Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board Meeting Liveblog

I have decided to go check out the meeting since I wrote an editorial encouraging students to do so. As I suspected, few if any students have take me up on my suggestion. There only about 25 citizens in attendance in total and some of them are fellow journalists.

Regardless, I'll be interested in seeing if any of the younger people here have anything good to say. I'll be updating throughout the meeting, so refresh the blog to get my latest comments.

The discussion of the board's history didn't take too long.

Here's the information about filing complaints against the police:
- The complaint form is available here.
- City code explaining the review board's legal status and functions are available in Title 8, Section 8 of the city code, which can be found here.
- Complaints must be filed within 90 days of the incident in question.
- Complaints first go to the chief of police unless the complaint is against the chief of police, in which case the investigation goes to the city manager.
- Police car video and audio recordings are used.
- Chief's report comes to a conclusion about the allegations, determining whether the complaint is sustained or not sustained.
- Copies of the chief's report go to the complainant, the review board, police officers, and the city manager.
- Review board generally thinks chief's report is good and no further information is required.
- Board's actual power is quite limited--basically only able to make recommendations and suggestions.

Presentation from a representative of the Iowa City police:
- No set time line. Complaints are accepted even after 90 days.
- Complaints are evaluated at face value: considering what disciplinary action would be required if the complaint is true.
- Physical evidence is reviewed to determine whether the complaint is sustainable.
- Complaints are evaluated through the chain of command.
- If the review process indicated that an officer may be subject to serious repercussions, two officers conduct extensive interviews that are part of a process very much like a criminal investigation.
- Officers are required to answer the investigators' questions, so if the investigation becomes criminal an outside agency has to conduct that for 5th Amendment reasons.
- Goal is to have investigations completed within 60 days.
- Classification of investigations: unfounded (not a problem), exonerated (allegations true, but officer's actions justified), not sustained (no compelling evidence either way), sustained (allegations true), and policy failure (allegations true, but officers acting within official policy).
- Chief makes final decision as to appropriate disciplinary action.
- All sustained complaints retained in an officer's file and all other complaints maintained in the police department's general files and used to assess general policy and procedure concerns.
- Reality is that officers do make mistakes and some situations could be handled better. Police are open to criticism or positive reinforcement so they can know what they should do in the future.

Public discussion (difficult for me to catch people's names, so I won't even try; however, I will transcribe the comments I think are of interest--also, questions are from citizens, answers are from members of the board):

- Q: Problem of maintaining anonymity of complainants and officers when video and audio tapes from vehicles are being used. And what about multiple complaints against the same officer or from the same citizen?
- A: Video portions not used for anonymous part of investigation because officers' identities would be revealed. However, audio is used. Also, knowing if multiple complaints are against the same person would prejudice the board. Thus, the chief would know that information, but the board does not.

- Comment: Debate about new jail. Idea of decreasing number of people being processed through the jail rather than simply increasing its side. Arrest rates for public intoxication, marijuana possession, etc. are comparatively higher than in Ames. Arrests for constructive possession of marijuana, meaning people are just in the room where marijuana is being smoked. Board should recommend that marijuana policy be more rational.

- Q: Board members' experience and backgrounds? More on issue of board not knowing if there are multiple complaints against the same officer. Question on whether the board really just deals with complaints or whether there is a robust discussion about policy.
- A: Braverman has been a lawyer for more than 20 years. King was a police officer in Alaska. Larson is a member of the community. Roth has law enforcement and criminal justice teaching experience. Yoder is a recent college graduate. And the code does allow the board to make recommendations beyond simply dealing with complaints against officers. Board and recommend to the police that they change policies, but the police and city council have no power to actually force changes of any kind.

- Comment: Few complaints is evidence of a good situation, not of an underused resource. Reassuring to know that the board exists. Know from time at the UI that the social sciences have become very fond of quantifying things. That means gathering statistics. Faulty way to look at the police department. A successful police department is to keep the police. If people aren't bothering others, committing property crimes, or driving intoxicated, then the police should leave them alone. The police should instead focus on assaults, robberies, etc. Things have improved over last several years. It's easy to think that because we're a bigger town, that means we have to have more crime. That's not necessarily true. Not foolish to think we could go back to the way things were years ago when the police were primarily focused on keeping the peace. The vast majority of UI students are peace-loving people who don't want to make trouble for anyone. Likes it when those arrested for public intox were also arrested for something else such as public urination or assault. Simple PAULA or possession of marijuana cases make one wonder if the person was simply in the wrong place and the wrong time and thus became a statistic. Most people want to keep community nice. Would appreciate conveying these thoughts to the city council.

- Comment: Officers generally very professional, fair, and honest. Background on other cities that have more police-citizen problems. Fortunate to have a review board here. No police department can be totally free of problems caused by individual officers. Problem with police harassment of certain bars. If bars are responsible as businesses, then the police should leave them alone. Incidents where police department has waged campaigns against certain bars. Should not be a mentality of trying to justify police in bars by going after bars. Should be cause and effect--only deal with problems, not bars not causing problems.

- Comment (first and only from a student): Received a PAULA at 19. Has worked downtown since then and has gotten to know officers. Choose to speak because no other young people have. Political science major. Blood alcohol levels are higher than ever. Dissing DI for standing up for students who are acting nonviolently. Suggests that the board members go downtown and see how horrible all the students drinking really is. What goes on downtown is "not pretty."

- Written comment read aloud complaining about lack of motorists' respect for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian deaths can result from these laws not being enforced. Recent sign changes are a step in the right direction, but a public information campaign and significant fines are needed in order to better protect pedestrians from vehicle traffic. Citations of Iowa laws protecting pedestrians.

The meeting has adjourned.

I'm not surprised that no students took my advice. But I wish they had.