Community Police Review Board

CPRB PUBLIC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Thursday, July 10, 2025 5:30PM Albany Community Police Review Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, July 10, 2025 A. Call to Order Chair Santos called the regular monthly meeting of the CPRB to order at 5:36pm. B. Roll Call a. Chair Santos – Present b. Vice Chair Levendosky – Present c. Member Harden – Present d. Member Person - Present e. Member Collins-Hackett – Present (virtual via Zoom) f. Secretary Sowek present – Present C. Approval of Minutes – June 12, 2025 Regular Monthly Meeting a. Chair Santos remarked that she noticed an error in the minutes distributed with the original confidential agenda that failed to note her new role as Chair. Program Director Schaaf informed Chair Santos that the revisions were made and reflected in the current confidential materials packet in her possession. b. Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the minutes and Secretary Sowek second. i. Vote Count: 1. Affirmative: 6 – all member present 2. Against: 0 3. Abstained: 0 D. Changes to the Agenda a. No changes to agenda were made. E. Public Comment a. Complainant Himler Francois relayed his frustration regarding the tabling of his complaint CC2022-001. Mr. Francois was concerned that he was not notified of the sudden cancellation of a meetings or the status of his complaint in a timely manner. He travels extensively and suggested that the CPRB improve their methods of communicating with complainants during the review process, in the interest of the community. Vice Chair Levendosky explained the Board’s efforts to connect with Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  Mr. Francois and thanked Mr. Francois for his feedback. Member Collins-Hackett thanked Mr. Francois for providing additional information pertaining to his complaint and acknowledged his patience. Member Collins-Hackett offered Mr. Francois the opportunity to reach out to the Program Director in the future. Program Director Schaaf asked Mr. Francois if he wished to be added to the CPRB notification list to inform him of CPRB meetings and updates. Mr. Francois said he was already on the list, but was not notified of the meeting cancellation. F. Communication from the City of Albany a. Det. Lt. Rittie – APD OPS relayed that since the last CPRB meeting, six new complaints were received and four complaint were completed by OPS and forwarded to the CPRB for their review. G. Board Member Announcements a. No announcements were made. H. Report from the Chair a. No report from the Chair I. Standing Committee Reports a. Bylaws and Rules i. Chair Santos reported that amended bylaws would be discussed under new business. b. Community Outreach i. Member Collins-Hackett reported that the committee has been working with other community organizations to plan for future events. He reported that the CPRB will be tabling at the MVP arena on July 19, 2025 with ALERT (Albany Law Enforcement Resolution Task Force) at a family friendly event. Member Collins-Hackett discussed the recent incidents that have happened in Albany this summer and described working on improving lines of communication with Chief Cox to identify resources and guidance for the community and to address and end such incidents in the future. c. Investigation Review i. Vice Chair Levendosky postponed the investigation report, to allow ample time for the cases on the agenda to be reviewed. Vice Chair Levendosky advised that the Police Liaison Committee meetings will resume in August. d. Mediation i. No Report e. Police Liaison i. Member Harden advised that Vice Chair Levendosky is now the Chair of the Police Department Liaison Committee. ii. Vice Chair Levendosky reported that CPRB and OPS are coordinating to determine when monthly meetings will resume. f. Public Official Liaison i. Chair Santos inquired if Julie Schwartz (T&M USA LLC) would be attending the Police Department Liaison meetings. Ms. Schwartz responded Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  that the decision regarding her attendance at the Investigation Committee meetings was verified but she did not know if she would be attending the Police Department Liaison meetings. Chair Santos advised that Common Council Member Hoey has requested that the Public Official Liaison meetings be reinstituted. J. Old Business a. No Old Business K. New Business a. Bylaw and Rules Amendments i. Chair Santos introduced proposed amendments to the CPRB Bylaws and Rules to clarify the Program Director authority. The Chair recommended CPRB membership waive Article 12 (Amendments) to allow for an emergency amendment of the Bylaws and Rules to clarify the interplay between the CPRB and the Program Director is need to avoid confusions related to the changes and preserve CPRB independence. The recommended waiver was based on a need to “move quickly” to address the concerns created by the revisions for Local Law D. ii. Member Levendosky moved to waive the bylaw amendment process, Member Harden seconded the motion. 1. Vote count: a. Affirmative: 6 – all members present b. Against: 0 c. Abstentions: 0 iii. Chair Santos read the proposed Bylaws and Rules and called for a vote on the amendments. Remarked that after the unanimous waiver of the bylaw amendment process, the board can consider the proposed amendments which are intended to clarify the authority of the Program Director and board membership as listed in Local Law D. For reference Chair Santos remarked that the Program Director submitted a confidential report on July 3, 2025, which detailed proposed bylaw revisions. Chair Santos then opened the meeting for discussion of the proposed amendments (see the full discussion here.) 1. Jake Eisland (Common Council Research Counsel) posed questions as to the reasoning behind the proposed amendments, specifically items (i), (v), and (vi), based on possible conflict with Local law D. The Chair deferred Mr. Eisland’s questions to CPRB Outside Counsel, Kevin Cannizzaro. There was a lengthy robust discussion between Mr. Eisland and Mr. Cannizzaro. Mr. Eisland’s questions: Item (i) – the Program Director is not empowered to amend the bylaws. Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  Item (v) – the wording is too broad regarding in regards to “official communication” by the Program Director and could result in an inability for the Program Director to communicate with any non- CPRB parties. Item (vi) – Modifications to case management system. Mr. Cannizzaro’s response: The CPRB law was written very broad and the proposed amendments are to clarify interactions between the Board and the Program Director related to the Program Director’s Authority. Item (i) – Mr. Cannizzaro relayed that the Program Director has no authority to amend the bylaws and the amendment is to ensure the Program Director has no power to amend the bylaws. Mr. Eisland remarked that the CPRB Bylaws and Rules already prohibit the Program Director from amending bylaws. Mr. Cannizzaro responded that since the Common Council approved the initial set of bylaws and rules, that approval provided full discretion to make amendments as needed and Item (i) is fully within the Board’s discretion. Item (v) – Mr. Eisland remarked the amendment language is too broad and requested clarification of “official communication” means. Mr. Cannizzaro responded that all “official communication” by the Program Director, current or future, must be approved by the Board and asserted that the Board has full authority to make amendments without oversight. Mr. Eisland explained the proposed Item (v) could impact the legal authority of the Program Director. Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025 Mr. Cannizzaro expressed confusion as to why the Common Council is focusing on the amendments now, as it has been a matter of course for the past several years. Mr. Eisland expressed his concerns as to what would not be considered a “official communication.” Mr. Cannizzaro did not provide what would be an “official communication.” Vice Chair Levendosky provided an example that would not be “official communication,” as the Program Director providing a job description to the City Clerk and asked Mr. Cannizzaro if that would need approval from the Investigation Committee. Mr. Cannizzaro asserted that Vice Chair Levendosky’ example not be considered an “official communication.” But letters to the public and elected officials would be “official communication.” Mr. Eisland also voiced his concern regarding “communication” rather than “statement” be used in the amendment. Clerk Jackson noted that the Vice Chair had provided a clear example of unofficial communication and how it pertained to the Program Director’s duties. Clerk Jackson explained that the Program Director response to any communications should not be delayed due a requirement for a full public vote. As inquires from various City departments and officials tend to require a rather immediate response (e.g. personnel matters) Mr. Cannizzaro advised the Board to modify the word “communication” to “statement” and reiterated that bylaws can be changed at any time and Common Council can address Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  specific issues to the amendments but the implementation should not be delayed. Item (vi) – Mr. Cannizzaro asserted that the Board has full approval on CPRB business and that if an urgent issue occurred the Board would be able to call an emergency meeting to address the issue. He advised that the amendments are for the purpose of longevity and ensure any Program Director has proper understanding of their role and authority. Mr. Eisland stated his concerns that normal process be followed so that he could address the issues with the Common Council before the amendments were enacted. He also addressed his concern that the Program Director is a highly experienced and compensated employee and the proposed amendments would limit the Program Director’s ability to comply with the legal obligations, as well as day to day operations, established by the Common Council. Mr. Eisland opinioned, the board membership’s expectation of the Program Director was that of an administrative assistant or press secretary as opposed to that of a Program Director. Mr. Eisland remarked that he was unclear what responsibilities the Program Director would have if all official communications must be approved by the Board. Mr. Cannizzaro disagreed. He instructed Mr. Eisland to present a statement of changes to the Board. Mr. Eisland advised that he would not be able to provide a response without the established waiting period of one month because he would need to advise the Common Council of the amendment changes. Mr. Cannizzaro asked Mr. Eisland to present specific concerns to the Board and Mr. Cannizzaro also commented on the fact that the bylaws had been provided to the Common Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  Council seven days earlier to allow time for review, in order to proceed at this meeting. Vice Chair Levendosky moved to change “communication” to “statement” in item (v), Member Harden seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Vice Chair Levendosky inquired with Mr. Cannizzaro how they were to proceed with the change of “communication” to “statement.” Mr. Cannizzaro advised that proposed amendments would be considered as amended. Chair Santos confirmed that the Board members understood the change of “communication” to “statement”. Member Collins- Hackett remarked that words were interchangeable. Chair Santos moved to adopt the proposed amended bylaws as amended, Member Harden seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Chair Santos directed the Program Director to incorporate the amendments to the bylaws within the week or so and distribute to Board members. Program Director reported that he would comply and provide the updated version of the bylaws. L. Review of Complaints CC2024-001 – Complaint monitored and presented by Ms. Schwartz (T&M USA LLC) (full discussion can be found here.) The complainant alleged, that on September 11, 2023 the complainant was arrested for suspected drug sale. During the search the complainant alleged that his wallet with $500 in it was removed and not returned. No property reports were filed. The complainant alleged that his residence was searched without a warrant and after the search $4500 and car keys were missing from his residence. No body camera footage was provided. Upon completion of the review, Ms. Schwartz determined the following: Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  Allegation #1 Arrested Procedures – Exonerated Vice Chair Levendosky moved to vote on the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #2 Evidence and Property Handling – Sustained Vice Chair Levendosky moved to vote on the finding, Secretary Sowek seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation#3 General Call Handling – Sustained Vice Chair Levendosky moved to vote on the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all member present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #4 Body Worn Camera Violation – Sustained Vice Chair Levendosky moved to vote on the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Ms. Schwartz reported her retraining recommendations where assigned detectives should be retrained on General Orders 2.1.00 (Property and Evidence Control), 5.2.20 (Central Booking-Prisoner Processing), 3.2.15 (Body Worn Cameras), and NYCPL 690 (Search Warrants). Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025 CC2021-025 - Complaint monitored and presented by Al Lawrence (full discussion can be found here) Mr. Lawrence reported he had previously presented this case in October or November of 2024. Chair Santos advised that members had requested additional documents and photos from APD to follow up that funds had been returned. APD reported that there was no response for photos and Det. Lt. Rittie confirmed that the funds were returned. CC2022-012 – Complaint monitored and presented by Al Lawrence (full discussion can be found here) The complainant alleged that on November 25, 2021 the complainant was viewing potential lodging with the landlord of the building. The complaint alleged that the police “busted down the door and drew weapons”. The complaint alleged he was hit in the eye with a riot shield and another officer pointed an AR-15 at him. He was then forced to lie down and was strip searched. The complainant was taken to the police station and emergency medical personnel was called to take him to the hospital. His wound required stitches. At the hospital, the complainant alleged an officer told him that the officer had slept with his girlfriend. Body warn camera footage was reviewed. Allegation #1 – Use of Force (striking during arrest) – Not Sustained Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all member present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #2 – Use of Force (pointing a rifle) – Not Sustained Member Collins-Hackett asked to revise the CPRB finding from Exonerated to Not sustained. Vice Chair Levendosky made a motion to revise the finding to Not sustained and approve said finding, Member Harden seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  Allegation #3 - Strip search – Exonerated Member Collins-Hackett asked for clarification if and a strip search was permissible. Det. Lt. Rittie explained it is within the discretion of the supervisor to authorize a search and various factors can influence the need for a strip search. Member Collins-Hackett requested to change the CPRB finding to Not sustained. Vice Chair Levendosky asked APD if a supervisor must have an authorization to initiate a search and that is was authorized in this case. Det. Lt. Rittie confirmed it was completed. Vice Chair Levendosky moved to change the finding from Not Sustained to Exonerated and approval of the same, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation # 4 - Denial of Medical Attention – Exonerated Vice Chair Levendosky moved approve the finding, Secretary Sowek seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #5 – Officer remarked they slept with complainant’s wife/girlfriend – Not sustained Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 CC2023-053 – Complaint monitored and presented by Al Lawrence (full discussion can be found here) Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025 The complainant alleged that on June 6, 2023 a man called APD to report a possible dead body in an apartment on North Allen St. Upon arrival on the scene, officers found a man’s body lying face down on a bed. Officers found drugs at the scene that hadn’t been consumed. Fentanyl was found in the man’s system. The man’s relative filed the complaint based on the coroner’s comment that the body may have been moved. Member Collins-Hackett and Vice Chair Levendosky asked for clarification form APD regarding responding to unattended deaths. Det. Rittie advised that individual circumstances dictate how unattended deaths unfold and provided a description on how the preliminary field investigation unfolds on scene. Allegation #1 – Failure to properly investigate/not questioning witnesses – Exonerated Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all member present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #2 – Failure to properly investigate no review footage – Exonerated Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #3 – Failure to preserve crime scene bye allowing removal of body - Sustained Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Member Harden seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  Allegation #4 - Failure to preserve crime scene by leaving post guarding the door – Sustained Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Secretary Sowek seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #5 - Insubordination by failing to comply with crime scene – Sustained Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Secretary Sowek seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Vice Chair Levendosky read the recommendations in which there were no recommendation. CC2023-047 – to be reconsidered in August for recommendation in addition to findings approved tonight. Presented and monitored by Al Lawrence (full discussion can be found here) The complainant alleged that on June 6, 2023, the complainant alleged APD officers intentionally inflicted emotional, physical, and metal distress on the complainant, caused elevated blood pressure and a cardiac event, and placed him in a “hot cube” with the windows up on a hot day, restricting his breathing. They ridiculed him, lied to him, use crude and foul language and defamed him by accusing him of drug addiction and criminal behavior and told the same to neighbors. Member Harden inquired if Vice Chair Levendosky reviewed the histories of the accused officers to assess if this was a pattern of conduct. Vice Chair Levendosky reported that he did not. Member Collins-Hackett asked what aspects of de-escalation were used and expressed concerns about the language used by the officer. Vice Chair Levendosky clarified that the allegations related to the language is recommend to be sustained. Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025 Member Collins-Hackett sought clarity on what constitutes disorderly conduct. Vice Chair Levendosky explained that the complaint was not arrested but taken into custody for metal health crisis. Det. Lt. Rittie explained that the basic requirement to take a person into custody is risk of harm to self or others, but there are multiple factors (e.g. verbal, non-verbal) and those are incident specific. Vice Chair Levendosky explained that the complainant was threatening other parties, refusing to leave the area which was not safe to remain. Member Collins-Hackett remarked about another similar case involving the same officer. Vice Chair Levendosky responded that in the complaint that was referenced, the complainant was not taken into custody and the CPRB sustained the allegation. Member Harden explained the mental health commitment law procedure may need a conversation with APD to gain more clarity and possible policy recommendation and that each individual circumstances of each incident. Monitor Lawrence, informed members that the officer they were discussing in the prior case was not the same officer who was accused of verbal abuse in this complaint. Vice Chair Levendosky, recommended that votes on the allegation occur during the meeting, but the matter related to past instances of similar conduct by the involved officers can be discussed at the August 2025 meeting. Allegation #1 – Officer exhibited poor demeanor by using rude, disrespectful and foul language in speaking with the complainant, making comments about his childhood, accusing him of being a criminal and a drug addict and defaming him as such before neighbors – Sustained Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #2 – The officer physically abused the complainant in handcuffing him tightly, placing him in a hot patrol car and denying him water. – Exonerated Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025 Allegation #3 – Officer failed to take the complainant’s allegations of sexual harassment and environmental crimes – Exonerated Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #4 – Improper arrest disorderly conduct/ Failure to file needed reports – Sustained Vice Chair moved to approve the finding, Member Collins-Hackett seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #5 – The complainant was discriminated against on the basis of age, nationality, color and gender – Unfounded Vice Chair moved to approve the finding, Member Sowek seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #6 – The police did not seek medical treatment for the complainant’s dog and forced him decide about the dog’s car while under duress and pain - Exonerated Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  Allegation #7 – The policed forced the complainant to disrobe in the presence of a female officer – Unfounded Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Member Harden seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 CC2023-010 - Complaint presented and monitored by Al Lawrence (full discussion can be found here) The complainant alleged that on November 25, 2022, the complainant’s son was stopped by police officer but fled “due to prior situations of him getting arrested and he was concerned for his safety.” Officer chased him at high speeds through city streets until they crashed into the rear of the car he was driving, causing him to hit another vehicle. A young man in the back seat of that vehicle was killed. The complainant’s son was also injured and was brutally beaten at some point while in the custody of police. He was in intensive care at Albany Medical Center Hospital for two days as a result of the complaint, alleged. Out of spite, the police refused to release the car the son was driving which is owned by the complainant. As a result, insurance adjusted have been unable to assess the damage to the car, the complainant alleged. Member Collins-Hackett inquired if the body worn camera footage. Vice Chair Levendosky remarked that his review of the footage was consistent with a fall. Allegation #1 – Officer pursued complainant’s son at high speed on city streets- Exonerated Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #2 – Officers crashed into the car driven by the complainant’s son, forcing it to strike another vehicle – Unfounded Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Secretary Sowek seconded the motion. Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #3 – The complainant’s son was brutally beaten while in custody of the police – Unfounded Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 Allegation #4 – The police refused to release complainant’s car to her after the incident – Exonerated Member Collins-Hackett requested clarification from APD on how long a vehicle can be held. Det. Lt. Rittie advised that the nature of why the vehicle is being held will determine how long it is held. Vice Chair Levendosky moved to approve the finding, Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative: 6 – all members present Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 CC2023-051 - Complaint presented and monitored by Al Lawrence (full discussion can be found here) The complainant alleged that on December 13, 2022, a burglar alarm at the complaint’s business, Autobahn Centere, was triggered by a motion detector. This alarm resulted in him receiving multiple phone calls. On one call, the complainant answered and was unprofessional berated by a police officer and told that this was not acceptable and needed to stop. When the complainant received a call on December 21 from the alarm company that the motion detector had again triggered an alarm, he told the company to disregard it because he did not “wish to be yelled at again” by the police. But this time there was a burglary: several individuals had smashed a window, stolen Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025  property, vandalized the building, damaged the cars of customers and stolen vehicle keys – all amounting to thousands of dollars in damages, the complainant alleged. Finding #1 – Berated complainant because of false alarm – No Finding Vice Chair Levendosky made a motion to approve the finding. Chair Santos seconded the motion. Vote Count: Affirmative – 6 Against – 0 Abstentions - 0 Chair Santos made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Vice Chair Levendosky seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 8:33pm M. Adjournment a. Chair Santos moved to adjourn, Vice Chair Levendosky seconded i. Vote Count: 1. Affirmative: 6 – all members present 2. Against: 0 3. Abstention: 0 Published: July 24, 2025 Vote Approved: October 8, 2025