Citizen's Review Board

Wichita Citizen Review Board Minutes May 28, 2021 4p.m. City Council Board Room 455 N. Main St, Wichita, KS 67202 Present: Dennis Bender, Jay Fowler {Chair) , Odell Harris, Paul Kitchen, Shaun Rojas City of Wichita Representatives Present: Jennifer Magana, Capt. Wendell Nicholson, Lt. Bob Reichenberger, Lt. Krys Henderson, Sgt. Carl Lemons, Lt. Kim Warehime, and Zachary Kester 1. Call to Order - Chairperson Fowler The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes Bender made a motion to approve the April 22, 2021 minutes. Second by Harris. The minutes were approved as written. 3. Staff Report Update - Captain Nicholson From April 12th to May 12th , 1 excessive force, 10 improper conduct, 21 procedural violation , 5 safety violation. 1 unnecessary force. 27 external complaints and 11 internal complaints of these 8 were resolved with coaching and mentoring, 1 was cleared by AXON video , 2 were exonerated, 17 are ongoing and 10 were unfounded . The most common violation was 6 instances of comply with policy, followed by 5 instances of attentive to complaints by citizens .. For the year we have had 101 external complaints and 56 internal complaints. Most common cited violation has been rude conduct, followed by comply with policy, complete and thorough investigations and attentive to complaints by citizens. Fowler asked whether the excessive force complaint was still open, Captain Nicholson said that he believed it to still be an open investigation . Harris asked to pull cases 20PSB-5029, 21PSB-1205, 21PSB-1954 and 21PSB-0662 for review. Bender brought up the 5 commit misdemeanor crime PSB investigations and asked whether the commit misdemeanor crime was a new classification. Captain Nicholson explained that it was not a new category. Captain Nicholson went on to explain that lately the WPD has had some officers that have made poor decisions, and that the number of these PSB investigations was just an outlier and not a trend. Twila Puritty asked if the WPD was experiencing problems finding qualified applicants. Captain Nicholson explained that the WPD is finding it more difficult to find qualified applicants and that even if someone is a qualified applicant that doesn't mean that they will make it through the training academy and become a police officer. 4. Public Agenda - 15 minutes is set aside for this portion of the meetings Fowler presented an email from Brendon Fox that he asked be entered in as public comment (the email is attached to these minutes) . Bender asked for clarification on the investigations that the board was allowed to look at. Fowler explained that the city ordinance limits the board to Created 6.9.2021 by Zachary Kester, Administrative Aide, Wichita Police Department only be able to review cases that are no more then one year past the date that the investigation has been closed . Dr. Walt Chappell, from the Racial Profiling Advisory Board, came to update the board on some findings that his board has received since he came and presented to the board on the 25 th of February. He went on to explain that whereas the board has to wait for an investigation to be concluded before they can review it, citizens can come to his organization almost immediately after their interaction with the police. Chappell went through a series of handouts that he presented to the board, these handouts are attached to the minutes. The handouts showed the number of traffic accidents and the number of citations issued for 2016, 2017 and 2018. Chappell also gave a handout of the number of accidents in Wichita that were reported to the Kansas Department of Transportation in 2007. Chappell believes that there is no correlation between the number of citations given and the number of accidents prevented. The next handout he spoke about was an analysis of non-moving versus moving citations from 2016- 2019. The next form that Chappell spoke about was a spreadsheet of the number of WPD racial profiling complaints reported to the Kansas Attorney General , the data ranged from 2012 to 2020. Chappell says that of all of these reported complaints that only one has been sustained . The last form that Chappell presented was a spreadsheet showing data for 2020 WPD external and internal complaints. Chappell says that only 1.5% of external complaints were sustained, whereas 16% are sustained. Chappell says that this data shows that the WPD does not take external complaints as seriously as it takes internal complaints. Chappell asked that the board look into external complaints and why they are not being sustained . Twila Puritty asked who makes the determination to close external complaints . Captain Nicholson explained that when an external complaint is received , if it is a less serious penalty then the complaint would be sent out to be worked by the Bureau that the officer works in . Nicholson went on to explain that the WPD is currently working on a standardized investigative process for these complaints that are sent back to the Bureau's, as currently the investigative process varies from Bureau to Bureau. This standardized process will be presented to the board to get their feedback once it has been completed . Puritty then asked if the process was different for internal complaints. Nicholson said that internal complaints are handled through the same process as external complaints. Professional Standards no longer makes a recommendation about how to close the complaint, command staff is responsible for determining how a complaint is closed . Fowler added that the board has almost always agreed with how the WPD has closed complaints. Bender asked Chappell if his organization was coming to the conclusion that the WPD is not investigating external complaints with the same level of detail and commitment as internal complaints. Chappell says that the data that he presented shows that external complaints are not investigated Nicholson explained that, as a Bureau commander, he has noticed that their isn't a lot of consistency from Bureau to Bureau on how complaints are handled . Nicholson said that it is the reason of the board to hold the department accountable and that this lack of consistency is the reason why the department is creating a standardized investigative process. Lewanda Deshazier, from the Racial Profiling Advisory Board , said that it was alarming to hear that there was not a standardized process. Deshazier came to present questions to the board. Her first question was who holds Professional Standards accountable. Captain Nicholson explained that command staff holds Professional Standards accountable, he went on to clarify that Professional Standards only does the investigation into the complaint Professional Created 6.9.2021 by Zachary Kester, Administrative Aide, Wichita Police Department Standards does not make the decision on how the complaint is closed. Bender said that the board also holds Professional Standards accountable. Deshazier also had concerns that citizens are not always receiving a letter telling them what the outcome of their complaint was. Nicholson explained that it was the WPD's policy that every complainant receive a conclusion letter and that the conclusion letter will be a part of the standardized investigative process that is currently being worked on. Deshazier then asked the board what kind of outreach do they make towards the community. Fowler explained that the board publishes their minutes and has started attaching to the minutes all recommendations that the board has made. He went on to explain that prior to the COVI D-19 outbreak the board was meeting around town and participated in community gatherings to allow for more interaction with the community. Deshazier's final question was how the board chooses cases to review. Fowler explained that the board receives a list of all cases that have been closed with a short description and the board chooses cases off of the list provided. As a follow up, Deshazier then asked if there was a possibility that the board has missed some cases that they should have reviewed . Fowler explained that it would be very cumbersome for the board to review every complaint. He recommended that if a citizen has a complaint about a case then they should contact the board and ask for that case to be reviewed by the board . Twila Puritty asked about the status of the citation analysis the board had requested . Lieutenant Reichenberger answered that the analysis was still on track to be finished by the middle of June. James Barfield, from the Kansas Advocates for Racial Justice and Equality, came to speak to the board about a study that was done looking at review boards across the county. The study broke review boards down in to two categories, the review focused model and the investigation focused model. Garfield said that the study concluded that the review focused model offered less to its citizens then the investigation focused model. This was determined for two reasons. Number one was that the review focused model offered limited resources and little power to the people it was supposed to represent. Whereas the investigation focused model was successful because it has subpoena authority, authority over discipline and policy review authority over agencies in its jurisdiction. Garfield stated "The more authority the board has, the better that they will be able to provide appropriate oversight of the police. " Garfield posed two questions first does the board feel that it that they have effectively addressed the concerns of the citizens that they represent, and if so could the board provide Mr. Garfield with a list of the boards accomplishments. His second question was has the board ever considered changing to an investigative focused model. Fowler explained that the ability to change to an investigative model is beyond the boards authority and that it would be up to the city council to make that decision. Garfield explained that investigative boards are more expensive to run but that they could save the city from having to pay out large settlements for police misconduct. Bender asked Garfield to provide the study that he was referencing so that the board may review the study and how the study correlated with the contracts that the cities had with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). Garfield did not have the source material to give to the board at the time of this meeting . Puritty asked if settlements that are paid out by the city are available for the public to see. Magana explained that large settlements would have to be voted on by the city council so they would be available upon request. Lieutenant Kim Warehime, of the Professional Standards Bureau (PSB), came up and gave a presentation on how PSB operates and conducts investigations. She explained that PSB Created 6.9.2021 by Zachary Kester, Administrative Aide, Wichita Police Department reports directly to the Chief of Police. PSB's purpose is to ensure that officers are following the departments policies and procedures, they do this by investigating both internal and external complaints . PSB investigators are only fact finders, they do not make any decisions or recommendations of discipline. Chappell asked Warehime to look into why external investigations are not sustained and what kind of power the FOP has when it comes to discipline for officers. Chappell then asked Magana when she would provide the rest of the data that he had requested from the city attorney's office. Magana said that she would answer this question if the board would like for her to but they did not. Fowler called an end to the public agenda. 5. Executive Session - Review of Complaint(s)/lnvestigation(s) Fowler moved to recess into executive session for at least 30 minutes to receive information on case number 21 PSB-0269 and 20PSB-5312 for the purpose of addressing personnel matters of non-elected personnel and to protect privacy interests of individuals that may be identified. Seconded by Harris. Approved. Return no earlier than 6: 10. Began at 5:37 pm. Returned at 6:10 pm. As to the two cases reviewed , the board made no recommendations. 6. New Business - Chairperson Fowler Fowler let the board know that the city manager is considering adding two new members to the board and could make a decision as early as the week following the meeting. Bender feels that it is important to provide a total picture to the community of what the board does by compiling a report. Bender will take the lead on compiling this report. The board requested to start reviewing WPD policies again. The board is mainly interested in reviewing policies that deal with how WPD interacts with the community, Reichenberger will be submitting some policies to the board for them to choose from . The election of the boards officers will be at the next months meeting. Next meeting June 24th , 2021. 7. Adjourn Harris made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Rojas. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 6: 18 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Zach Kester, Administrative Aide, Wichita Police Department. Created 6.9.2021 by Zachary Kester, Administrative Aide, Wichita Police Department  Wichita Citizens Review Board Record of Recommendations/Motions 2021 Month Recommendation/Motion January 2021 • None made at the meeting . February 2021 • Approve the resolution presented by Dr. Walt Chappell , Racial Profiling Advisory Board of Wichita . Motion by Sims; second by Harris. Motion passed. • Issue a reminder to the PSB stressing the importance of following up on complaints with the complainant(s) in accordance with WPD Policy 901. Motion by Bender; Second by Lopez. Motion passed. • Recommendations be put forth in a formal document which includes recommendations , date and time passed. Motion by Sims; Second by Ailslieger. Motion passed. March 2021 • None made at the meeting . April 2021 • Motion to have WPD leadership come and present about how the WPD reaches out to learn from other Police Agencies , and what other Police Agencies asked to learn from the WPD. • Request to have a discussion at a future meeting about the pros and cons of confidentiality provisions the police disciplinary procedures. June 2021 • Requested to start reviewing WPD policies. Mainly those policies that are about how WPD interacts with the community. Created 6. 9.2021 by Zachary Kester, Administra tive Aide, Wichita Pa/ice Department From: Brendon Fox <bcfox@fhsu.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 202111:49 To: Nicholson, Wendell Cc: Lawanda Deshazer Subject: Professional Standards Bureau Dear Captain Nicholson, I want to respond to your call for comments to the Citizen's Review Board meeting regarding the Professional Standards Bureau being held today at 1600. I was the subject of a pretextual car stop in 2014. In that instance, I was driving through the neighborhood at 16th and Minneapolis in a rental car when I noticed a squad car started following me. When I approached a stop sign, I stopped and then signaled a right turn . After executing the turn, the officer (I don't have his name right now) pulled me over. He said that I did not signal the turn 100 feet before the stop, which was a violation of a City ordinance. He then asked if he could search me and the car I was driving. I refused since he had no probable cause . I think that made him mad, so he told me that he would call the K-9 Unit. He also called for backup. His supervisor arrived, Sgt Hunt. Sgt Hunt approached me and said, "Well, you have to admit this car is probably better than the one you normally drive." I felt that was a racist statement. He knew nothing about me, and at the time, I owned a luxury car. After some time, they released me with a ticket. The K-9 Unit was not available . I filed a complaint with the Professional Standards Bureau, headed by Steve Kinney, who interviewed me. The conclusion was that since there was no overt display of racism, e.g., calling me the n-word, no professional standards were violated . I fought the ticket in court unsuccessfully. I also filed a lawsuit with the assistance of the Depew Gillen Rathbun & Mclnteer law firm against the City for racial profiling, but it was dismissed by summary judgment. However, on the officer's video we obtained of the stop and comments he made in deposition, he said he wanted to stop me because of the nice car and because he had never seen me before . He felt that I must be engaging in drug activity (although he never saw any such behavior) . I have a basis for my complaint. Not only did I serve ten years in WPD records, but I was also a WSUPD patrol officer for nine years. After that, I served on the Governor's Taskforce for Racial Profiling in 2009 and later on the Wichita Racial Profiling Board. My case was covered by the Eagle and written about in a book about racial profiling by Dr. Birzer. At the time of the stop, I taught criminal justice for Southwestern College. My thought is that the WPD Professional Standards Bureau rubber stamps bad police behavior. Such behavior drives a wedge of heightened tension between citizens of color and the police department. It also contributes to the marginalization of black community members by government officials because details become distorted against the victim . I have a business meeting today at 1630, so I wanted to file these comments for the record if I can 't make the meeting in person . Thank you,  2016-18 ACCIDENTS+ WPD CITATIONS BY RACE #IN %IN TOTAL % YEAR RACE ACCIDENTS ACCIDENTS CITATIONS CITATIONS AMERICAN 2016 23 0% 187 INDIAN 0% ASIAN OR PACIFIC 2016 198 3% 1,464 ISLANDER 3% 2016 BLACK 1,307 18% 11,097 21% 2016 UNKNOWN 95 1% 314 1% 2016 WHITE 5,652 78% 39,045 75% TOTAL 7,275 100% 52,107 100% AMERICAN 2017 35 1% 154 INDIAN 0% ASIAN OR PACIFIC 2017 165 2% 1,030 ISLANDER 2% 2017 BLACK 1,295 19% 9,937 23% 2017 UNKNOWN 47 1% 223 1% 2017 WHITE 5,221 77% 31,250 73% TOTAL 6,763 100% 42,594 100% I AMERICAN 2018 27 0% 200 INDIAN 0% ASIAN OR PACIFIC 2018 122 2% 1,059 ISLANDER 2% 2018 BLACK 1,160 19% 9,512 22% 2018 UNKNOWN 27 0% 289 1% 2018 WHITE 4,659 78% 31,522 74% TOTAL 5,995 100% 42,582 100%  NON-MOVING vs MOVING VIOLATION ANALYSIS 2016-19 NON-MOVING VIOLATIONS MOVING VIOLATIONS YEAR I TAG I% DL % I INSURE I % I DEFECT I % TURN I % I SPEED I% I STOP I % I TOTAL 2016 819 I 7 2,208 I 20 1,404 I 9 832 I 7 821 I 7 2,965 I 26 379 I 3 11,098 Black 2016 1,941 I s 4,219 I 11 3,561 I 9 2,456 I 6 3,420 I 9 14,661 I 38 1,869 I s 39,045 White 2017 971 I 10 2,246 I 20 1,320 I 13 748 I 8 675 I 7 1,971 I 20 374 I 4 9,937 Black 2017 2,023 I 6 3,875 I 10 3,085 I 10 1,498 I s 2,501 I 8 10,564 I 34 1,477 I s 31,250 White 2018 838 I 9 2,197 I 23 1,289 I 14 460 I s 625 I 7 2,708 I 28 367 I 4 9,512 Black 2018 1,753 I 6 3,729 I 12 2,981 I 9 1,036 I 3 2,383 I 8 12,244 I 39 1,718 I s 31,522 White 2019 37 I 3 440 I 35 82 I 6 54 I 4 49 I 4 316 I 25 35 I 3 1,267 Black P-North 2019 81 I 3 456 I 20 133 I 6 117 I s 116 I 5 783 I 34 123 I s 2,320 White P-North These data clearly show that Black drivers in Wichita are charged with Non-Moving violations more often than White drivers- especially for Driver's License tickets. Yet White drivers are more likely to Speed plus fail to Turn safely or Stop at stop signs. So why are Blacks issued twice as many citations as White drivers since they are just as likely to be in an accident yet are safer drivers. Note: The Percent data are in relation to the total number of all violations cited by Race. Smaller groups of other violations were also cited by WPD Officers during 2016, 201 7 and 2018 which are itemized in separate spreadsheets which are available on request. For more information, contact Dr. Walt Chappell, Vice-Chair, Wichita Racial Profiling Advisory Board egualenforcement@cox.net or www .racialprofilingwichitaks.com  WPD RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINTS REPORTED TO KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL FISCAL YEAR July 1 through June 30 https ://www.ag.ks.gov/public-safety/racial-and-bias-based-policing YEAR COMPLAINTS # SUSTAINED RESULT 2020 8 0 2019 8 1 Term in ate/Resign 2018 1 0 2017 4 0 2016 9 0 2015 26 0 2012 20 0  WPD 2020 External & Internal Comp laints https://www. wich ita. gov /WPD/Pages/Professional Standard s.aspx 2020 External Complaints !Initiated 1st Quarter 36 2nd Quarter 46 3rd Quarter 86 4th Quarter 97 Total 265 CJ ISustained 1 1 2 0 4 1.5% INot Sustained 1 0 2 2 5 1.9% !Unfounded 19 30 37 49 135 50.9% !Exonerated 2 5 8 12 27 20.4% Education Based Training 0800~ 43 1 16.2% I * 100 complaints cleared by body cameras 2020 Internal Complaints !Initiated 1st Quarter 38 2nd Quarter 63 3rd Quarter 57 4th Quarter 56 EJ~214 Isustained 11 4 13 6 34 15.9% INot Sustained 0 2 4 0 6 2.8% !unfounded 1 1 0 1 3 1.4% !Exonerated 0 2 1 0 3 1.4% Education Based Training G 45 25 0 ~J 58.9% I Explanation of Terms External Complaint Any complaint generated from an individual outside the Wichita Police Department. Internal Complaint Any complaint generated from within the Wichita Police Department. Unfounded Allegation(s) is (are) false or not factual. Exonerated Incident occurred, but was lawful and proper. Non-Sustained Insufficient evidence exists to either prove or disprove the allegation. Sustained An allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable cone lusion of guilt.  2007 Kansas Traffic Accident Facts *Pedestrians: pedestrians, pedalcyclists, rider of animal; occupant of a legally parked vehicle, an animal- drawn carriage, or a machine operating for its intended purpose. 73