Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitizen Review Board - Minutes - 12/18/2002Citizen Review Board Regular Meeting Wednesday, December 18, 2002 City of Fort Collins CIC Room Present: Brian Carroll, Harry Edwards, David Evans, Monica Garcia, Maria Martinez and Becky Richardson Absent: Monica Garcia Staff: Sgt. Cory Christensen, Staff Liaison, Greg Tempel, Assistant City Attorney, and Wendy Hartzell, Secretary. Public: None. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. The November minutes were reviewed. Harry Edwards made a motion to approve the minutes. Maria Martinez seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the motion carried 6-0. Absences: Prior written notice was received from Monica Garcia for this month's absence. Voice Mail Message: No messages. Public: No public input. New Business: • Greg Tempel distributed executive session motion language for subcommittee meetings. Discussion of Cases Reviewed: None. Pending Cases: Becky Richardson sent out the extension for IA Case #2002-16. Sgt. Christensen reported that the Use of Force Board convenes before the IA investigation is completed. The case should be ready by February. Sgt. Christensen requested an additional 30-day extension. Dave Evans made a motion to approve a 30-day extension for Case #2002-16. Harry Edwards seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the motion passed 6-0. Brian Carroll asked if it were possible to review past cases as he sees an alcohol trend in recent cases. He questioned whether it would be possible for Police Services to handle each case in the same way if it were alcohol related. Sgt. Christensen discussed a presentation made by Police Services regarding behavior in Old Town and justification for shutting the area down. He thought that reviewing past cases would be possible. Jim Butzek questioned whether this would be part of the purview of the Board. Brian Carroll stated that it appeared that Police response to alcohol - related cases has been different. His example was the recent arrest of CSU football player Van Pelt and the case just reviewed by CRB subcommittee which had similar circumstances and the complainant was only given a ticket. Sgt. Christensen explained that the incident involving Van Pelt and Washington's was preplanned as a "no -tolerance" night with Washington's management consent because two weeks before an officer was almost struck with a vehicle due to closing -time chaos. He reported that the decision to take someone to jail is at the discretion of the officer, and he is willing to share those policies with the Board. Brian Carroll again stated his interest in going through the cases to see if there is a trend as he feels his views are being jaded with so many Old Town alcohol -related cases, that it is a lot of time spent to deal with drunk people making complaints and that perhaps talking to the legislature to pass a public drunkenness law might be in order. Harry Edwards stated that perhaps the City could charge Washington's with a public nuisance complaint. Sgt. Christensen stated that he has testified at liquor license cases involving an establishment with 420 polices responses in one month and it still was not shut down. In the Washington'sNan Pelt incident, Washington's cooperated. Jim Butzek stated that he appreciated Brian Carroll's concerns and had considered the same facts with the Van Pelt case and the current subcommittee case, and he that the question of whether or not morality can be legislative is not the purview of the CRB. Brian Carroll stated that in one case, some drunks call the complainant a name and things escalate, and there is a use of force. Then the complainant is only issued a summons and that this seems inconsistent and as if there is too much leeway. Becky Richardson stated she also noticed a trend in officers. Brian Carroll asked if Annual Report could include a breakdown of case information and what types they were. Harry Edwards stated that it is true that a lot of police action happens around bars and logically this will generate cases. Brian Carroll referred to subcommittee case and said that the Board doesn't know what the 2 outcome of charges were and maybe it would be different if subcommittee had sworn testimony then subcommittee decision may have been different. He wanted Board to consider it and look at trends. Dave Evans asked if an overview could be prepared and Maria Martinez concurred with this idea. Dave Evans also stated that some officers are always assigned to the same areas and therefore will be involved in more cases. Harry Edwards requested that Sgt. Christensen prepared a matrix, which shows complaints and officers. Sgt. Christensen stated he could show this information. He stated this is why Police Services is working so hard to close Old Town after the bars close. He will also investigate to see if Old Town evidence presentation can be shown to the Board and will present trends information in Annual Report. Brian Carroll questioned the use of force and then not sending someone to jail. Sgt. Christensen clarified that the policy gives officers the discretion to decide. Maria Martinez asked if an ordinance is passed to shut down Old Town, how this would be enforced and Sgt. Christensen explained that it would be similar to closing down a park. People are simply shooed or pushed to leave the area. Police are hoping for compliance. Sgt. Christensen stated that the Washington incident is actually a very common practice and the reason the public heard about i was that someone in public eye was arrested. There was discussion about including police officer's names and Greg Tempel clarified that officer's names cannot be included in the reports. Case #2002-20 — Subcommittee names were drawn for this case as follows: 1. Dave Evans, Chair 2. Harry Edwards, Vice Chair 3. Jim Butzek 4. Maria Martinez, Alternate 5. Brian Carroll 6. Monica Garcia 7. Becky Richardson Sgt. Christensen stated that he would like to try a new procedure with the Board in that he will digitally record interviews onto a cd disc and provide this to the subcommittee. The disc will not replace the summary and subcommittee will still receive a transcript. This will help speed up the process as trying to secure signed summaries has been very difficult and time consuming. Discussion ensued as to whether or not the discs would replace the summaries or would be offered in addition to the summaries, which may or may not be signed. Brian Carroll stated that if a complainant doesn't want to sign a summary that is up to him/her. Just because it is sent to them and they don't sign it doesn't mean the subcommittee shouldn't see the summary. Becky 3 Richardson stated that the subcommittee should see both. Harry Edwards asked if Sgt. Christensen is obliged to continue if the summary is not signed, and Greg Tempel stated that subcommittee still has to determine sufficiency and accuracy of the investigation. Sgt. Christensen stated that he continues the investigation even if summary is not signed. He stated that he documents what occurs and it is up to the subcommittee to determine credibility. If someone refuses to be interviewed or sign a summary, he documents this and then it is presented to the subcommittee. He has experienced considerable problems in the last six months with the amount of summaries and people and he has been accused of being biased, etc. He feels this way the subcommittees can listen for themselves and hear that people are not being bullied, etc. Brian Carroll stated that listening to two or four hours of interviews is not acceptable. He feels that if he reads a summary and sees an inconsistency, he could then be able to go to a transcript to listen. Dave Evans asked if all members have an obligation to review all materials provided so that all have the same evidentiary background. Greg Tempel responded that the job of the subcommittee is to determine the sufficiency and accuracy of the investigation. Most of the time, this would mean reviewing all materials — this may be skimming, not reading everything all the time and summaries would be sufficient. The Board has to come to decision about what is sufficient. Dave Evans was concerned that Brian Carroll has taken a position that he will not listen to all interviews and what the impact of that may be. Greg Tempel stated that the action of the Board is not quasi-judicial, and therefore the decision of the Board is not subject to legal challenge by a complainant. However, the Board might be subject to political criticism if it was perceived as not having conducted a thorough review. If someone is unhappy with a decision, they could take their concerns to City Council. Dave Evans stated this would speak to the integrity of the Board. Harry Edwards stated he thought it would be reasonable to use a blend of materials to make a determination. Sgt. Christensen will provide the subcommittees with a hybrid and would request input and feedback as to how it works for the subcommittees in making a decision. His goal is to improve the process and make it better for everyone. Harry Edwards stated that it is important that the interview be succinct. Brian Carroll stated again that it is important for complainant or witness to sign the summary. If he/she won't sign the summary, perhaps the summary is bad. He stated it could be a well -prepared summary and if he/she wants to make changes, then that is fine. But if it is a poorly conducted interview, it's not fair to the complainant, and this is why he is not in favor of transcripts as the only piece of information for review. Harry Edwards stated he was interested in seeing what the new process will be like, and Sgt. Christensen stated he appreciated the Board's input and will continue trying to fine tune the process. Dave Evans suggested putting aside some time at next month's meeting to consider what Sgt. Christensen will provide and address the Board's expectations and desires of what should be included in investigations so 0 Old Business: that process is easier for everyone. Becky Richardson will include it on January's agenda. None. Adjournment: Harry Edwards made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Becky Richardson seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the motion passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Next Meeting: Wednesday, January 15, at 6:00 p.m. at the CIC Room, 300 Laporte Avenue. Chair