiple
items consistent with the
distribution of narcotics. The
subject was transported to jail
and there were no injuries to
the officer.
Late Night
7/4/20
2021004705
Intoxicated
Y
_
An officer responded to back
Watch -
21
Driver
another officer who had
One Officer
performed a traffic stop on a
driver who had driven over a
curb. The backing officer
performed an OWI
investigation and arrested the
individual for OWI. The
Officer walked the subject to
the back of their patrol vehicle
and told him to get in the back
seat. The subject became
belligerent and refused to go
into the vehicle. The officer
eventually told the subject
that if he didn't go into the
vehicle under his own steam
the officer would haveAo force
him into thevehiclW The
subject told the officer, to "do
it" and so the officer placed -
their hands on to theApbject's
torso and pushed the subject
into the vehicle. The.subject
continued to brace his-'legs in
the doorway and the -Officer
took hold of the subject's
legs, pushing them into the
vehicle while using their other
hand to hold the subject
inside the vehicle. The door
was closed, and the subject
June 2021 Use of Force Report
Evening
Traffic Stop
Y
was transported for
processing.
7/5/20
2021004741
An officer made a traffic stop
Watch -
21
on a vehicle where the driver
Two
was known to officers as
Officers
being a barred driver who
was also a person of interest
in an attempted murder
investigation, known to be
armed. The driver of the
vehicle stopped his vehicle
and exited the vehicle
immediately running from the
officer. After a foot chase
officers located the subject
who was hiding in an
entryway outside a residence.
Two officers drew their
sidearms and pointed their
weapons at the subject,
=
giving the subject commands
v'
to get on the ground. One
G
officer continued to give
commands to the subject who
was face down on the ground.
The subject was ordered to
place his hands above his
head, which he did. One
officer holstered their weapon
and moved in and pulled the
subject's arms behind his
back and placed him in
handcuffs then assisted the
subject to his feet.
Day Watch
7/6/20
2021004757
Mental
N
Officers responded to reports
-Three
21
Impairment/
of a male pounding on a door.
Officers
Suicidal
While in route, the call was
Subject
updated as the male was
apparently on the ledge of a
V story balcony, likely
suicidal. Additional calls also
came in detailing that the
subject had made social
media posts articulating his
desire to kill himself. After
multiple attempts to convince
June 2021 Use of Force Report
June 2021 Use of Force Report
the male to step back from
the railing the subject started
to climb up onto the railing
and one officer grabbed the
subject, wrapped their arms
---
around his torso and pulled
-
_
him away from the ledge
while another officer peeled
his fingers from the railing in
order to prevent death or
serious injury to the subject.
=
The subject was gently
lowered to the ground as two
officers moved in to prevent
the subject from injuring
himself. Both officers pulled
the subjects arms behind his
back and completed the
handcuffing process. The
subject was banging his head
on the balcony screaming that
he wanted to die. One officer
placed their arm under the
subject's head to prevent him
from injuring himself. The
ambulance staff administered
sedation and the subject was
transported to the hospital
without injury to the subject or
2021004760
officers.
An officer observed a vehicle
Evening
7/6/20
Traffic Stop
Y
Watch -
21
driving at a high rate of speed
Two
and attempted to initiate a
Officers
traffic stop. The officer
followed the vehicle and
conducted a felony stop. One
officer drew their service
weapons and ordered the
driver out of the vehicle at
gunpoint. The driver followed
the officer's instructions,
stepped out of the vehicle,
faced away from the officer
with their hands in the air,
walking backwards towards
the officers. Once a second
June 2021 Use of Force Report
June 2021 Use of Force Report
2021004834
officer arrived, the subject
was told to kneel on the
ground, and one officer
moved in to complete the
handcuffing process while the
other officer covered the
subject with their weapon at
the low ready. The subject
was found to have an active
arrest warrant.
Officers were dispatched to a
Day Watch
7/10/2
Mental
N
— Two
021
Impairment
mental impairment call
Officers
involving a subject who was
experiencing a mental health
crisis. Officers arrived and
attempted to talk with the
subject who continued to walk
3
_
away from officers. The
subject turned sharply
towards an officer with a
,k..,
balled -up fist stating that he
=
was going to punch the
officer. The subject swung
his fist towards the officer
who moved their body out of
the way, drew their taser from
the holster, and deployed the
device causing the subject to
fall to the ground. Once on
the ground one officer took
hold of the subject's right arm,
and rolled the subject on to
his stomach, placing a
handcuff on both wrists
completing the handcuffing
process. The subject was
transported by ambulance to
the hospital for a mental
health evaluation. There were
no injuries to the suspect or
officers.
Day Watch
7/13/2
2021004898
Agency
N
One officer responded to
- One
021
Assist/
assist another law
Officer
Mental
enforcement agency to locate
Impairment
an individual who had walked
away from the hospital
June 2021 Use of Force Report
June 2021 Use of Force Report
despite the hospital having a
legal hold on the subject.
One officer located the
subject who was surrounded
by hospital staff. The subject
balled up his fist and
attempted to punch staff
members. One officer moved
in and secured the subject's
hands behind his back by
pulling both of the subjects'
arms behind his back placing
him into handcuffs. The
�-
subject was handed over to
a_
UI Department of Public
Safety and returned to the
hospital.
Day,gatd i
' 7/17/2
2021005015
Injured
N
Injured animal shot and killed
- One--
021
Animal
Offic6r=
7/18/2
' 2021005037
High Risk
Members of the Iowa City
021
Search
Metro Special Response
Warrant
Team executed a high-risk
search warrant. Weapons
were displayed during the
service until the scene was
safe without incident or
additional force. No injuries.
Day Watch
7/18/2
2021005039
Injured
N
Injured animal shot and killed
- One
021
Animal
Officer
Evening
7/25/2
2021005246
Robbery
Y
An officer located a robbery
Watch —
021
suspect from a previous call
Two
and attempted to contact the
Officers
subject. The subject
continuously ignored officer
commands to stop and he
continued to walk away. The
subject walked away then
turned towards the officer in
an aggressive manner. The
officer continued to tell the
subject to stop. Another
officer arrived on scene and
the subject was again told
that he was not free to go.
June 2021 Use of Force Report
June 2021 Use of Force Report
The subject was told to get on
the ground several times, but
he refused to follow
commands. The subject
began to pull away from an
officer who attempted to take
hold of the subject. The
r
officer took hold of the
_
subject's right arm with their
-
left hand in an attempt to pull
the subject's hands behind
his back. An officer used his
.
right leg to knock the subject
off balance by sweeping the
subject's legs while using
their hands to pull the subject
to the ground. The subject hit
his head on the ground which
caused it to bleed. He
continued to refuse to put his
hands behind his back. One
officer pulled the subject's
arms behind his back and the
other officer completed the
handcuffing process. The
subject received immediate
medical treatment for the cut
to his head.
Late Night
7/26/2
2021005261
Injured
N
Injured animal shot and killed
Watch —
021
Animal
One Officer
Late Night
7/28/2
2021005316
Assault
Y
An officer was dispatched to
Watch —
021
the Summit Bar for reports of
One Officer
an assault. Upon arrival an
officer spoke to an intoxicated
male outside the bar who
claimed that while inside he
was punched by an unknown
person. The subject claimed
that he had not done anything
to warrant being hit, however
an investigation on scene
revealed that the subject was
the instigator who caused the
altercation. The subject was
not injured and was given
June 2021 Use of Force Report
June 2021 Use of Force Report
multiple opportunities to go
home, however, he failed to
heed the warnings choosing
instead to stay in the area
despite being given multiple
-
opportunities to leave. The
subject became belligerent
r
with the officer on scene who
'
arrested him for public
rM
intoxication. The officer
pulled the subject's hands
r -M
behind his back and placed
him into handcuffs. The
subject was taken to the back
of a patrol vehicle where he
refused to sit in the back seat.
The officer explained to the
subject that if he didn't sit in
the back seat he may be
charged with an additional
crime. The officer pushed
down on the subject's head
as he entered the vehicle,
then lifted the subject's legs
placing them inside the
vehicle and closing the door.
The subject was transported
to jail without injury to officers
or the subject.
During a traffic stop, the
Evening
7/29/2
2021005350
Traffic Stop 1
Y
Watch —
021
passenger was identified as
Two
an individual known to carry
Officers
firearms and he had an active
arrest warrant. The
passenger was asked to step
out of the vehicle multiple
times but refused to do so.
One officer took hold of the
subject's left arm to pull him
out of the vehicle. The
subject continued to resist by
tensing their body and pulling
back refusing to exit the
vehicle. The officer pulled
harder, and the other officer
took hold of the sub'ect's right
June 2021 Use of Force Report
June 2021 Use of Force Report
arm, extracting him from the
vehicle, turning the subject
around, pulling the subject's
arms behind their back and
placing them into handcuffs.
One officer banged their shin
on the door frame during the
struggle, however there were
no other injuries to officers or
the subject.
Late Night
7/31/2 2021005386 Drugs/
_
Y Officers were interviewing a
Watch —
021 Possession
subject who had been found
Four 'a'
of Controlled
in possession of open alcohol
Officers,_
:: Substance
containers and narcotics
•=?
possession. The subject fled
'r--
from two officers and after a
�n
brief foot chase, an officer
caught the subject, wrapped
their arms around the
e�•a
- -
subject's torso, and used their
weight to take the subject to
the ground. Once on the
ground, the subject tensed his
body and attempted to stand.
One officer placed their hands
on his shoulders to keep him
on the ground, another officer
took their taser from its
holster and placed the red dot
onto the subject's torso. The
subject became compliant
+ and officers took hold of the
subject's arms, placed them
behind his back and
completed the handcuffing
process. The subject was
transported to jail. One
officer sustained a small cut
to their hand as a result of
falling on the concrete. There
were no other injuries to the
subject.
June 2021 Use of Force Report
August 16, 2021
Community Police Review Board
% City Clerk
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
via email (chris-olney@iowa-city.org)
In re: SF 342/GO 01-01 (Bias -Based Policing)
Dear Community Police Review Board:
_P
CITY OF IOWA CITY
City Attorney's Office
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5030
(3 19) 356-5008 FAX
www.icgov.org
This is in response to your letter/memo to Chief Liston regarding "Suggested revision to ICP
General 01-01 (Bias -Based Policing)." I am enclosing a copy of the letter/memo on which I
have handwritten numbers to reference my comments below.
1. The Chief cannot adopt this recommendation because it conflicts with the recently
enacted law, SF 342. Section 31 of SF 342, which I have enclosed, states that the City or the
Iowa City Police Department "shall not adopt or enforce a policy or take any other action under
which the [City] or law enforcement department prohibits or discourages the enforcem of
state, local, or municipal laws." This recommendation discourages the enforcement of4dws.
2. "Reasonable suspicion" is a term defined by the federal and Iowa courts -over the -years,
and the definition of reasonable suspicion in the GO needs to be based on case law,
3. This conflicts with Section 31 of SF 342 because it discourages the enforcement of laws.--
---•
4. This conflicts with Section 31 of SF 342 because it discourages the enfbrcemenj`bf laws.
5. This conflicts with Section 31 of SF 342 because it discourages the enforcement of laws.
6. This is not acceptable to the Chief because it heightens the standard before a person can
be released rather than decreases it. The current GO requires the person to be released as long as
there is no reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity whereas the recommendation allows the
officer to release the person only if there is no reasonable suspicion of a risk to public safety.
7. This conflicts with Section 31 of SF 342 because it discourages the enforcement of laws.
8. This is acceptable to the Chief.
9. This is addressed more fully in Iowa law. In 2020 the Iowa legislature passed a bill,
codified at Section 80B.I I G of the Iowa Code, that reads in pertinent part as follows:
1. A law enforcement agency shall provide annual training to every law enforcement
officer on issues relating to ... the prevention of bias."
3. ... The training guidelines shall include all of the following:
a. An emphasis on law enforcement officer understanding and respect for diverse
communities and the importance of effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law
enforcement activities in a diverse community.
b. Instruction on diverse communities in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation
between law enforcement and members of all diverse communities.
c. An examination of the patterns, practices, and protocols that cause biased law
enforcement actions, and the tools to prevent such actions.
d. An examination and identification of key indices and perspectives that make up
differences among residents in a local community.
e. Instruction on implicit bias and consideration of the negative impact of bias, whether
intentional or implicit, on effective law enforcement, including examination of how
historical perceptions of profiling have harmed community relations.
f. Instruction on the perspectives of diverse local constituency groups from experts on
particular cultural and law enforcement -community relations issues in a local area.
g. A presentation of the history and the role of the civil rights movement and the impact
on law enforcement.....
10. This is acceptable to the Chief.
11. This is acceptable to the Chief.
12. This is acceptable to the Chief.
In the near future, Chief Liston will provide the Board for its review a revised GO 01-01
consistent with this letter.
Sincerely,
Susan Dulek
-
Assistant City Attorney
Enc.
_ -
. � ca
Copy w/enc. to:
_ 'a
Dustin Liston, Police Chief
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Patrick J. Ford, Attorney for CPRB
Is
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington
Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5043
To: Police Chief Liston
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Suggested revision to ICP General 01-01 (Bias -Based Policing) �_ �►
Dear Chief Liston:
c�
The members of the board respectfully submit the following proposed revisions to ICP General
Order 01-01 (Bias -Based Policing). According to the ACLU's 2020 report, I Iowa ranks as the fifth -
worst state in the nation in racial disparities for arrests of marijuana. The Iowa City Police
Department's use of force reports also illustrate ongoing racial disparities. Implementation of the
suggested changes would serve to decrease these disparities, illustrate Iowa City's commitment to
creating a strong, safe community in which The Department serves only to protect the public and
officers are not feared, and leave space to repair the damages done to The Department's
relationship with the public during last summer's tear gassing and the recent MRAP incident.
General Order 01-01
Bias -Based Policing
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this order Is to unequivocally state that bias -based policing by members of this
department in the discharge of their duties is unacceptable, to provide guidelines for officers to prevent
such occurrences, and to protect officers from unfounded accusations when they act within the
parameters of the law and departmental policy.
See also GO 89-04, Civil Rights.
II. POLICY
I https://www.aclu-
ia.org/sites/default/files/tale of two_countries racially_targeted_arrests_in_the era of marijuana_reform.pdf
0
from using bias -based policing in all aspects of work including but not limited to traffic contacts, field
contacts, asset seizure, and asset forfeiture.
III. DEFINITIONS
Bias -Based Policing- Biased based policing is the application of police authority based on a
characteristic of a group. This includes but is not limited to race, ethnic background, gender,
sexual orientation, religion, creed, economic status, age, disability, political affiliation, national
origin, cultural group, or any other identifiable characteristic.
Reasonabie Suspicion- Suspicion that is more than a "mere hunch" or curiosity, but is based on a
set of articulable facts and circumstances that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to
believe that an infraction of the law has been committed, is about to be committed or is in the
process of being committed, by the person or persons under suspicion ("specific and reasonable
cause to believe criminal activity is afoot." State v. Heminover 619 N.W.2d 353, 358 (Iowa 2000).
IV. PROCEDURES
The department's enforcement efforts will be directed towards assigning officers to those areas
where there is the highest likelihood of that vehicle crashes will be reduced, complaints effectively
investigated or addressed, and/or crimes prevented through proactive
patrol.
A. In the absence of a specific, credible report containing a physical description, a person's rte,
ethnicity, color, gender, or any characteristic listed in Section III above, or any combination of hese sh.0
not be a factor in determining probable cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for a stop.
B. Traffic enforcement sha(I be accompanied by consistent, ongoing supervisory oversight to
ensure that officers do not go beyond the parameters of reasonableness in conducting such activities.
_ ca
1. officer shall cause accurate statistical information to be recorded In accordance with
departmental guidelines.
2. The deliberate recording of any inaccurate information regarding a person stopped for
investigative or enforcement purposes is prohibited and a cause for disciplinary action, up to and
including termination of employment. .
C. Motorists and pedestrians shall only be subjected to investigatory stops or brief detentions
Ftupon reasonable suspicion that they have committed, are committing, or are about to commit P a
_
infraction of the law, or there is an articulable reason for contact. Each time a person is
stopped or detained, the officer shall radio to the dispatcher the location of the stop and any pertinent
descriptors relevant or unique to that stop. The exception to this procedure is when officers are taking
part in safety checkpoints and are working with other officers. ^;
CW
D. If the police vehicle is equipped with a video camera, the video and sound shall be activated
prior to the stop to record the circumstances surrounding the stop and shall remain activated until the
person is released.
E. No person, once cited or warned, shall be detained once there is no reasonable suspicion of
furtheF44-
riina> apt -,y
F. No person or vehicle shall be searched in the absence of a warrant, a legally recognized exception
to the warrant requirement as identified in General Order 00-01, Search and Seizure, or the person's
voluntary consent.
1. In each case where a search is conducted, information shall be recorded, including the legal
basis for the search, and the results thereof.
V. TRAINING
Officers shall receive initial and annual training in proactive enforcement tactics, including training in
officer safety, courtesy, cultural diversity, bias -based policing including legal aspects, the laws governing
search and seizure, and interpersonal communication skills. This,; M include profiling related
topics (e.g. field contacts, traffic stops, searches, asset, seizure and forfeiture), interview techniques,
cultural diversity, discrimination, and community support.
A. Training programs will emphasize the need to respect the rights of all members of the public to be
free from unreasonable government Intrusion or police action.
B. Training will address how bias can affect police activities and decision making, such as field
contacts, traffic stops, searches, asset seizure and forfeiture, interviews and interrogations.
C. Training will emphasize the corrosive effects of biased policing on individuals, the community and
the agency.
D. Lod
IV. COMPLAINTS OF BIASED -BASED POLICING
Any person may file a complaint with the departm�2nt or with the CPRB if they feel they have beem _ y
stopped or searched based on bias -based policing. No person shall be discouraged or intimidated from
filing such a complaint or discriminated against because they have filed such a complaint. =-,'
A. Any member of the department contacted by a person, who wishes to file such a complaint,
shall refer to the Watch Supervisor who shall make the person aware of the department and the
CPR complaint process. The supervisor shall provide information on how to complete the
departmental complaint form, and, if possible, shall record the complainant's name, address,
and telephone number.
B. Complaints which result in the initiation of an investigation shall be conducted as directed by
General Order 99-06, Internal Affairs Investigations.
C. Supervisors shall periodically review a sample of in -car video and body worn camera video of
stops made by officers under their command as provided in GO 99-8 (Body Worn Cameras and
In -Care Recorders). Additionally, supervisors shall review reports relating to stops by officers
under their command and respond at random to assist or observe officers on vehicle stops.
D. Supervisors shall report in writing to command staff whenever it appears that this policy is being
violated.
E. Any member who observes or becomes aware of what they believe to be profiling shall within
24 hours report it in writing to their immediate supervisor and failure to do so may subject a
member to discipline.
VII.REVIEW
A. On an annual basis the Commanding Officer of Support Services, or designee, shall conduct an
administrative review of agency practices including member of the public concerns and any corrective
measures taken.
B. If it reasonably appears that the number of self -initiated traffic contacts by officers has unduly
resulted in disproportionate contacts with members of an ethnic minority, a determination shall be
made as to whether such disproportionality appears department wide, or is related to a specific unit,
section, or individual. The commander of the affected unit, section, or officer shall provide written
notice to the Chief of Police of any reasons or grounds for the disproportionate rate of contacts.
C. Upon review of the written notice, the Chief of Police may direct additional trainings towards the
affected units, sections, or individual officers.
D. On an annual basis, the department � make public a statistical summary of the race,
f
ethnicity, and gender of persons stopped for traffic violations
r E. On an annual basis, the department ®make public a statistical summary of all profiling
complaints for the year, including the findings as to whether they were sustained, not sustained, or
exonerated,
F. If evidence supports a finding of a continued pattern of ongoing bias -based policing, the Chief of
Police 4 joinstitute disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment of any
f r� involved officer(s) and/or their supervisors.
Senate File 342, p. 19
allowance payable pursuant to this section on account of the
same disability.
b. Notwithstanding ara rah a'", any workers' compensation
benefits received by a member for past medical ex enses or
future medical ex enses shall not be offset against and not
considered payable in lieu of any retirement allowance payable
ursuant to this section on account of the same disability.
c. Notwithstanding paragraph a-, any workers' com ensation
benefits received by a member for reimbursement of vacation
time used, sick time used, or for any unpaid time off from work
shall not be offset against and not considered payable in lieu
of any retirement allowance payable pursuant to this section on
_account of the same disabilit .
Sec. 29. Section 97B.50A, Code 2021, is amended by adding
the following new subsection:
NEW SUBSECTION. 8A. Medical benefits. An employer shall
furnish reasonable surgical, medical, dental, osteopathic,
chiropractic, podiatric, physical rehabilitation, nursing,
ambulance, and hospital services and supplies for a member who
is injured in the performance of the member's duties and is
receiving an in-service disability retirement allowance under
subsection 2 or has waived an in-service disability retireme�}t
allowance under subsection 4, regardless of when the iWi_U,ry
occurred or when the member's in-service disability a1.lowanei
commenced.
DIVISION VIII
ENFORCFMNT OF LAWS — PEACE OFFICERS CARRYING FIREARMS
Sec. 30. NEW SECTION. 27B.1 Definitions.
1. '"Local entity"' means the governing body of a city or
county. '"Local entity' includes an officer or employee of a
local entity or a division, department, or other body that is
part of a local entity, including but not limited to a sheriff,
police department, city attorney, or county attorney.
2. -Policy- includes a rule, procedure, regulation, order,
ordinance, motion, resolution, or amendment, whether formal and
written or informal and unwritten.
R
Sec. 31. NEW SECTION. 27B.2 Restriction on enforcement of
state, local, and municipal law prohibited.
A local entity or law enforcement department shall not
Senate File 342, p. 20
adopt or enforce a policy or take any other action under which
the local entity or law enforcement department prohibits or
discourages the enforcement of state, local, or municipal laws.
Sec. 32. NEW SECTION. 27B.3 Discrimination prohibited.
A local entity or a person employed by or otherwise under the
direction or control of a local entity shall not consider race,
skin color, language spoken, or national origin while enforcing
state, local, and municipal laws except to the extent permitted
by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of
the State of Iowa.
Sec. 33. NEW SECTION. 27B.4 Complaints — notification —
civil action.
1. Any person may file a complaint with the attorney general
alleging that a local entity has violated or is violating
this chapter if the person offers evidence to support such an
allegation. The person shall include with the complaint any
evidence the person has in support of the complaint.
2. A local entity for which the attorney general has
received a complaint pursuant to this section shall comply
with any document requests, including a request for supporting
documents, from the attorney general relating to the complaint.
3. A complaint filed pursuant to subsection 1 shall not be
valid unless the attorney general determines that a violation
of this chapter by a local entity was intentional.
4. If the attorney general determines that a complaint filed
pursuant to this section against a local entity is valid, the
attorney general, not later than ten days after the date of
such a determination, shall provide written notification to ate
local entity by certified mail, with return receipt requeoted,
stating all of the following:
a. A complaint pursuant to this section has been filed aai
the grounds for the complaint.
b. The attorney general has determined that the complaint. is
valid.
c. The attorney general is authorized to file a civil
action in district court pursuant to subsection 6 to enjoin a
violation of this chapter no later than forty days after the
date on which the notification is received if the local entity
does not come into compliance with the requirements of this
Date: August 5, 2021
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From; Eric R. Goers, City Attorney ,
Re: CPRB Proposals for Changes to Ordinance
As requested, I have reviewed Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 12 contained in the December 22,
2020 CPRB report to the City Council ("CPRB Report") to determine whether they are legally viable.
My conclusions are set forth below.
As the Council knows, Iowa municipalities enjoy broad home -rule authority to govern their affairs.
Limitations to this authority are present when the state passes laws that either explicitly or impliedly
preempt local laws. The state has done so with increased frequency over the past several years.
In a similar vein, last year the New Jersey Supreme Court considered a challenge to a newly enacted
local police review board, and the Court began its opinion as follows:
This appeal involves a challenge to the City of Newark's (the City or Newark) authority to create
by ordinance a civilian oversight board to provide a greater role for civilian participation in the
review of police internal investigations and in the resolution of civilian complaints. Newark was
the first municipality in this state to join others across the nation that have created a civilian
oversight or review entity to increase police accountability and create stronger relationships
between the community and the police. No two civilian oversight or review entities are alike in
their genesis, their roles, or the legal landscape in which they arose and are controlled.
This challenge to Newark's civilian oversight entity must be considered in the context of the
landscape here in New Jersey. We conclude that state law permits the creation by ordinance of
this civilian board with its overall beneficial oversight purpose. Such boards must operate
consistently with current statutes, however.... The civilian review board's powers must comply
with current legislative enactments unless the Legislature refines the law to specifically
authorize certain functions that Newark intends to confer on its review board.
Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, 244 N.J. 75, 80-81, 236 A. 3d 965, 967-78 (N.J.
2020).
The same legal principle applies in Iowa - the CPRB's recommendations must be consistent with state
law in order to be adopted by City Council and sustain possible legal challenge.
CPRB PROPOSED CHANGE 1 — THAT IN INSTANCES OF A SUSTAINED MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINT, THE CPRB BE GIVEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE CORRESPONDING DISCIPLINE,
AND THAT THE CPRB BE ALLOWED TO INCLUDE IN ITS REPORT ITS FINDINGS ON WHETHER
THE DISCIPLINE IS REASONABLE AND FAIR.
Conclusion:
This proposal cannot be adopted without changes to state law, as disciplinary records of all government
employees are confidential.
Discussinn
Iowa's open records law is contained in Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code, and is often referred to as the
Iowa Open Records Act. (Note that all subsequent references to provisions of a law (e.g., section 22.7)
are to the Code of Iowa unless noted otherwise.) Section 22.7 is a list of public records that are
confidential, and thus not available through open records requests. These include "personal
information in confidential personnel records." Iowa Code Section 22.7(11). Employee disciplinary
information is confidential as it is "personal information in confidential personnel records." ACLU
Foundation of Iowa v. Atlantic Community School District, 818 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Iowa 2012). Section
22.7(11) has been described by the Iowa Supreme Court as a "privacy exemption." These exemptions
are often patterned after the federal Freedom of Information Act's privacy exemption for "personnel and
medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy." DeLaMater v. Marion Civil Service Comm'n, 554 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Iowa 1996).
Section 22.7 states that confidential records "shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a
court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such
information." Although police officers' investigative reports that are confidential under Iowa Code
22.7(5) are released to the CPRB by the Police Chief as part of the confidential complaint investigation,
releasing disciplinary records under 22.7(11) is problematic as this confidentiality exception was crafted
by the legislature for the purpose of protecting the privacy of public employees. Atlantic Community
School District, at 236. Furthermore, such protection is not subject to a balancing test as are police
officers' investigative reports. Id. No balancing of interests is necessary for disciplinary records that fall
clearly within the categorical exemption for "confidential personnel records", as opposed to the Court's
three-part balancing test of Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994), which is applicable for
peace officers' investigative reports. Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 232-34 (Iowa
2019).
The CPRB recognized the concern with the confidentiality of discipline records, stating:
Careful consideration must be given to protect the confidentiality of information such as
discipline information. It is understood that some legislative changes must occur to allow for a
CPRB review to be an exception to the confidentiality laws regarding discipline information.
CPRB Report, p. 3.
In addition, Senate File 342, commonly referred to as the "Back the Blue" bill, was signed into law by
Governor Reynolds on June 17th, 2021. It is lengthy and included a number of amendments to Iowa
Code Chapter 80F, the "Peace Officer Bill of Rights." One such amendment prohibits law enforcement
agencies from releasing complaints made against officers. "The employing agency shall keep an
officer's statement, recordings, or transcripts of any interviews or disciplinary proceedings, and any
complaints made against an officer confidential unless otherwise provided by law or with the officer's
consent." Iowa Code section 80F.1(20).
It is also important to note, as it comes up in connection with the discussion below of other CPRB
recommendations, that the City Council does not have disciplinary authority over members of the police
department. That authority resides with the Police Chief and the Civil Service Commission under
Chapter 400 of the Iowa Code. Of course, the Council has authority to express its displeasure with the
approach being taken by the Police Chief and address that in its employment relationship with the City
Manager, but it cannot alter the discipline given to an officer by the Police Chief.
CPRB PROPOSED CHANGE 2 — THE CPRB SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST THE
CITY COUNCIL HAVE A DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
Conclusion:
This proposal would require changes to state law as disciplinary authority currently resides with the
Police Chief and the Civil Service Commission.
Discussion:
The CPRB proposes that there be a meeting between the Police Chief and the CPRB if the CPRB
disagrees with the reasonableness or fairness of the discipline, and that if the disagreement is not
resolved the CPRB have the discretion to: (1) issue a report detailing their disagreement with the
discipline, or (2) make an additional request that the City Council conduct a disciplinary hearing to
independently determine whether the proposed discipline is reasonable and fair. 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.
Implicit in the proposal is the suggestion that the City Council has the authority to change the outcome
of a disciplinary decision by the Police Chief. As noted above, the City Council does not have the
authority to alter the discipline imposed on a police officer by the Police Chief. Under Iowa law, namely
Chapter 400, it is the City's Civil Service Commission, not the Council, that has the authority to remove,
discharge, demote or suspend an officer or review the Police Chief's removal, discharge, demotion or
suspension of an officer in the event of an appeal by the officer. Iowa Code section 400.18(2). After a
decision by the Civil Service Commission, either party may appeal the decision, but that appeal goes to
the district court, not City Council. Iowa Code section 400.27(3).
CPRB PROPOSED CHANGE 3 — THAT AN ACCUSED OFFICER BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY
WITH A CPRB INVESTIGATION OR BE DISCIPLINED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE/CITY
MANAGER.
Conclusion:
This would require a change in state law giving the CPRB authority over discipline.
Discussion:
This proposed change, as noted by the CPRB on p. 7 of the CPRB report, raises issues concerning an
officer's 511' Amendment right against self-incrimination. When the CPRB ordinance was first enacted in
1997, there were both policy and legal reasons for placing responsibility for the initial investigation with
the Police Chief. The legal reasons were due to the 50 Amendment. To understand the issue, a quick
review of the interplay between the 5th Amendment right and an officer's obligation to respond to
questions posed by the disciplinary authority (in Iowa, the Police Chief) under threat of
termination/discipline is warranted.
Public employees, not just members of law enforcement, cannot be threatened with termination for
failing to answer questions in a formal or informal civil proceeding, due to their right not to incriminate
themselves in a criminal matter. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person `shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself.' The Amendment not only protects the individual against being
involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him
not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or
informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. McCarthy v.
Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S. Ct. 16, 17, 69 L. Ed. 158 (1924), squarely held that
'(t)he privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the
testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings,
wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it.
The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party
defendant.'
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973).
As a result of these cases and their progeny, when an ICPD officer is being questioned in a disciplinary
setting, the officer is given a "Garrity warning," which provides, in part:
■ You have no right to remain silent at this administrative proceeding. You have an obligation to
truthfully answer questions put to you. You are advised that your statements or responses
constitute an official police report.
If you refuse to answer questions put to you, you will be ordered by a superior officer to answer
the question.
• If you persist in your refusal to answer after the order to answer has been given to you, or if you
do not answer a question truthfully, you are advised that such refusal or untruthful answer
constitutes a violation of the Rules and Regulations of the Iowa City Police Department and will
serve as a basis for which your discharge may be sought.
You are further advised that by law any admission made by you during the course of this
interrogation, examination or interview cannot be used against you in a subsequent criminal
proceeding.
As previously referenced, Iowa Code Chapter 80F governs investigations of peace officers following
allegations of misconduct. Consistent with the Garrity warnings, 80F allows for the Chief of Police, or
designee, to compel the officer's participation in an interview. "An officer being interviewed shall be
advised by the interviewer that the officer shall answer the questions and be advised that the answers
shall not be used against the officer in any subsequent criminal proceeding." Iowa Code section
80F.1(6). Because the statements made during the compelled interview cannot be used against the
officer in criminal court, the officer may be disciplined, up to and including termination, for refusal to
answer questions as part of the officer's interview. However, the structure of that interview, and
investigation, is tightly controlled by Chapter 80F.
Section 80F.1(1 xd) states, "'Interview' means the questioning of an officer who is the subject of a
complaint pursuant to the formal administrative investigation procedures of the investigating agency, if
such a complaint may be the basis for seeking removal, discharge, or suspension, or other disciplinary
action against the officer." Section 80F.1(1)(b) defines a "formal administrative investigation," in part,
as one "ordered by a commanding officer of an agency or commander's designee." Chapter 80F
dictates the procedures for the formal administrative investigation needed to take disciplinary action
where an investigation is necessary to determine the merits of a complaint.
Chapter 80F makes clear that officers must cooperate with the formal administrative investigation.
However, section 80F.1(16) states that "an officer shall not be discharged, disciplined, or threatened
with discharge or discipline in retaliation for exercising the rights of the officer enumerated in this
section." The officer has no obligation to participate in an interview by the CPRB, and threatening an
officer with discipline if they fail to cooperate would be a violation of Chapter 80F. Such a violation
could impose liability on the City. "An officer shall have the right to bring a cause of action against
any... organization ... for damages arising from... any other violation of this chapter including but not
limited to actual damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees." Section 80F.1(13).
Because state law places the authority to discipline an officer with the Police Chief and Civil Service
Commission, it is my opinion that the CPRB does not have the authority to compel an officer to testify
under threat of discipline. Therefore, statements given to the CPRB by an officer would not be
compelled, but would instead be voluntary, and thus could be used against him/her in a criminal
proceeding. Officers have the ability to invoke their privilege against self-incrimination in response to
questions from the CPRB where those answers might tend to be self -incriminatory in future criminal
proceedings. While the Iowa City Charter gives the CPRB subpoena authority, that authority does not
override the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Section 5.01(B)(4) of the Charter. Given the
Constitutional protections all people, including officers, enjoy, one would expect that even if officers
could be ordered by the Chief to participate in CPRB interviews, they could, and likely would, simply
invoke their right to remain silent, rendering the exercise fruitless.
Case law on this issue is scarce and there is no law directly on point that governs in Iowa, The
conclusion, however, is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's analysis of the 5th Amendment. See
also, City and County of Denver v. Powell, 969 P.2d 776 (Col. Ct. App. 1998) (officers entitled to assert
5th Amendment privilege and decline to answer questions of Denver Public Safety Commission
because the Commission is not their employer and not part of the discipline process; subpoena power
does not change result; distinguishing contrary result in New York case because there the New York
police citizen review board "is an integral part of the discipline process"); Fraternal Order of Police v.
City of Newark, 244 N.J. 75, 236 A.3d 965 (N.J. 2020) (while Newark was not preempted by state law
from creating a police review board, the board's investigatory powers conflicted with state law vesting
Chief with disciplinary authority; Board could not conduct an internal investigation, a function
circumscribed by state law, but could, after conducting its own investigation, recommend that an official
internal investigation be commenced by the Police Chief at which point "the statutory rights of the
officer... would pertain" although grant of subpoena authority to board was not valid); Cf Caruso v.
Civilian Complaint Review Board, 158 Misc.2d 909 (Supreme Court, New York County NY 1993)
(rejecting officers' request for injunction against being compelled to give testimony to civilian
investigators of civilian complaint review board when law imposed on Chief the obligation to cooperate
with board and Chief had ordered that failure to cooperate would be grounds for discipline).
PROPOSED CHANGE 5 — THE ONLINE DATABASE OF OFFICER COMPLAINTS SHALL BE
IMPROVED TO ALLOW FOR QUICK SEARCHES OF COMPLAINT HISTORY AND A
COMPUTERIZED RISK -MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO ANALYZE TRENDS.
Conclusion:
This would require a change in state law governing confidentiality of disciplinary records.
Discussion:
The CPRB itself has identified the key limitation of this proposed change — identifying officers. The
CPRB Report states:
While some members of the CPRB would like names to be released, the clear majority
disagreed out of concern for officer safety. 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 while still protecting the privacy
of the officer.
Extreme caution should be taken to protect against disclosure of identifying information of
officers outside of their tracking number to protect the safety of the officer.
CPRB Report, p. 10.
The proposal is for the database to include all complaints, not just CPRB complaints. "The database
shall be searchable for snapshots for the number and type of complaints, their resolution, and any
trends." As discussed above, employee disciplinary information is confidential under Section 22.7(11)
as it is "personal information in confidential personnel records." ACLU Foundation of Iowa v. Atlantic
Community School District, 818 N.W.2d 231 (Iowa 2012).
Additionally, this confidentiality exception was crafted by the legislature for the purpose of protecting the
privacy of public employees. Atlantic Community School District, at 236. As described above, such
protection is not subject to a balancing test as in the case of police officers' investigative reports. Id.
No balancing of interests is necessary for disciplinary records that fall clearly within the categorical
exemption for "confidential personnel records" contrary to the Court's three-part balancing test of Hawk
Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994). See Mitchell, at 232-34.
An online database using an identification number may nonetheless result in an officer's disciplinary
record not remaining confidential as required by state law. By way of example, assume I made a
complaint against Officer Smith in June, 2020 for Reason X. As part of the intake, Officer Smith is
assigned the "unique and consistent' identifying number of 569. Subsequently I review the online
records and see that Officer 569 was the only officer against whom a complaint was submitted in June,
2020 for Reason X. Because I know the identity of Officer 569, any discipline in the database against
Officer 569 is now known to me and thus Officer 569's personnel file is no longer confidential, contrary
to state law. Similar outcomes would be likely in the case of press coverage of officer interactions in
which the officer is identified by name.
Finally, and as previously mentioned, Iowa Code section 80F.1(20), added by the "Back the Blue" bill to
the Peace Officer Bill of Rights in June, states that "The employing agency shall keep ... any complaints
made against an officer confidential unless otherwise provided by law or with the officer's written
consent." Again, failure to follow this law could subject the City to liability under 80F.1(13).
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.
Conclusion:
While this recommendation could be implemented, it presents logistical and perhaps ethical problems.
Discussion:
The City Attorney's Office has been asked to respond only to the recommendation to provide
complainants with access to a lawyer. While this recommendation could be implemented, it presents
logistical and perhaps ethical problems. The incident serving as a basis for the CPRB complaint could
in some circumstances also serve as the basis for a lawsuit against the City/officer and/or a complaint
of discrimination against the City/officer with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, which the City
Attorney's Office would defend. A lawyer retained for the complainant or by the complainant at the
City's cost would likely need to advise the complainant of these potential additional remedies.
Additionally, it is unclear how the City would go about connecting the complainant to a lawyer. For the
reasons noted above, the City Attorney's Office should not be involved in that process. Would the
CPRB connect the complainant with the lawyer? In terms of the logistics, my suggestion is to return to
this issue after the CPRB provides you with detail on how they envision this would be done with the
social worker part of the recommendation. Perhaps that information would lend more clarity to a
possible framework for provision of an attorney through the same process.
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.
Conclusion:
This would require a change in both Iowa City City Code, requiring an interview of the complainant, and
state law, requiring that complaints be signed by the complainant.
Discussion:
First, Iowa City City Code 8-8-5(B)(4) states that the "complainant shall be interviewed by the Police
Department..." If the complainant is anonymous, that provision could not be followed. Of course,
Council could amend the ordinance if you so chose.
State law however, is less flexible. With respect to anonymous complaints, section 80F.1(1)(a) defines
a complaint as follows: "'Complaint' means a formal written allegation signed by the complainant or a
signed written statement by an officer receiving an oral complaint stating the complainant's allegation."
While the definition has always allowed for oral complaints given to an officer, the "Back the Blue" bili
added the word "signed" to the oral complaint clause, making clear that the complainant needs to be
identified. This aligns with the bill's amendment to section 80F.1(13), which expanded officers' rights to
file suit for damages against those filing a false complaint, as well as against any other entity (including
the City) violating those officers' rights. This suggests to me that allowing anonymous complaints may
violate Chapter 80F, thus violating officers' rights, and subjecting the City to potential liability. Clearly
the state weighed the interests of the public in holding officers accountable for their actions, even
through anonymous complaints, against the interest of officers in not being harassed through frivolous
claims filed against them, and came down in favor of the officers. We might disagree with that decision
at the local level, but we're obligated to follow state law.
As to third -party complaints, state law would not appear to preclude such a complaint, as long as the
third -party has sufficient first-hand knowledge to articulate the complaint and is willing to sign it. This
tracks the current CPRB ordinance. "A complaint to the board maybe filed by any person with
personal knowledge of an incident. 'Personal knowledge' means the complainant was directly involved
in the incident or witnessed the incident." Iowa City Code 8-8-2(H). See also 8-8-3(B). However, the
recommendation provides that the individual subject to the alleged misconduct would remain
anonymous. One reason for this recommendation is the complainant's "fear of public humiliation"
(CPRB Report, p 16), but the complainant's name is confidential. As the CPRB noted on page 17 of its
report, if the individual subject to the alleged misconduct is not identified, it is hard to imagine how the
complainant would be interviewed, as required.
Copy to:
Community Police Review Board
Patrick J. Ford, Attorney for CPRB
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Dustin Liston, Police Chief
Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
OFFICE CONTACTS
August 2021
Date Description
None
September 20, 2021 Mtg Packet
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
COMPLAINT DEADLINES
Filed:
06/04/20
Chief's report due (90 days):
09/02/20
Extension Request:
12/15/20
Extension Request:
02/01/21
Report filed:
01/28/21
Extension Request:
06/30/21
Report filed:
06/30/21
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
02/09/21
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
03/09/21
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
04/14/21
CPRB meeting #4 (Review):
07/13/21
CPRB meeting #5 (Review):
08/02/21
CPRB meeting #6 (Review):
08/30/21
CPRB meeting #7 (Review):
09/20/21
CPRB meeting #8 (Review):
??/??/21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPRB report due (90 days):
04/28/21
CPRB report due (extension):
09/28/21
CPRB report due (90 day extension):
12/27/21
CPRB Complaint #20-05
Filed:
08/14/20
Chief's report due (90 days):
11/12/20
Extension Request:
12/15/20
Extension Request:
02/01/21
Report filed:
01/28/21
Extension Request:
06/30/21
Report filed:
06/30/21
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
02/09/21
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
03/09/21
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
04/14/21
CPRB meeting #4 (Review):
07/13/21
CPRB meeting #5 (Review):
08/02/21
CPRB meeting #6 (Review):
08/30/21
CPRB meeting #7 (Review):
09/20/21
CPRB meeting #8 (Review):
??/??/21
CPRB report due (90 days):
04/28/21
CPRB report due (extension):
09/28/21
CPRB report due (90 day extension):
12/27/21
CPRE Complaint #20-06
Filed:
Chief's report due (90 days):
Extension Request:
Extension Request:
Report filed:
Extension Request:
Report filed:
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
CPRB meeting #4 (Review):
CPRB meeting #5 (Review):
CPRB meeting #6 (Review):
CPRB meeting #7 (Review):
CPRB meeting #8 (Review):
CPRB meeting #9 (Review):
September 20, 2021 Mtg Packet
08/19/20
11/17/20
12/15/20
02/01/21
01/28/21
06/30/21
06/30/21
02/09/21
03/09/21
03/26/21
04/14/21
07/13/21
08/02/21
08/30/21
09/20/21
CPRB report due (90 days): 04/28/21
CPRB report due (extension): 09/28/21
CPRB report due (90 day extension): 12/27/21
CPRB Comolaint #20-07
Filed:
08/27/20
Chief's report due (90 days):
11/25/20
Extension Request:
12/15/20
Extension Request:
02/01/21
Report filed:
01/28/21
Extension Request:
06/30/21
Report filed:
06/30/21
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
02/09/21
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
03/09/21
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
04/14/21
CPRB meeting #4 (Review):
07/13/21
CPRB meeting #5 (Review):
08/02/21
CPRB meeting #6 (Review):
08/30/21
CPRB meeting #7 (Review):
09/20/21
CPRB meeting #8 (Review):
??/??/21
CPRB report due (90 days): 04/28/21
CPRB report due (extension): 09/28/21
CPRB report due (90 day extension): 12/27/21
-------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
September 20, 2021 Mtg Packet
CPRB Complaint #20-48
Filed:
Chief's report due (90 days):
Extension Request:
Extension Request:
Report filed:
Extension Request:
Report filed:
CPRB meeting #1 (Review):
CPRB meeting #2 (Review):
CPRB meeting #3 (Review):
CPRB meeting #4 (Review):
CPRB meeting #5 (Review):
CPRB meeting #6 (Review):
CPRB meeting #7 (Review):
CPRB meeting #8 (Review):
CPRB meeting #9 (Review):
CPRB report due (90 days):
CPRB report due (extension):
CPRB report due (90 day extension):
-------------------------------------------------
CPRB Complaint #21-01
Filed:
Chief's report due (90 days):
Chief's report filed:
Complainant's response to the Chief's report
(21 days to respond)
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):
08/27/20
11/25/20
12/15/20
02/01/21
01/28/21
06/30/21
06/30/21
02/09/21
03/09/21
04/14/21
05/26/21
07/13/21
08/02/21
08/30/21
09/20/21
??/??/21
04/28/21
09/28/21
12/27/21
07/29/21
10/27//21
09/02/21
09/23/21
??/??/21
??/??/21
??/??/21
ENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
October 12, 2021
November 9, 2021
December 14, 2021
January 11, 2022
??/??/21