On July 24, 2019, the Urbana Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB) meeting took place after a series of cancelled and rescheduled meetings since October 24, 2018. The meeting started with a staff report by Urbana Community Relations Specialist, Preston James. Since the last meeting, the city has received 4 citizen complaints against Urbana Police Department (UPD) officers. Three of the complaints have gone through the UPD internal investigation and letters stating the departmental findings were issued to the complainants. One complaint is still in the investigation process, and at this time, there are no request for appeals.
Board member Scott Dossett requested for a report of complaints received, saying that the board had not received any reports in a while. He asked if there was a schedule for the board to receive reports to which James said he would look into it. Dossett stressed that even though many of the complaint cases did not reach the appeals stage, the board would like the opportunity to formally examine the complaints.
Next up was the review of recent Taser utilizations. Urbana Police Department Criminal Investigation Division Commander and Deputy Chief, Richard Surles was in attendance to present the Taser cases to the board.
Board member Ricardo Diaz gave a brief introduction, explaining that when Tasers were introduced as part of the Urbana Police Department’s weapons arsenal, by City Ordinance, a process was set up whereby Taser use will be reviewed by CPRB every so often. CPRB was tasked with looking for proper Taser policy use and receiving comments from the perspective of citizens. Dossett added that the Taser policy and this review process forces CPRB to give feedback. In short, the purpose of the Taser policy is to ensure proper use of Tasers for the well-being of citizens.
Surles proceeded to give summaries for each Taser review case, followed by James playing the associated video(s). After each case, the board could comment, ask questions or clarification, and provide feedback. Reports were presented to the board in redacted view to for privacy reasons, and the videos reviewed would mostly be from the point of view of the camera affixed to the bottom of a Taser (Taser cam). The Taser cam has both audio and video recording and is activated when the safety mechanism is deactivated. Based on the Taser policy, officers are required to deactivate the safety mechanism as soon as it is removed from its holster for the purpose of capturing as much video and audio recording as possible.
At this meeting, the board reviewed 7 cases in total. In 6 of the cases, the Taser officer displayed the weapon, and in one case, the Taser officer arced the Taser (not discharged). Most of the Taser cam video shown had minimal context, and showed the two red lights that marked the target of the two darts.
Among the reasons why Tasers were unholstered and displayed in these cases: To subdue subjects or stop subjects from interfering, to stop a subject from running away, suspicion of firearms, subject had hands in questionable locations, and group dispersal (case where Taser was arced).
In one case, there was no Taser cam video. The officer involved has been given remedial training on camera usage as this was not the first incident. In another case, the Taser was not turned on while the officer was chasing the subject. The officer had his body cam on, but the body cam was mostly blocked by the officer’s hand as he was operating his radio. In yet another case, the Taser cam audio was of very poor quality, most likely due to improper use and/or arc activation. In none of these cases were weapons retrieved from the subjects.
One of the main issues brought up by CPRB board members was regarding the proper use of body cams. Board member Megan McGinty wanted to know more about body cam implementation had concerns about placement of the body cam to ensure footage is not blocked.
Urbana Police Department implemented body cam usage in January 2019. Surles clarified that the placement of body cams and microphones were up to the officer – a personal preference and comfort question.
“Our department policy does not mandate that the camera be put in a specific location, or not be put in a specific location”, says Surles. He added that the best footage is from a body cam placed in the center of the officer’s chest, but there is no perfect solution. In the example of a center of the chest mounted body cam, when the officer has their hands extending out when holding a pistol, the hands are going to block the body cam view.
Surles explained that officers are supposed to turn on body worn cameras when they are doing “cop stuff”. He adds “These are human beings that we are dealing with and they work in stressful environments, and so they will turn it on too soon, they will turn it on too late, so they’ll miss something that we will desperately want captured. It’s just sort of the nature of the beast”, but is optimistic that things will improve with more training and usage.
Urbana Police Chief Seraphin stepped in to clarify that while they don’t tell officers where to put the body cams, the policy does have verbiage that says the body cam should be conspicuous and forward facing. He believes that his officers don’t want to cover their body worn cameras and that more training and feedback is needed.
Other board members had a more positive take on body cams, with Dossett thanking UPD for making footage available to the board as it gave them better context. Diaz understands the concerns regarding body cam placement but feels like if the situation is tense enough, there will be multiple views from other officers. Diaz also brought up the issue of staff time involved, now that there are more footage sources.
Surles was quick to lament how arduous the task is as he has to read the reports ever morning, flag the Taser cases, retrieve the Taser, squad car, and body cam footage, watch the videos and “figure out ok, what’s the best stuff”, trim and redact the video, watch it again, and fix anything he missed.
Surles then made an announcement that opened up another can of worms. He announced that UPD was going to discontinue the use of Taser cams and instead just rely on body worn cameras. According to him, this was a purely fiscal decision as the battery for the Taser with built in camera cost $650 versus $60 for the battery on a stand-alone Taser. Surles assured the board they will get better footage from body cameras versus the Taser cam.
Dossett responded strongly to the declaration, saying he wished UPD had discussed retiring the Taser cams with CPRB before they made the decision independently. He stressed that the Taser policy manual was crafted from the point of view of having Taser cam footage after every Taser display.
“I don’t like the idea to drop that data, at the moment of discharge, all of a sudden your body cam is not going to give me what I want to see. I no longer have those two beeping red lights that really tell me a whole lot about intent in terms of the officer’s actions” says Dossett.
Surles agreed with Dossett that where the red two dots are at the moment of discharge is important.
“I hope to god we never have a discharge that results in a fatality” remarked Dossett. He added, “I see this group responsible for following those darts into a target and trying to decide whether or not an officer acted appropriately or not, and I don’t like the idea that we lost that.”
Meanwhile, Diaz and McGinty were happy with the changes. Diaz admitted that he used to complain about officers yelling too much and jumping to conclusions but he is now much more generous towards officers because they don’t know what kind of situation they are walking into. Surles concurs, saying that he doesn’t have statistics to share, but reading reports each morning, UPD officers are seizing more handguns than they have in years. Guns are more prevalent, and officers are encountering people that are armed more often. Carrying illegal firearms is a real concern these days.
“I’m generally happy that as we progress we keep going in the back and forth of adjusting both sides, so that when that big incident happens, we all have as much information for a very tough call. Cause I don’t believe an officer would intentionally do something, you know, to break the policy, and cover it and whatever else, just as I see a citizen isn’t intentionally going to make a situation to get hurt further. We want to make it as clean as possible, so I’m just happy with the changes, and let’s touch the policy if we need to so we can keep doing it better” says Diaz.
“Well here’s the good news, the guy that approves the policy is here” answered Surles referring to Chief Seraphin, who responded that they sure could keep doing what they were doing if there was a bottomless pile of money.
However, when Surles was asked how many Tasers the department had how often a Taser battery needs replacing, he avoided answering the question. Instead saying “in my experience it is not usually the battery that goes bad, it’s the camera, and since its on one unit, you can’t just fix the camera. So, it’s not just replacing the battery, it’s replacing the camera, they’ve just made it really expensive.” According to Surles, the department has ~13 Tasers and at the end of their life it will cost ~$1300 for a replacement.
Several board members then mentioned that they have never done Taser training and would like to see how it works. Surles recommended that they have an officer come to a board meeting bringing in Tasers with/without cameras, and allow board members to handle the weapon and arc/discharge it if they would like to do so. CPRB chairperson, Grace Mitchell suggested that they have Taser training during the next meeting, and that board members should also be doing ride-alongs again as they have not done it in a while.
Board members also suggested that the community should also have a chance to learn more about Tasers through outreach, perhaps through an outreach video made for the public. McGinty wanted other board members to think more about outreach and reaching out to the community more about their rights. Urbana Executive Department Administrative Assistant, Monique James brought up an upcoming opportunity – Champaign-Urbana Day on August 10, 2019 at Douglas Park where the City of Urbana will have a table and be giving out backpacks with school supplies.
Dossett however, remarked that based on the City of Urbana Ordinance, it is not the board’s duties to do outreach. He asked if they should they go back refer back to City Council and have an amendment that forces them and gives them resources to do outreach. Other board members and staff disagreed, saying that they have enough resources, city staff is more than willing to help, they can motivate themselves to do it, and they don’t need the city to tell them to do it.
As the meeting was closing, Surles once again made a surprising announcement that he actually had 13 more Taser review cases that were not reported and presented at this meeting, with probably one involving a Taser discharge. He was also holding some back because they are pending in court.
Board members were reminded that at the end of this review process, the board is supposed to deliberate about what they just saw and read, and vote (which they did not do in the previous review).
Dossett called for more discussion on video/audio from the Taser cam. He requested that a review of the Taser usage policy and the applicable City Ordinance be put on the agenda.
CPRB board members had no recommendations for the Urbana Police Department after tonight’s Taser review meeting. However, they will be starting a dialogue and will discuss more in an upcoming special meeting. The board unanimously voted and approved of all the Taser usage cases seen today.
In his closing remarks, Dossett says (with regards to helping craft the Taser policy), “I made a promise to myself. I was going to be as transparent and thorough about this with the citizens of Urbana. We had 12-year olds crying in their testimony about how their City of Urbana was going to be damaged because the police would abuse Tasers. That happened in this room for hours. So, I don’t take any change to the implementation of the Tasers or the policies that we created lightly.”
UPDATE: A special meeting was held on September 25, 2019 where CPRB members voted to end the mandatory Taser camera reviews for all Taser displays, article here.