Community Police Review Commission - Regular Meeting

Can we get the recording?

Oh, you can answer.

Can I? Yeah. Can we play the recording, please?

Pursuant to the City Council rules of procedure in order of business resolution, the members of all boards and commissions and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of the boards and commissions and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the board or commission where the presiding officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The city of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Good evening. We'd like to welcome you to the Community Police Review Commission meeting of 03/25/2026. This meeting is called to order. Would commissioner Huntley please lead us in pledge allegiance? Thank you.

Now we'll take a moment of silence. Thank you. Roll call.

Chair Bell.

Here.

Vice Chair Gutierrez. Here. Commissioner Ward?

Here.

Commissioner Lundy? Here. Commissioner Hundley? Here. Commissioner Ferguson? Here. Commissioner Dillon?

Commissioner Teichert? Here. Thank you. We have quorum.

Thank you. We'll now move to agenda one, the election of the community police review commission chair and vice chair for the twenty six term. At this time, I'll open the floor for nominations for the position of chair. Are there any nominations from the commission?

Yes. I would like to nominate you again to serve Thank

you.

Yeah, I would like to second that. Are

there any additional nominations for chair? Hearing no further nominations, we'll close the nominations for chair. Please vote for commissioner Bell.

Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll open the nominations for the position of vice chair for the 2026 term. Are there any nominations from the commission? Commissioner Gutierrez, are you accepting the nomination? Alrighty. Are there any other nominations? If no hearing no further nominations, we'll close the nomination for vice chair. Go ahead and please vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Awesome.

Alrighty. Now we go to public comment. To comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Community Police Review Commission, you are invited to participate in person or call at (951) 826-8688. Press 9 to be placed in the queue to speak. Individuals in the queue will be prompted to unmute by pressing 6 when you are ready to speak.

To participate via Zoom, use the following link. Select the raise a hand function to request to speak. An on screen message will prompt you to unmute and speak. Individual audience participation is limited to three minutes. Do we have

any comments from the audience? Thank you. Mr. McGrath?

Yeah. I guess I'm telling the chief, I've played like 25 times total since 2020 to like now. I came back from DC, probably 10. But this crime or that crime, I try to separate them. Like, how sergeant Perkins don't think he I don't if he's a cop anymore, but the chief seems cool with the claim process. When I hand it over to the lady, you know, then they go well, it goes like I handed over a murder one and an internal affairs one, separated them for them. She's all well, they both go to internal affairs. I'm like, well, why is that? So there's no complaint process. Excuse me.

My word against that supervisor's word. So as far as your complaint process changing or whatever, why don't you just put a a kiosk in there so when someone has to put their password in, so the accountability for someone actually going into the police station, you know, and there'll be a account based separate. He said, she said. And it should probably just go to you because I can't get a you can't review anything of police if there's no report. And I I tried it in 2020, 2021, 2022. I went walked to LA. And then those people has to do nondisclosure projects at the legal aid clinic and at the admission. They're helping with the FBI, and then now they're on all those dopamine receptors nondisclosure project. I don't know which one, but they're not allowed to talk to me. And then I went to DC, and I came back.

And I even get blocked at Mark Tacono's office by somebody that works there because there's some serious crimes happening in the city. I mean, I you know, like Chad Bunk is one of the biggest piece of shit ever. But, say, it's there's crimes happening in the city, and no one can talk about it. I know eight people they've done it to, but with no police report or no police investigation, it goes nowhere. I don't understand that. You know? And it's gonna be my word against the lady working there. Well, like I was just telling them, the sheriff said, I got arrested on 10/07 by RPD. I said bullshit. But the thing is they owe RPD and Garcis. You don't have an arrest. Well, I go back I go to the FBI office or whatever that is. That's even one on 3 Or 8 Street. And I said, I'll go back there and check for you. Now there's an arrest by officer Wright, whoever the hell that is.

But, you know, it's like, how does RPD arrest me in Galvan Hills? It's impossible. You know, you see the the sheriff's records don't match the police records, don't match the the court system, or the public defender's records for arrest. And I was held in jail for a week for nothing. But, yeah, yeah, he says that all the crimes, most of the crimes are happening in the city. And so I was talking to the chief, he seems cool about it. You know, even it's like like, he knows Ron Kiff, I guess. I I think Ron Kiff's a piece of shit dirty cop from the nineties. That's just my personal thing. And he was involved in investigation into me. I think he was retired at the time, actually. In 2018, he's busting people I know, but he's not even a cop. And, you know, if you got paid for that, I'd like to know who. Because I didn't know he I thought he was a DEA or something. I never met the man.

But, you know, he's just a him and I, like, you know, never met him, but, you know, his daughter used to be, like, best friends to my brother's girlfriend or something like that. I know I know where he lives, but all of sudden, a like, he had some hard on for me, but he illegally raided me in the nineties. So it was a parole, you know, raid, but he didn't know if not a parole officer. He's had some grudge against me forever. Like I said, if he's not retired RPD, what's he doing in part of an investigation into me? Because I you I think you guys should be able to do that. I I even asked chief, can I get, like, four RPD officers? So they put me in custody. I'm gonna give me a ticket to look.

Thank you. Are there any comments from the commission? Do we have any callers?

No callers.

Thank you. We'll now move to the consent calendar. Does anyone wish to pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion? No. Do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar as is?

Thank

you Commissioner Teichert. Do we have a second? Who was that second? Sorry. Oh, commissioner Huntley. Thank you. Go ahead and please vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you. We'll now move to discussion portion of the agenda. This time, item number six is the ad hoc committee for bylaws and policies and procedures. At this time, we invite the public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling (951) 826-8688 to comment on this item. Press 9 to be placed in the queue and 6 to speak. To participate by Zoom, select the raise the hand function to speak. You'll have three minutes. Do we have any comments from the audience? Do we have any callers at this time?

No callers.

Do we have any comments from the commissioners? I know there's there's a portion of the policies and bylaws, policies and procedures, I apologize, about the the rationales. I'd like to discuss that on what the commission's thoughts are on us filling out rationales while we're in closed session. Commissioner Teichert.

Yes. I believe that this was a topic

that was raised several years ago.

I'll just speak more loudly. This was was a topic that was raised several years ago and then it was raised during the course of discussion by the ad hoc committee regarding whether or not as a result of findings made during closed session. We discussed discussed what what happens happens with with those those findings, findings. What's the process after how does that get communicated to the police chief and so on. And the question was raised, happens with some of the reasoning?

Is that reasoning by which we arrived at our finding? Is that to assist in making their final determinations and I believe we were told that it goes via the city manager's office and perhaps Frank as well. And we also have the the captain sitting in the first session as well. And that that information then gets shared with the police chief that way rather than in writing. When this was raised several years ago, discussion should we be required to provide a written rationale?

I believe believe that we concluded that it would be guess challenging to have to come up with the drafting of what that rationale is. Since we don't have a lot

of clerical staff and you

have to require a couple of meetings to hammer out the language on that. So I believe that that was the reason why several years ago we didn't go forward with it. So anyway it was raised as an issue this time and so I'm not sure what the current commissions feel.

Commissioner Ward.

Just a point of clarification because I thought that one of the other reasons was we're in private conversations when we pull off and the degree to which we can document further is limited because of that. The issue doesn't go away, but that was one of the that's what I recall. So, I don't know if others recall that as well as being a limiting factor.

So, I think the rationale I do agree that there would have to be probably if we decided to move on with the rationale, maybe an ad hoc to develop what that rationale would look like or if we would just mirror something similar to what we have for, like, the OID or something, you know, narrow down a little bit. But I think the thought for having a rationale and granted it would stay with it within it would be made public. It would stay within the file. It would get routed through to the the police department into the records. But that way, it's something documented on our thought process on there if we have a difference in opinion between us and RPD.

So that way, it's the commission voted this way, and this is kind of why. I don't know if that's Chief Gonzalez, can you weigh in on the benefits Yes, I am.

What Commissioner Teicher is talking about, I remember we went through this several years ago. So, thank you, Chair. I'll try to provide some more context and some food for thought if you go down the ad hoc committee role moving forward. If you remember, I think just commissioner Teicher was probably at this time when at the time was assistant city manager Leah Deesing oversaw the CPRC. And we talked about what happens when this commission first started.

If there's a finding and they differentiate, ultimately, the city manager will be the tiebreaker. But when you look at POBAR, police officer bill of rights, there's really nothing like, the discipline wouldn't change if it was changed from not sustained to sustained. That's a POBAR thing. The thing I don't know that's unclear moving forward because things have changed in last two or three years. First of all, if you do a rationale, you have to do it for everyone. So not just the ones that you want to sustain, but the ones that are saying, hey, I can't believe the department sustained this. Here's why we wouldn't have a little bit more work. And then the thing that concerns me more is the privacy part of this. How private will it really be? And now we have Senate Bill two that's come into play where before you could say this this information is protected because it's an administrative review.

Where not all administrative reviews are protected anymore under s b two. So that would make that would throw a wrench in it further because it could be a dishonesty allegation. Right? And that's s b two discoverable and or reportable, I should say, from our part. Improper conduct on duty of a sexual nature or stuff like that, that is now discoverable.

And then you guys do deal with major use of officer involved deaths. That we're not so concerned about with SB two because we do that anyway. I do videos when we have officer involved shootings nowadays. But those are some things taking consideration. Just moving forward, I was just thinking when Commissioner Tiger was talking, it would be difficult if you did want to do a rationale.

And could you truly make sure that that was confidential? And I don't think that's possible with with s b two because you'd be adding to an administrative investigation that we might be reporting the post afterward. I don't know what the answer is. I guess that's your guys' thing to figure out. But but I I think there needs to be some clarity to your point, Chair, is who's a tiebreaker? What are we gonna do with those type of cases? It doesn't happen very often. I realize that, but there could be a case like that where we need to have a deciding factor. And initially said the city manager, which it was in years past. Then I went to the assistant city manager, Alex Wynn to to Leah Dising.

And then to be honest, I don't know where it's at now. So if that makes sense to you guys, I

Yes. Thank you for that. I do think I I do think there is those challenges, and it would be a great conversation to to continue with that. Currently, our CPRC website says that we do rationales.

For complaints? For complaints. Okay.

And so it's either we we we do them and it's part of our bylaws or we modify the website to and we vote that we don't do them. Mhmm. That's kind of the, you know, when you're reading it and the public and my might just my thought, like, the public sees the website and it says, oh, this is what you're doing. They expect us to Sure. To do something.

And if we're not doing that, then we're not being good stewards of what the public believes we're we're doing. I don't know how that how that works because I know there's times where if we do differ on decisions on sustained, not sustained, or whatever it may be, how does that weigh into, like, the the ultimate? We I know we don't decide on decisions, and I'm not trying to advocate for that. But just I know you have your administrative rationale that was as ways in. But if the CPRC doesn't have our weight, you know, how does that ultimately, you know, when it comes to the officer? You know, the officer is like, well, what did CPRC say? And it's just

Yes.

It's just words.

Yeah. And I can assure you the commission to this point, if there is a difference of opinion on the old I I will hear that from the captain. Mhmm. So we we are being notified that there was a difference different finding. Mhmm. And I can tell you, I was the captain, I did such a good job. They kept me in there as a deputy chief, I guess. So I did it for like five years going back into closed session. But I will always make sure I report it back to the chief if there was a difference of opinion. I I just said this one, I don't know how labor intensive it would be for you guys because it could be three allegations and you have a different finding on one of the three allegations and you have to provide a rationale for that. Who's gonna do that?

And also I think for me, the concern would be or the wondering is all of these items could at some point potentially be subpoenaed. Right? So that would include our rationale.

Those ones that I indicated before that fall under those three categories could. But any administrative complaint that comes in generally does not. I would say most of them don't. But there's more and more with senate bill two passing that discoverable. We have to actually provide that information to post. And they can Yeah. Publicize that.

And and if there is misalignment in what the website reads, we would just need to remedy our bylaws accordingly for alignment and then discuss it and vote on that so it sounds to me like that's something that hasn't been done for quite some time I know Tiger it's been here the longest do you recall writing rationales for each of those cases accordingly?

I'll be honest I'll be honest, commissioner Tigard. I I understand, I guess, the rationale, the reason it was brought up is, okay. Well, if you're gonna go against the police department, you need to give your reason why. But I'll give you an and I don't ever remember seeing a rationale ever on any complaint. But the way it would work before, we not sustain something. You sustain something, goes to the city manager. He says, I agree with the CPRC. Done. I'll get a notification. The complainant will get notified that the CPRC reviewed this and found in your favor.

We can't disclose anything that happened to the officer or did not happen to the officer. But that was the way it worked in the past where they did have that deciding factor, but there was no rationale after ours. It was CPRC said this, city manager wouldn't provide a rationale. They just said I agree with this side or that side. So yeah.

I don't know how much effect it would have if like I don't even know in a civil case if it went to a lawsuit, if they would even be able to discover this type of I don't normally, they wouldn't be able to get administrative reviews and especially by a civilian oversight committee, which they would call you guys, to use in civil court. So I don't know how much if the juice is worth the squeeze, I don't know. But we're we're we'll do whatever you guys want with us.

So So with with the change in in Pobar, I guess, ultimately, how does that work then if there's if there we don't have that third party? Because I believe when we discussed this, and I think Frank's on online, and maybe he can chime in because he's been here the longest.

Frank will remember all. Yeah.

Yeah. That how that would, you know, ultimately, like, play out, I guess. If if I'm if we're looking to have, say, the city manager, I know currently is affected it's affected by POBAR. They would need something to kind of see because they didn't they didn't read the administrative review. They're kind of going off of our our thoughts and then maybe the RPD's thoughts, which is also kind of a gray area.

Well, that would be the part of

the process is they would have to review that before they made a decision. You know, they can't just say, well, know, this looks like this. They'd have to review the entire investigation and make their decision. I remember that happening in the past. But as far as pro bar goes, that was my concern is the s b two things that are now discoverable that weren't before. And then you already know we can't talk about any type of discipline anyway. You guys are aware of that. But I don't know liability wise, and chair Tyker was an attorney. Maybe she knows too. But if, for instance, you leaked out that information, who's liable?

The city of Riverside? I don't know. But trust me, the labor attorneys would identify that and bring that up as an issue.

You're in luck. I'm a lawyer. I know a little bit about this. So let me tell you an assessment just to take into consideration. Absolutely nothing that occurs in closed session is going to be it's entirely confidential. It doesn't get subpoenaed. We would oppose that. It's it's it's protected. Everything all your rationale is recorded. There's a there's a recording of it.

Both the city manager's Office and the Police Department have a representative and I know they listen intently to your rationale and report back to their the people who are making the decisions. And the issue is, is your assessment being evaluated by important decision makers so that they can have all of the relevant facts to come to what is often a difficult decision? So, even if you don't write it up, it's available. It's available in so many different manners to all of the people you want it to be available to, either informally by their representatives or Chief can anytime come and say, I want to know more about this. And if somebody forgets, we'll get them the information.

Adding I think that commissioner Teichert's concern about what will happen if you want to undertake this and and have a collective decision on rationale because without revealing closed session communications it's difficult for everybody to agree on something like that and it would be a very lengthy process. I think that you might be biting off more than you can chew. It may seem like a good idea, but I think that there are already there's mechanisms that are in place that protect confidentiality for the purposes that it's intended that I I just wanna make sure that you're aware of that as you decide how you want to handle that.

Exactly what Deborah Cook said. I'm not that smart. That's why I'm glad to have her defending us in the city.

So is it is it possible instead of policy procedures calling out the the writing of a of a rationale, the verbiage be addressed to however it is made available to them. So that way it is documented down. Because right now it's not

documented. So the capturing of the rationale verbatim via audio recording, something to that effect?

Maybe that or just so that way it's kind of written. Because right now our website website states, you know, we do them. But how do we you know, I know we can't bring that up as an agenda right now, but that would also have to be kind of addressed as well. So, Commissioner Teichert.

Yes. I would I would be concerned if we get that express in our policies and procedures or bylaws and say that

there are

recordings of this and it's like the ganglion.

It's carried

out there for they are rather just change the website to reflect the reality we characterized as a rationale. We may have many rationales that we discuss during the post session to provide them our

funding, but I don't

think we consolidate it down to one direction that we all agree on. I may have a different

Commissioner Ward.

So if that's the case, if we go that route, what's the answer to those in the community that asked the question, how is your information communicated upwards or is considered and how is it considered? Because I think that's an important question to have an answer to. So how do we ensure that we have a good response to to that question?

I I think that's valid. Maybe miss Cook said no. We're we're not privileged to reveal who's all in closed session. And so that, you know, it kind of comes a very dark gray area on explaining that.

Just from a again, You're the policymakers and the people that are considering the substance. I'm advisory on legal. And I will say that you were set up as entirely an important advisory function. Your whole purpose is to communicate back to decision makers the things that they consider to be important and everything that you do is considered important to them. The question is, if you're presented with a question by the public, how specifically you make that advisory decision.

I think that there's enough public information of how that's done. We know who's in closed session. We know that the city manager's office has a representative here. We know that the chief has representative here, and we know that Everything is maintained in a record keeping manner. It can be determined What what it was that the basis of your rationale so all that stuff is available.

I'm not entirely sure that the specifics of how it gets conveyed. I'd have to think about I think that you have to answer that question. I think it's all public information of how it's conveyed. And any more details than that I would be very uncomfortable with because we have to protect those closed session communications in your deliberative process. And the confidentiality issues as well.

Vice Chair, you said you had a question.

Yeah.

My question is, I guess, the structure and the framework of who's embedded in closed session

under

this process means that should we omit completely the rationale, then we're always going to require to have other individuals such as the city attorney and the representative from the chief's office. Has there ever been a time in the history of the CPRC that closed session did not involve representatives or said representatives and hence that was the reason historically for having foundationally created a written document to provide the justification and the rationale.

I mean I could see if the city attorney's office didn't have a representative we're not really all that relevant but the city manager has to have one there to conduct the meeting and I think the police have always had representative. Absent a time, I know there was a time that maybe that you guys said no, we don't want him there. I don't know. But, I don't have enough of a history to address that. I don't know if maybe Frank or somebody else does.

Is Frank on the line?

Yes. I'm here.

Hi, Frank.

Hey,

Frank. Hi. Hello, all. With, since I've been with the commission, it has always been where a representative from the police department and the person in my position and a representative from the city attorney's office was present in closed session. There was a period of time where it was decided that it was wasn't necessary for the city attorney's office to be present there, and it went that way for, oh, maybe three or four years.

And then it was decided that it's best to for all boards and commissions to have one of the representatives from the city attorney's office present during these meetings. So that's how that's how it's been. In my position, it's always been the the presenter of the cases, providing guidance, and that's how it's been. So the representative you see in there now is what how it's always been. And I will add one more thing.

There was a time in chief, Gonzales had mentioned this where, after the CPRC meeting within a couple of days, I met with the assistant city attorney that was designated by or the assistant city manager who was appointed by the city manager to meet with me and to go over the cases. And the the ultimate decision for on these cases came from the city manager's office or the city attorney's city manager's office. I'm sorry. I keep confusing it. But it was found when Leah Dising was in that position.

She met with the city attorney's office again, and what they discovered is that there was no nothing in bylaws or in in the city charter or anything for a meeting to take place with this the assistant city manager or the city manager to make that final determination. And because of that being the case, she decided that it was since there was no formality with this, it was not written anywhere. It was just something that started that it would just be everything left in the final as far as the chief was concerned and with discipline. So the representative would be the one, as chief Gonzalez had mentioned, would take the the information back and talk to the chief about it before he had made his final decision. So I don't know if that helps.

Thank

you. Commissioner Tekker.

Yes. Regarding Frank's statement. Great. With respect to the question about who has been in the closed session room, I can only speak to I started in 2019. And at that point in time, I believe we did not have police and we did not have Frank in there.

And it was a couple of years after that that it was decided to bring them in. We would start closed session with Frank and the police chief captain in there, and then they would leave the room while we deliberated. So it was I guess Frank is right and I'm right, both. But it was not that they did not sit in there and participate while we deliberated for at least the first couple of years. And then that did change at some point in time to the way it is now, where they do sit in there while we deliberate.

That would kind of help understand why at some juncture the written rationale would have been an embedded component. So I figured there must have been some sort of a shift and that helps give me some clarity at least with that regard. Thank you.

I just wonder in regards to the rationale, it could serve kind of couple purposes. I know there's an undertaking. Frank is in there. He's our CPRC consultant hired on by the city manager's office to kind of help us with this stuff. If that's something that we come up with our rationale, we discuss it.

And you know, maybe that's something that is Frank drafts up or some or something, in regards to that. But I think it's at least for myself, it's it's important for it to be documented, especially in my my line of work. If if if it's not documented, it didn't happen kind of thing. And it could also limit instead of us doing five cases in a night. Know, there's sometimes it's very busy.

And there's some you know, it could force it to be we have to it's important for us to meet here because we we do have to have a rationale. We have to meet. We can't skip a month because, you know, next month is gonna be a long a long month. You know, we have two or whatever, two or three. So it's just my thought.

Maybe suggestion I'll ask Deborah. Could it be done verbally? You know, the way I did it for years is we'd we'd be in there for the brief, answer any policy questions you had, you deliberate. I'd step outside, go back in. If you had another question about something, step outside, and then you come up with a rationale. So I but I don't know if I was asked our city attorney if if, you know, Frank would have to be the person that came out and said, this is the rationale. This is why. I I just don't even know that's an option.

Yeah. You can do anything that that you want, really. And verbal yes is absolutely appropriate. I think, in fact, I think it's the safer bet. There's not going to be any loss of what the deliberation was or the rationale. It's not like it's going to to the point that it doesn't exist. There's a recording in there. And what is the most important is that the decision makers, including including the the chief and the city manager, have all of the relevant information that they need to make the right decision in their estimation. So, yes. That's the short answer.

I know we've spent a lot of time on this. And it may be one of those things that we need to either have a motion to remove this portion from the suggested update red lines or it's adopted and we create a new ad hoc to reevaluate because I know there was a couple other comments that Frank had suggested that after we had submitted them for kind of the review. Commissioner Teichard?

I have a suggestion, perhaps a way forward that will maybe help. I would make a motion that we adopt the policies and procedures and bylaws without the requirement of the written rationale in there. And then outside of that, I suggest that during our closed session, we kind of give a dry run to see if we can, without it being part of a requirement under our bylaws and policies and procedures, to see if it's practical that we could do this. And we could always come back and we could amend the bylaws and the policies and procedures to incorporate that in if it is something that we find is readily available, something that we can readily do.

Very good. So is that That

was a motion. Okay.

And so the motion is to approve the red lines with the removal of the rationale requirement. And the second by Commissioner Lundy. Any other comments on that? Thoughts?

I mean, lastly, I have just a comment of my own that I do appreciate the way it is set up now because it provides an opportunity for each one to have their unique autonomous point of view and gives everyone agency. And I do want to have a dry run because I can't imagine how we might synthesize as a collective one rationale where we'll feel our voice is really validated and captured. So, I want to make sure whatever we do doesn't impede that.

Commissioner Ward.

So, if the issue is getting information to one of the issues is getting information to the city manager when there's some type of disagreement for purposes of understanding where where there's a difference. If everything is recorded, would that not be part of his information to review? So we don't necessarily need to document anything else if it's recorded. That could just be sent up to him when there's disagreements and we just point out the disagreements. That way we don't have to record anything new.

We don't have to write anything down. We just send that when it's appropriate when there's disagreement. I would because I still think, you know, it's important to have that when, you know, when there's a disagreement. And so before we

I guess, one. Yes, sir.

I just want to bring to the commission's attention to that there's another issue that came up a few years ago and this was brought up and I'm sure Ty Kurt remembers this, is that if you provide a rationale or reason to change a finding in an internal investigation like this, you have to provide a rationale because that finding then becomes under discoverable by the officer. And then the POA attorney can challenge that if that leads to additional discipline. And so that you would have to go to court and go to all the different things like that. So you have to document who's believes what and the vote and the rationale for changing it. You can't just change the rationale without somehow documenting it because that's challengeable under Povar. So, just letting all of you know that.

So, you're saying if we submit a rationale Yes. It's discoverable. If we don't submit one

That's why it was done this way. Because if you submit a rationale, it becomes a matter of record under that person's personnel file. And they have the right to challenge that, call witnesses at arbitration, depositions, the whole nine yards. So, I'm just letting all of you know that.

Legally, that's not gonna happen. The deliberative process including all your rationales and closed session has to remain confidential. It's cannot gonna find its way in an IA investigation. It's only for advisory, for the chief, for the city manager, and for no other purpose.

But, if it changes discipline, if it changes the actual finding of the case, that will become discoverable. I'm just letting you know that.

I think we need more legal analysis

of it.

Yes. The ultimate. Yeah.

So are you saying if we don't so right now, if there is a difference of opinion between our findings and RPD's findings, And the chief, when he looks at the IA's investigation and he looks at he hears what we we spoke about. He's like, oh, yeah. I I can see why CPRC said that. I agree I agree with CPRC. That's why we do it this way.

Like, when you when you bring me your differences, I do have discussions with him and you're like, we don't agree with this. I'm like, hey, chief. They have an issue with this and this is what was discussed and they believe this and and they have a good reason and a lot of times he'll consider that. But a lot of times, maybe he doesn't. It just depends upon what the circumstances of the case are.

But, an advisory board, that's the advisory piece is that I go talk to him about it just like he did when he was the captain of his chiefs that he had in the past. And it avoids a lot of that. If you're gonna actually come to a finding and a rationale, I don't wanna do that because that's outside the boundaries of advisory. I don't wanna ever get accused of misconstruing the information that you're providing me. So, you guys wanna go to that with the advisory and the city manager, that's the whole point is that we're completely removed from that process. So, it's kinda like the fork in the road which way you wanna do it.

We can't go outside advisory. That's outside of your scope. Mean it's outside of your lane.

I just wanted to reiterate that I did hear the city attorney's office state that perhaps there needs to be more legal analysis to really respond to some of this. Is that correct?

For the commission adopts a find a change that would expose it to discovery, yes. And if you request that I do that analysis, I'm happy to do that for as your lawyer.

So as you recall initially that was one of my first wonderings in terms of whether or not this information at some juncture or point could be subpoenaed. And then once autonomous agency is kind of now wrapped up in a collective voice, and that's that's why I had that wonder. Because that would mean that we would have to be so sync succinctly aligned that we would be willing to be deposed regarding that particular document in terms

That's just our our

road we're

going to go down. You're never going to be questioned over your deliberative process. So, got to be careful to have that line of separation.

Thank you.

I do have just one quick question. Thank you. Thank you. No, for the city manager's office. We were previously told that it is not record that we are not recorded. That it was just there in case somebody needed to be on on Zoom. Is it actually recording?

We do have a tape recorder in there.

So it's it's tape recorder, not not the video recording. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Oh, not on Teams.

Okay. Okay. So just to reiterate the motion set by commissioner Teichert and seconded by Commissioner Lundy that we will it is to approve the updates to the policies and procedures that are redlined with the exception of the rationale portion. Go ahead and vote.

The motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Chair Bell, this is Frank. I've had my hand up for quite some time. I don't know you if you're able to see me on that screen.

We we can we can not

see for quite a while.

Sorry. There you are.

A lot of of the some of the things I was going to bring up has already been discussed amongst you and clarified and things of that nature. But once again, know this as well. When the ultimate and the final decision is made, it's up to the chief. And he takes in what he's learned from the captain, and he he weighs, but he has the all he's the ultimate decision maker. As a matter of fact, he could make a decision on a on the finding that he didn't agree with either and still make what he feels is the ultimate finding because that's that's his role.

So in the advisory part is exactly why it was verbalized and brought up, even when I was, meeting with the assistant city manager. There was nothing in writing I would verbalize, the rationale, provided by both the police department and the commission when that ultimate decision was made. So I I wanted to, you know, make sure that you were aware that in that in the in the final ending of everything, it is up to the chief, and he can change if he decides to to change the fight. I mean, that was it because he gets a recommendation from the the captain or deputy chief. He gets the recommendation for a finding, and, you know, typically, it's up to him whether he goes with that finding or not.

So that's how it that gen generally how it works for every police chief has that final determination.

Very good. Thank you, Frank.

That's it. Just wanted to make make sure you're all aware of it. And the other thing is, yeah, there was a period of time. It it was about a year where the captain and I would be we'd give a I'd give a presentation. We were asked to leave the room during deliberations.

And if there was a question, one of us would or both of us would go back in and answer the question and then leave. The downside to that, though, is there's a lot that especially with on the captain's side when he meets with the chief because he has nothing really to take back with what your discussions were and as to your reasoning and things like that. So that was kind of a downside to that, but it only lasted, I believe, it was about a year. Because when I first came on, it wasn't that way. Everyone was present. So

Very good. Thank you, Frank. I just have one last comment or maybe request for, miss Cook. In regards to this, Frank had said mentioned earlier that the city charter didn't mention speaking to the city manager going through the city manager's office. I may be mistaken, but I I thought I either read it there or maybe the chief or or captain can speak to it. It's I believe it's written into the the police policies under the CPRC commission. It's written in like, there's it's it's there, so we may have to address that as well.

Just for clarification

in there it Oh. Yeah.

I I I would like to clarify that because what's there is just it was a notification. There is nothing about the rationale being provided to the the city manager's office.

No. Not not in regards to the rationale that we're supposed to present our findings, I believe, to through the city manager's office. And the way it's written, I believe I read it as it's supposed to be presented through the city manager's office to the chief. So that's kind of where I think the we just need to verify.

I believe it goes to both. It goes to the city manager and the chief, if I remember correctly. I'm not I'm not I don't have it in front of me, but to my recollection, that's that's how it reads.

So just let me clarify the question so I can make sure to answer it. You wanna know if there's anything in either city charter or any other founding document that ex that that identifies specifically who gets notified of your decision and how.

Yes. If possible. Thank you. Alrighty. We'll move to item number seven, review and discuss the Riverside Police Department data included in the 2026 racial identity profiling act, RIPA.

Can we get the presentation please for number seven? So this presentation covers an analysis of the twenty twenty five-twenty twenty six Racial and Identity Profiling Act report and I will refer to this as RIPA. Assembly Bill nine fifty three is also known as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015. This was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law. The purpose of AB nine fifty three is to address and prevent racial profiling and to address public concerns about racial bias and the disproportionate targeting of minority communities by law enforcement.

So the data collected helps identify trends and guide reforms to create trust between law enforcements and the communities that they serve. So the key provision of the bill includes collection of data. Law enforcement agencies are required to collect and report data on all stops made including details about their perceived race, perceived ethnicity, perceived gender, perceived age of the person stopped as well as the reason for the stop, actions taken during the stops and the outcome. Increased accountability by mandating detailed reporting of AB nine fifty three, it enhances transparency and holds law enforcement accountable for profiling practices. The bill also established a RIPA board which consists of 19 members and the role of the RIPA board is to analyze the stop data and the civilian complaints on an annual basis, work with law enforcement agencies and to enforce training.

And so the link to the annual report, I think all of you guys participated in the RIPA training by the DOJ earlier last month I believe. Think we're stuck. Can we go to the next slide? So AB nine fifty three applies to all law enforcement agencies in the state of California. There were four different waves when agencies needed to submit data to the Department of Justice.

Riverside was part of wave three so we submitted our data beginning in April 2022. How data is collected? So officers complete a 25 question AB nine fifty three template for every stop. The data is electronically submitted to the Department of Justice by the Riverside Police Department and the 2025 report is from calendar year 2023 and the 2026 report is based off of data from calendar year 2024 and as you can see, some stops are excluded from the analysis and those stops occurred outside of the city limits and stops made outside of city limits could have been because an officer was coming to or from work, was on a special assignment or unknown variable. So the being analyzed is based off of Riverside demographics compared to the 2020 census and including stops made outside of the city limits would skew those numbers.

So in our analysis, we compared the general population percentage from the US Census Bureau from 2020 and the ratio breakdown recorded in the RIPA reports. We obtained Riverside's demographics from publicly available US Census Bureau report from 2020 and the 2020 US Census identifies the ethnic or racial backgrounds of the city of Riverside as 55.9% Hispanic or Latino, 25.3% white, 6.6% Asian or African American, 8.5% Asian, half a percent native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, a tenth of a percent American Indian or Alaskan native and 3.1% as all other ethnicities. As for the gender breakdown, The US census identifies the city of Riverside as 49.8% male and 50.2% female. Again, the data procured from the RIPA report is also available at public from the Department of Justice's website. So the presentation will examine the three main items here.

We're looking at the timing of stops, the racial and gender alignment to Riverside's population and civilian complaints. So data from the 2024 and 2025 RIPA report includes, I'm sorry, 2526 RIPA report includes that the highest number of stops occurred during two key periods. So from 6AM to noon, there were 4,500 stops in 2025 and in 2026, there were 6,476 stops and from noon to 6PM, there was 3,789 stops in 2025 and four thousand eight hundred 95 stops in 2026. So this trend aligns with this law enforcement's deployment schedule as the day shift runs from 6AM to 4PM and swing shift operates from noon to 10PM. So the increased number of stops during these times reflects the availability of patrol teams on the streets at that time.

The remaining tables will have the same format indicating Riverside's demographics, percentages of stops and then the number of stops according to each RIPA report. So overall trends on this slide is the total stops increased from 4,879 stops in 2025 to 21,146 in 2026 representing an increase of approximately 42.1%. Hispanics or Latino individuals accounted for 55.07 of stops in 2026 and it's up from 52.68% in 2025. This closely aligns Riverside's 55.9% Hispanic or Latino population based on the 2020 census. White individuals represent 23.55 stops in 2026 which is slightly lower than the 25.13% in 2025 and generally consistent with Riverside's 25.3% white population.

Blacks or African American individuals accounted for 15.02% stops in 2026. That's an increase of 13.85% in 2025 and remains higher than the city's 6.6% black population reflected in the census data. So warnings by race, a warning is an informal or formal notice given by an officer to a person who has committed a minor offense. It serves as a reminder or advisory without imposing legal or financial consequences. Warnings are often used to educate the public, correct behavior or address minor infractions that do not pose a significant threat to public safety.

There is a verbal warning where the officer speaks to the individual explaining the violation and advising them to avoid repeating it and there's also a written warning where a document is issued noting the infraction but not resulting in fines or further legal actions. Hispanics or Latinos received the majority of the warnings during the reporting period for 2026. Total stops increased from 5,955 in 2025 to 9,990 in 2026 representing an increase of approximately 67.8%. So Hispanics or Latino individuals accounted for 56.65% of stops in 2026. It's slightly higher than the 56.04% in 2025 closely aligning with Riverside's 55.9% Hispanic populations.

White individuals represented 21.99% of stops in 2026 and blacks and African American individuals accounted for 17.14% of stops in 2026. So if you are black or African American, statistically, you are more likely to get off with a warning and least likely to get a citation. However, if you are white, you are most likely to be cited and least likely to get off with a warning. Citations by race. A citation is also known as a ticket.

It is a formal legal document issued by an officer for a specific violation of the law. It typically requires a recipient to take further action such as paying a fine or appearing in court. Citations are used to enforce compliance with the law and address offenses more serious than those warranting a warning. The top percentage and number of stops according to race that were given a citation were Hispanics and Whites. Arrest by race with the warrant and arrest is a legal act in which a law enforcement officer takes a person into custody because they were suspected of committing a crime.

A warrant is a legal document issued by a judge or a magistrate that authorized law enforcement to take actions to take specific actions such as arresting an individual, conducting a search or seizing property. There were a total of eight thirty six stops in 2025 and twelve 73 stops in 2026. And then arrest by race without a warrant, there were a total of sixteen ninety four stops in 2025 and two thousand six hundred and eighty four stops in the 2026 report and Hispanic individuals accounted for the highest percentage followed by whites and blacks. So regarding gender data and limitations, of the 14,879 stops reported in the 2025 RIPA, 99 stops were excluded and of the 20,254 stops reported in 2026, 74 stops were excluded. The emissions are based on discrepancies between the gender categories provided by the AB nine fifty three reporting template which relies on the officer's perception and the gender categories recognized by the US Census.

So some gender categories such as transgender and non conforming, multi gender are reported in the RIPA and are not captured in the census data and were excluded from the analysis. So only male and female data was used to be consistent with the census. And to ensure consistency when comparing RIPA data with The U. S. Census, we only analyzed the male and female categories.

So a key observation here is that the total stops increased from 14,780 stops in 2025 to 20,180 stops in 2026. Male individuals accounted for 75.71% of the stops in 2026 which is a slight increase from 75.04 in 2025. Warnings by gender, when officers issue warnings instead of citations, in the 2026 report, 82.88% of citations were given to males and 17.12% were given to females. For stops resulting in citations related to gender in 2026, 63.08% were issued to males and 36.92% were issued to females. For arrests made with a warrant, the total stops increased from eight twenty seven in 2025 to twelve eighty six in 2026 representing an increase of approximately 55.5%.

Arrests made without warrants related to gender, total stops increased from sixteen seventy eight in 2025 to 2,668 in 2026 representing an increase of approximately 59. And civilian complaints, during the reporting period for the 2025 RIPA report, 28 civilian complaints were received during the reporting period with two alleging racial or identity profiling. Complaint cases received are reviewed by the Riverside Police Department's Internal Affairs Division as required by RPD policy 1,009.1 subsection C and D and government code 3,304 subsection D. So civilian complaints are also independently reviewed through the Community Police Review Commission as outlined by the Riverside Municipal Code eight ten Subsection C. So a key takeaway here is that both RPD and CPRC provide oversight to ensure complaints are thoroughly reviewed and addressed.

So my recommendation is for the CPRC to review and discuss the RPD's data represented in the 2026 Racial and Identity Profiling Act and I'm joined by Captain Eric Detmer and the police chief who are available to answer any questions.

Thank you. So at this time, we invite public comment regarding the item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling (951) 826-8688 to comment on this item, press 9 to be placed in the queue and 6 to speak. To participate via Zoom, select raise the hand function to speak. You have three minutes. Do we have any comments from our audience? Do we have any callers?

Are there callers? I can't see. My laptop's dead. No. My laptop's dead. Are you

Thank you. Do we have any comments, questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Ward?

Just a couple of questions. A couple of more process questions and then some questions on the data. The numbers for Riverside, who runs those? Is that the city manager that runs those numbers to get to those results we just looked at?

The Department of Justice The

of Justice provides Well, City of Riverside Riverside specifically?

The City of Riverside submits the data on April 1 to the Department of Justice and then they prepare this report that has all the cities within the county of Riverside.

So all the numbers we just looked at are numbers that come from the Department of Justice provided back to the city specific?

They have the raw data and then we take that and then put it in this form for you.

Okay. So, it's the raw data and we take the raw data and summarize it into what we just saw. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. Thanks. Who sees the RIPA data? Who sees this information?

Oh,

the police department and myself. Okay. Anyone else? The city manager reviews it as well. Yeah.

Yeah. But I'm just saying in terms of within the the city, within the leadership is what I'm trying to to get at. So it's a city manager and the PD leadership that sees the information.

And then after here, it'll go to city council.

Right. Okay. Thanks. Is is there is there a reason that we don't conclude we don't come to a conclusion in this in this report? It's it's it's a statement of fact or information or statistics. It doesn't say whether it's good or bad or render an opinion.

No, that's not something I was instructed to analyze. It's just I think someone had asked for the data to make sense for this commission. I think the data was once provided a few years ago but no one knew how to read it. So it was then analyzed and presented in this matter for you to see. Correct?

Okay. Okay. Well, maybe we can talk about some of my other questions when we look at some of the recommendations on the ad hoc then. Because I'll address a couple of the questions I'm just trying to understand if there's some reasoning we we have not concluded something with the information.

Yeah so the RIPA board provides recommendations for police departments. This was an exercise done as requested by this body. So the data comes from the Department of Justice for you to review but because no one understood how to read presented it to the commission, there were questions about Riverside specifically. So the city manager's office went above and beyond and created this. It's not required. We just did it for this body and it has been asked to come back which is why we do it annually.

Okay.

You can present that question to the chief of police if you want to.

Then can do it either one. Because I think it'll come up in the recommendations. Thank

you. And we can discuss further from the ad hoc committee's recommendations to us. But when you say conclusion, whether or not we engage in racial profiling type things, is that what you're looking for?

Of the numbers would suggest there's some challenges.

Disparities? Yeah. Yes. That could take years, and we do rely on the RIPA board, which is largely, I would say, 90% non law enforcement to give us recommendations also. I can tell you from past experience, we were when we were under consent decree in the early two thousands or stipulated agreement through the Department of Justice, we had demographics that we had to keep stats of on IB traffic stop.

I don't know if I've told you this before, but it took us five years of studying those over period of time to where we did get to a conclusion. And it was a consultant that came in front of the city council and said that it's my opinion after five years of collecting data that they do not engage in racial profiling in the city of Riverside. So it could be something down the road they're going to do. It's still unclear what the RIPA Board or the way the legislation is written on how they would present something like that. Because you only have so much you have data, you have no context really to that data.

And when you look at back stories and other reasons why, you can look at crime statistics, put that there. And I think those are some of the other recommendations I read that you put forward that would provide a better some more context to just saying, well, there's a disparity between there's only 6% African Americans in the city of Riverside. You're you're playing more over 30% of the time. Well, there has to be some context provided behind that to out really say in a conclusion of whatever type that we aren't engaging in something like that.

Okay. Then perhaps when we go through some of the recommendations, we can get some feedback on whether or not they're appropriate based on what you're discussing and some of the concerns that we see with the data. Thank you.

I just have two quick questions. Sorry, Rupe. One for you. So on Slide eight, it showed that there was an increase in stops. Maybe it's you, maybe it's the Chief. Do we contribute those stops due to having a full police staff? So now that we have we're actually stopping more people because we have people to stop them. Okay. Yeah. Because that's a substantial increase of of stops.

And then the the one question I do have, Ruby, is you said that this information comes from Riverside to the Department of Justice. Where does that information come from Riverside? Like, who compiles that information to send to the DOJ?

So each officer has to fill out a 25 question survey questionnaire and they submit it electronically to the DOJ.

Okay. So that's that's April 2 through April 1 roughly every every year. That that's kind of like the cycle.

Data's collected two calendar years before and so 2026 data was from 2024 and in April 2025 everything has to be with the Department of Justice. And from April till December is when the RIPA Board reviews everything and then they prepare the report in January 2026.

Okay. And so it's just automatically just continuously going to So every time they fill out that questionnaire, it's just just goes straight there. Okay.

Yes.

Awesome. Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you. Alrighty. Item number eight, the Racial and Identity Profile recommendations. At this time, we invite public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling (951) 826-8688 to comment on this item. Press 9 to be placed in the queue and 6 to speak.

You.

Thank you. Commissioner Ward, I believe you were the chair of this ad

hoc. Yeah. I'm gonna try and get through this. I'm not feeling well. So pardon me if it takes me a while to kind of

share what I need to share.

So our ad hoc committee consisted of commissioners Lundy and Teichert, myself. We met twice and came up with a number of questions, some proposed policy, maybe some changes to practices. Hopefully this fits within the scope of our responsibilities. If it doesn't, then you know I'm sure folks will let us know. But we were trying to document concerns that we had and then have them addressed in whatever way is deemed best.

If we could go to the next slide. When we did this, we organized the information in a couple of different The first category has to do with data analysis. In the analysis, there were some questions about some of the analysis early on when we looked at this information last year. So we have the points of discussion and or the proposed policy and we have a general rationale for why it is we're suggesting such. So that's the way we laid the data out.

I'm I'm hoping everybody had an opportunity to take a look at this information and and, you know, what we're here today is to make sure that we we get your comments and input to the appropriateness of this, anything that we may have forgotten, anything that's, again, maybe doesn't align with our role, responsibilities, and such. I won't read each one of these. I'll just quickly summarize, if that's okay. And and we can go from there. When we talked about this information last year, there were some concerns about the data and the analytics on the data.

And what we were trying to be sensitive to was making sure that we understood those concerns. So, you know, the thought of well can we run additional analysis by pulling out calls for service for instance. If we have the raw data and it's all on spreadsheet, it should be a filter we could do to get to that information. It's as much for us as it is anything else. It's just so we have an idea as to whether or not that's impacting the data.

So that was one of the things that we suggested. Number two, we also suggested running additional analysis removing the non residents if that information is available in the data set and seeing what it says and seeing if those numbers look any different. And if they do, then you know we can you know understand what that what impact that is if it doesn't then we can you know kinda have a little bit more confidence in the information and go forward with the information And then the when we were having this discussion, the question of flag downs came up, and we wondered whether or not there were any of those captured in the data. And if so, how many? And did they influence the results at all?

You know, would it move the data significantly? That was a question. So this whole section here is really about data analytics, trying to get a better handle on it. Not that it would go back to the DOJ, it would just help us better understand what we have. So let me pause there and see if there are any questions or comments about these first three items.

Yes, I hope that this microphone works. It appears to. Regarding the data analysis, I think perhaps if we kind of walk through these and find out if these things are capable of being scrubbed from the data. So I guess, number one, can we remove calls for service from the dataset? Is that one of the categories that's collected?

It's not right now. And I know Commissioner Ward wasn't feeling too. I don't know if you want to go through everything. I have some comments if you want to go through the rest of them. And I could bring or we can go after each one, whatever you guys want.

We can go as we are. So my

thought from coming here tonight was more of a receiving file from you guys to let you know our capabilities. If there was something that was outwardly undoable, I would I would tell you. I know some things would be labor intensive, but I'd have to check with my IT folks to see how we would go about doing that because the DOJ RIPA report is the DOJ RIPA report. But like I told you, and I appreciate you guys listening to me last time because there's some when I say provide context, I would love to be able to sift I don't know how labor intensive it is for us, but I would love to sift through the transitory problem that we talked about before. You go down here Wednesday through Sunday night in in Riverside, nobody's from Riverside.

I mean, there's some, but not the majority is not. Lots of enforcement is done down there. And even a lot of people come to the city now for a lot of different things. So transitory one's a big thing, and I appreciate you bringing up the part about what is a call we had no choice going to and detain somebody. Or if you flag us down, I I remember I said that to you before that. Yeah. We didn't know. We hadn't it's like you wanna say you violated somebody's Fourth Amendment when we had a radio call to them. We can't violate if you're calling us for service, that's not a violation for them, but we get those complaints sometimes. So just for the first couple, those are stuff I'd love to look into and report back on what we can and can't do as far as our capabilities.

So for now, you don't have that ability. Category in the

It's not put out any

type of report

for us. If we went through and looked at every stop we probably could. Okay.

But it is captured on the stop data collection form.

Correct.

So if if that's a file that's sent to the DOJ, then it seems like we would have it if if that's the case.

It's just not sectioned out the way that it's requested here. Okay.

So the question then to me is the degree to which that's easy enough to get. And if it is, are there other internal are there can we do additional analysis again just for our own sake of discovery so that we know. So that's what the ask is here and if it requires a little bit more research that's fine. But that's what we were trying to get at.

And I will look into that. Off the top of my head I know there's capabilities of adding questions to our initial data. But like I said keeping my officers in mind after a simple traffic stop they have to answer 25 questions. And I don't want to add more. And I can't just arbitrarily take out some questions I don't think are good either. We could add.

And we're not suggesting we add any more. We're suggesting if it's already captured which I thought it was when I looked at the form then we could do the analysis. But I don't think we're not trying to make more work. We're trying to use what we have and understand how it impacts.

It's captured in there. We just don't house that information with us at the police department to separate

it. Okay. Other questions?

No, that's good. I think that the purpose of this data analysis category is we want to make sure that the data that we're looking at is clean so that it isn't skewed or potentially skewed. So I think the purpose of calling these out was to see if it is possible within our current data that's currently collected, if that's readily accepted out. But it's not one of the categories. It appears none of these three appear to be any categories that are sent to the DOJ or required of the DOJ. Okay. So Correct. That's it. Thank you.

One other question. Just a point of clarification on the calls for service versus calls for service stops. Are the DOJ reference both of those terms? Or I think they reference call for service stops and then I think we reference call for service. So are they one and the

same thing or could be a call for service. Call for service stop would be, hey, this person in a red Honda Accord just burglarized our house and one of our officers see that car from a call that was generated. That was a call for service. We've made the stop based on a radio call.

Okay. So they are indeed stops? Correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Just to clarify that then. Okay.

I just have just one comment on the, you know, I think the rationale with being able to if we're able to somehow determine if they're residents or they're not, I think it brings faith to the residents of of Riverside that, hey, like our residents, this is our population because if you're stopped on the 91 Freeway, you're well, you're in Riverside, you know. And so that it goes against us. You know, we're a major commuter. So I think it would be very beneficial. I know it's it's time and money, but, you know, to bring faith from our residents, I think it's it's huge.

Rationale seems to be the big topic tonight. Yes.

Okay. We can move to the next slide if there are no other questions on this. So the second category that we had was data interpretation. And what we've listed here on five in particular kind of gets that one of the points that we discussed last year when we looked at this data. And that is establishing some kind of deviation standards that define significant deviations from the expected norm, from the expected percentage of population.

And then we have a comment, you know, towards the end of that section that says the report needs to come to a conclusion. And then that's in there because the DOJ comes to a conclusion when they when they discuss profiling for the state of California. They it's an overall statement about we still have some challenges or issues with certain certain groups. And when I look at the data or when we look at the data and it's a three year pattern in particular with African American community, that seems to be an issue. So if it's apparent to me, it just seems like we would be able to make a decision that says, okay, we have a we have an issue here we're gonna look at.

We're gonna get into the details of it and discover why it is what it is. Maybe there's a rationale for it. I'd like to understand that rationale. And if there's not a rationale, then maybe we have to consider some things about ourselves that, you know, we may be a little uncomfortable. But the whole point of this is establishing something that's that flags when something is an issue that we take a look at.

Because right now, I'm not sure what the standards are for when we look at something and how we would even communicate that to anybody that asked if anybody happens to go look at this information. How we would indicate when do we do something about the numbers we see so that's what number five is suggesting Thoughts, comments, questions?

No. I I appreciate the thoughtful input. That's one of the problems, though. Like you said, you get DOJ just says, for three years in a row, this has been a problem in here and here and here. They didn't they weren't quite as thoughtful as our CPRC is to say, let's look in and get more of a rationale. It was just a blanket statement without a lot of with the same data that you you see, obviously. So at the risk of putting a bunch more work on officers, I don't wanna do that. I just wanna figure out a better way to report this data. But it's it's in law now. It's it's already part of the process.

I I think it's unfair that they just they say that basically same language each time. I understand what you're saying because the numbers are there. I just argue about the context and these are the type of recommendations I ask you guys for that would be nice to be able to come explain to you. If there was disproportionate amount. Or why did we spike in this many stops in the African American community or the Asian community? Let's dig into it and see if we need to do some more self assessment or evaluation in our own department.

Because to me, the deviation standards gives us something, gives us a marker as a city. And there's good news in this report as well. If we just look at the numbers against expectation. So you know in a lot of cases the numbers look pretty good. 94% of it is good.

That's an A plus or that's a straight, it's an A. But for six Yeah, percent of the would take 94 all the time in college. But but that 6% is is double almost two and a half the the expected.

And,

you know, and the numbers kind of sometimes get a little bit worse as you look at some of the other categories we look at. So, you know, let's let's let's if if we've got good news, great. If we have news that's not as good, we made made. In in of

we've

the

And

report of the past. City of Riverside, you look at where are the majority of our calls for service

Mhmm.

And where are the stops occurring to? That would be something we could be able to provide to say, hey. Well, we're on the East Side. Right? So this is happening over here. You go on the West End, so it's older. But you look at where the crime is reported, you'll find out we spend a lot of time in those areas. So there might be more stops in that area, but still without knowing, you know, who's from where and who they're visiting or they, you know, it's it's really hard to tell. There's a lot of different things we could take in consideration.

Okay. I think that's fair. I I think, you know, there is a challenge with getting two and a half times of such a small population. So, you know, I still think that something that probably needs a little bit more attention, in my opinion, and that is three years running. I'm not sure how much more we we need before we take a deeper dive into that information to figure out why it's so high.

Same would would be on the the arrest without warrants because that's almost triple. But it could be a result of you pulling over two and a half times more than the population. Don't know. But we could find that out. We could find out more.

Correct. I

just wanted to address the issue of what the California RIPA Board does. One of the actions that they do take is they make recommendations. And those recommendations focus in on different areas every year. I think last year it was juvenile stops. And the year before that, they really went into one of the areas they went into was the role that for cities that had law enforcement officers and had oversight bodies, such as the commission, what recommendations they would make, they would suggest that those oversight bodies would look at making.

And that's where we come in to play. And that's where I think establishing deviation standards is an important step then for us for us, meaning the city, to take in order to determine whether some of those recommendations made by the California RIPA Board are things that we should look at doing here in the city that would help to address. So we don't have to come up with our own solutions necessarily, but we can look at what the wisdom that comes from statewide, what they're recommending. And so I think that's where this if the city can establish a standard that's acceptable, and if it's not acceptable, then do we start looking at these different recommendations that are So I just wanted to make clear that RIPA is more than just data collection. It's also they're looking at trying, how do we, and statewide they recognize that it's a systemic problem in the state.

And they make recommendations as to what can we do to address that systemic problem. Understand.

Okay. Just a couple other comments on items six and seven within the interpretation. We asked the question when we were meeting, should we arrive at our own conclusion as to, you know, a conclusion about what we're seeing? Don't know if that's outside of the scope of our responsibility but it was something that we discussed so we just brought it up with a question mark. I don't know if there's an opinion on that.

I'm sorry could you tell me the issue that you want to address? It

would be number six and for us to conclude when we look at the data saying well we think we have a concern here within the city that we'd like to investigate more or have investigated more. Is that within the scope of our responsibilities? That was a question that came up when we were having our discussion.

So from a legal standpoint you're an advisory only commission and it's well within the scope of you to advise the city manager and the council that you consider there to be some problematic issues that need further investigation. That you can do. You can't make a finding that that is actually what happened and say you conclude that there are problems at the Riverside Police Department. You can say that you've reviewed it, had done an analysis in open session and you want to advise the city manager concerns are and things that you would recommend that they follow-up on. That is definitely within the

scope. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then the point seven, and I know this is a sensitive subject in in general.

But if we do believe there's an issue, do we need in order to and and and the research shows that once we go into the data. Let's just assume that we we've done that. In order to address the number or reduce the number, do we need to establish something, a standard or a goal? Is that within our responsibility or not? Again, it's a question we're proposing because it's the when you address an issue, you obviously wanna have something you're shooting for as opposed to a general thought of we wanna reduce it well by by how much. So

again your advisory and if that is part of your advice that that be considered even with metrics you you are able to advise that to either the city council or the city manager. But it would be up to them to enact those types of

objectives. Correct.

Let's go ahead and move to the next slide. RIPA audits. Chief, you were kind enough to provide a pretty extensive overview last time you were here. And again, we were having this discussion and, you know, the audits came back up again in terms of what the city does or what the PD does. So, you know, we wanted to request clarification from you as to what you regard as a RIPA issue, you know, that would warrant, an audit being launched.

And, again, it doesn't have to be shared today, but it it it's one of the questions that we wanted to have a better understanding of because depending upon what you guys do will help us either fashion or not, you know, a recommendation or recommendations.

Sure. And I would be happy to take this information and come back. I can just right at the top right, we think that we do an issue is we have to constantly audit reporting to make sure the reporting on hold. A lot of new officers, like we talked about, a lot more stops. We've hired about 90 officers in the last year. So there's a lot more officers on the street. So making sure they're trained up, they're doing everything to do. So it's a constant oversight from supervision to make sure that RIPA data is being submitted. But other things I could report back to you if you'd like to and as far as the other issues and how we're dealing with them. K.

If you're done with those, just one thing I was I was hoping to see on this and it it just to throw it out there to you, and I I don't know if I brought it up last time or not. But and and I found out recently that from another chief that's on the RIPA board is I would love to have a question. This might happen to DOJ level, it'll take care of things. Did you know the ethnicity of the person before you made the traffic stop? That's a big thing. I know some of you guys have been on ride alongs. In the middle of the day, you see a car with tinted windows, you make a traffic stop on it. 99% of time, they don't know who they're pulling over. So if we can get that, I think that'll clear clarify a lot also. I'm not saying that, you know, it's a oh, you'll all understand that.

I'm just saying it's a big part for officers that sometimes don't understand us. So why didn't know I work graveyard. I never know who they are. Majority of the stops, they don't know. So that could happen at the DOJ level to where we could add that question into our 25. Mhmm. But I think that would provide some more insight specifically to us.

Oh, yeah. I agree, actually. And you just make it part of the data collection. Seems seem reasonable. Yeah. Yeah. I noticed that half of the stops were in the daytime maybe a little bit better. Maybe it's like 55%, 45%, maybe 60%, 40% in the daytime and then the 40% were at night. But even in the daytime you're not always sure who who you're stopping because, you know, you're taking an action from somebody being in front of you versus on the side of you.

Yeah. I've challenged boards before. So when you drive to work tomorrow, you tell me who's in front of

you. Yeah.

You know, they cut you off probably or sped past you. It's it's very difficult. And I think initially when RIPO was first formed, they they had the veil of darkness. There was a difference between working at night and day, and that's just it's not there anymore. So we're hoping to get something like this back. Okay.

Yes. So,

one of the things I wanted to bring to the Commission's attention is since our last meeting in October, we did perform an audit on traffic stops for the year 2025. And so, I just want to put some of this into context. And I understand your issue with some of the data, but I just want to bring this to light. In 2025, Western Riverside Council of Governments, the WRCOG, indicated that only 24% of employed Riverside residents live and work in the city. 76% of residents commute outside the city.

Only about 20% of jobs in Riverside are held by city residents and 80% of people traveling into the city work or live somewhere else. So, how that's relevant and what the issues are with the RIPA data is the specificity, I guess you would say, of the data is hard to go back and identify because it's intentionally vague. When they created RIPA, they did not want any of the data to be able to be searched back to the actual occurrence. So everything is vague. It's your traffic stop or the place where you do the contact is in 100 blocks or intersections.

There's no time. There's just the duration of the stop and a general area of the stop Because they didn't want any personal information of the person that was stopped because it's just a survey. So, I'm just putting it in the context of what I can tell you because once we send the data to DOJ, they own the data. And I know Eileen, this has happened in the past where we've given you the raw data and it's impossible to go through. And I think you would admit that, we've tried to go through it.

But some of the context of the stats in this audit that we did do since our last conversation that I wanted to bring to light is that, of the traffic stops that we did, in 2024, we issued 9,188 traffic sites. You guys know that from this data. We are able to go through all the traffic citations because that we own the data for, for the addresses of the person. Now, just the addresses that are on their driver's license, so that's as accurate as we can get without going back and interviewing everybody. But city residents were only 52.6% of the people that received citations.

And non city resident drivers were 47.4%. So, that's what makes some of this difficult. And then, all the people we arrested in 2024, only 36.6% of them were city residents, 46.2% were non city residents, and 17.2% were homeless individuals. So, it makes it incredibly difficult to, as you said, go through the data and be able to pinpoint the actual source of the issue. And I understand what the data suggests.

I'm just saying further analysis of the data other than just what the raw reporting from DOJ would probably bring more to light. And that's kind of the issue that we have, not only is the data two years old, but also is that it doesn't have any specific information that can be easily retraced. So, just wanted to bring that to the Commission's light, okay?

Okay, and I appreciate that That additional perspective. Because I think there's just a matter. There's discovery that needs to happen and I think we tried to gear this more towards a discovery process than to say okay you need to do this, this, this, and this. I'm not trying to do that. Yeah. So I I appreciate that perspective on the data. Only comment I would add is, again, we're all that said, we're okay on 94%.

I completely understand what

you're saying. I get it. Yeah. So, you know, there are a lot of challenges with data, but everybody's got them so that everybody's got the same concern or the same issue with the data. So, you know, it's not it's not a good thing, but it it it's cons it's the consist it's a it's consistent. So, you know, again, we're just trying to to make sure that we provide input that's gonna, you know, give us some clarity on what we should be looking at.

Absolutely. That that's exactly what this commission's for. But the thing I wanted to bring up too is most, if you look at our traffic stops for traffic enforcement or commuter traffic, it's at six to eight in the morning. And it's also in the evening when people are commuting to the city. So a lot of those statistics, it's hard to judge where where's all this stuff coming from and who's coming from where and who we're stopping.

When this first started, I was actually on one of the panels when we were developing RIPO because we were one of the third tier that was rolled out. And they were still developing how we were gonna report it and how they're gonna receive the information. And I've brought up to DOJ when this first started that the whole information that you're trying to report is skewed from the beginning because you're judging the police officers based upon what other people report too. If you truly wanna get to the source of, you know, if if if you're forecasting your stops and you're discriminating against people, it should just be on the stops the police officers do, not on radio calls. Like, and I always bring this example up.

Okay? Because I've seen this happen where I'm told to go to this neighborhood because there's a suspicious person and it's an African American male walking through the neighborhood and somebody else called him in. And I see him walking down the street and it's my choice. If if I go and I pull him over, okay, am I discriminating against him because somebody else called him in as a suspicious person? Or if I decide not to stop him, then that person's gonna complain on me that I didn't do my job. Yeah. And so now I'm stopping this person, and now I'm reporting that I stopped an African American person. And it's the reporting party's racial issue, not mine. And that's why I'm stopping the person. And I'm just saying there's more to this study than what is being reported.

Yeah. I agree. And I think that, you know, part of the data analysis and trying to understand the impact of, you know, non residents and calls for service and what have you. You know, if we could get that information, it gives us more ammo to whom ver we need to convince to change their methodology or to consider doing some things differently because we're actually coming back with data and saying, hey. You know, you're you're asking it for this way.

You know, when you when you assess it this way, this is the difference. And then you have real information to help lobby whomever who whomever's minds we need to change about how the data is collected. So we were thinking about it from that standpoint too. This gives you ammo that allows you to make your case stronger.

I agree with you. As Commissioner Tyker, she's seen the raw data. It's like trying to decipher a science experiment. It's impossible. It's just a bunch of codes and it's really difficult to do.

Yeah, okay. Appreciate it.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. I think the other issues are really more. There's one more. If you go to the next slide. It's just the actions by the CR. So we a little bit reluctant to have, you know, strong, you know, actions. We just wanna make sure that we we encourage and support the actions of the the chief in the PD. And, you know, number 10 talks a little bit about, you know, do we need to conclude our own findings? You know, it's kind of like a similar question to number six. I think we've already addressed that.

And then number 11, the city council receives annual updates. That was a question that we had. Do they see this information?

So I understand that counsel irrespective of what this body does will have this information presented to them

they do see it okay thank you unless there are other comments from the subcommittee members think that's it

I think that one of the items that we were looking at is moving this forward to the appropriate city council committee to consider these items and to hear this discussion because there's been valuable discussion by the chief and the captain about these various issues. What should we just be counting the discretionary stops? And really, difference does it make if you're stopping, you know, 2.5 times more African Americans, whether they're residents or nonresidents? These are all things that the city council can consider, and they can consider whether or not they want to establish a deviation standard that's acceptable within the city or at what point do they want to have either the committee or punt it back to us to come up with recommendations as to what kinds of other actions would we recommend the city take. But I think it would be a good part of, again, our just advisory capacity as a commission to send these recommendations to the next level, the City Council Committee, and I apologize, I don't remember the name.

Safety, Wellness and Youth Committee.

Yes, okay. That committee and then that committee then can decide to send it on up to city council or, again, punt it back or do whatever they wish with that. So that would be my recommendation is that we would maybe I should make a motion.

Yes.

That we move these recommendations and this report up to that Safety and Wellness Committee of the City Council for consideration.

Can I second? With a few editorial changes based on today's conversation.

Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Teichert to send as commissioner Ward said with a few edits from today's conversation. And a second by vice chair.

Can you list those edits that you want? And if it's excluding What we would bring to safety wellness would basically be the same data that we showed you but if you wanted other things excluded

These actions by the CPRCs.

On number 10?

So these these items, correct? They wanna make a couple edits to this report.

I think what I hear you saying is separate from the RIPA? That's why I was confused because there

was two. I don't know

if you were gonna receive and file the last one and send it through. But I think you're talking about just this one, right? Correct, yeah.

So will you prepare the changes?

Yes. Yes, I will.

Okay. Commissioner Lundy?

It sounds like I'm just not clear on the motion. And, if there's a modification but we're not identifying what the modification is to be voted on. So, just think about that.

So, it might need to come

back to committee or to this commission, your modifications. So, this is your draft. So I think you need to continue this item to the next meeting with your edits and then get this commission to approve what you want to bring to safety wellness.

That's exactly what I'm gonna say. I think

this should be a draft And we it should be what we are going to forward to the committee or the safety board, whatever. This is not what we are recommending.

We've already made changes, you know, just in the last hour.

So

we'll go ahead and make a motion to to modify the report.

You wanna make a substitute motion

Mhmm.

Because she made one already. So you're making a substitute motion to continue this item the next meeting include your edits and then this body can discuss and approve it so it can go to safety wellness.

That's correct.

Before you vote, Commissioner Ward, would it help you if we provided the report numbers that we gave you on the stop data that the captain just talked about as far as folks that are in Riverside and the citations and the breakdown?

Yeah. Any additional information would be helpful for me just for perspective sake and and counterbalancing it with, you know, the the data that we have already.

Sure. We could do that. Okay.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, chief. Okay. So the substitute motion made by vice chair Gutierrez was to push this item to the next meeting to incorporate the edits that the ad hoc committee will be modifying. And then we will vote then to take it to the safety youth

Wellness.

Wellness. There you go. That committee. The safety Safety, wellness, and youth committee. And who leads that committee? Just so I'm aware.

Is Councilmember Perry is the chair.

Mill and I believe,

Okay. Very good.

Condor. No. It's Condor. Not

Okay. So we'll vote on the the substitute motion.

The motion passes. Thank

to you, Ruby. Review of the draft 2025 Community Police Review Commission report.

So in front of all of you guys, you have your 2025 annual report. Before So you tonight is the draft 2025 community police review commission annual report for your review and approval. So as required by the CPRC bylaws, this report is ultimately, will ultimately be presented to the mayor and city council and serve as a summary of the commission's work over the past year. The purpose of the report highlights the commission's core responsibilities including complaint case review, officer involved death case oversight, community outreach and training activities. It is intended to reflect not only the commission's formal action but also the significant time and effort commissioners have contributed throughout the year.

So some key highlights I wanted to call out is that in 2025, the commission reviewed and closed 28 complaint cases involving allegations with a small number of cases still pending review at year end and we're gonna complete 2025 tonight. The report also includes a comparison of findings between the CPRC and the police department which we kind of discussed earlier. This demonstrates that the commission's independent review rule. Additionally, the commission addressed one officer involved death case and initiated another consistent with its charter authority and beyond case review commissioners contributed over nine hundred hours of reviewing materials and participated in numerous trainings and community outreach events. So I also wanted to acknowledge that commissioners provided thorough input last year.

And at this time, we are seeking your feedback to ensure the report accurately reflects your work and priorities. And if you have any edits to please let me know as soon as possible so we can revise that and prepare a final document for city council. So is there any issues or any sections that you want me to walk through or answer any questions?

Before we do that, we gotta go public comment.

At

this time, invite public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling (951) 826-8688 to comment on this item. To participate by Zoom, select raise the hand function to speak. You have three minutes. Do we have any comments from the audience or online?

No comments.

Comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Ward?

On. Think it's page four of the report. Don't know if you have the available online or on the screen or not. But it's the page that has the the bar graph

of

the different types of findings?

Look on page five there's a table that has case finding variations on the next page. So it just so happened that all of PD's findings and your findings, the total number aligns identical. But on the next page on the case finding variations, we have RPD's finding sustained, not sustained, unfounded and then we have CPRCs finding. So those numbers actually match and they equal the graph. So if you look at RPD's findings, there's two sustained.

And then if you look on CPRCs finding, the next slide please or next page. I'm sorry, yeah the next slide. So if you look on CPRCs finding there's two so it equals each other.

Yeah. I I I must still be sick because I'm not understanding this at all. So this chart here says it it suggest me that seven of the 60 cases varied. Is that what it's saying?

Seven out of the 60 allegations. There was twenty eight cases but some cases had multiple allegations. Multiple officers. And so RPD's findings, they had two sustained on RPD's findings on these cases and CPRC had two sustained findings as well. So the numbers align align and equals the graph on this page. They may not match case to case but total those were the numbers.

Okay. Does that make sense for everybody else?

Yes. Just did a quick little tally on this breakdown and the numbers do add up.

Okay. Alright. I'll leave it alone because, again, it's probably just me.

I looked at it too and I was like, I know there was discrepancies. How did these numbers align? And then I added these numbers and it it matches.

Okay. So through all the discrepancies, there was three unfounded for RPD and three unfounded for CPRC, two for not sustained, two for not sustained for CPRC and two for sustained and two for sustained.

And we highlight it so you can see that there are seven allegations that there were discrepancies. So there are seven findings that didn't match with PDs. Okay.

I just had one quick. I know when I was looking through the history of of these reports, we used to include an area map of Riverside that kinda showed, like, the wards that a lot of this these these complaints were coming from. Is that something that we can include? I don't know if that's if that comes from us or if that comes from RPD. But in the previous, I think it stopped in, like, 2019.

That was before my time

on that. Know. And that's what that's yeah. So in the in the previous reports, it was like there was one of the pages. And I know they used to come in like they were like these books, these reports used to be. And I I don't know if that's something

that It

may it may even go to I know a previous conversation with, like, RIPA and stuff like that. If it's if it's tracked and accessible, if we're able to put that

in here.

Commissioner Lundy?

Reviewing the same page as you're talking about. RPD finding are sustained, not sustained twice, sustained and too unfounded. That does not match our side. There is only one not sustained on our side.

But if you look at the number of cases there's two of them.

Yeah. So the performance, it says number case two. There was two of them that we disagreed.

And then there were So two not sustained are for performance. So there's two of those cases.

Okay. Any other comments? Commissioner Ward?

Is this report I was wondering if we needed to include the ad hoc work done on this report or is this report more exclusively for the cases we we reviewed?

Which ad hoc?

One on policy and then the one on RIPA. I I wasn't sure if this report was an overall of what we're doing or is it just a review not just but a review of the cases that we we look at

I think we would have to look maybe if it

needs to include ad hoc committee responsibilities I don't think it has in the past.

Legal advice, you this report's whatever you want it to be. And if you think that was meaningful and I I think it is.

Is it an annual report?

Mhmm.

Okay. Well, if it's an annual report, it needs to include the additional work that falls outside of the the most routine that we do. So if we're spending time in ad hocs, then I think that should be reported back up on what it is, what they were, what the resolution was or what the input was.

Okay. So can you clarify what you want added? You wanna add the ad hoc committee name?

Ad hoc yeah. Ad hoc committee for the

law The commission might wanna have to agree on that Yeah. And provide instruction. Like move like discuss what you want added and then do a motion Okay. So that you can get clear I don't mean to interrupt but just be thinking toward that direction.

Okay. So, I would say that we would add ad hoc committee established to review CPRC bylaws policies and procedures. And then the same thing for RIPA related proposed policy recommendations.

There was another one as well. It was the training for complaint policy. And there was one earlier on in the

I thought too. I don't remember what it was. Or last year.

The ad hoc for the complaint policy, that's this that's gonna be this year, 2026.

So that'll be 2026?

Yes.

Was there another one?

I think those are the only two. Just kept extending the policies.

Okay.

Was really both the bylaws and then the policies and procedures might have been as two.

Oh, two. That's one.

Combined.

What else do you want added about those? The number of hours, the commissioner's names who served on them, who the chair was? Well, yes. In the content,

the issue, the resolution. Really, that's those are the two things. Why do we do it? You know, what was the issue we're trying to address and what was the resolution? I mean, it something we're supposed to Wait,

give a second or someone else to discuss if they want to add it.

So they add the ad hocs the ad hocs for the bylaws, policies, and procedures, and the RIPAs add that information to the report. We had a motion by commissioner Ward or second by commissioner Lundy. So we'll vote to add those on.

Can you press start vote? Hit start vote.

And then if everyone's voted, hit yes

to display. Okay. So I have that we are going to add the ad hoc committee name, the issue and resolution to the annual report.

Yes. I just had a quick question. Commission outreach. It says a civil rights institute events. I don't recall any of the commissioners. I'm I'm grateful if they did, but did anybody don't remember the commissioners going to that any of those events or the DUI traffic investigation training seminar conference. I don't remember hearing about those.

Civil rights may have been commissioner Dillon.

Okay.

And commissioner Ferguson, I believe you did a ride along.

Yeah. It's just the DUI traffic investigation one. Maybe that was commissioner Dillon

as well.

DUI was done by PD, I think, to commissioners. I think that was in November where there was two training sessions.

The one in November That was the IAA. Yeah.

Was that a training? Oh, it was a PowerPoint training. Yeah.

The IAA. Mhmm. It was a PowerPoint training.

Not not the DUI traffic investigation. That was just the IA investigation.

Somebody came and did a presentation for DUI last year. We'll have to go through the agenda. That was a training that was done.

If you want to remove it, I could remove it but we can also go through it and research it.

Yeah. I I think the other thing would be I don't know if it's important to put on there that we did do the IA investigation. That is something that we

That was January 2026.

Oh, really? Oh, my gosh. Times

Yeah. That was January 2020 scheduled two, we held one,

and the second one, no one showed up.

Okay. Okay. So we just have to so now since we're we're requesting modifications to it.

I'll have to continue to bring it back.

We'll have to continue. So we'll have to make a

it and then bring back another draft.

So we'll have to make a motion to bring it back to the next agenda item the next month?

Yeah, we could do that.

I cannot make that motion.

I'm happy to make the motion to bring back the community police review commission report for 2025 with the revisions as discussed by the commission today.

Do we have a second for that?

I'll second.

Commissioner Ferguson, thank you. We'll go ahead and vote.

Motion passes.

Alright. Thank you, Ruby. Alright. Item number 10. Receive an update regarding officer involved death case 2022Dash00362. Jay Tracy Frank?

Yes. Thank you, chair Bell. This case is continuing, of course. This is a OID involving Joseph Tracy. It occurred in the city of Hemet in was January 9.

I'm sorry. The date of it was it was well, 01/18/2022. I'm sorry. So, this has been continued on because of the protective order issue and not having the office opportunity to review the video tapes that you had requested. So as I had mentioned before, this was supposed to go to federal court in Downtown Los Angeles, 01/27/2026.

Well, this federal the federal case was dismissed on 11/25/2025. A court they had a court on this January 9. And as as a result of this, this it was dismissed in federal federal court but removed over to the superior court for trial. And the trial was initially set to begin April 2026, but when they appeared on January 9, it was a matter of not all attorneys were able to make it work for them. So they are looking at moving this on to a date that all could be there to start this trial in either September or October 2026.

And as a result of this, of course, the protective order is still in place, which means that we'll have to wait until the, this goes to court again in either September or October, to have the opportunity to obtain the, data that you that you want with the surveillance camera videos and also body worn camera videos. So it's really a matter of moving this, continuing to moving it down to those dates if that's what you choose to do.

Okay. Thank you, Frank. This time You're welcome. At this time, we invite public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling (951) 826-8688 to comment on this item. Star nine to be placed on the queue and star six to speak. To participate by Zoom, select raise the hand function to speak. You have three minutes. Any comments from the audience or callers?

No comments in the chamber and there's no callers online for item 10.

Thank you. Do we have any comments from our commissioners? Commissioner Teichert?

Yes, I recommend that we continue this item until such time as we're able to see the videos that we have requested, in particular, body worn camera video officer is what I'm very much interested in seeing.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions for Frank regarding this? If not okay. Since there's there's no action, we'll just receive and file file this. Thank you, Frank.

Yes. I'll keep you updated as I I'll keep you updated as I know. I'm sorry.

Sorry, Frank. I apologize.

There was a motion on the floor.

Well, the the motion was to to continue, and that was already the the the agreement last time we met on this. There was there's no change in in direction. Correct? So unless we have a motion that to change what we were already doing. Correct. Okay. Awesome. At this time, can we announce the closed session cases and then we will enter closed session?

It is 07:51. We will be taking a recess from open session and going into closed session pursuant to government code 54,957. The commission will discuss cases PC twenty five zero five zero three zero and PC twenty five one one zero four eight. Thank

you.

Back. We are back from closed session. Item number 13, the city attorney's report on closed session actions. Thank you. Number 14, brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by the CPRC.

I know I wasn't here last month, but in January, I did attend the the community conversation for Ward 3 held by council member Roblaard. Each council member will hold for at least for a year throughout their ward, just different conversations. So I was able to go and just introduce introduce myself and kinda just tell what the CPRC does. There was it was a you know, it was received well by the by the community. There was, like, 40 people there. So I would encourage you to reach out to your council member and just find out, hey. What what do you have going on? And then even for Ward 3, he gave me a list, like, through July, different things that are going out, and, I'll see if I can get that shared with, with everybody here. Yes.

I was just gonna ask. Sometimes, I am at those kind of meetings and I do mention I think one, I mentioned the CPRC, but I was representing my organization, Habitat. Is it okay to do that? Like, when there's roundtable and introductions and it's like, okay, I also serve on or if I have an opportunity like that where I'm wearing double hats.

Yeah. Because I think it's anytime you're bringing awareness to the to the CPRC and kind of sharing to let the community know like what we're doing. So, I think that definitely helps.

Good to know. Thanks.

If I'm not mistaken, I remember there were some trifold brochures and things of that nature that would be circulated to the commissioner so that when they're in a position of participation, they can get those have those distributed.

Very good. Awesome. Okay. Item 15, ad hoc committee updates for bylaws, policies, and procedures. We went over that in today's meeting, and we'll make the edits. I believe once it's published, do we have to make decision on the agenda to resolve or dissolve the ad hoc or since we already made a decision to push it through, I think, April, it automatically dissolves if we don't extend it? Okay. Very good. Awesome. Ad hoc committee updates racial and identity profile act.

That's commissioner Ward.

I I think we covered it sufficiently.

Very good. The ad hoc committee update RPD complaint process. Very good. Here? Here or on Teams? On Teams. Right? Hope Hopefully, it's on. So we'll just have to confirm that before next week. If commissioner Dylan, I know he's cheering that up if he can email that out. So I'm not the only one on teams. Okay. Riverside Police Department update.

Yeah. I know it's been a long night, so I'll make this quick. I know last time we talked about drone as a first responder. I'm happy to announce that starting next week, we should launch our our first week with the test drone. So, I'll let everybody know how that goes. So, that should be launching next week. We're all set up, ready to go. We're getting the equipment all delivered and we should launch that next week. No pun intended. And then, I don't think I mentioned it last month, but our hiring process has gone really well.

We're pretty close to being at full staffing. Our patrol, as you can see in the increase in the traffic stops over the last couple of years, has increased. It'll probably increase again this year. We were able to add several motors back into traffic. So, we're back up to, I think, 16 motors, which is almost fully staffed. We've had a lot of complaints in the community about commercial vehicle traffic, so we've stepped our commercial vehicle enforcement. I don't know if any of you drive down Alessandra, that's usually that. Sycamore Canyon and Meridian Parkway are usually the streets that most of the complaints come in on. So, know a lot of times in the mornings, our motors are out there working commercial enforcement. So, you should see them out.

We're also able to add to our public safety engagement team, are the teams that go out and they give resources and address issues with the homeless population. So we're able to add two more full time teams, so four officers. So we we have a lot more coverage with the p set stuff. That's one of the other obviously large complaints in the city. So staffing's looking good. Our personnel's looking good. So we're able to provide a lot more resources to the community. Very good.

I just have I just have two quick questions.

Sure.

One, if we do have a concern with people parking in handicap while they go into Starbucks. Yep. You know, and there's there's no enforcement. You know, they just sit there and park. Who do how who do we notify for that?

If you see it occurring right now, then you would call our nonemergency number and dispatch, and they'll send somebody out. We have that's another thing we're able to add is we have some civilian CSOs that go out now and traffic investigators. So we do have more people that are available to help out with things like that. Okay. And if it's something that you see routinely occurring, like people do it, like, every day, you can you can just notify me or just send me an email or either or notify our on and on emergency number. But if you let us know, like, the time and parameters of the times you're seeing it, we can have somebody go by and just drive through and see if they're there or not.

Okay.

I'm sure once they get one ticket, they're not gonna wanna do it again.

Yeah. I I've been using the three one one app, and it doesn't always work. But Yeah. The other thing I have, I know there's a couple new area area commanders. Yes. Is there a way that for each of our wards, we can be get get a list of that so maybe we can connect with them? Because I know they have the community outreach, and that would be a great opportunity for us to connect with them.

Yeah. Absolutely. So if sorry. I'm a little taller than the microphone. But if if I will get you the list of all the area commanders, but if you're ever in doubt of who to call, it's also updated on our website too. But I'll I'll get you who to contact.

Thank you.