On January 22, 2020, the Urbana Civilian Review Board met to review a recent Taser discharge and continue the discussion initiated at the last meeting regarding the citizen complaint process. Ricardo Diaz, Scott Dossett, Mikhail Lyubansky, Darius White, and Darrell Price formed the quorum. Chairperson Grace Mitchell and Megan McGinty were absent.
At the previous CPRB meeting (article here), citizens questioned the low number of complaints and appeals (2 appeals since 2008), and brought forward several problems with the complaint process. One of primary grievances was the time limit for citizens to file their complaints. Urbana City Ordinance states that citizen police complaints must be filed “within 45 working days of the incident giving rise to the complaint”, unless an individual is not physically able to file.
Citizens bring up failures of the complaint process
During the public participation session of the meeting, Urbana resident Christopher Hansen, spoke about his experience navigating the complaint and appeal process. He described how the time limit presents an unnecessary hurdle to citizens wanting to file a complaint. According to Hansen, a complainant is very likely to have suffered mental/emotional trauma during the incident, may be involved in months to years of legal issues, and may not be able to obtain documents needed to intelligently write their complaint.
Hansen described how Urbana Human Resources Director Todd Edmund Rent, and Urbana City Clerk Charles A Smyth, have been improperly denying his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, thus depriving him of documents needed for a well-informed complaint.
“So, 6 months later, I still don’t have the documents, we have a 45-day complaint window for citizens to file complaints, does that make sense to anyone?” asks Hansen.
Hansen produced letters from Illinois Attorney General (IAG), the highest legal authority in the state, indicating that Todd Rent and Charlie Smyth have violated public record laws.
“This is state law that the police department is violating regularly. Urbana city staff are regularly breaking Illinois public records laws. Again, it’s not just the department and the officers, it’s Michelle Brooks, City Legal, Assistant City Attorney, Todd Rent, they seem to have a little club of ‘how can we violate FOIA?’.”
Hansen also produced documents related to a complaint he had submitted. The complaint investigation report, which took months to obtain from the Urbana Police Department through a FOIA request, was received well past the appeal window for his complaint. Hansen held up the last two pages of the report, where the conclusions were – almost all the text on those pages were redacted.
“How am I supposed to file an intelligent appeal to the board if I have no idea what the officer is doing here, what he’s telling you, what he’s telling the chief?” asks Hansen.
Hansen also described other problems he has encountered, which include difficulty in getting responses from city staff. According to Hansen, Urbana Human Relations Officer, Vacillia Clark has ignored every email that he has sent her in the last year. Clark is listed on Urbana’s website as the contact reference for filing a Citizen Police Complaint. In addition, Hansen said that city staff and the Urbana Police Department, including Chief Seraphin have turned down his complaints citing some technicality.
“The way these complaint processes are designed is like a sponge for complaints to get absorbed and disappear,” describes Hansen. According to Hansen, citizens face so many hurdles in the complaint process which is designed to deplete the energy of the complaint and the complainant.
Hansen asked the board, “If someone like me who’s reasonably intelligent, has reasonable amount of resources can’t break through the process, what do you expect everyone else to do?”
Another citizen, Emily Klose, brought up similar issues with the complaint process, saying “It takes guts. It takes guts to file a complaint, it takes guts to get up in front of these boards, and not get a response.”
According to Klose, the civilian police complaint process in both Champaign and Urbana is designed for failure. She gave examples of how her complaints in Champaign were snuffed, and mishandled by Police Chief Anthony Cobb and city staff. Klose said that the complaint process took months, and only moved forward because she was persistent in pushing and sending out emails.
The whole complaint process is about the police investigating themselves. “There’s no advocate (for the citizen),” says Klose.
“I’ll be at these meetings until the rest of my life until you do something,” adds Klose.
A similar discussion about problems with the citizen complaint process has been going on for about a year with the Champaign Citizen Review Subcommittee (CRS). Catalyzed by the input of multiple citizens, CRS made several recommendations to Champaign Police Chief Anthony Cobb, but they have received mostly push back and resistance from the city and Champaign Police Department. The main recommendation from CRS was that there should be no time limit for submitting a police complaint (article here).
Staff report on citizen complaints
Urbana Community Relations Specialist Preston James gave a summary of the seven citizen complaints in that quarter.
Out of the seven complaints received, Police Chief Seraphin concluded that three complaints (2019-6, 7, 8) were unfounded and no disciplinary action was taken. One of these complaints is being appealed. Three more complaints have yet to be assigned a finding date (2019-9, 10, 12). One complaint (2019-11) was dismissed because of legal proceedings and a threat of lawsuit.
Board members wanted more information about the complaint that was dismissed. Urbana Police Lieutenant Richard H Surles explained that if there are criminal charges pending, complaints are suspended until criminal charges are taken care of. According to Surles, this is because the police officer investigating the complaint cannot conduct an interview as the complainant will be represented by counsel (no direct communication with complainant).
Board member Ricardo Diaz wanted to know if the complaint was dismissed because of a filed lawsuit or just a threat of a lawsuit. Surles confirmed that there was no lawsuit filed, but the complainant had said that he wanted to sue. Diaz disagreed with the dismissal of the complaint, saying that it was never withdrawn, and that the board should review why it was withdrawn.
Board members expressed concern regarding not having access to the complaints filed. According to board member Scott Dossett, when CPRB was first started, they were notified of every complaint and he would review every one of them.
Over the years, city staff has prevented board members from having access to the complaints. In the previous CPRB meeting on October 23, 2019, when questioned about access to citizen complaints, Urbana Human Resources Director Todd Edmund Rent told board members that they could see the complaints, but only after the expiration of the appeal deadline (article here).
This is a violation of the Urbana City Ordinance by Rent and other city staff . According to Urbana City Code Article III Sec. 19-28(j), “all complaints shall be submitted to the CPRB within seven (7) working days of the filing date.”
Dossett and Diaz reiterated that the board wants access to the complaints. Diaz would like the board to be able to see Chief Seraphin’s findings and make sure they are comfortable with it.
“I think it’s part of our charge to make sure that transparency… and that things are explained fully,” says Diaz.
Board member Darius White reminded city staff of his request last meeting – he would like a way for the board to see if certain officers are repeatedly mentioned in the complaints. Dossett seconded this, saying that in the past, the reports would identify officers via a randomized officer ID number, and he would like this feature back.
CPRB review of recent Taser utilizations
Next on the agenda was the review of a Taser discharge incident on February 6, 2019. Urbana Police Lieutenant Richard H Surles described the incident where an officer discharged his Taser during a tussle with a citizen. The remote discharge (discharge from a distance) had no effect on the man, so the officer performed a “Drive Stun” with the Taser.
There are two ways of using the Taser. The first is via remote discharge where two probes are deployed from a distance to contact the skin (or close to the skin). The two probes conduct energy, resulting in neuromuscular incapacitation. The second mode is the Drive Stun, where the Taser is held against the target without firing the probes. The Drive Stun mode generally will not cause neuromuscular incapacitation and is usually used as a pain compliance technique.
According to the UPD Taser Policy, “the use of Drive Stuns (the physical application of the Taser to the body of another for the specific purpose of pain compliance) is prohibited.“
Urbana Community Relations Specialist Preston James played the Taser cam footage for the board.
The board raised two main issues:
1- The short length of the footage (1 min 15s), and absence of other video footage to provide context.
2- The use of the Drive Stun mode.
Board member White asked Surles if the CPRB was shown the complete video, as he expected more footage. Surles said the video was short as there was negligible time from when the officer drew the Taser to discharge. Board members asked for squad cam/body cam footage, as it was hard to see what was going on from the short Taser cam video shown.
Surles explained that although the Urbana Police Department implemented the use of body worn cameras in January 2019, UPD started with a small test group, so there was no body cam in this case. As for squad cam footage, Surles said that off-hand, this is all the video they have, but it is possible that they do have squad cam footage and he could go back and double check. Surles gave excuses why he does not know if there is other footage – that the video was redacted a long time ago and also the lag from when he gets the report to when gets the video.
Diaz follows up, stating that from the description of incident on the report, there had to be squad cam footage.
“Theoretically, yes,” answers Surles, but goes on to say that the incident happened a year ago.
Diaz looked very confused, and asks Surles how this was not the case, as any video associated with the Taser display should be tagged.
“There should be,” says Surles.
“So, are you are saying our process is not reliable enough?” asks Diaz.
“What I’m saying is I don’t know,” replies Surles.
White then asked if there was additional Taser cam footage from other officers on scene who also drew their Tasers.
Surles skirted around the issue, saying that sometimes officers who came from other places don’t turn on their Taser cams (via deactivation of the safety mechanism) when the Taser is drawn. The UPD Taser Policy requires deactivation of the safety mechanism on the Taser as soon as it is removed from its holster to capture as much video and audio recording as possible. However, Surles attempted to make excuses for this policy violation by claiming that it might actually be safer if the safety is still on.
Moving on, board members had questions about the failure of the remote stun which led to the Taser officer performing a Drive Stun.
Dossett asked if there was anything that could be learned from the remote stun failure, and if it was less reliable if a person is wearing more clothes. Surles explained that the probe needs to be in the skin or next to the skin. Also, if the taser officer is too close and there is no spread between the probes, there will not be neuromuscular incapacitation, only pain compliance.
Surles also justified the use of the Drive Stun mode, saying that in this case it was used to achieve neuromuscular incapacitation.
None of the board members further questioned the usage of the Drive Stun. The board voted to approve the use of Taser in this case with the caveat that if there is more footage, they would like to see it.
Surles wanted the board to confirm what footage they wanted to see and like in prior meetings, once again bringing up how long it takes him to redact videos. He complained how he’s the only guy redacting these videos, and that one squad car video could be an hour long and would take him 5-6 hours to redact it.
Dossett said that it was important to have videos that show context so that the board can look at the incident from a couple of angles. CPRB wants to ensure citizens that the board is in charge of the process and doing a complete review. Diaz also wanted future Taser reports to include a listing of all the video footage that is available.
Next, the group brought Dossett to speed regarding their decision at the September 25th special meeting (article here, here, and here) to review only Taser discharges and not displays.
Dossett did not seem happy with the decision that was voted on, saying “I’m one of those people who watch that flashing red light for hours and frankly I learnt a lot from it. I’d have argued with this group if I had made it to that special meeting, but I didn’t.”
Surles said he would still gather the Taser display reports and pass them to James so that the board could still have access to them.
Missing reports
Board members were reminded by Surles and James that they were behind in submitting their annual reports (last report submitted 5 years ago) and Taser review report (due 2016) to city council.
Surles mentioned that he has a two-page draft of a report written and offered it to the board to use. However, Dossett declined, saying that the board would like to pen something themselves, based on their own experience.
Future plans
Board members are compelled to look into the problems brought up during audience participation. Diaz proposed that they establish a subcommittee to look into the process of filing a complaint and the way the complaints are processed. He suggested the familiarize themselves with the procedure stated on the website and see if the procedure makes sense and is accomplishing their purpose. The board would also most likely need to review the City Ordinance to address aspects such as the time limits to submitting a complaint/appeal.
Vice-chair Mikhail Lyubanksy seemed unfamiliar with the mandate of CPRB, asking if the board is authorized to review or make changes. Diaz explained that city council will draft and approve changes, but it is the CPRB that will have to do the leg work as they are directly involved in carrying out the procedure and would be the ones that have suggestions on how to change the procedure.
Urbana City Code Article III Sec. 19-27(3) gives CPRB the authority to make recommendations to the police chief, mayor and city council regarding police department policies and practices, based on its consideration of information received.
Finally, Diaz also voiced his concern after seeing the redacted documents produced by Hansen during the public participation session. “The redaction process sways and affects transparency,” he says. Diaz wants to know if the CPRB has access to the un-redacted documents so that he can “stand on two feet and say the process is transparent enough” and when he defends the police procedures, he is comfortable doing it fully.