Citizen's Review Board

Wichita Citizen Review Board Minutes June 28, 2018 4 p.m. City Hall Board Room 455 N. Main Wichita, KS 67202 Present: Tonja Sowder, Jay Fowler, Jennifer Magaña, Timothy Sims, Robert Thompson, Dennis Bender, Odell Harris Jr., Shaun Rojas, Stephanie Luna, Barry Grissom, Doug Nolte. 1. Call to Order Fowler called the meeting to order at approximately 4 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes Nolte noted that the April minutes were deferred at the May meeting because the name of one of the public speakers was unknown. Fowler moved to approve the minutes for April as submitted. Second by Sowder. The motion passed unanimously. It was noted that Stephanie Luna was present at the May meeting and should be added to the attendees for May. Sims moved to approve the May minutes with the Luna correction. Second by Sowder. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Agenda Doug Ballard considers himself an activist with the Occupy Movement which works to have an effect on local topics. He started working on police shootings and is currently working on the Andrew Finch shooting. He has watched how police work and has viewed antagonistic actions by police. He has investigated five police shootings (all people of color). Some were doing something wrong, but he did not think they deserved to die. He asked for a citizens review board and got it. He lacks confidence that the police can clean up their own mess and he had asked Grissom to check into things. Mr. Cook stated that he thinks police need to work on use of force. Janice Bradley requested an investigation of the Andrew Finch shooting and to look at the medical response time. She stated she tried to review the timeline, but there is no timeline available. She also wanted to point out that ICE shares a building with federal entities. Wichita Citizen Review Board June 28, 2018 Page 1 of 5 4. Introduction of Mr. Barry Grissom – Consultant to Board – Discussion of Board Mission and Planning - Chairperson Fowler Grissom stated he reached out to Chief Ramsay when the board was formed and Chief suggested he serve as an Ex-Officio for the board. Grissom noted that the community wants transparency and the board will gather the facts and make an opinion. He had worked as a US attorney for the District of Kansas and his experience with law enforcement was that 98.5% are committed professionals. He noted he is doing more in advocacy and is no longer in private practice. He is interested in the mission of the board and thinks people will look to the board when things happen and will see the board as the neutral group to tell people what happened. Sims asked Grissom if he is actively serving as a consultant. Grissom responded no. Bender asked Grissom how the board should review policy and implement new policy. Grissom responded the board should ask for a review 3-6 months after a new policy is implemented to see if the policy is being used as intended. If the board notes that a policy is not being implemented, we need to see what needs to be tweaked so police can perform efficiently. Follow up is important. Fowler asked what his opinion is on naming officers involved in issues versus confidentiality rules. He asked what others are doing for transparency. Grissom responded that it is all across the board. There has to be an investigation if the officer is charged because he, too, has a right to due process. There is no easy, single answer. He has been involved in different cases where it can be counterproductive to immediately release video. No matter what the rule is, there are still going to be unhappy folks. That could be something the board may want to put together and review what other places are doing. And pull best practices and implement something like that here. Fowler noted it becomes frustrating because the community wants transparency and he would like to accommodate everyone’s desire for transparency. Grissom responded the board will not satisfy everyone. Sims asked Grissom to address the public’s perception on accountability of officers. Grissom responded that generally if someone is only terminated, they have not engaged in provable criminal conduct. That is to say, there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute them, but they need to be removed from the force. If there is enough to prosecute – they will be prosecuted. Sims stated that often the public perceives that if someone gets fired, they should be prosecuted. Rojas asked Grissom what advice he would give the board to be more effective and to get the most out of the relationship with the City and police department. Wichita Citizen Review Board June 28, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Grissom noted that there was something like this board where the Chief came from and to work with him. Bender asked if Ramsay and Grissom would be considered alternates and if they could sit in on the executive sessions. Magaña responded that if someone is there to further the discussion of the board, that person may attend the executive session Sims asked why the alternates would not fit in that category Magaña that the board is the body and the alternates are not in clear authority per the ordinance. She added this could be remedied through an ordinance change. Fowler asked Chief Ramsay how the board engaged the community in his previous location. Ramsay responded they attended neighborhood meetings. He noted there was publicity from the media for citizens to approach board members if they were not comfortable with approaching the police. 5. Policy Review (Policy 802)—Review and Discussion of Proposed Policy Regarding Use of Drones -Captain Nolte Nolte noted that the policy had not been enacted yet and they were giving it to the board for input. Ramsay noted that the community is concerned about drones and how to deal with privacy concerns. He would like the board’s input to be incorporated into the policy. Nolte noted that the police department no longer has a helicopter, but had aerial surveillance until 2017. There had been comments from the community for potential misuse of drones. Sowder stated she thinks police should move in contemporary way but she is concerned with privacy. Ramsay noted there are rules and federal guidelines, but privacy is a concern for him as well. Rojas asked how the manned helicopter worked. Nolte responded there was a standard operating procedure for how it operated, but it wasn’t defined where they could look. For the drone there should be a definable moment because the drone is smaller and will not get as much attention as a helicopter. Rojas stated that the “purpose” seems too broad as stated in the policy. Ramsay said it could be up for hours – battery Sims asked if a certificate of waiver would be attained through a warrant and who would keep the records/pictures of the drone. Ramsay responded that the COA is simply like a license to operate and all operators will have to have a license to operate. Wichita Citizen Review Board June 28, 2018 Page 3 of 5 Sowder asked if records/pictures will be released. Nolte responded that this is not addressed in the policy and will need to be addressed. Fowler noted the use of drones could be valuable to safeguard a crowd or a chase. The policy does not address privacy concerns nor the airspace of private dwellings. Regarding the retention issue, some may suspect a “big brother” scenario if information is kept over a long period of time. Ramsay stated that some of the concerns are covered in the street camera policy which is exactly why they brought this to the board. Luna asked if there are ethical standards regarding observers of the drones. Grissom noted the street camera policy could be mirrored for the drones. He suggested looking at pilot’s ethics and possibly extracting from that. He stated retention would be similar as body cameras policy. Rojas noted the higher you are in a drone, the larger the view of a scene. Potentially, crimes could be solved by backtracking days, weeks, and months later. Grissom noted reviewing helicopter policy could be a good start for data collection. Bender asked if have there been test cases on admissibility in court cases since this is new technology. Ramsay noted they wanted to have a policy in place prior to using them. Grissom responded that if someone can be identified in a crime, it could be admissible. He did not foresee any evidentiary issues. Fowler noted the courts addressed the search and seizure issue. If you are using a drone to get into an area where you do not have access, there are some parameters and a court would make a decision on a case by case basis. If a drone is in a public place monitoring an event for public safety, that is acceptable. There could be a potential privacy issue unless there is probable cause for using a drone. Grissom added if you are targeting a potential defendant, you may want to get a search warrant. Fowler stated there are some wonderful opportunities to use drones especially to help in locating lost kids or elderly. However, there is concern with the privacy issue. Grissom stated he would do some research on the privacy issue with the use of drones. There may be a Department of Justice policy. Ramsay added that he would contact colleagues for some language as well. Nolte noted he would follow up on record retention, privacy, airspace over private dwellings, release of the drone images, and test cases in other cities. He stated there is case law that will guide the policy, but the policy needs to be tightened up. Sowder noted they could possibly use drone video for vehicular reconstruction of the scene of an accident using new software. Wichita Citizen Review Board June 28, 2018 Page 4 of 5 6. Executive Session — Review of Professional Standards Case - Captain Nolte Fowler made a motion to move into Executive Session beginning at 5:15 p.m. and to reconvene no earlier than 5:45 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Executive session closed at 6:13 p.m. and the general meeting reconvened. 7. New Business Fowler asked when they would see results about policies on officer identity disclosure in other similar-sized cities. Nolte stated he had targeted to have it done by the second week of July. Fowler noted he would schedule it as an agenda item for the next meeting. Fowler asked if the board was available to meet on Thursday, August 2 at 4 p.m. rather than the last Thursday of July. All stated they could be available. It was decided that the next meeting will be Thursday, August 2. Sowder stated she would like to have neighborhood meetings set up to hear from the public. 8. Adjourn Rojas moved to adjourn. Second by Fowler. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m. Wichita Citizen Review Board June 28, 2018 Page 5 of 5