►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right:
well,
it
is
currently
6
32
we
have
a
quorum.
Today
is
wednesday
january
6
2021.
This
is
our
first
meeting
of
2021
of
the
citizen
police
review
commission.
B
I
can
do
roll
call
jamal
kim.
C
A
B
And
please
correct
me
if
I
pronounce
your
name
incorrectly.
B
Yes,
okay,
mr
clarence
weber,
okay,
douglas
whitmore,.
B
A
All
right,
thank
you
paulina
for
that,
okay,
so
I
would
like
to
know
if
we
can
have
someone
do
we
need
to
continue
to
read
in
the
okay?
So
if
I
can
have
someone
read
in
the
it,
the
executive
order
by
the
governor.
D
Okay,
I
can
read
it:
okay,
as
the
result
of
an
executive
order
issued
by
governor
jb
pritzker
suspending
in-person
attendance
requirements
for
public
meetings,
city
council
members
and
city
staff
will
be
participating
in
this
meeting
remotely
due
to
public
health
concerns.
Residents
may
provide
public
comment
virtually
at
the
meeting
or
in
writing.
A
Do
I
do
I
need
to
have
the
move
to
do
that.
B
Someone
has
to
move
to
suspend
the
rules
and
someone
has
a
second.
Yes,
I
moved
to
the
special.
E
A
Moving
on
moving
along
on
the
agenda
agenda,
2
item
2a
the
approval
of
the
december
2nd
2020
meeting
minutes.
If
I
can
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
december
2nd
2020
meeting.
A
All
in
agreement
say
aye
aye
aye
any
opposed.
A
Having
no
opposition
the
the
december
2nd
2020
meeting
minutes
will
be
approved.
A
Okay,
do
we
have
any
public
we're
gonna
move
on
to
agenda
item
three
for
public
comments?
Do
we
have
any
any
guests
this
evening.
A
Okay,
having
no
public
comment,
we'll
continue
down
the
agenda
item.
We
have
our
items
for
consideration
tonight.
Our
first
item
is
4a,
which
is
the
review
of
complaint
register
20-0-1.
E
I
move
to
begin
discussion
on
cr
20-01.
A
Okay,
can
I
have
a
second.
D
A
Any
all
in
agreement
say
aye.
A
Let's
begin
our
discussion
on
cr
20-01
I'll,
send
it
over
to
you
sergeant
warnick.
F
Thanks
how's
everybody
doing
tonight
good
happy
new
year.
You
guys
might
remember
this
is
from
october.
We,
you
guys
initially
reviewed
this
one
and
asked
that
it
go
back
for
re-review.
F
This
is
the
traffic
stop
over
at
asbury
and
lee.
It
was
the
one
where
a
female
passenger
was
asked
to
exit
the
vehicle,
and
I
had
asked
for
a
supervisor
and
a
supervisor
was
not
called
by
the
officer.
There
were
some
concerns
that
were
raised,
so
it
was
sent
back
a
sergeant
did
review.
F
I
did
a
second
review
of
the
case.
Deputy
chief
picked
the
sergeant
based
on
his
experience.
The
sergeant
is
pretty
well
versed
in
the
lies.
I
would
have
to
say
he's
one
of
the
smartest
people
in
this
building,
so
he
went
through
it.
It's
pretty
lengthy
if
you've
read
through
the
summary.
I'm
sure
you
guys
read
the
memo
as
well.
F
What
ultimately
came
out
of
this
was
I
perhaps
we
should
revisit
our
policy
on
calling
for
a
supervisor
make
sure
that
that
is
clear
cut
so
that
officers
know
that
as
well
as
just
given
you
know
the
policing
the
day
and
age.
We
live
in
that
just
because
you
can't
ask
somebody
out
of
a
car,
doesn't
mean
that
you
should.
You
should
be
able
to
articulate
it
more
than
just
because
I
can
and
that's
ultimately
what
the
the
sergeant
found.
F
He
did
not
find
any
further
rule
violations,
but
I
think
you
know
he
he
did
a
thorough
job.
I
I
did
get
him
copies
of
the
audio
kimberly,
provided
that
for
me
from
the
meeting.
So
he
listened
to
everything
that
was
said
during
the
meeting
he
saw
that
he
basically
reviewed
the
whole
packet
again
as
well
as
everything
you
guys
had
said
and
your
concerns
I
didn't
want,
to
paraphrase
anything
that
the
commission
had
brought
up.
So
I
asked
him
to
actually
listen
to
it,
so
he
could
have
an
un
unbiased.
F
C
C
C
F
C
F
It
was
in
there
the
and
it
was
in
the
video
as
well
the
the
canine.
So
here's
the
thing
with
the
k9
you
you
can
do
a
sniff
around
a
vehicle.
You
can't
extend
the
stop,
though
you
can't
you,
you
can't
wait
20
minutes
for
a
dog
to
come
to
the
stop
to
do
the
sniff.
He
ended
up
getting
flustered
and
didn't
do
the
sniff
and
it
turned
out.
The
k9
was
his
backup,
so
he
was
within
his
legal
rights
to
do
do
a
sniff.
However,
he
he
ended
up
not
doing
it.
F
F
Would
have
made
it
you
can
run
you
can
you
can
bring
a
dog
around
the
car?
You
can
it's.
I
mean
it's
a
it's.
It's
a
sniff
test.
It's
not
an
invasion,
he's
not
going
into
the
car.
You
know
so
you're
legally
allowed
to
do
that.
The
question
that
the
sergeant
raised
was:
should
we
be
operating
like
that
right
so
just
because
we
can
should
we.
I
think
that's
what,
where
we're
at
in
policing,
where
we're
at
in
america
today
is.
F
We
should
just
ask
ourselves
as
officers
just
because
I
can
should
I
you
know.
So
I
think
that,
ultimately,
that's
that's
the
the
biggest
thing
I
took
from
this
in
reading
his
review
was
you
know
everything
was
done
legally
right.
He
was
allowed
to
ask
for
the
sniff
he's
allowed
to
do
that,
but
just
because
you
can
you
shouldn't
necessarily,
you
shouldn't
ask
a
mom
and
her
daughter
out
of
the
car
necessarily
right.
So
that's
that's
what
I
think
this
is
leading
to.
E
What's
that
what
would
be
the
next
step?
So
the
conclusion
here
is
that
these
policies
may
need
to
be
revisited
and
that
you
know
calling
for
a
supervisor
you
know
should
be
something
that
would
that,
if
requested,
it
should
be
done
immediately,
but
what's
the
next
step
of
actually
putting
that
into
place
or
going
through
the
process
of
getting
that
policy
change,
because
just
writing
it
in
this
report.
As
you
know,
these
would
be
good
ideas.
F
It
doesn't
seem
right
so
now
for
you,
it
goes
to
the
chief
of
police,
so
once
once
the
commission
approves
it
we'll
send
it
to
the
chief,
and
we
will
talk
to
him
about
having
something
actually
implemented.
That's
the
next
step,
and
you
know,
based
on
the
fact
you
all
provide
a
report.
The
chief
takes
a
look
at
that
with
the
case
too,
before
it's
going
to
hsc.
G
Hey
eric,
I
jump
in
here
real
quick
to
so
kind
of
touching
on
some
highlights
of
what
sergeant
warnock
already
talked
about.
I'm
gonna
talk
about
the
sergeant
who
reviewed
this.
G
He
does
have
a
law
degree
and
I
think
that
kind
of
hitting
on
sergeant
warnick's
point
of
like
you
can
as
a
police
officer,
you
can
cite
case
law
and
what
you're
legally
allowed
to
do
may
not
be
what's
wise
to
do,
and
I
think
that
this
officer
leaned
too
heavily
on
this
is
what
the
law
allows
me
to
do
and
was
short
on
articulation
as
to
why
it
was
wise
and
prudent,
and
I
think
that
that's
what
the
sergeant
that
reviewed
it
again.
Those
were
the
fair
points
that
he
made.
G
It's
like
well,
there's
more
there's
more
to
articulation
than
citing
case
law.
There
is
articulating
why
it's
prudent
and
why
it's
applicable
so
while
it
may
not
be
necessarily
a
violation
of
somebody's
rights
or
policy,
is
that
is
it
achieving
the
goal?
Is
it
wise,
and
you
know
we
have
many
concurrent
goals
we
try
to
achieve?
Is
law
enforcement,
good
community
relations,
investigate
crime,
deter
crime?
You
know
how
is
what
you're
doing
kind
of
hitting
touching
all
the
bases
to
answer
the
question
about
notifying
a
supervisor.
G
G
It
says
if
you
re,
you
know
basically
it's
kind
of
binding
where,
if
it's
known
and
you're
advised
and
you've
been
told
throughout
your
entire
career
you're
supposed
to
call
a
boss,
and
if
you
don't
that's
a
technical
violation
of
the
policy
now
to
strengthen
that
policy,
we
will
look
going
forward
and
I
envision
some
adjustments
to
our
our
lexical
suite
of
policies
being
made
to
make
that
more
of
a
concrete
to
solidify
it
in
written
policy
and
therefore
somebody
violates
it,
make
discipline
and
corrective
action
more
efficient
and
more
binding.
A
So
I
can
appreciate
the
fact
that
there
was
a
second
review
of
this
in
that
they
understood
that
not
only
like
there
were
questionable
things
that
were
done,
but
maybe
this
isn't.
This
is
a
department-wide
policy
change
that
needs
to
be
implemented.
I
can
appreciate
the
question
that
rick
brought
up
as
well.
I
I
deal
with
that.
I
deal
with
that
area
of
law
fairly,
often
as
well
in
my
line
of
work.
It's
just
the
way
it
and
it,
and
I
don't
mean
to
speak
for
rick
at
all.
A
It's
just
the
words
that
were
said
by
this
officer
that
that's
when
flags
start
to
go
up
for
for
us.
You
know,
and
I
understand
that
there
are
some
laws
that
facially
they
may
not
seem
biased,
but
when
applied,
they
are
so
or
policies,
and
that
say
in
that
same
sense,
so
I
can
appreciate
that
when
this
was
given
a
second
glance,
you
know
you
may
not.
A
They
may
not
have
seen
that
any
policy
or
any
law
was
actually
violated,
but
maybe
the
laws
and
policy
that
are
in
place
right
now
might
need
a
second
look
at
because
they
themselves
might
need
some
tweaking
or
changing,
because
it
gives
the
officers
too
much
discretion
on
how
it
is
that
they
that
that
they
do
their
job
and
it
it
allows
them
to
apply
law.
It
gives
them
too
wide
of
a
range
to
apply
law,
and
so
no
one
can
actually
pinpoint
like
okay
well,
this
is
wrong.
A
Well,
actually,
no,
it's
not
really
wrong.
You
know,
and
so
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
there
was
a
second
look
in
that
there.
You
know
that
that
they
did
see
like
well.
Maybe
there
needs
to
be
a
department-wide
policy
change
and
that
that
will
be
something
that
is
looked
at,
I'm
hoping
in
the
very,
very,
very
immediate
near
future,
so
that
incidents
like
this
one
can
be
prevented,
and
it's
you
know
being
with
the
stop
being
with
the
free
air
sniff
being
with
the
the
call
of
the
canine
unit.
A
Although
I
understood
that
was
their
backup
even
being
with
the
call
of
the
supervisor,
because
we
remember
police
officers,
they're
trained,
so
they're
held
to
a
higher
standard
of
their
hair
held
to
a
higher
standard.
You
know,
whereas
the
everyday
citizens
don't
know
these
things,
and
so
all
they
know
is
to
do
like.
If
you
go
into
a
department
store,
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
manager.
A
G
I
will
say
this:
there
is
no
downside
to
having
a
supervisor
respond
during
stop.
You
know
we
we
tell
the
officers
if
you
have
something
or
that
you
can
that's
actionable.
We
don't
expect
your
investigation
to
stop.
We
expect
you
to
act
prudently,
but
that
supervisor
coming
is
only
going
to
be
an
asset
to
everybody
there,
an
extra
layer
of
communication
and,
in
some
instances,
a
cooler
third
party.
So
I'll
be
honest,
I
don't.
G
I
think
that
this
is
a
pretty
clear-cut.
I
think,
there's
a
pretty
clear-cut
violation,
but
we're
going
to
strengthen
it
in
policy.
A
Having
no
further
discussion,
if
I
can
have
someone
if
we
want
a
motion
to
move
this
onto
hsc,.
A
Services
all
right,
all
in
all
in
agreement,
say
I.
A
All
right,
let's
move
on,
if
I
can
have
a
motion
to
discuss
department
inquiry,
20-11.
A
All
right
have
an
opposition.
We
begin
our
discussion
on
department
inquiry.
20-11,
we'll
give
it
over
to
you
sergey
warren.
F
Thank
you.
So
this
came
in
to
our
office
in
august.
It
occurred
in
june.
This
was
essentially
a
neighbor
dispute.
It
was
an
ongoing
neighbor
dispute.
The
neighbor
was
pretty
abusive,
calling
derogatory
and
racist
names
to
the
the
neighbor
harassing
them.
So
on
this
particular
incident
they
called
9-1-1
the
officer
went
over
there
during
the
incident.
There
was
obviously
people
were
escalated.
There
was
or
elevated
there
was.
You
know
back
and
forth
the
officer
who
responded.
F
It
was
determined
by
the
patrol
sergeant
that
he
did
demonstrate
patience.
He
tried
to
de-escalate
or
use
de-escalation
tactics
and
was
professional
in
dealing
with
parties
which
were
both
uncooperative
at
the
time
and
again.
I
think
that
the
caller
probably
was
due
to
the
fact
of
what
they
endured.
F
It
went
through
the
chain
and
the
officer
was
exonerated
exonerated
excuse
me
and
the
deputy
chief
agreed.
There
was
no
further
action
involved
on
the
officer's
part.
As
far
as
any
violations
go.
C
A
I
agree
with
you,
I
agree
with
you.
I
I
have
nothing
to
say
on
this.
I
think
that
it
was
handled.
I
I
see
nothing
where
it
was
handled
in
an
unprofessional
manner,
so.
A
All
right,
having
no
discussion,
if
I
can
have
someone
move
this
to
hsc.
C
I
move,
we
move,
move
it
to
human
services.
A
Okay,
I'll
I'll
I'll
agree
to
move
departmentally
that
20-11
to
hsc,
say
aye.
D
A
Any
opposed,
say,
nay,
have
an
opposition.
We
will
move
department
inquiry
20-11
to
hsc.
A
Let's
move
forward
on
to
gi
sorry
about
that
di
20-13.
If
I
have
a
motion
to
begin
discussion.
A
Any
paul
say,
nay,
have
a
new
opposition.
I
say
we
open
this
up
to
the
floor.
Give
it
to
you
sergeant,
warning.
F
Thank
you.
So
this
was
a
traffic
crash
that
occurred
in
june,
the
complainant
called
in
august,
and
essentially
it
was
a
one
car
crash.
It
was
at
the
bend
on
sheridan
going
north
past,
the
university
past
central
street,
and
the
vehicle
ended
up
striking
the
guard.
F
Rail
was
inoperable,
the
citizen
was
in
the
area
felt
that,
based
on
the
race
of
the
occupants
that
they
were
treated
differently
than
they
would
have
been
if
they
were
black,
I
believe
it
was
one
or
two
white
and
one
hispanic
male
in
the
car,
but.
F
Right,
I
believe
he
was,
I
think
the
backseat
passenger
was
hispanic,
so
his
his
complaint
was
that
it
was
not
handled
appropriately,
that
the
officer
did
not
conduct
field
sobriety
tests
and
that
essentially,
they
allowed
them
to
go
because
they
were
white.
This
case
was
reviewed
as
far
as
the
rule
violations
the
patrol
sergeant
unfounded
it.
The
patrol
sergeant
did
note,
though,
that
you
know
the
based
on
the
experience.
F
So
essentially
this
this
came
down
to
traffic
enforcement
and
it
was
a
newer
officer
and
based
on
her
experience,
there's
some
other
things.
She
could
have
done
differently
that
maybe
a
more
experienced
officer
would
have
done
to
mediate
and
mitigate
this.
F
So
essentially,
she
was
given
just
a
shift
level
counseling
through
the
chain
and
went
all
the
way
up
and
then
some
training
courses
which
will
be
through
neimer
when
they're
available
illinois
traffic
crash
for
patrol
and
law
enforcement
use
of
force
review.
F
So
as
far
as
that
goes,
it's
just
a
shift
level
and
training.
And
again
I
think
it
all
comes
down
to
experience
on
this
one
with
the
officer
she's
fairly
new.
F
A
I'm
reading
in
this
the
incident
heard
the
patrol
sergeant
states
the
passengers
of
the
vehicle
indicated
they
all
occupants
of
the
vehicle
consumed
a
couple
of
beers,
including
the
driver
that
was
literally
told
to
them.
It
didn't
say
when,
but
they
all
admitted
that
they
consumed
alcohol.
I
don't
know
how
old
these
young
men
were.
A
Had
that
been
any
other
person,
I'm
just
gonna
say
there
would
have
been
at
least
five
different
tickets
written
at
least
there's
a
dui
there's
a
ferry
to
reduce
a
crash.
There's
property
damage
city
property
there
is,
they
probably
would
have
had
a
transportation
of
alcohol.
There
are
so
many
that
would
have
been
so
not
one
citation
was
written.
A
The
only
reason
that
triple
a
wasn't
brought
in
as
requested
by
the
mother
of
the
driver
was
because
the
city
said:
oh
no,
we
have
to
clear
this
from
the
street,
and
this
is
this.
Is
this?
Is
blocking
traffic,
so
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna,
remove
this
vehicle.
Otherwise,
if
we
could
have
moved
it
off
to
the
side,
then
yes,
we
would
have
let
you
taken
care
of
this
privately.
A
However,
and
there's
no
repercussions
to
you,
but
yet
the
citizens
of
everson
will
pick
up
the
tab
for
the
property
damage
and
even
though
you
admitted
to
drinking
we're
gonna
allow
you
to
go,
I
don't
need
to
have
training
as
a
police
officer
to
know
that
there's
something
more
that
needs
to
be
done
there.
I
don't
care
how
new
I
am
I
just
I
I
don't
so.
A
E
And
I
I
I
agree
with
everything
that
janita
said
in
addition
to
that,
the
finding
that
there
was
no
rule
violations,
I'm
looking
at
rule
four
failure
to
perform
a
duty.
The
officer
did
not
conduct
a
field
sobriety
test
when
the
occupants
admitted
that
all
of
them
consumed
alcohol,
like
that
seems
like
a
failure
to
perform
a
duty.
E
Yeah,
I
know
I
think
this
one
needs
to
to
go
back
to
be
re-reviewed.
I
mean
in
reading
through
the
the
full
report,
not
just
the
the
summary
there
was
allegations
that
the
driver
also
tried
to
pay
people
off
the
you
know
he
was
trying
to
flee
the
scene.
Someone
took
his
keys,
they
ran
and
then
tried
to
like
pay
people
off
to
give
him
the
keys
back.
I
mean
there's
just
like.
Oh
there's
a
lot
more
to
this
than
what
was
presented,
and
I
think
this
needs
to
be
investigated
further.
E
My
other
question
was:
was
there
any
cell
phone
footage
at
all
from
any
of
the
the
bystanders?
Was
that
part
of
the
the
record?
Do
we.
F
Know
I
didn't
review
this
case.
I
don't
believe
that
there
was
and
if
there
was
any
by
the
complainant,
I
don't
believe
it
was
turned
over.
So
I
I
couldn't
answer
that.
Okay.
E
G
Can
I
ask
a
quick
follow-up
question
from
everybody?
Is
the
when
you
review
this?
Do
you
find
more
of
an
issue
with
the
investigation
itself,
the
findings
or
both
and
just
a
little
bit?
So
if
it's
coming
back,
we
can
look
at
it
and
address
concerns
appropriately.
Is
it
something
we're
like
well
yeah?
That's
the
complete
investigation,
but
the
findings.
E
Yeah
yeah
the
investigation
wasn't
complete
and
then
the
findings
that
there
was
no
violation
after
seeing
that
no
kind
of
breathalyzer
or
fuel
sobriety
test
was
conducted
after
admissions
of
of
all
the
occupants
of
the
vehicle
consuming
alcohol.
Like
that's
the
findings,
just
don't
match
up
with
the
evidence
that
was
presented
on
top
of
the
investigation
itself
being
not
not
thorough.
G
Yeah-
and
I
mean
I
know
the
issue
here-
is
that
the
patrolmen's
investigation
what
fell
short,
but
I'm
speaking
to
the
internal
investigation,
you
also
felt
was
not
enough.
E
And
I
guess
one
other
thing
I
mean
not
to
pile
on,
but
it
the
accused
officer
here
is
only
the
it's
identified
as
accused
officer,
but
the
other
officer
officer
two.
At
some
point.
It
said
that
they
were
having
a
discussion
about
how
to
deal
with
the
situation,
and
it
was
agreed
that
you
know
the
parents
could
it
would
release
the
the
driver
to
the
parents.
I
feel
like
officer
two
should
also
be
an
accused
officer
in
this
situation,
because
it
seems
that
there
was.
E
You
know
more
than
just
the
one
officer
that
was
coming
to
the
conclusion
that
you
know
this
was
handled
appropriately
and
it
was
proper
to
release
this
person
to
his
parents
custody
and
not
really
investigate
anything
that
the
eyewitnesses
were
complaining
of.
F
H
A
Is
anyone
I
mean
nico
jamal?
If
you
have
anything
to
add,
please
do
rick
or
blanca.
I
know
that
you
put
in
your
input
if
you
have
anything
additional
to
add
but
yeah.
I
definitely
do
not
agree
with
the
way
any
of
this
was
handled
from
the
beginning
to
the
end,
as
they
say
from
naruto
to
the
tutor.
I
don't
I
don't
agree
with
any
of
it.
H
Yeah-
and
I
I
agree
just
like
not
to
really
necessarily
put
myself
in
it,
but
all
my
experiences
with
getting
pulled
over
in
evanston
just
for
mistakenly
thinking,
I
didn't
have
my
seat
belt
on
or
like
getting
my
car
searched
for
guns
like
the
fact
that
I
didn't
even
do
anything,
but
yet
these
people
just
kind
of
walked
scot-free
so
yeah.
I
agree
with
every
everything
that
everyone
said.
It's
kind
of.
I
wouldn't
oh,
no,
it's
kind
of
fishy,
no.
H
A
All
right
well
having
a
further
discussion
on
this,
we'll
be
sending
this
back
to
with
sergeant
hornet.
A
Okay,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
agenda
item.
Next,
on
our
agenda
item,
we
have
department
inquiry.
A
If
we
can
have
a
motion
to
begin
discussion
on
department
inquiry,
20-16.
A
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
a
second
rick
all
agree,
say:
aye.
D
F
Thank
you.
So
this
complaint
came
in
in
september
or
it
occurred
in
september.
It
came
in
a
few
days
later.
Essentially,
it
came
initially
as
a
driving
complaint.
The
complainant
said
that
he
was
on
his
bicycle.
He
felt
the
officer
was
driving
super
fast
in
between
stop
lights,
didn't
activate
any
emergency
lights
and
went
into
the
7-eleven.
F
Further
investigation
showed
that
there
was
a
call
from
a
city
of
evanston
employee
to
the
parking
garage
so
up
in
the
elevators.
If
you
guys
are
familiar
on
the
sherman
garage
off
of
davis
there,
and
there
was
some
subjects
who
were
homeless,
who
were
living
on
the
11th
floor
in
the
foyer.
F
When
the
officer
got
there,
he
he
didn't
advise
the
complainant
in
the
elevator
or
I'm
sorry.
He
didn't
advise
a
citizen
and
the
subjects
he
was
dealing
with,
that
they
were
on
body
cam,
which
is
state
law.
He
also
really
just
didn't
deal
with
helping
them
get
out
of
there
see
if
they
had
anything
they
needed.
Just
essentially
was
like.
Are
you
guys
good,
I'm
out
of
here
just
get
out
of
here
and
at
that
point
left
and.
F
Really
there
was
no
follow-up
whatsoever
on
it,
so
essentially
he
was,
he
was
given
a
one-day
suspension
for
all
the
rule
violations
other
than
the
driving
the
driving
part
of
it
was
caught
on
the
body-worn
camera
or
the
the
vehicle.
So
you
can
see
that
he
wasn't
accelerating
too
fast,
maybe
from
the
perspective
of
the
complainant,
he
was
when
he
was
driving.
F
A
Okay,
my
question
on
this:
I
don't
see
it
being
addressed.
The
alleged
stop
at
7-eleven
during
that
drive.
F
So
he
never
so
he
parked.
I
guess
I
should've
been
more
clear
about
that,
so
where
he
parked
to
go
in
the
parking
garage,
it's
at
davis
and
what
is
that
benson
there's
a
one
elevator
that
goes
up
across
from
cta,
so
he
parked
his
car
there.
I
would
assume
in
the
bike
lane,
which
is
right
in
front
of
711,
so
I
think
to
the
complainant
who
was
biking
by
it,
looked
like
he
was
just
going
into
7-eleven
and
not
into
the
elevators,
but
he
did
not.
He
never
went
into
7-eleven.
F
No,
they
weren't
activated,
and
he
was
I
mean
the
the
body.
Cam
footage
doesn't
show
him
driving
aggressively.
That's
the
one
thing
I
mean
the
complainant
thought
he
was
driving
aggressively,
but
there
was
no
way
to
determine.
I
mean
from
watching
the
video.
You
can
see
that
things
aren't
passing
at
crazy
speed,
so
it
does
look
like
he's
he's
driving
a
normal
speed.
F
A
C
F
It
did
come
in
as
a
9-1-1
call.
It
was
a
city
employee
who
called
it
in
since
the
parking
garage,
city-owned
property.
I
don't
know
if
the
city
employee
got
into
it
with
the
subjects
trying
to
get
them
out
of
there.
It
is
an
issue
that
we
do
have
in
our
parking
garages
and
some
of
our
city
properties
with
people
who
are
homeless.
E
I
just
have
a
quick
question
just
like
procedurally,
so
this
complaint
came
in
as
a
complaint
about
the
officers
you
know
allegedly
speeding
during
or
you
know,
between
traffic
lights,
but
the
resolution
of
it.
E
You
know
sort
of
brought
in
the
the
issue
of
him
not
fully
investigate
or
not
fully
following
up
on
the
you
know,
dealing
with
the
homeless
people
living
in
the
you
know,
staying
in
the
building
so
had
this
call
not
come
in
about
the
speeding
issue
with
his
dealing,
how
he
dealt
with
the
the
homeless
issue,
the
homeless,
dealing
with
the
the
moving
the
homeless
folks
from
the
building.
E
Would
that
not
have
even
come
up
in
his
as
a
review
point,
because
it
did
just
seem
like
that
came
out
of
the
blue,
as
I
was
reading
this
report
about
the
the
speeding
issue
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
they're
talking
about
something
completely
different
from
what
the
complaint
was
actually
relating
to.
F
Monthly
body
camera
review
so
possibly
the
sergeant
could
have
reviewed
his
video
and
seen
that
I
I
guess
he
could
have
looked
at
the
ticket
and
seen
it
was
a
parking
garage,
I'm
not
sure
100.
What
was
on
the
ticket
as
far
as
how
he
dispositioned
it
whether
he
said
that
people
were
there.
F
F
You
know
what
he's
dealing
with
and
these
other
rule
violations
happen.
So
that's
that's
where
that
came
from,
but
unless
it
was
a
sergeant
down
in
patrol
or
you
know,
because
they
do
the
camera
reviews
every
month,
you
do
a
certain
amount
of
camera
reviews
per
officer.
So
unless
the
sergeant
who's
assigned,
that
officer
would
have
pulled
that
video.
I
don't
know
that
it
would
have,
would
have
been
caught.
G
Yeah,
no,
I
think
that
you
know,
as
time
goes
on,
it
doesn't
happen
with
every
complaint.
You
know
by
far
every
complaint,
but
it's
not.
I
think,
as
we
go
through
the
months
and
years
of
this
commission,
you
will
from
time
to
time
see
complaints
where
the
initial
complaint
was
unfounded,
and
but
during
that
investigation
there
is
another
policy
violation
that
is
detected
by
the
supervisor
unaddressed.
A
Okay,
no
further
discussion.
Can
I
have
someone
move
this
to
hsc.
E
I
move
for
di
2016
to
go
to
hsc.
A
All
right
we're
going
to
continue
to
move
down
the
agenda
to
department
inquiry
20-17.
C
A
Any
opposed,
say,
nay,
have
no
position
we'll
begin
discussion
on
di
20-17.
We
leave
this
to
you.
Aaron.
F
All
right,
thank
you.
So
this
came
in
in
september.
This
was
a
traffic
or
a
street
stop
essentially
a
female
was
african-american
was
out,
it
was
about,
I
don't
know,
1am
she's
at
her
vehicle
with
her
bicycle
and
the
officer
patrolling
in
the
area
stops
to
talk
to
her
find
out.
What's
what
she's
doing
out
there
at
that
point,
the
she
essentially
tells
him
that
she
doesn't
like
being
stopped
because
she
feels
she's
being
racially
profiled.
F
F
The
officer
clears
she
comes
to
the
station
and
files
or
speaks
to
the
sergeant
on
duty,
and
at
that
point
ops
gets
a
complaint
from
the
friend
who
was
on
the
phone
with
the
complainant,
and
then
we
also
got
a
complaint
from
the
actual
complainant
who
this
happened
to
so
we
did
have
two
complainants
on
this
one.
So
once
you
look
through
everything,
I'm
I
don't
know,
if
you
guys
want
to
see
the
video
we
do,
have
the
video
for
this
one.
F
A
Was
anyone
interested
in
reviewing
the
video?
I
know
shawna
was
not
able
to
be
here
this
evening.
She
was
interested
in
it,
but
was
anyone
else?
That's
present
this
evening
interested
in
seeing
the
video.
A
Okay,
do
we
have
any
discussion
on
this
on
this
complaint.
A
Okay,
I
I
reviewed
this.
I
I
understood
her
frustration
on
here,
but
I
also
understood
it
seemed
to
me
as
though
the
officer
was
being
courteous.
A
A
A
You
know,
and
so
I
don't
know
this
is
a
sticky
one
for
me.
As
far
as
the
review
of
the
officer.
A
I
can't
find
anything
in
particular
wrong
with
it.
It
didn't
seem
like
he
was
being
disrespectful
at
the
time
she
walked
away
before
he
cannot
apologize.
Only
thing
I
can
say
is
that
maybe
he
leads
off
with
that
information
that
way
she
it.
You
know
he
he
did
he
escalates
in
the
beginning,
as
opposed
to
waiting
towards
the
end.
Once
you've
done
your
once,
you've
done
your
investigation,
then
you
want
to
say,
oh
and
by
the
way,
I'm
sorry
more
off.
Coming
like
okay,
we
had
a
higher
report,
a
crime.
A
I
don't
you
know,
I
don't
know
you
know
it
does.
It
becomes
a
very,
very
sticky
situation,
and
this
I
just
think,
like
you,
have
to
approach
this
with
caution,
especially
when
you
are
because
you
can
make
people
feel
as
though
they
are
being
targeted
when
they
are
just
home.
A
So
that
would
be
my
only
discussion
on
this,
because
I
I
will
feel
offended
as
well
as
the
complaint
complaining
as
well
as
the
complainant's
friend,
but
then
it's
like
how
do
you
tell
no
one
goes
out
with
criminal
across
their
head,
so
they're
not
easily
identifiable.
A
So
that's
my
only
discussion
on
this.
If
anyone
has
anything
else
to
say,
please
feel
free
to
do
so.
At
this
point.
C
You
know
it's
interesting
because
I
mean
by
law
everything
that
we
talk
about.
You
know,
there's
wide
discretion
by
law,
and
so
what
it
comes
down
to
is
a
culture
of
you
know
who
we
are.
You
know
as
law
enforcement
in
our
community
I'm
making
and
having
a
discussion
I
mean
that
is
you
know,
that's
kind
of
you
know
where
we
are
so
hopefully
you
know
our
officers
are
being
trained
to
de-escalate
and
clearly
not
utilize.
Every
law
toolbook
that
they
have
and
make
good
sound
decisions
in
support
of
our
citizens.
A
Yeah
again,
that's
where
that
community
relation
relations
come
in.
You
know
with
the
between
the
community
and
the
police
department,
so
that
you
know
there
can
be
more
communication
and
transparency
there,
but
yeah
so
other
than
that
I
have
no.
I
have
no
problem
with
this
complaint
necessarily
or
with
this
inquiry.
E
I
agree,
I
think
it
was
handled
as
as
best
it
could
be.
I
don't
think
there's
any
violation
of
any
any
rule
any
of
the
rules
in
this
one,
but
I
agree
that
you
know
kind
of
leading
with
the
the
reasoning
of
hey.
There's
been
a
you
know,
rash
of
burglaries
and
we're
just
checking
things
out
may
have
defused,
possibly
diffuse.
Some
of
the.
A
Well,
we're
seeing
that
now
aren't
we
so
that
being
said,
any
further
discussion,
if
no
no
further
discussion,
if
I
can
have
a
motion
to
move
this
to
hsc.
A
Second,
if
I
can
have
a
second
okay,
all
right
I'll
agree,
say:
aye.
C
A
And
everyone
said
aye
any
any
opposed,
say,
nay,
having
no
opposition.
We
will
move
department,
inquiry
20-17
to
hs
hsc,
I'm
sorry,
someone
was
saying
something
all.
D
C
I
I
just
made
a
motion
to
move
2017,
but
in
actual
reality
it
was
the
2016.
C
C
A
That's
when
we
moved
in
to
to
hsc.
A
A
E
Moved
to
that
gi
2017
be
moved
to
hsc.
H
E
I
move
for
approval
of
the
december
2020
report
to
to
hsc.
H
C
A
Any
opposed,
say,
nay,
have
a
new
opposition.
It's
approved
to
the
c.
The
cprc
december
reports,
hs
c
is
approved.
A
A
So
on
this
one
are
you
taking
over
for
this
paulina.
B
I'm
just
sharing
my
screen,
but
I
believe
commander
glue,
will
good.
G
Yeah,
thank
you.
Paulina
yeah
pauline
is
gonna,
be
doing
sharing
the
screen,
but
I'll
be
doing
the
talk,
and
so
he
said
this
is
a
training
and
discussion
session
a
little
bit
of
background
on
this.
After
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
voiced
at
our
last
meeting
kimberly
and
myself
and
sergeant
warnock
met,
and
we
thought
that
there
would
be
especially
because
hey
aaron
cry
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
we're
pretty
much
caught
up
on
cases
right,
we
don't
have
too
much
depending.
F
Yeah
so
after
today
we
have
one
other
cr
that
is
is
probably
going
to
be
march
before
the
commission
sees
it
and
all
our
dis
are
up
to
date
other
than
this
di2013,
which
will
come
back
we'll
see
if
we
get
it
back
before
february,
but
otherwise
march.
So
looking
into
february
right
now,
we
have
no
complaints
for
february.
F
G
On
our
thanks,
aaron,
based
on
our
last
meeting
the
voices,
the
concerns
that
were
voiced
again,
we
met
we
kind
of
came
up
with
some
topics.
We
thought
that
would
be
good
to
address
for
those
concerns
and
I
do
have
up
there.
That
is
a
discussion
session.
G
So
as
we
go
through
this,
if
there's
topics
that
come
up
or
or
you
know,
feedback,
it
is
a
discussion.
G
So
why
do
we?
The
goals
of
the
training
discussion?
Are
we
kind
of
feel
that
we
need
to
compensate
for
some
deficiencies
and
training
due
to
covet
19.?
There
is
some,
I
believe,
there's
some
some
additional
training.
We
wanted
this
board
to
go
through
prior
to
going
kind
of
live
and
covet.
19
was
an
obstacle
to
that.
So
that's
part
of
our
mission
again,
as
I
stated
before,
addressing
concerns
that
were
voiced
by
commission
members
and
every
commission
every
entity
kind
of
evolves,
so
part
of
this
training
is
to
evolve.
G
The
commission,
with
regards
to
its
mission,
did
not
intend
for
that
to
rhyme,
but
it
does
so,
but
tonight
is
basically
going
to
be
a
bit
of
a
short,
probably
shorter,
and
it's
an
intro
to
the
plan
for
conversation
and
training
in
the
coming
months.
G
So,
in
the
coming
months,
these
are
the
kind
of
topics
that
we
identified.
That
would
probably
be
good
to
review.
This
is
not
a
definitive
list.
This
is
tentative.
So
if
things
come
up,
we
want
to
add
or
subtract
or
move
around
things
that
are
complementary.
We
can
do
that
but
february.
Our
tenant
plan
is
to
review
body,
worn
cameras
and
complaint
intake.
G
That'll
basically
entail
body-worn
camera
policy,
the
law-
you
know,
retention,
storage,
so
on
so
forth,
and
then,
additionally,
our
complaint
intake
process
and
how
we
want
to
touch
on
how
body-worn
cameras
change,
how
we
kind
of
intake
complaints.
Basically,
what
used
to
be
you
know
five
years
ago,
an
anonymous
complaint.
There
wasn't
a
lot.
We
could
do
with
it
now.
Complaints
that
are
more
anonymous
are
investigate
more
thoroughly
because
of
body.
Worn
cameras
march
will
be
officer
bill
at
wright's
due
process
and
complaint
investigation.
G
We
do
wanna.
We
think
that
these
topics
are
relevant
because
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
at
the
last
meeting
was
these
investigations
sometimes
take
a
really
long
time,
and
I
think
that
that's
a
fair,
fair
and
objective
observation,
but
we
want
to
give
some
context
to
why
these
things
take
the
time
that
they
do
april,
and
I
I
apologize
completely
doing
a
slide.
I
completely
butchered
april:
that's
not
the
police,
accountability
and
public
relations
act
that
you
read
the
police
and
community
relations
improvement
act.
G
That
is
the
act
that
oversees
officer-involved
death
investigations,
officer-involved
shootings.
We
think
that
that
bring
us
making
us
all
familiar
with
that
the
dynamics
of
those
of
that
legislation
and
those
investigations
would
be
beneficial
for
all
of
us
and
then.
G
And
then
april,
or
I'm
sorry
then
in
may-
that
is
our
topic.
There
we
think
is
a
good
one,
but
I
don't
want
to
share
it
yet
because
it's
pending
legal
review
and
hopefully
I'll,
have
some
more
answers
come
next
month.
I
will
admit
we're
kind
of
we're
holding
this
one
back,
because
we
think
it's
good.
We
have
high
hopes
and
we
think
that
you
guys
will
enjoy
it,
but
I
don't
want
to
get
the
hopes
up
and
get
attached
by
the
legal
department.
So
that's
why
I'm
holding
back
on
that
one.
G
We
kind
of
want
to
we
want
to
revisit
the
goals
of
this
ordinance
and
kind
of
articulate
them
in
our
own
words
and
obviously
the
big.
The
first
one
is
transparency.
G
We
think
that
a
goal,
one
of
the
big
goals
of
this
ordinance.
This
commission
is
transparency
of
the
police
department.
Transparency
is
a
priority
in
the
culture
of
the
community
of
evanston.
That
is
clear
to
everybody,
including
ourselves,
and
we
think
that
transparency
is
a
goal.
G
The
next
one
is
policy
compliance.
We
need
to
have
a
number
of
policy
compliance
measures
in
place
to
have
you
know
to
have
a
robust
policy
compliance
program
within
our
department.
G
This
serves
as
part
of
policy
compliance,
it's
one
of
the
measures
that
we
have,
and
I
think
that
the
next
point
I'm
going
to
make
also
touches
on
deterrence,
which
is
the
fact
that
you
have
returned
what
now
two
cases
at
least
since
I've
been
involved
with
this
commission
is,
is
part
of
that
function
of
policy
compliance
are.
Are
these
investors?
Are
the
officers
complying
with
policy?
G
Is
the
investigation
leading
to
the
right
conclusion,
and
is
that
being
followed
up
and
the
last
one
is
deterrence
and
that's
related
to
quality
control?
G
It
has
good
sound
quality
control
with
regards
to
the
investigations,
and
I
think
the
further
that
we
go
along
the
more
that's
going
to
become
evident
as
these
investigations
are
looked
at
and
it's
your
feeling
that
they
may
be
deficient
and
go
back,
that's
going
to
send
an
element
of
quality
control
in
the
process
and
deter
people
from
you
know
slacking
off
on
what
they're
supposed
to
do.
I
recognize
there's
going
to
be
times
that
we
bring
a
thorough
well-reasoned
investigation
forward
and
there
may
not
be
agreement
or
or
so
on
so
forth.
G
G
The
next
thing
I
want
to
touch
on
is
our
numbers
for
the
last
five
years
with
regards
to
complaints.
What
if
this,
if
this
commission
last
was
around
since
2016,
what
would
your
years
have
looked
like?
How
busy
would
it
have
been
with
regards
to
to
crime
and
complaints
and
so
on
and
so
forth?
Evanson
is
a
pretty
small
statistical
sample.
It
is
75
000
people,
there
are
a
significant
amount
of
police
contacts,
but
it
is
statistically
small.
So
it
does.
G
It
can
get
like
as
we
look
at
the
complaints
that
you
guys
would
have
reviewed
for
the
last
five
years.
17
and
2016
10
and
2017
2018
is
17,
28
19,
we've
been
15
and
2020
is
20..
Some
of
those
years
are
quiet
where
we'll
be
reviewing
on
average
less
than
one
case
a
month,
some
closer
to
two,
but
some
years
or
some
periods
will
be
a
little
bit
more
busy
and
I
would
say,
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
G
A
little
more
interesting
in
some
periods
will
be
based
on
the
fact
that
it's
just
quiet
and
uninteresting
and
part
of
that
has
to
do
with
we're.
Just
not
a
huge
statistical
sample,
so
some
years
will
be
like
wow.
What's
going
on,
some
years
might
be
a
little
quieter
and
this
tracks,
along
with
this
tracks,
along
with
some
of
our
crime
as
well.
I'm
sorry.
G
G
But
although,
like
listen
I'll
be
happy
to
double
check,
I
mean
like,
I
can
definitely
miss
something,
and
I
I
want
it
to
be.
If
there
is
a
question
again
of
quality
control,
I
wanted.
I
want
to
be
able
to
stand
behind
it
and
I
will
double
check
and
make
sure
that
the
source
I
got
this
is
up
to
date.
G
C
G
I
I'm
going
to
take
a
minute
like
and
I'm
not
going
to
say
that
our
department's,
not
error,
free
and
there's
not
many
times
that
we're
not
going
to
be
looking
at
some
some
significant
mistakes
as
a
group.
Don't
I'm
not
going
to
say
that
at
all,
but
I
definitely
think
that
I
think
our
department
as
a
whole
has
a
pretty
good
understanding
of
what
the
community
local
community.
G
We
should
be
able
to
communicate
pretty
effectively
with
the
community,
and
I
think
that,
if
we're
communicating
well
in
our
contacts,
it's
going
to
keep
our
our
complaints
down,
we
do
have
enough.
We
have
seen
complaints
in
the
past
where
people
do
everything
right,
but
they're
not
an
effective
communicator.
It
brings
about
a
complaint,
sometimes
we
may
screw
up
and
but
since
we're
personable
and
a
good
communicator
that
could
that
may
not
be
a
complaint
that
comes
to
us.
G
That
may
be
something
that
is
taken
care
of
on
the
street
and
everybody
comes
to
an
agreement
there.
It
kind
of
moves
on,
but
I
mean
I
think
that
these
numbers
are
a
reflection
of
our
understanding
of
the
community
and
and
the
long
multi-generational
police
commitment
to
engagement,
community
policing,
anti-bias
training,
racial
sensitivity,
training
which
is
part
of
our
culture
and
has
been
for
generations.
H
C
G
There
was
a
move.
There
was
a
you
know.
I
would
say
that,
probably
maybe
20
years
ago,
if
there
was
a
plate
that
came
in
and
was
handled
with,
a
supervisor
and
and
kind
of
like,
are
you
okay?
Is
it
cool
so
on
so
forth
all
right,
and
then
we
just
kind
of
moved
on
right
now.
We
do
definitely
the
mentality.
If
we
get
a
complaint,
it
needs
to
be
documented,
and
if
it's
a
departmental
inquiry
or
cr,
it's
got
to
be
investigated.
G
So
we're
not.
It
doesn't
I'll
be
honest
with
the
demand
of
transparency
that
we
understand
in
oversight
the
risk
of
trying
to
bury
or
poo
poo
a
complaint.
It's
just
not
worth
it.
I
mean
it's
I
mean
there's.
I
think
that
what
we're
doing
are
mistakes
we
can,
you
know
we'll
own
up
to
them
when
they
happen
and
in
general,
there's
just
not
there's
there's
no
benefit
for
anybody,
it's
not
benefit
for
us
or
the
community
to
try
to
bury
complaints
or
poo
poo
them.
G
G
G
G
That's
on
there,
because
we're
talking
about
complaint
intake
next
time,
the
bodywork,
camera
law
and
policy,
and
then
you
know
what
do
your
acquaintances
think
may
be
beneficial
for
you
know,
if
you
have
conversations
or
have
conversations
about
your
role,
you
know
what
would
people
you
talk
to
think
would
make
people
more
comfortable
in
the
complaint
process
and
before
we
go
back
to
questions,
insights
and
ideas.
G
If
people
need
me
to
compile
where
to
get
this
information,
the
city,
the
website,
complaint
forum,
bodywork
cameras,
law
and
policy,
please
let
me
know
I'll,
send
an
email
to
be
forwarded
to
everybody
and
hopefully
just
have
some
hyperlinks
that
you
can
look
it
up.
So
with
that,
I
open
it
up
to
everybody.
E
That
last
point,
if
you
could
put
all
the
hyperlinks
and
email.
G
Anybody
anybody
got
any
other
and,
like
he
said
this,
isn't
a
pop
quiz.
So
if
you
think
of
something
regarding
this
topic,
just
because
we're
talking
about
something
next
time
doesn't
mean
you
can't
bring
it
forward.
So
if
something
crosses
your
mind
in
two
weeks
feel
free
to
jot
it
down
and
bring
it
to
our
attention
next
meeting.
A
G
A
Discussion
on
that,
no.
D
A
We
can
move
on
to
on
the
agenda.
We
have
a
civilian
complaint
review.
B
I'm
not
to
shake.
Do
you
have
any
information
about
this
item.
B
A
Put
it
over
to
the
next
meeting
and
then
we
can
talk
to
kimberly
about
that.
Okay,
yes,
all
right
all
right!
So,
let's
move
on.
We
have
a
executive
session.
A
motion
to
convene
it's
executive
concession
session
was
this
something
that
was
brought
up
in
a
last
meeting,
because
I
know
we
don't
we
don't
have
a
motion
to
convene
for
this
particular
meeting,
and
I
know
I
wasn't
present
for
the
last
meeting.
H
A
A
To
agree
for
a
motion
to
a
for
the
emotion
to
adjourn,
say
aye
any
oppose,
say,
nay,
having
no
opposite
opposition
to
the
adjournment.
It
was
great
scenic.
You
guys
again
happy
new
year
today
was
not
the
greatest
day,
but
then
it.