Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitizen Review Board - Minutes (Subcommittee) - 12/13/2006D ORIGINAL Minutes: CRB Sub -Committee on Case # IA 2006-12 A subcommittee of the Citizen Review Board convened for the purpose of reviewing Police Services Internal Affairs investigation of citizen complaint #IA 2006-12 was called to order by subcommittee chairperson, Maria Martinez, at 6:03 P.M. on December 13, 2006. In attendance were Ms. Martinez, Bryan Carroll, Dennis Baker, Charles Greeb, Sgt. Russell Reed, Assistant City Attorney Greg Tempel, and citizen Ernest Stanton, the complainant. No other public persons were in attendance besides Mr. Stanton. Martinez, Baker, and Carroll were the designated subcommittee members, with Greeb as the alternate member. Because the citizen complainant was present, Ms. Martinez introduced all others who were in attendance. She then announced that by CRB policy the subcommittee would consider this case in executive session but that no decision would be formally determined while in executive session. Mr. Carroll asked how a case like this would have been handled within Police Services had it not been a case involving allegations of racial discrimination. Attorney Tempel replied that such a case would not have automatically come to the Citizen Review Board, but would have been reviewed by the chain of command and Internal Affairs with its outcome communicated to the complainant. The complainant could then ask for it to be reviewed by the CRB. Mr. Stanton advised the subcommittee he had some prepared comments he would like to make. Ms. Martinez indicated his comments would be heard during executive session. Mr. Carroll made the following motion: "As authorized by City Code section 2-71(dx2) and 2-31(a)(2), I move to go into executive session for the purpose of receiving and considering evidence relating to Internal Investigation number 2006-12 conducted by Police Services, and for the purpose of meeting with the City Attorney to receive legal advice regarding the manner in which the Subcommittee's actions may be affected by existing law; and to allow the complainant Mr. Ernest Stanton to present information about this case." The motion was seconded by Mr. Baker and passed 3-0. (Maria: I didn't get the time for going into Executive Session.) Ms. Martinez reconvened the subcommittee in public session at 7:40 P.M. following a motion to do so made by Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Baker, and passing by a 3-0 vote. Mr. Baker made the following motion: "I make a motion that the Citizen Review Board subcommittee on IA case # 2006-12 supports the I.A. fording sustaining that a violation of General Directive B 14 on the towing of vehicles did occur. Further, the subcommittee supports the I.A. finding that a violation of claimant's constitution rights by two police officers is unfounded in both cases. This motion includes that the above conclusions be accompanied by observations and recommendation to be determined by further motions." The motion was seconded by Mr. Carroll and passed by a voice vote, 3-0. Mr. Carroll made a motion that included the following two requests plus an observation. 1. That Fort Collins Police Services review General Directives B-14 and B-15 to remove any ambiguity in directives relative to the procedures officers are to follow in ordering the towing of vehicles. 2. That Fort Collins Police Services reimburse the complainant in this matter the $195 towing fee incurred by him as a result of his vehicle being towed at the order of Police Services. Observation: This complaint stemmed from the fact that complainants vehicle, which was involved in a traffic accident in which he alleged injuries requiring medical transport, was ordered towed by the investigating officer against the wishes of the complainant. Even though there was a two vehicle accident the damage to complainant's car was minimal and did not affect it's operability. Neither driver was cited for a traffic violation, placing responsibility to pay towing costs on the complainant. On review of this matter the decision of the officer appears to be a policy violation of General Directive B-14, which deals with the general topic of towing vehicles. General Directive B-15 which deals with vehicles involved in traffic accidents, offers no guidance relative to the handling of involved vehicles. As a consequence General Directive B-15 has been interpreted by officers as allowing for the towing of vehicles at the officer's discretion. The officer in this case was concerned over the security of the complainant's property in the vehicle while he was receiving medical treatment, and thus ordered the vehicle towed. The apparent ambiguity of General Directives B-14 and B-15 should not result in citizens incurring towing costs when they do not concur with the police ordered tow, and when other options are available as they were in this case. The motion was seconded by Mr. Baker and passed on a voice vote, 3-0. Mr. Baker made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by Mr. Carroll. Citizen Stanton asked if he could make a comment. Permission to do so was granted by Chairperson Martinez. Mr. Stanton requested Attorney Tempel advise Sgt. Reed and the CRB subcommittee that the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that when a police officer violates a department policy when interacting with a person in a protected class, i.e. racial minority, they violate the citizen's constitutional rights by violating that policy — regardless of what the policy is. Mr. Tempel replied that he will review this case with Sgt. Reed but the content of any such conversation is "attorney -client protected." Mr. Stanton said he understood, but wanted the subcommittee to know he considered its decision to support the findings of the I.A. investigation to be wrong, further advising the subcommittee that he would pursue action against the city for what he observed to be a pattern of violation of his constitutional rights by police officers. Mr. Greeb interjected that he was offended by Mr. Stanton's assertion that the CRB was a party to discrimination. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Stanton if he had anything further to add. He said no. Ms. Martinez called for a vote on motion to adjourn which passed 3-0 at 8:15 P.M.