Loading...
09-20-2021 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