►
From YouTube: Citizen Police Review Commission - 9/2/2020
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).
B
C
Okay,
we
we
are
here
today
on
the
city
of
city,
police,
review,
commission.
It
seems
as
though
we
have
a
quorum.
So
I
like
to
call
this
meeting
to
order.
Do
I
need
to
motion
that
I
need
do?
I
need
a
motion
call
to
order.
B
A
C
C
C
E
And
I'm
I'm
sorry
that
you're
not
all
present,
but
I
guess
I
will
type
these
up
and
and
hopefully
find
emails
for
those
of
you
who
are
not
there.
E
I
can
certainly
send
them
along
or
kimberly
of
course,
has
them
as
well,
but
there
were
a
fair
number
of
things
that
were
discussed
and
recommended
that
were
not
included
in
the
ordinance
that
that
formed
your
group,
and
there
were
some
important
things
that
I
just
want
you
all
to
be
aware
of.
So
that
you're,
aware
of
the
things
that
we
thought
were
important
weaknesses
in
the
prior
situation.
E
E
We
had
thought
it
was
really
important
that
citizens
know
when
their
complaint
was
coming
to
you
all,
because
once
you
have
reviewed
it
and
affirmed
or
made
recommendations
back
to
epd,
it's
kind
of
too
late
for
them
to
bring
some
of
their
story
forward.
If
it
varies
from
what
is
indeed
in
the
report
that
you
all
see
from
epd.
E
Another
thing
that
I
that
I
noticed
wasn't
discussed
last
week
was
the
fact
that
when
you
go
to
executive
session
to
view
body
cams
or
dash
cams,
and
so
on,
that
that
is
appropriately
done.
According
to
our
city,
at
least
in
executive
session.
Other
cities
do
not
read
open
meeting
laws
that
way
and
that
the
open
meetings
act
should
be
read
according
to
some
lawyers
who
I've
talked
to
this
about.
But
of
course
you
can
get
your
own
advice
that
you
can't
really
discuss
what
you're
seeing
on
screen
amongst
each
other
in
executive
session.
E
And
finally,
a
few
several
times
actually,
when
the
former
committee
cpac
was
reviewing
complaints,
the
introduction
in
the
report
coming
from
epd
identified
rules
that
if
the
accused
officer
was
found
to
have
violated,
you
know
which
rule
they
would
be
violating.
E
Sometimes
the
complainant
would
say
in
their
narrative
that
they
felt
like
they
were
being
racially
profiled
and
yet
rule
74
was
not
invoked
or
addressed
in
the
investigation.
So
I'd
encourage
you
to
keep
an
eye
out
for
that
and
that's
all
I
have
thank
you
so
much
for
your
service
and
thanks
for
listening
to
me
tonight.
C
Thank
you
karen
for
your
comment
tonight.
C
B
C
A
contact
this
time,
we're
gonna,
continue
down
on
the
agenda
and
we
are
going
to
start
with
our
new
business
as
part
of
our
new
business.
We
have
three
complaints
that
we
have
before
us
for
review,
and
so
we
can
go
ahead
and
start
discussion
on
review
of
the
department
inquiry.
C
C
If
anyone
want
to
start
there.
C
Sorry
can
we
have,
I
want
to
put
out
a
mo,
can
we
have
someone
move
for
a
motion
to
discuss
the
department
inquiries.
F
A
Potion
to
discuss
complaint
d1
number
twenty
zero
one.
F
C
Okay,
having
can
we
all
vote
on.
G
C
Okay,
having
second,
can
we
vote
on
discussion
for
di
number
20-01.
C
Haven't
hear
no
opposition
motion
is
made
and
entered
to
discuss
di
number
20-01
complaint.
B
Okay,
so
do
you
want
sergeant
warren
to
walk
through
the
summary
of
the
complaint
or
how
would
you
prefer
to
move
forward
with
the
discussion.
B
And
I
also
want
to
make
note
that
we
do
have
exact
session
on
the
on
this
agenda.
So
if
you
all
want
to
go
into
exact
session
at
any
time
to
view
the
video
or
any
additional
material
related
to
this
case
or
any
other,
we
can
hold
it
until
exact
session
so
that
we
can
review
everything
at
once
versus
coming
in
and
out
of
the
meeting
for
continuity
purpose.
C
G
All
right
good
evening,
everybody,
so
this
complaint
is
from
new
year's
day
and
it
happened,
looks
like
the
31st
early
morning,
so
officers
were
called
for
a
noise
complaint
and
then
there
was
also
a
complaint
that
between
the
two
neighbors,
that
there
was
noise
and
then
there
was
cigarette
smoke
and
marijuana
smoke.
That
was
seeping
into
the
complainant's
house.
It
turns
out
that
the
complainant
and
the
neighbor
that
she
initially
called
on
also
called
so
there
were
two
911
calls
going
on.
G
If
you
watch
the
video
you'll
see
that
so
when
the
officer
went
over
there,
I
was
three
officers
total,
so
the
initial
accused
officer
and
then
responding
officer
two
and
responding
officer,
three,
the
accused
officer.
I
had
a
conversation
with
the
complainant.
G
I
basically
advised
her
of
the
situation
that
it
was
a
civil
matter.
They
went
back
and
forth
at
some
point.
He
ended
up
telling
her
that
she
could
be
arrested
if
she
keeps
calling
the
police
and
essentially
the
call,
was
dispo'd
what
we
call
dyspo.
There
was
a
disposition
given
without
a
report,
so
it
was
coated
in
the
car
on
the
computer.
G
So
when
this
complaint
was
the
complainant
called,
she
essentially
advised
what
had
happened.
The
video
was
reviewed,
as
you
guys
have
seen
from
the
memorandum
investigation
was
completed
and
it
was
sent
down
to
the
patrol
sergeant
who
got
a
memorandum
from
the
officer
as
far
as
his
actions.
G
After
reviewing
that
so
going
back
to
the
ops
sergeant
in
charge
of
the
investigation-
and
I
I
think
I
explained
this
to
you
guys
before
when
we're
reviewing
these
and
doing
our
investigation,
we
basically
listen
to
what
the
complainant
says
and
we
decide
the
rule
violations
now,
that's
just
based
on
our
experience
and
based
on
our
opinion.
If
there's
something
that
another
supervisor
along
the
line
sees,
they
can
add,
or
they
can
refute.
G
Whatever
rule
we
put
down
but
rule
one
and
two
are
technically
like
catch-alls
you'll
see
those
most
of
the
time
so
rules,
one
and
two
were
seen
or
listed
with
this
as
well
as
rule
six
rule,
eighteen
well,
rule
six
is
incompetency
and
efficiency
and
performing
a
task
and
then
rule
18
is
a
disrespectful,
behavior
and
then
rule
20
is
not
providing
the
prompt
and
courteous
service.
G
So
once
the
officer
ends
up
giving
a
memo,
the
patrol
sergeant
reviews
the
information
from
officer
and
ops
and
they
make
a
recommendation
in
this.
They
exonerated
all
the
rule
violations.
Now
that
goes
up
to
the
patrol
commander.
G
In
this
case
the
patrol
commander
concurred
and
agreed.
There
was
no
further
action
needed,
so
they
were.
Exonerated
officer
was
exonerated,
and
then
this
went
to
the
deputy
chief,
who
also
agreed
with
the
initial
sergeant
recommendation
that
all
the
rule
violations
be
exonerated
and
then
from
there.
It
goes
to
you
all
for
review
before
it
goes
back
to
chief
cook.
C
F
C
G
So
ops
does
not
make
recommendations,
so,
in
order
for
us
to
be
impartial
investigators,
we
essentially
do
the
investigation
and
you'll
see.
As
you
read
the
ops
memorandum,
you
know
we
list
just
the
facts.
There's
no
opinion
you'll
see
that
from
like
the
patrol
sergeant.
So
we'll
never
say
that's
why
we
choose
what
we
think
are
the
proper
rule
violations
and
it's
up
to
the
sergeant
or
commander
to
decide.
If
those
rule
violations
were
indeed
met,
so
ops
will
never
will
never
give
any
any
sort
of
disciplinary
recommendation.
F
The
recommendations
are
just
just
solely
on
what
you
determine
your
judgment
of
what
rules
might
have
been.
I
guess
broken
if
you
will.
G
Yes,
so
whatever
what
so,
when
we
watch
it
and
we
do
the
whole
investigation,
we
talk
to
the
complainant.
We'll
then
look
at
the
rules,
we'll
look
at
our
policy
as
you'll
see
in
some
of
the
ones
coming
up.
There'll,
be
policy
violations,
not
just
rule
violations,
standard
operating
procedure,
violations
that
we
felt
fitted
now,
just
because
we
feel
that
this
could
possibly
be
a
violation.
G
You
know
the
sergeant
commander,
deputy
chief
end
up
doing
their.
They
review
everything
and
they're
doing
an
investigation
as
well.
So
they
have
the
determination
as
far
as
how
the
discipline
gets
handed
out
or
if
there
was
actually
a
rule
violation.
C
From
the
so
from
the
rules
that
you
all
feel
like
best
accurately
fit
the
or
might
possibly
fit
any
sort
of
violations,
according
to
the
incident,
do
you
do
you
just
like.
B
C
G
So
initially
we
go
through,
so
we
we
have
all
the
rules
we
have.
The
policy
just
based
on
everything
initially
is
when
ops
will
give
a
what
we
think
are
the
rule
or
policy
violations.
So
we
we
don't
go
back
and
say
you
know
we
think
now
after
this,
it
should
be.
G
You
know,
rule
whatever
that's
up
to
the
sergeant
commander
or
deputy
chief
to
add
a
rule
if
they
see
fit
to
do
so
and
as
you
can
see
through
this,
I
mean
this
is
this
is
a
lot
of
rules
as
you'll
see?
I
don't
know
if
you've
seen
past,
I
mean
sometimes
there's
one
rule
violation,
sometimes
there's
multiple
rule
violations
and
policy
violations.
G
And
again,
this
is
ops
is
coming
into
this,
as
just
a
third
party
investigator
we're
trying
to
be
as
fair
and
impartial
as
possible
to
the
complainant
and
the
officer
so
we're
you
know
we're
listing
the
rule
violations
and
when
it
says
at
the
top,
if
the
allegations
are
true,
the
accused
officer
may
have
violated
the
following,
and
it
says
that
in
the
memorandum
too,
if
you
guys
read
through
that,
you'll
see
that
in
there,
so
all
ops
can
do
is
review
it
and
what
what
either
myself
or
sergeant
faison
believe
are
the
rule
violations.
D
Erin,
I
have
a
question
not
on
the
the
substance
of
the
the
di,
but
it
looks
like
there
are
two
mistakes
in
in
dates
in
there.
That
may
need
to
be
corrected
just
for
for
clarity
on
the
in
the
very
beginning,
the
incident
for
ops,
it's
it
says,
on
december
31st
2020.
I
believe
that
should
be
2019
if
it
was
last
new
year's
eve.
D
G
D
So
the
portion
that
says
after
the
last
rule
after
rule
20
the
next
section,
that's
right.
D
G
So
again,
we're
are
we
talking
the
actual
memorandum
or
are
we
talking
the
oh,
I
see
what
you're
saying
yeah.
So
that's
that's
just
a
typo
on
on
that
I'll
make
a
note
of
that.
That
should
read
december
31st
2019.
G
again,
I
I
apologize
if
there's
typos,
if
you
guys
catch
them
and
you
need
clarification,
please
let
us
know
all
three
of
us
proofread
this
there's,
as
you
can
probably
guess,
a
lot
of
complaints
coming
in
right
now,
with
the
way
things
are
so
we're
we're
overworked.
So
if
we
we
do
miss
something,
please
ask
and
let
us
know
and
we'll
do
our
best
to
make
sure
we're
not.
F
G
D
G
Then
I
just
want
to
point
out
the
initiated
january
7th
in
the
completed
you
see
that
at
the
top,
so
those
dates
are
just
for
the
investigative
purposes
and
then
the
april
10th
is
when
it
should
have
gone
to
hsc,
but
it
just
never
did
because
hsc
didn't
meet
and
then
you
guys
were
formed
and
it
never
got
in
front
of
hsc.
So
now
it's
in
front
of
you
so
you'll
see
the
dates
are,
are
just
different
at
the
top,
based
on
the
actual
investigation.
G
This
this
one
is,
this
summary
is
published.
I
believe,
kimberly
published
it
on
the
meeting
agenda.
A
Correct
I
just
I
just
wanna
also.
I
know
that
the
the
person
who
is
doing
your
redacting
is
new
to
this,
but
on
page
18,
the
daughter
of
the
complainant,
her
name
isn't
redacted
and
it's.
A
G
They
only
get
the
summary.
So
if
there's
something
we
missed,
I
mean
I,
I
read
through
this
document,
probably
four
or
five
times,
and
I
know
that
jeff
also
read
through
it
and
our
admin
read
through
it
too.
G
So
if
we
do
miss
something,
let
us
know,
but
you
guys
are
the
only
ones
who
see
the
report.
The
memorandum
all
the
public
sees
is
this
summary.
I
think
it's
a
two
or
three
page
summary
for
each
case.
That's
it.
A
All
right,
my
only
concern
was
that
with
that
daughter's
name,
I
I
know
who
it
is
just
with
a
child
in
the
high
school.
It's
an
unusual
name,
and
I
didn't
want
the
public
to
know.
G
Right,
no,
I
appreciate
that
and
that's
why
too,
on
the
summary,
there's
just
no
names
and
that's
why
it's
retyped
just
so,
we
don't
make
any
there's
absolutely
no
possibility
of
that
going
out
right.
B
And
can
I
just
add
if
you
do
see
something
to
that
effect
in
the
future,
even
though
it
is
private,
even
though
it
is
only
for
you
all
to
view
please
let
aaron
know,
because
he
can
always
make
sure
that
he
fix
corrects
it
so
that
moving
forward
other
people
don't
have
to.
You
know,
don't
see
that
information,
because
not
everyone's
reading
at
the
same
time.
So
please
let
aaron
know
if
you
find
errors,
because
it's
important
to
be
as
accurate
as
possible.
C
Would
anyone
like
to
review
the
the
video
of
this
department
inquiry.
B
Okay,
so
with
that
being
said,
as
new
to
this
committee,
I
think
we
discussed
at
the
last
meeting.
We
need
to
figure
out
a
form,
so
somehow
we
have
to
be
able
to
put
a
report
to
city
to
hs
to
human
services
committee
hsc
summarizing
decisions,
so
at
some
point
there
needs
to
be-
and
I
apologize
because
I'm
trying
not
to
repeat
past
practices.
B
However,
there
needs
to
be
some
type
of
action
from
this
commission
to
say
this
needs
to
move
forward
to
hsc
and
not
so
much
endorsing
the
the
action
but
endorsing
the
process
like
saying
it
was
thoroughly
reviewed
or
that
you
are
that
the
investigation
per
your
review
looks
thorough
and
completed
you're,
not
you're,
not
you're,
not
responding
or
motioning
on
the
the
findings.
B
F
A
question:
let's
just
say:
we
determined
that
it's.
B
So,
typically,
it
has
been
presented
by
ops
as
a
report,
a
complete
report
to
human
services
committee
or-
and
that
would
be
this-
their
staff
would
do
that.
But
if
you're
as
the
commission
wants
to
have
a
representative
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
group,
that
can
be
done
as
well,
and
I
think
that's
reason
why
the
the
document
or
report,
however,
you
want
to
call
it
that's
a
supplement
to
this
was
created
so
that
you
weren't
having
to
be
obligated
to
attend
every
meeting
at
hsc
to
report
back.
But
it's
your
words.
B
It
is
not
the
words
of
ops
or
the
chief.
It's
you
as
a
commission
speaking
on
your
review
of
this.
B
So
as
you
see
the
summary,
what
will
happen
is
that
there
can
be
an
extra
line
that
can
be
added
to
this
summary
report.
That
is
your
review
process.
B
So
that's
something
to
contemplate.
This
is
something
that
we
we're
really,
I
would
say
I
would
speak
for
myself.
I
was
really
strong
about
us
not
making
having
you
all
have
to
follow
a
process
that
we
prescribe,
but
something
that
you
all
agreed
to,
or
you
all
have
discussed
and
said.
This
is
how
we
want
to
proceed,
but
I
just
want
to
give
you
some
framing
around
that
conversation.
C
Okay,
for
me,
just
looking
at
through
support,
I
don't
the
only
thing
that
I
would
what
that
I
would
like,
and
I
don't
you
know
I
don't
speak
for
anyone
else.
Is
that
ops
they
they
lay
down
rules
that
make
that
may
possibly
fit
with
the
complaint
before
actually
reviewing
the
complaint
and
after
they
review
the
complaint.
There's
no
one
going
back
to
say:
okay,
well,.
G
Yes,
so
the
investigation
is
we
we
talk
to
the
complainant.
We
look
at
the
video
if
we're
sending
down
a
possible
rule
violation.
That
means
we've
done
the
investigation.
If
you
look
at
the
memorandum,
I
think
it
like
on
this
case,
was
very
thoroughly
done.
G
G
These
are
rule
violations
based
on
what
the
complainant
is
telling
us
now,
if
it's
like
a
cr
complaint
register,
which
I
think
we'll
have
for
the
next
meeting,
you'll
see
before
it's
sent
down
that
we've
actually
interviewed
the
accused
officer,
so
we're
talking
to
them
prior
to
making
the
rule
violations.
G
Correct
we
watch
the
body
cam,
we
we
speak
to
the
complainant.
We
don't
speak
to
the
officer,
that's
up
to
the
sergeant
down
in
patrol
to
do
and
that's
why
I
say
they
can
add
rule
violations
if
they
talk
to
the
officer
and
they
find
something
else
that
comes
up,
but
you
know
typically
watching
the
body
cam.
G
Looking
at
the
reports
or
the
codes
and
speaking
with
the
complainant,
you
get
a
pretty
good
picture
of
what
happened
and
I
think,
seeing
the
body
cams
end
up,
showing
you
a
lot
of
of
the
scene
and
and
how
people
were
talked
to
and
and
if
their
complaint
is
viable
or
not.
C
All
right
having
having
heard
that
and
having
that
clarify
for
me,
I
don't
see,
I
don't
see
any
real
problem
with
the
process
here.
D
Agree,
it
looks
like
this
was
a
thorough
investigation
and
went
through
a
number
of
different
levels
and
and
like
they
followed
the
proper
procedures
and
then
did
a
a
proper
investigation
of
the.
F
C
Okay,
so
kimberly
should
we
should
we
move
to
have
this
move
on
to
hsc?
Yes,.
B
So
the
so
that
would
be
your
recommendation.
Your
recommendation
is
to
move
it
to
hsc
for
their
review
and
what
we
will
do
is
work
with
you
janita,
on
trying
to
craft
what
additional
language
needs
to
be
added
to
the
summary
that
will
that
will
reflect
of
this
commission's
review.
C
All
right,
but
do
we
need
to
motion
for
a
recommendation
to
move
to
move
it
yeah?
Okay,
so
having
had
discussion
on
bi
number
2001
and
can
I
have
a
motion
to
recommend
moving
this
over
to
hsc.
A
I
move
that
we
move
make
a
motion
that
we
move
di
2001
to
hsc
for
further
review.
C
C
Motion
all
right
can
we
have
a
vote
of
all
that
agree
say
I
say
I.
A
C
I
I
anyone
in
disagreement,
say
name
having
the
disagreements
this
would
this
would
be
recommended
to
move
forward
to
hse
for
further
review.
B
G
Now
kimberly
with
the
first
one
is
that
can
be
enough
time
for
the
committee
to
put
together.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
do
I,
if
you
guys,
want
to
decide
now,
if
you
think
I
don't
have
it
in
front
of
me,
but
is
that
I
think
october
7th,
maybe
correct.
B
C
B
I
think
it
should
probably
attach
the
conversation
dog
you
and
I
probably
need
to
have
sooner
rather
than
later,
so
I
will
make
sure
that
happens
so
that
we
can
have
that
discussion
and
if,
if
so,
we
can,
I
mean
we
can
hold
off
and
have
the
form
approved,
and
then
that
can
just
go
all
together
packaged
to
the
subsequent
meeting
in
november,
if
need
be
or
whenever
they
meet
again.
B
B
F
The
question
so
the
complainant
doesn't
receive
any
kind
of
final
understanding
of
the
you
know.
What's
been
approved
or
not
until
it
goes
all
the
way
through
human
services,
correct.
G
Well,
we'll
we
will
tell
them
so
in
the
past
we've
when
it's
gone
from
cpac,
we
have
told
them
because
it's
already
been
decided
what
the
outcome
is.
So
at
this
point,
when
we
receive
the
report
from
you
we'll
be
able
to
say,
this
is
going
to
like
I'll
have
to
redo
the
form
and
we
do
send
the
form
by
certified
mail.
G
So
if
we
can
have
enough
time
for
that
to
take
place,
I
I
would
request
at
least
10
days,
maybe
two
weeks
that
I
can
get,
because
I
have
to
send
it
out
certified
and
get
it
back.
So
we
know
that
they
were
notified
and
typically
I
call
some
complainants
don't
want
to
be
talked
to
on
the
telephone
once
they
make
the
complaint.
So
you
know
if
I
can
email,
I
do
everything
to
reach
out,
but
we
do
like
to
send
the
certified
mail
to
just
notify
them
as
well.
G
But
there's
gonna
have
to
be
a
different
form,
so
there's
not
gonna
be
a
final.
So
we'll
also
do
a
final
report
to
them,
as
far
as
so
we'll
essentially
have
to
send
it
out
twice
now,
because
we'll
send
it
out
for
hsc
and
then
we'll
have
to
send
out
the
final
disposition
letter,
which
typically,
that
was
an
all-in-one
form
when
we
had
cpac,
because
it
was
a
meeting
right
now,
would
decide
everything.
G
The
chief
would
have
already
made
his
decision,
so
that's
kind
of
shifting,
so
we'll
probably
have
to
send
it
out
twice
now.
Looking
at
it.
B
B
G
Yes,
so
from
from
this
point,
we
will
receive
back
your
findings
and
then
we'll
go
to
hsc
with
it
and
I'll
confirm
with
the
chief,
because
I
I
gotta
read
the
ordinance
over
whatev.
However,
the
ordinance
reads:
that's
how
we'll
do
it.
B
Right
and
so
and
again
I
know
like
there's
probably
some
room
for
that
ordinance
to
be
massaged
a
little
bit
more,
but
we
have
been
given
pretty
much.
The
chief
has
said
that
he
will
take
your
guidance,
and
you
know
how
you
all
receive
this
and
we
will
adjust
that
makes
sense
to
ensure
that
this
process
is
fair
as
well
as
thorough,
and
so
he
is
willing
to
now.
A
Can
I
just
clarify
aaron,
so
us
moving
this
forward
to
hsc
means
that
we
are
all
in
agreement
that
your
investigation
was
extremely
thorough
and
done
properly
and
that
we
are
all
in
agreement
that
the
complaint
is
unfounded
and
the
officer
should
be
exonerated.
G
Yes,
as
far
as
so
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
that's
that's
my
take
on
this.
Now,
that's
how
it
would
have
been
with
cpac.
They
had
voted
in
each
session,
how
they
wanted
to
vote
on
each
rule.
If
they
they
actually
did
each
rule
independently
and
voted
and
if
they
agreed
or
disagreed.
G
So
if,
if
you
guys-
and
I
think
kimberly
said,
you
guys,
aren't
actually
doing
the
rule
violations
you're
just
looking
at
the
actual
investigation
to
see
if
it
was
thorough
and
fair,
but
it's
my
take
that
if
you
guys
agree,
then
it
goes
forward
to
hsc,
then
you
guys
have
have
signed
off
on
it.
B
Then
it
can't
go
forward
until
you
all
have
said
everything
on
here
is
in
line
with
moving
towards
whatever
decision
that's
being
disposed
of.
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear:
we're
not
asking
you
to
rule
on
the
rules
itself,
just
because
from
the
feedback
from
some
of
the
members
it
was.
You
know
it's
it's
even
though
you're
seeing
I'm
going
to
be
clear,
you're,
seeing
way
more
than
the
previous
group
ever
saw.
They
never
saw
a
full
report.
They
never
I
mean
they
did
review
video
from
time
to
time.
B
All
they
received
was
the
summary,
and
that
was
it
so
with
you
all
having
more
access
to
information
it
give
us,
you
know
in
thorough
investigation.
It
will
then
make
ops
to
go
back
and
say
we
need
to
look
at
it
more
thoroughly
to
ensure
that
we
are
covering
other
issues
that
was
arised
by
this
group.
D
I
have
a
question
I'm
following
on
to
that.
So
if
we
look
at
something
and
see
and
come
to
the
consensus
that
you
know
it
was
thoroughly
investigated.
But
we
disagree
with
the
findings
and
recommendation.
Is
that
something
that
we
can
voice
in
this
committee?
And
because,
from
what
you
explained
previously
kimberly
sounds
like
we
can
only
talk
about
the
the
whether
the
investigation
was
proper
and
thorough
and
our
our
opinions
on
the
finding
and
recommendations
aren't
really
going
to
be
considered.
D
So
I
just
want
to
get
clarity
on
that.
Whether
we
should
also
be.
B
Sure
so,
let's
let's
say
that's
the
scenario
that
you
can
say.
You
know
what
everything
all
everything
that
was
submitted
to
us
look
like
everyone
did
their
responsible
job
and
we
don't
find
anything
wrong
with
the
process.
However,
we
disagree
with
the
decision.
I
mean
that
could
be
a
recommendation
to
the
chief,
because
the
chief
at
the
end
of
the
day
is
the
arbiter
of
that
decision.
B
It's
not
hsc
right,
so
hsc
does
not
have
the
authority
to
discipline,
it
is
through
the
chief,
and
so,
if
there's
concerns
that
arise,
definitely
you
are
able
to
voice
that
it's
just
you're
not
voting
on
that
per
se.
Okay,.
D
So
that
can
be
part
of
our
report,
but
that's
not
what
hjc
is
going
to
be
considering,
but
it
can
be
included
in
the
report
for
what's
going
back
down
for
his
final
determination.
Okay,.
B
so
and
we
can-
and
I
don't
want
to
hamstring
this
committee
either.
So
if
we
see
things
that
are
not
working
or
we
see
things
that
could
be
done
better,
I
think
we
need
to
discussed
and
addressed
because
the
chief
has
definitely
said
like
he
wants
this
committee
to
be
effective,
and
so
as
we're
starting
this
off.
I
know
it's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
touch
and
go
with
how
things
are
going
to
flow
until
we
have
a
rhythm.
So
please
feel
free.
B
G
Yes-
and
I
know
I
spoke
to
the
chief
earlier-
he's-
was
unable
to
make
it
today
he
was
planning
on
it,
but
I
wasn't
able
to
make
it
so
I
imagine
he'll
and
I
can
ask
him
to
be
at
the
next
meeting.
If
everybody
wants
him
there.
C
All
right,
thank
you
so
having
having
moved
department
inquiry
number
2001
to
hsc,
we
have
before
us
now
department
inquiry
number
dated
april,
29
2020.
So
if
I
can
have
a
motion
for
discussion.
C
Can
we
okay?
Can
we
have
a
vote
on
on
the
motions
to
discuss,
say
aye
if
you
agree,
nay,
if
you
have
any
opposition,
having
heard
no
opposition,
we
have
before
us
again
department
inquiry
number
2003
up
for
discussion,
so
officer
warnick.
G
Sure
so
we
received
this
complaint.
The
complainant
stated
that
his
door
was
damaged
and
officers
tried
breaking
into
his
condo
and
cross
crossed
the
threshold
without
a
warrant.
G
In
reviewing
this,
he
also
felt
that
he
was
being
harassed
in
reviewing
this.
The
possible
violations
were
rule
1,
2,
18
and
20..
So
there
was
a
noise
complaint.
This
is
an
ongoing
issue
between
some
neighbors.
I
a
neighbor
had
called.
It
was,
I
believe,
the
second
day
in
a
row
that
officer
had
gone
out.
The
officers
got
to
the
complainant's
door
and
could
hear
the
tv
very
loud
knocked,
and
there
was
no
answer
they
began
banging
on
the
door
very
hard.
G
I
believe,
kicking
it
at
one
point
at
which
point
the
complainant
opened
the
door.
I
asked
them
what
was
going
on
what
they
were
doing
and
accused
him
of
breaking
into
his
home?
G
The
accused
officer
denied
the
allegation
requested
to
speak
with
him,
at
which
point
he
there
really
wasn't
going
to
be
a
conversation.
They
advised
him
if
it
keeps
up
there's
going
to
be
a
citation
written.
G
There
was
some
things
said
about
an
earlier
incident
with
some
plainclothes
officers
showing
up
I,
if
you
guys
read
through
the
investigation,
you
would
be
able
to
decipher
through
that
stuff,
where
I
think
there
was
confusion
between
what
was
going
on
with
this,
and
he
stated
that
some
damage
happened
to
the
door
back
in
november
of
2019,
which
was
not
a
police
issue.
The
police
were
not
there,
then
so
it
was
reviewed.
The
video
was
reviewed.
G
G
G
I
mean
based
on
the
investigation.
I
don't
I,
I
think
it's
hard
to
say
that
the
officer
caused
the
damage,
we're
talking
a
vintage
door
and
probably
like
a
1920s
building.
So
I
mean
you
know,
having
lived
in
one
of
those
before
you
kind
of
know
that
the
door
is
loose
after
time.
I
don't
know
what
it
was
like
prior
to
the
officers
knocking
though,
because
I
wasn't
there
so
him
making
that
that
accusation,
obviously
we're
going
to
investigate
it,
and
that's
why
the
evidence
technician
was
sent
out
to
document
with
photographs.
G
But
it's
not
like
the
door
was
broken
down
and
was
unable
to
shut
where
you
could
just
force
it
open.
Once
the
officer
had
knocked
on
it
and
then
going
through
the
patrol
sergeant.
G
Unfounded
that
the
officer
had
crossed
the
threshold
and
exonerated
that
he
prevented
him
from
closing
the
door,
he
did
state
the
advisor
officer,
the
accused
officer
of
possible
options
that
could
have
been
used
to
resolve
the
incidents.
G
The
patrol
commander
concurred
and
they
they,
I
guess,
did
some
teaching
points
there's
what
essentially
it
was.
It
was
basically
a
counseling
session
with
the
officer
and
then
the
deputy
chief
agreed,
and
there
was
no
further
action
taken.
G
I
mean
it
depends
on
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
he
didn't
enter
the
apartment.
If
you
watch
the
video
I
mean
he
put
his
foot
in
the
the
threshold
of
the
door,
I
think
you
would
have
to
watch
the
video
to
see
how
the
complainant
answered
the
door,
and
it
would
really
I
mean.
I
can't
really
answer
to.
G
I
think
if
you
watch
the
video
on
this
one
you
would
you
would
see
based
on
what
they
were
investigating
it's
kind
of
hard
to
tell
what
was
going
on
in
the
apartment
and
really
what
they're
doing
is
just
trying.
Yes,
they
can
based
on
this
circumstance
what
they
did
was
not
illegal.
They
didn't
technically
enter
the
apartment
and
they
stopped
him
from
closing
the
door
because
they're
addressing
something
and
once
they
figured
out
what
was
going
on
they
they
were
done.
So,
yes,
you
can
up
to
a
certain
point.
G
C
So
it's
it's
on
the
officer's
discretion
to
take
an
action
such
as
the
one
that
was
taken
in
this
case,
like
I
said,
depending
on
the
totality
of
the
circumstances.
G
Correct
I
mean
in
it
and
once
you
realize
what's
going
on,
and
I
think
that
happened
here
you
you
have
to
stop
and
I
think
that
happened
in
reviewing
it.
You
know
they
didn't
come
into
the
the
apartment.
He
just
stopped
him
from
closing
the
door.
Could
he
have
just
stepped
back
and
left
the
ticket
there?
Yes,
that
would
have
possibly
been
preferable
as
he
was
coached
and
counseled
on,
but
I
wasn't
there.
G
All
I'm
looking
at
is
is
video,
as
you
guys
are
looking
at
the
investigation
and
video
as
well,
but
yeah
I
mean
if
you,
if
you
get
called
to
a
residence
and
there's
commotion
going
on
inside
and
a
neighbor's
calling-
and
you
don't
know
what's
going
on,
you
do
have
to
it's
essentially
as
a
well-being
check.
So
you're
allowed
to
up
to
a
certain
point
do
what
he
did
now.
G
I
believe
he
retreated
pretty
quickly
on
it
and,
like
I
said
watching,
the
video
would
give
you
a
different
viewpoint
of
this.
So
that's
up
to
you
guys
if
you
want
to
see
that,
but
you
know
if
it
was
just
if
he
didn't
answer
the
door.
Nobody
was,
nobody
was
going
to
try
to
force
it
open
anything
like
that.
So,
but
if
you
watch
the
video
I
I
think
it
would
speak
volumes
as
to
what
was
happening.
A
C
B
C
Sounds
good,
is
there
anyone
else
that
had
any
questions
or
anything
about
this
or
are
we
all
waiting
to
kind
of
just
see
the
video.
C
Okay,
so
if
we
can
just
put
a
pause
on
discussion
for
di
number
2003
until
after
review
of
the
video.
F
B
Right
so
the
video
so
under
so
because
we
are
dealing
with
a
personnel
issue
and
you
will
be-
and
I
will
have
the
language
for
janitor
to
read
or
someone
to
read
into
exact
sessions,
so
you
can
convene
an
exec
session
so
an
exact
session,
because
this
is
police
officers
are
still
personnel,
and
so
they
are
as
any
personnel.
B
When
you're
talking
about
disciplinary
actions,
which
is
what
is
being
discussed,
they
have
the
right
to
have
that
be
not
in
public
form,
and
so
you
will
review
all
the
evidence
that
has
been
collected
by
the
ops
and
now
include
now
the
video
you
may
discuss.
You
cannot
take
action,
so
you
can
concur
and
say:
okay,
this
is
fine.
We're
done
and
you
can
take
action
outside
the
meeting,
but
you
cannot
take
any
formal
action
within
the
meeting
itself.
B
B
C
Okay,
so
we're
we
are
putting
a
hot
on
bi2003.
C
Let
us
continue
on
the
agenda.
We
do
have
an
additional
department
inquiry
number
2006.
dated
april
10th
2020.
If
I
can
have
a
motion
for
discussion.
A
C
Any
opposite,
if
there's
any
opposition,
say
nay,
having
heard
no
opposition
so
for
discussion
for
department
inquiry
number
2006,
we
can
begin
discussion
we're
going
to
start
with
you
officer,
warnick.
G
Sure
so
this
complaint
was
handled
all
in
patrol
the
first
time
ops
heard
about
it
was
once
it
came
up
to
us
from
through
the
chain
of
command.
So
essentially
I
an
officer
was
driving
down.
I
saw
a
vehicle
in
the
1700
block
of
sherman
in
a
handicapped
spot
stopped
right
at
a
ticket.
G
G
The
patrol
sergeant
came
down
to
the
scene,
confirmed
that
it
was
not
a
legal
parking
spot.
There
was
a
dispute
to
the
street,
the
actual
markings.
The
sergeant
advised
the
complainant
that
he
should.
G
He
could
take
pictures
of
it,
and
you
know
maybe
that
would
assist
him
in
his
defense.
At
some
point,
a
northwestern
university
officer
showed
up
and
also
agreed
that
it
was
a
handicapped
parking
spot.
The
sergeant
felt
that
it
was
exonerated
that
there
was
really
as
far
as
the
accusations
go.
There
was
really
no
policy
or
rule
violation.
G
So,
for
all
intents
and
purposes
he
did
not
appear
to
be.
G
I
believe
during
the
video
he
did
say
that
he
is
handicapped.
However,
I
don't
know
if
it
was
in
the
memorandum.
If
he's
the
sergeant
stated
that
or
not
but
irregardless
of
it,
he
didn't
have
the
proper
documentation
either
on
his
vehicle
or
placard
and
as
far
as
I
know,
it's
a
universal
symbol
for
handicapped
parking.
C
Do
we
have
any
any
further
discussion
on
this
matter?
I
I
I
know
that
there
was
one
one
portion
in
it
where
he
said
that
the
sign
the
universal
sign
was
hard
to
see.
C
That
was
marked
on
the
street,
but
it
was
part
it
was
the
least
party
there
from
what
I
from
what
I
read.
G
C
A
C
Says
here,
10
minutes
and
so
part
of
his
complaint
was
that
it
was.
You
know
there
was
a
delayed
time
and
actually
writing
the
ticket,
but
it
was
not.
It
was
never
that
the
officer
left
and
then
mailed
him
out
a
ticket
later
or
you
know,
left
the
scene
before.
Actually
writing
the
ticket.
Is
that
correct.
G
Correct-
and
I
you
know
as
far
as
the
time
I
don't
think
that
it
was
ever
documented
from
the
officer
how
long
he
was
on
scene
and
part
of
what
he
might
have
been
doing
was
to
see
if
the
person
would
see
his
squad
car
a
lot
of
times.
I
mean
I,
I
know
I've
done
that
in
the
past
you
just
pull
up
and
you
see
somebody
and
maybe
they
run
out
and
move
the
car,
so
maybe
he
was
giving
him
time.
G
I
don't
know,
I
can't
speak
to
what
the
officer
did
or
how
long
he
was
actually
out
there,
but
he
did
not
leave
and
come
back.
He
stayed
there
cited
the
the
complainant
and
left.
C
If
there
I
can,
I
can
see
where
the
complainant
will
make
that
accusation
that
it
was.
It
was
racially
based
if
the
officer
didn't
write
a
ticket
sort
of
immediately
and
then
waited
until
he
actually
saw
who
owned
the
video,
I'm
sorry
the
vehicle
and
then
placed
the
ticket
as
opposed
to
like
I
would
have
given
anyone
a
ticket.
It
wouldn't
matter.
If
you
would
have
come
out
or
anything
like
that,.
F
You
know
this
is
just
a
judgment
you
know
on
on,
michael,
I
can
see
when
you
park
someplace
for
a
short
period
of
time
to
go
in
to
a
store
or
whatever
the
case
may
be,
but
when
you
do
park
in
a
handicapped
spot,
I
just
see
that
as
being
just
a
little
bit
more
problematic
in.
A
F
Handicapped
spot
versus
a
spot
where
you
didn't
put
money
in
the
you
know
in
the
in
the
machine
or
use
your
credit
card,
whatever
the
case
may
be,
but
when
you
punch
in
a
handicapped
spot,
I
know
this
is
a
judgment
on
my
part,
I
I
I
I
just
I.
I
have
a
little
bit
less
patience
for
something
like
that.
C
And
that's
completely
understood
for
me,
like
I
like,
if
you
park
there,
you
don't
have
the
proper
documentation
to
park
there,
then
that
that
ticket
is
valid.
My
only
question
is
that
if
you,
if
an
officer
saw
a
car
parked
there
and
he
was
going
to
write
a
ticket,
why
not
start
the
process
of
writing
the
ticket
right
away
instead
of
waiting
for
the
owner
of
the
vehicle
to
present
themselves
before
writing
the
ticket,
like
it
wouldn't
matter
who
who
the
owner
was
or
anything
like
that?
C
I
would
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
are
that
you're
writing
that
ticket
regardless.
G
A
A
The
allegation
is
that
he
looked
at
the
drivers
and
the
the
name
on
the
registration
which
didn't
necessarily
have
anything
to
do
with
the
driver
of
the
vehicle
and
made
a
racially
profiled
decision
to
ticket
someone
for
being
in
a
handicapped
spot
without
a
handicap
placard
or
a
handicapped
plate
which,
if
I'm
not
mistaken
illinois,
does
not
have
reciprocity
for
handicapped
placards
hanging
from
rearview
mirrors.
So
it
would
have
to
be
a
handicapped
plate,
but
none
of
that
occurred.
C
Do
we
have
any
further
discussion
on
this
on
this
department
inquiry.
C
Would
anyone
like
to
see
the
video
on
this
inquiry.
C
Now
so
having
having
had
discussion
on
this,
I
don't
does
anyone
feel
like
their
the
process
was
unfair
or
not
accurate?
E
C
Okay,
so
I
haven't
discussed
the
department
inquiry
number
2006
and
haven't
haven't
seen
determined
that
the
process
process
seems
to
be
accurate.
In
with
this
situation,
can
we
have
a
motion
to
recommend
this
to
hsc.
C
H
C
Having
no
opposition
is
this
commission's
opinion
that
department
inquiry
number
2006
should
be
recom
move
forward
and
recommend
it
to
hsc
for
further
review.
B
B
B
B
D
B
Okay
with
that
we'll
go
into
exact
session,
so
give
me
a
second:
oh:
do
we
have
all
in
favor,
I'm
sorry.
G
C
C
B
H
C
So,
focusing
back
on
department
inquiry
number
2003.
The
commission
did
go
into
executive
session
to
review
the
video
having
reviewed
the
video.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
department
inquiry,
2003.
F
H
C
C
D
Review
I
move
that
di
20-03
is
moved
on
to
hsc
for
further
action.
C
Can
I
have
a
second
a
second
okay,
all
all
the
all
approved
saying
that
say:
yay
sorry,.
C
Having
heard
opposition
is
this
commissions,
this
commission
recommends
that
department
inquiry
2003
moves
to
hsc
for
further.
E
C
Having
reviewed
all
three
department
inquiries
that
were
before
the
commission
for
new
business
and
also
having
moved
past
executive
session,
we're
moving
further
down
the
further
down
the
agenda,
we
have
no
old
business
to
discuss
at
this
time.
B
G
C
For
me,
it
seems
like
three
is
an
adequate
amount,
as
especially
when
it
comes
to
discussion,
it
seems,
like
everyone,
was
able
to
review
all
three
before
this
meeting
and
have
a
intelligible
conversation
on
each
does.
Anyone
feel
like
we
need
more
or
less.
H
Yeah,
especially,
there
is
a
good
number.
The
the
the
matter
that
we
dealt
with
this
time
was
that
they're
all
similar.
Now
we
get
an
extensive
one,
one
might
be
appropriate,
but
right
now
I
think
yeah
three
as
long
as
they
stay
around
this
kind
of
complaints
yeah
this
these
are
manageable,
very
good.
Thank.
G
C
B
G
B
B
Alright,
so
you
three
did
not
take
part
in
the
use
of
force
training
and
the
chief
really
wants
to
make
sure
all
of
you
do
because
of
concerns
that
if
the
commission
is
said
that
this
is
something
they're
going
to
do
and
not
everyone's
partaking
it,
there
might
be
some
issues.
On
the
other
hand,
on
the
other
end
of
of
things
that
he
has
to
deal
with
in
his
police
department,
so.
H
Well,
you
know
just
I,
just
I've
had
like
26
years
of
use
of
force.
H
B
I've
have
16
years
of
open
meetings
act
and
I
still
have
to
take
a
darn
test
every
year
in
a
boring
training
that
you
all
have
to
listen
to.
I
have
to
take
every
year,
so
I
get
that
and
respect
that,
but
we
still
need,
as
a
group,
we're
still
trying
to
finalize
how
we're
gonna
move
forward.
Oh
he's
here
hold
on.
B
I
don't
think
so
I
mean
I
think,
that's
hard
to
do
with
covet.
I
don't
know,
I
just
don't
know
if
I
really
want
to
do
a
ride-along
in
covet
world,
so
you
know
I'm
just
saying
I'm
just
saying
I
don't
I
don't
know
what's
wrong
with
nico's
phone,
so
I
need
we
need
to
help
them
out.
Get
better
technology
here.
All
right.
B
So,
speaking
of
so
it
was
a
four-hour
session
that
was
held.
It
would
just
be
the
three
of
you
plus
they
sergeant
faison
and
the
committee,
or
excuse
me
and
the
instructor.
B
So
you
three
need
to
come
up
with
a
date
that
works
for
your
schedules,
because
we
can
only
we
can't
have
individual
trainings
with
him
he's
not
cheap,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you
all
had
an
opportunity
to
to
sit
through
this
training.
So
the
three
of
you
need
to
identify.
If
a
saturday
works,
we
I
mean,
give
us
some
dates
that
work
with
your
schedule,
and
then
we
will
work
with
the
instructor
on
trying
to
accommodate
those
dates.
B
C
B
H
Grove
yeah
lake
city.
B
Yeah
lake
street
lake
in
elmwood,
because
it's
a
very
nice
room
for
you
all
the
social
distance
and
you
don't
have
to
like
worry
about
breathing
with
people's
hair.
We
will
finalize
the
schedule
and
please
make
sure
you
attend.
This-
is
a
training
with
that
being
said,
I
will
not
continue
chastising.