Community Police Review Commission - Regular Meeting

Pursuant to the City Council meeting rules adopted by Resolution No. 24,255, 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 all boards and commissions in the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the city council or 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 to the Community Police Review Commission meeting of June 25. This meeting is called to order. Do a roll call, please.

Please state here when I call your name. Chair Bell? Here. Vice chair Gutierrez? Here. Commissioner Teichert?

Here.

Ferguson?

Here.

Ward?

Here.

Dillon?

Here.

And for the record, commissioners Garcia and Lundy are absent tonight. Thank you.

Would commissioner Ferguson please lead us in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the black United States Thank you. Now we observe a moment of silence. Thank you. We'll move on to, to comment to public comment.

To comment on any matters within the jurisdiction of the Community Police Review Commission, you are invited to participate in person or call at (951) 826-8688. Call Individual attendance, Participation is limited to three minutes. Do we have any comments from our audience?

We have no speakers in chambers and no callers online. Also, we did not receive any comments for tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move on to the consent calendar. Does anyone wish to pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion? Do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar as is?

Thank

you Commissioner Tucker.

And I'll second.

Thank you, commissioner Dillon. Go ahead and please vote.

Item passes unanimously. Thank you.

Now we have the annual review of the code of ethics and conduct. We have doctor Kilgrenstein here to present.

Hello, good evening chair and members. My name again is Doctor. Danielle Kelchenstein. I'm a new member of the Board of Ethics, and it is my privilege to join you here this evening to provide this update. I know that this information is really exciting, and you're gonna be on the edge of your seats listening to me the whole time, but I know that you all have the information in your packets.

And so to facilitate conversation, I'm planning to summarize the slides so we can move through the 30 slides that we have here today. So thank you so much. So the purpose of the code of ethics and conduct is to achieve a fair, ethical, and accountable local government for the city of Riverside. And the public officials in which are subject to this code include the mayor, the city council members, and all members of appointed boards, commissions, and committees appointed by the city council and or the mayor. So upon election, reelection appointment, reappointment, public officials are provided with the copy of the code of ethics as well as training.

And it is important to note that only those who live, work, or attend school in Riverside may bring a complaint unless the alleged violation took place outside of city limits and was witnessed firsthand. So the values for this code is striving government that is trusted to make decisions that are unbiased and fair, and to ensure that everyone is treated with respect in a just and fair manner, and to create a community that affirms the value of diversity. We also strive to ensure that all public decisions are well informed, that decisions are nonpartisan and civic minded local government, and ensuring that everyone is adequately prepared and attending their meetings. But there is prohibited conduct. And so some of these items include the use of official title or position for personal gain.

It's also prohibited to use or divulge any confidential or privileged information. We're not able to use any city resources for non city purposes. And we're not able to advocate for private interests of third parties. So a couple more slides of prohibited conduct. So we're also not allowed to make endorsements for compensation.

We're not able to violate government code section 87,100, which is really related to conflicts of interest. And certain political activity, as well as displaying campaign materials in or on police vehicles. Okay, last slide of prohibiting conduct includes knowingly assisting another public official in violating this code. We're not able to negotiate for employment with any party having a matter that's pending. No contact in quasi judicial matters, and no attempts to coerce official duties.

Violations of local law is prohibited, as well as convictions of federal and state law. Now if there is an alleged violation of this code, then an individual is able to submit a written complaint through a form that's available via the city clerk's office. And the complaints must be filed no later than one year of the alleged violation. And once all of that information is submitted and the city clerk has everything that's needed, a pre conference will be scheduled. And the purpose of the pre conference is to make sure that the matter has established jurisdiction for the Board of Ethics.

So we look to make sure that the complaint procedures have been followed, that the complaint is against a public official, that it does allege a violation of the prohibited conduct we just reviewed, and it doesn't restate violations from a previous complaint. So if the majority of the Board of Ethics determines that the complaint does not comply, then it is dismissed and that information is provided and finalized in the next Board of Ethics meeting. And I'll review the appeals procedures in just a minute. But if the majority determines that the complaint does comply and it's able to move forward and have the discussion in which evidence is being able to be submitted and reviewed. So then the complainant may verbally present all of their information.

And then the board of ethics determines whether the complaint has shown that the evidence, if taken as true, is more likely than not to show that there was a potential violation of the prohibited conduct. And sorry for any typos on the slides. If it is determined that it is more likely than not that a violation has occurred, then a hearing panel will be selected. If it is determined that the complaint has failed to show that there's been a violation, then it is provided at the next board of ethics meeting that that's the final decision. So once you move into the hearing, the public official is able to provide a written reply.

And it's important to note also that the conferences and hearings are not formal judicial procedures, so technical rules of evidence don't apply. So the chair of the hearing panel presides over the hearing, and no new witnesses or evidence are able to be presented, so everything that was submitted is what's reviewed. The complainant goes first and provides all the information and has the burden of proof of the preponderance of evidence. Then the public official is able to proceed to provide their information, statements. The hearing panel is able to ask questions of the parties, and parties are able to present rebuttal evidence.

So once all of the evidence has been presented and reviewed, the chair then facilitates discussions with the hearing panel. If there is by majority vote that there is a statement of finding, then the Board of Ethics is also able to include recommendations for sanctions. And so it's also important to note that lawyers can be consulted, but no lawyers are able to participate in any of the hearing procedures. Okay, so in order to appeal, a decision can be appealed directly to the city council. If there's an appeal of the pre conference decision, however, it can only be appealed if it's on a basis of clear procedural error.

If there's no appeal, then the decision of the hearing panel becomes final. And the information that's reviewed consists of the transcript and everything that was reviewed in the hearing. So city council reviews the record. If there isn't a finding of clear procedural error, then they will adopt the findings of the hearing panel. If there is a procedural error or abuse of discretion, then it will be sent back to the Board of Ethics to have a rehearing.

The city clerk notifies everyone of all the outcome. And then all of that information is available publicly for two years. Okay. So upon a finding by the majority of the city council that a public official did violate any provision of the code of ethics, there is a range of enforcement sanctions that are able to be applied. For an elected official, it can range from a public apology to public censure and removing or restricting traveling.

And for appointed officials of boards and commissions and committees, it can range from a public apology to your removal from office. So every year, the Board of Ethics, which is why I'm here, is able to go around to all of the boards and make presentations and ask for your recommendations. At that time, after we receive all the recommendations, the Board of Ethics takes everything together and then presents it to the government process committee. Then the GPC submits it to the city council, and then the city council discretion has the ability to make any changes. So the recommendation before you all is to discuss and review the code of ethics and conduct for its effectiveness and to please forward any recommended revisions to the Board of Ethics for consideration.

So I'm happy to try to answer any questions if you have them, but also happy to turn it back over to the chair. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Doctor. Kilchinsteyn.

I apologize No, if

I said your name that's it. Do we have any comments from our online or in the audience?

We have no speakers here in the chambers and no callers online for item two. Thank you.

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

I've got a question, clarification. You had an attached document to the materials that was 11 pages long of the of the policy.

Yes.

There was one item under the written complaint procedure. It was number five, d five, and it talks about the prohibited conduct, which you explained. But it goes on to talk about a couple of other item violations under the the RMC and the hold on a second. And other policies in Riverside. So it said that the complainant would have to research those and come forward with those.

So I I just wanted clarification on that because it wasn't in your presentation, but it's in here.

That's my understanding. Can I look at city clerk's office to maybe help if you're able to answer that? I will admit I'm a new board member, so I may not have all the answers, but I know I can definitely follow-up with all of you. Which item? D?

It'd be on page five under d and item number five. Says complaining party must identify the specific sections of the charter of the city of Riverside or the municipal code.

Thank you. And thank you for providing me with that. Yes, that is correct. And so what we're working on doing is when someone does complete the online form for the complaint, there's a link to that information that someone doesn't have to go searching for it. So we're in the process of updating that form and plan to include those there.

Okay. And that was my question is how do they get to it? Because it seems kind of burdensome if you've to research it on your own. But if it leads them, then that's fine. That was my only comment.

No, that's a wonderful comment. And I think we've heard that as a board before. And so that's why they're definitely working on implementing that. So we don't have to if there's a time frame on when you have to submit, we want to make sure it's as easy as possible.

Okay. And the last comment was the year that someone has to file a complaint. It just seemed a little long. I don't know where that standard comes from.

Again, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that it would be maybe from past feedback from yearly reviews that that might have been something. And I think I heard people say it should be longer, it should be less, and so that's definitely something for you all to consider and would love to have your recommendation.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Thank you.

Thank you all.

So we just need a motion to, if we have any comments or recommendations that we can forward them on to the city clerk's office. And if there are none, then that's fine. We just have to have a motion to to receive a file. Okay. Okay.

So commissioner Gutierrez has a recommendation of it being six months instead of a year to file a complaint. Is there a second for that?

Second.

Alright. Yes, we can discuss that before we vote. Commissioner Tekert.

I think I understand why you're recommending six months instead of a year. However, I think with ethical violations, unlike the violations or the complaints that we receive at the CPRC, it's usually conduct of the police officers' interaction with the public. It's apparent very readily. I think with ethics violations, sometimes it doesn't come to the surface until further information is divulged. It's not readily apparent. So I kind of like the one year period to allow for discovery of an ethical violation.

Perhaps then with those discussion points that we have, our varied views on six months in a year. Perhaps our recommendation would be that just that the timeline be explored and a determination be made as to the best approach.

Very good. Do we have a second on that revised motion?

I'll second that.

Thank you. Can we go ahead and vote on that motion?

Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. Next item on the discussion calendar is to determine whether the absence of commissioner Garcia from the 05/28/2025 regular meeting should be recorded as excused or unexcused. Open up the public comment. At this time, we invite the public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in the 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 hand function to speak. You have three minutes. Do we have any comments from our audience?

No speakers in the chamber and no callers online for item number five. Thank you.

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

I just wanted to find out have we heard anything from Mr. Garcia on why he was absent and he's absent again tonight. Illness? Yes. But, we're not getting the requisite notice period. Did we get the requisite notice period for tonight?

No, we did not. Okay.

I would be inclined to not excuse it.

Alright. So we have a motion to not excuse by commissioner Teichert.

Just point of clarification. Is that for last last month or this month?

Last month.

I was under the impression that he that he called in last month. I I thought. No.

He did call in on but it was not within the twenty four hour time frame to be considered excused.

Thank you.

Do we have a second on the motion of not excusing the absence? Second. Thank you. Do we have any other motions to approve? Otherwise, we can vote. Please vote to not excuse.

Motion passes five to one. Thank you.

Thank you. Next item is to conclude stage two and review stage three of the criminal casebook of officer involved death case 2022Dash00362. Jay Tracy, go ahead and introduce Frank Upton who is via Teams.

Good evening, chair, vice chair, commissioners, and city staff. It's, my pleasure to be here once again to assist you in navigating your way through this, OID stage process. And as it was mentioned, this is the Joseph Tracy case at an incident that occurred 01/18/2022 at 10:30PM at the Travelodge parking Lot 2625 West Florida Avenue in the city of Hemet. As a reminder, there were four officers involved. This was a gang task force of the agencies representing Riverside County.

And out of the four participants, one was an RPD detective, Richard Kerr. As we move forward last week, we went from stage one, stage two, and I'm gonna step back in stage two in just a moment because there are some things that were raised in the stage two process, but we it was voted on to continue to move into stage three until there was information that we were able to gather in regard to a couple of issues. So first of all, this takes us to stage three, which is the policy and procedure portion of your review. And I would like to draw your attention to the rationale worksheet that I had provided to you. And in that worksheet, I listed the applicable RPD policies, the 300.1 use of force, purpose and scope, definition of force and deadly force in the policy, deadly force applications.

And those, of course, are part of the process of your review, and that's why I put those in there. I also included in that rationale worksheet a few case decisions that are out there in regard to the use of force and deadly force. One being the Graham v Conner, People versus Humphrey, People v. Breitbates, Tennessee versus Garner. And these have these are all provided to you.

It's available on the rationale worksheet that I provided. So if you have not had that opportunity in following along with this, I strongly encourage you to review these policies as you move forward into the next stage. Now let me step back to what happened last month with in stage two. A couple of things were brought up. First of all, it was the issue regarding a body worn camera and video surveillance cameras from the Travelodge motel.

And as indicated to all of you, I had filed a public records act request with the Hemet Police Department and also with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. And as a result of that, I never received any responses from the Hemet Police Department. The response that I received from Riverside County sheriffs was just directing the commission to review the public information video that they provided at the time that the event occurred. And as you know, that's not what you had asked for. So that being the case, the next option that was raised by the commission was taking a look at issuing subpoenas of this using your subpoena powers.

So during this past month, we have looked at the in putting one of the putting this together, And what I came up what we came up with, and I was working on some of this with the city attorney's office. But I would like to make sure that because I have a draft of the the whole subpoena here. Rather than me try to read everything verbatim, I wanna go to the important parts of this because wanna make assurances that once you issue this or you get this subpoena issued that you are asking and what you were specifically asking for to make sure that you receive it. So the the definitions in in exhibit one, this is what is requested requested documents. Number one is body worn camera video footage.

All body worn camera video recordings captured by peace officers of the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department and or Hemet Police Department who were present at the scene of the officer involved shooting incident on 01/18/2022 at the Travelodge Motel, 2625 West Florida Avenue, Hemet. The requested footage shall include the body worn camera video of detective Christopher Pirrazzo, deputy Joshua Smith, and also that of the Hemet police sergeant Arthur Paez. They are the only three that had body worn cameras. The Riverside PD detective did not have a body worn camera. The requested footage shall include recordings from the time of the officer's arrival at the scene until their departure, including any audio and metadata associated with the recordings.

The body worn camera footage shall be provided in its original digit format or in a widely accessible format, for example, m p four with any associated metadata preserved. Now one of the items that is mentioned in here is shall include the body worn camera for all officers present. Now what we have to be specific about is the only body worn camera videos that you are seeking are those that were involved in this particular incident, meaning detective Christopher Pirazzo, deputy Joshua Smith, and also sergeant Art Paez. Now I wanna make sure you get that that cleared up because I'm sure that there are a lot of other body worn camera videos of other members of the department that responded after the event occurred, and that likely could involve a lot of body worn camera videos. So that's one of the things we need to get clarified.

Item number two is surveillance camera video footage. The 42 surveillance camera videos from the Travelodge motel located at 2625 West Florida Avenue in Hemet. Number three, surveillance camera video footage referenced in the Department of Justice 8015 o '6 report concerning the officer involved shooting of Joseph Tracy on January 2222. The three surveillance camera videos referenced in the g DOJ report. Now if you notice between number two and number three, number two is 42 surveillance camera videos, and I don't believe that's what you were asking for.

What you were asking for are the three particular surveillance camera videos that actually captured actions and activities by mister Trace. So those are the three things that have been raised here, so we need to get through. Number one, if we're only looking at the three that were involved in the incident, let's take that one first.

Commissioner Tekker.

Thank you, Frank, for the summary and the update. I guess I'll respond with another a question for you. My recollection is that there were only those the four officers, they were kind of in a almost a semicircle or an arc formation. I don't remember if there were any other officers kind of outside of that arc who who may have captured video of the subject. Do you know?

I do not have any of that information that the others were out of view of the incident when it occurred. They rolled in after it occurred. And in the investigation itself, the Heavitt Police Department and also the Riverside County Sheriff's Department did not collect or obtain copies of any other body worn camera videos.

Okay. Then I would be I would be happy with the three officers that you mentioned, their body worn camera videos.

Okay. So that would mean we'll we'll refine it to those three, not all body worn camera videos, which could be a multitude of different people that responded after the fact. Correct?

Yes.

Okay. So if you wanna make assurances that everyone is in agreement with that, we can move on to number two and three.

I believe we also wanted to clarify the other surveillance cameras as well. Correct? We wanted to Yeah.

So number two.

You know?

Right. Yes. There there were 42 surveillance camera videos. And out of the 42, there were only three that captured the activities of mister Tracy and the actual shooting itself. So the question here is, do you want all 42 videos, or do you wanna keep it focused on the three that was actually focused on by the Department of Justice in their report?

Maybe if commissioner Dillon had a comment.

Yeah. I mean, it's it's related in that I I think we can utilize the Department of Justice report to kinda refine exactly what we need. A lot of the stills that they include in their report are from those body worn cameras and their surveillance cameras. I don't think we need to go outside those sources.

Thank you.

Let me give you kind of the legal perspective of your subpoena. This is the first legislative subpoena I've ever drafted so I spent a lot of time making sure that we got it right. They're very different than what we normally use in the litigation process. The one thing that we have to be careful of is that we're following the rules very precisely. So what ended up happening after Frank and I were trying to gather the information that we think that you that I thought you were requesting largely based on the discussion.

When I got to the end of my research, the one specific thing that we have got to nail is that this body by a vote of six affirmative vote of six or more members has to authorize me to get very specific information and what ended up happening is that when we started talking about it in in good faith I just I couldn't remember precisely what it was that you were authorizing and when I stepped back my takeaway was all the body worn camera and so once we started talking about it and Frank had given me some other ones including the video from Travelodge which is not body worn camera, it's surveillance. And I wasn't entirely clear from the vote that I had authorization from this body by six or more people to ask for that and that's a really critical part. So what I'd like to suggest is whatever you want make it crystal clear and then have one vote and it has to be six or more of you saying, This is what you're instructed to do. Now the way I'm understanding it and I'm just going to summarize it and then you decide how you want to bring it forth, but I want to make sure that it's clearly reflected in the minutes, and I will make it into the subpoena.

The only body worn camera you want are from the three officers that have been identified. I won't get into the details of we know who those are. She would like the actual surveillance camera video footage from three cameras that are referenced in the report. Now here's a lawyer what I would caution. The person that's going to get this is going to be a custodian of records and they're going to be like, I don't know what you're talking about.

I've to go search and figure out what you're talking about. Sometimes you don't get what you think you're asking for. Somebody will say, I reference things like that. So, I tend to go over inclusive. You can always delete if you don't need it but if somebody can't find it, they're not going to produce it.

What we have discovered from Frank's initial work is that we seem to have two hesitant public agencies not complying with the law. So, I just wanted to alert you to that, give you some counsel from somebody who does a lot of subpoenas. If you want to make sure you get all the information and we don't have to go back twice, if they come back and say, Oh, we don't have that or we couldn't find that, you have given enough specificity the same time balancing general like all means they're gonna give you everything that they've got as opposed to trying to figure out what is it that you're asking me for a third party is talking about some sort of of 43 of 42 and they got to try to figure out what they're talking about. Maybe it'll be easy to find, maybe it won't. So, that being said, what I'm asking for is just for clarity and to protect this body, Be very specific.

Tell me what you want. Do it as a group and then take a vote and then I will clean up the subpoena. What else I learned was that it is the chair that from my reading of the law that would sign it and then the city clerk would also and then we'll get it issued like in the next day or two. What I've done is I've made the demand that they show up here at commission and bring the records or give it to us in advance of the commission. And if we don't get it, it kind of pushed the pressure on them that you're you're gonna come here and explain to this commission what it is that why you're not giving it to me.

People generally when they're demanded to appear before a body like this, they tend to give everything in advance. You'll probably get it before the next meeting. I know that a lot people ask what what kind of timeline are we looking at? And I said thirty to sixty days it's gonna be closer to sixty than thirty because it took me a while to finish the analysis. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Gutierrez.

So my original recollection of the request for the cameras, the body worn evidence of the officers was relative to specifically an understanding of when the actual engagement took place, which was my understanding that we wanted the camera visual to determine when shots were fired specifically. That's what I heard as the request. My concern would be that forensically that would require a lot of time. I know when you put in a request, they're going to give us a huge dump and it's going to be very difficult to navigate. So I agree that we need to be specific and if it is relative to impact and that particular engagement that should suffice.

I do also want to agree that I found the report to be very thorough. I felt that there was enough information in there to make some very clear conclusions. And I do commend the report and the writers and that they even noted there were no recommendations to what had transpired. So I'm hoping others would agree that the actual impact of the engagement or otherwise I'm just very again concerned about the time it's going to take to navigate the information. Certainly as it relates to the 42 cameras, again, I think I would reduce it to the three.

And that would be my recommendation.

Thank you. Before we go to commissioner Ward, Frank, you had your hand raised.

Yes. One thing that the city attorney brought up, I think, is is a very good point because the person that is going to receive this, they're gonna be probably questioning which three do I have to look at the DOJ report. How am I gonna know which is which? So I would just make this suggestion, and you can, you know, do it whichever way you would like. But in order to make sure that you get the three for sure is to ask for the 42, And it'll be my job then to go through those and find the three and present them to you if that's what you would choose to do.

Yeah. Agree.

I I would just hate to to to ask for something being very specific, but they're not getting the point of what it is you're really looking for. It's gonna cost more work. So that's just one of the things that I just wanted to mention before you actually decide.

I will tell you that another little trick of the trade is I ask for both. I ask for the three and the 42 as two separate components. So you basically get all, and they may say none here, but they may find them, and they'll be easy to find. So there's a way you can kind of narrow it down and I've tried to make that easier for you but I want to mention that.

Commissioner Ward.

How do we know that we know that three exist so somebody has seen it and identified it. In fact, there are three. Why is it now difficult to identify them if they've already been identified?

So I'll give you my perspective first and then I'll hand it over to Frank. This is what we know about the identifying features and the only thing that first of all they belong to the hotel. So they have their way of identifying them. Then we see that they're in this DOJ report three or very, very specific three and the only reference they have is Riverside County AB fifteen oh six report dated June 2024. I just find that generally that can can leave some wiggle room to where somebody says I have no idea what you're talking about but I'll let Frank weigh in because you're you're pretty well informed on the law enforcement aspect of it when these things arrive.

Yes. It it it wasn't specific in the DOJ report. It was only basically saying, well, there's three out of the 42. So I think if in my opinion, and my suggestion would be to leave it with the the ones that I mentioned, one, two, and three, because we ask for the 42 and they are able to find those three, it's going to make it a lot simpler. And the only thing that we may look at changing is item number one. That's only the body worn cameras of the three officers involved.

Commissioner Dillon?

I I mean, personally, I do think we should go ahead and remain with just the three officers involved. I I we've got to remember our scope of this is just the detective that reports to Riverside. So what went on earlier with other officers that were on the perimeter and things like that really shouldn't be of concern, or I don't believe it should be of concern to us. And then secondarily, although I hate to give Frank a lot of busy work, it seems more simple to request all of the video and have Frank just like he does on our other cases. You know, video one, time frame, you should review this.

It's important. That kind of thing. So that's my recommendation. Again, I appreciate Frank's work.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Thank you. So before we move to motions, I'd like to open it up to public comment. 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 a hand function to speak. You will have three minutes. Do we have any comments from the audience or callers?

There are no speakers in the chamber and no call callers online for item number six. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional comments from the commissioners? Nope. I'd like to take this as two separate motions then. Do we have a motion for the body worn cameras for the three officers?

So moved.

Second. You. For the three officers.

Three officers. Thank you. Can we go ahead and vote on that motion?

Motion passes unanimously.

And for the second, there would be a motion for the other cameras. Anybody like to motion or?

Oh, there it goes. I make a motion for all surveillance video for the time of the event.

And I'll second.

Thank you, commissioner Ferguson. And can we take a vote? Motion

passes unanimously. Thank you.

Frank. Yes. Would you like to keep item number three on the subpoena itself, which is making reference to the three that were in the DOJ report just in case? That is an easy find for them, and they might find that easier than looking at the others. So consider that or just can leave it at the number one or number two that you have.

So I just as your lawyer, you've authorized me to get all 42. As a legal technique, I'm gonna do two components to try to make Frank's life easier but I've been authorized to get all 42 and I'm gonna go ahead and use the technique to try to make it more efficient for you because it you've already authorized that so I don't think we need to get into the level of detail of how I write it out.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks. Thank you.

That sounds good. Also, just so you know, there is another subpoena for the city of Hemet in the police department, but it reads exactly the same. So would you like to maintain everything the same with the city of Hemet as well?

To give you another legal insight into that, you're authorizing me to obtain this from any public agency and we've identified both of them. Even though we have like a Hemet body worn camera and then the sheriff's I'm asking both for all of them because if it's in their files I get it and somebody might not it's just you know another way that I make a broad sweep and between the two of them I'm asking the same thing of both agencies and we might get duplicate but we might get something that we don't get from one that we'll get from the other so I just thought it would improve your chances of getting precisely what you want and I don't think that we need to you need to authorize me by agency. You've authorized me to issue the subpoenas to get the information from any agency.

Thank you very much

Thank you.

For that. So are we finished with that portion of it?

Any comments? Yes. Yes, Frank.

Okay. The other issue item that was raised was any reports that would reflect where the projectile from detective Kerr's weapon went. And I went through every one of these reports, and that is looking at Riverside County sheriffs and also those from the Hemet Police Department. I even reached out to the independent homicide investigator, Bill Marsh, and asked him in his complete and total review if he had found anything of that nature, and he also said he did not. So the reports that have been submitted to for you to look at, all of the redacted reports, are those that were provided by the Riverside Police Department who obtained those in order for them to conduct their administrative investigation.

And, of course, their administrative investigation is outside the purview of the police commission. Of course, it would be different if there was a citizen complaint filed. That's the only way that you would review the administrative investigation in an OID, but that is not the case here, and we can't know what's in that report. So that's where we stand with with that. There is just nothing that I could find in any of the reports.

Commissioner Tillman.

So, Frank, just to be clear, did you actually review the coroner's report, and did they did not identify the projectile or origin?

The reports in regard to the the coroner's office is the one that was provided. It was done by the detective that were handling this. Now there is a there is also a report that comes out from the pathologist, doctor Fajardo, in this particular instance who does a final who also will show the cause of death specifically. Here, it was multiple gunshot wounds, but that was not provided. So that is a report that is actually the medical examiner's report that was not submitted. It was not part of this.

Interesting. So is that really part of what we should review, whether or not our officers' round struck him?

I think so.

I'm asking that as an open discussion question because I'm I'm not sure it's germane to our whole conversation.

Commissioner Tekker?

Would think that it would be germane to our review of this. And I'm puzzled how the police department and DOJ and everybody else who's reviewed this doesn't really have the ballistics on what bullet shot Mr. Tracy and whether or not it was an RPD bullet that shot Mr. Tracy. How do we get that information? Because, Frank, we're not limited to kind of the four corners of what was submitted to us. It's like what how how do we how do we get that information?

Here's here's what I would suggest to you at this juncture is that language can be added to the subpoena to seek that information from in the medical examiner's report. To subpoena that report.

And that would be specific to the county then?

It would be specific to the county. It's the medical report that is done by Doctor. Fajardo who is the pathologist who actually performed the autopsy. And perhaps in that particular report it has more information and detail in it as well as the coroner's protocol report. So, again, if if you so choose, that is something else that can be considered to add on to the subpoena as another item that we could draft some language to include that if that's what you choose to do, but it would require six votes from all of you to add something of that nature.

And can we also get that from RPD? It seems that in all of our other officer involved death cases that involved a shooting that we've gotten, like, ballistics report that we've got diagrams showing where the shell casings landed. I don't remember seeing any of that with this one.

Here's Yeah. The reason for that is, remember, RPD did not conduct this investigation. They weren't. They did not do any of the the investigation in this. They only conducted their own administrative case, so everything was left in the hands of the Riverside County Sheriff's Force unit. And they're the ones that drafted all of this, and they're the ones that organized and put all this together. And so those are the only reports that were provided that RPD provided to us. They gave us everything that they used in their administrative review. So

who else could we ask besides the county, the ME, that information? Wouldn't there have been a ballistics review done? Wouldn't DOJ have been looking into that?

Well, DOJ didn't include it in their report, so I can only go by what DOJ reported. And they, for whatever reason, didn't use it or else it would have been kind of laid out in their report. They never mentioned anything about it. So the the the only other thing that I could suggest is that a subpoena could include not only the medical report, but any other ballistics reports that were submitted in this investigation because it's not in anything that we've we had the opportunity to receive.

I guess I would like to make a motion that we would add that to the subpoena, the request regarding any ballistics information, whether it be from the ME or otherwise.

So ballistics and the ME report is your motion?

Yes.

I'll second that.

Go ahead and please vote. So,

you can can ask for a lot in a subpoena. Be very specific, give me general. What I would suggest, we've got two subpoenas. They're going to go to Hemet and to RPD. They have done pretty extensive investigations and I would think that that would be information that would be important to them and I think I would suggest putting any I would broadly say documents that would identify which bullet hit and whose duty weapon it came from.

And a lot of times when I get marred down in a title, I might be thinking of it in one way because it makes sense to me. But these are terms of art oftentimes and if I don't use specific words they don't have it but you know you know I just find that it works better if I make it very broad any document that could identify from whose duty weapon the projectile struck Mr. Tracy and then I would start with since there's one going out right now to Hemet and to the county once you get that information back you might find others that you said you might also want more subpoenas going out if it's unsatisfactory and Frank will give you a counsel and if I you know sometimes we get stuff that we're like oh here's where we got to go for that and I don't want to just paper the world with them because we do have to have a very narrow legislative purpose which we can identify in this one and the way we've got these going out I think that the most efficient route is to add that item as a very broad item so that you can get the information that you need.

I assume that the purpose is to determine whether RPD's officer's bullet actually struck this man. That I can craft an added item on and then depending on what you get back you can we can issue another subpoena to other agencies if you're unsatisfied with that. So that being said it would be an add on and I would suggest that what you're asking for is any information to subpoena any information to identify the ballistics of the bullet that actually struck mister Tracy and that you're instructing me to be very broad in this so you can get as many documents as could satisfy that in court.

Yeah. The the focus here is the projectile that was fired by detective Kerr. Where did where was that? Where was it located? Was it on mister Tracy's person, or was it in a vehicle? Was it in a wall? Something to that effect because that's really what you're looking for. Correct?

Yes. Yes.

Yeah. It it's that specific. So

I

think we can put the language together for that and have that done for you. That that's my suggestion as far as the only other alternative there is since we didn't get access to anything and also and I'm here to do whatever I can to help you through this process.

So maybe the simplest way to present it is if one of the members want to say that make a motion to authorize the city attorney to to include in the pending subpoenas that have already been authorized any documents that would identify whether RPD's officer's bullet actually struck Mr. Tracy. Though. Oh, would you go broader? It's more than that

because we wanna know where his bullets went. Okay.

So all documents identifying where the Office it landed. Yeah. Okay.

According to his

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Frank.

I was gonna say to the location where that projectile was located. Didn't matter where. We just wanna know where was that round located and removed as evidence.

Was one So

it was just one projectile or multiple? I mean, we don't even know that.

The the reason I the reason I wanna be a little bit more specific on that one is because you could have an exit wound so it could lands he could have gone through it and then land somewhere else outside of him

which is fine but

but where it landed say you got it in a wall you don't get any information of whether it actually struck him and I don't that's of interest to you

According to the report, he only fired one round, detective Kerr.

Okay.

Correct.

Commissioner Dillon, you had a a comment?

Yeah. That was my comment that he had only fired one round, and I mean, that is our purview is his actions is, you know, what occurred from his actions. So I think although I agree and I'm not, whatever we need to do to find out where his round went.

If that's a motion, I'll second that.

I'm not sure. We yeah. I I trajectory

and landing of the officers one bullet.

Or detective Kerr.

Yes. Detective Kerr.

That's my motion. What she said.

I'll second. Yeah. They referred to it as a projectile.

And Commissioner Ward second that. Go ahead and vote on that amendment to the motion for the subpoena.

Motion passes unanimously thank you

so if I can at this juncture since you've done that, just continue that ensure that you look at these policies. It's really a matter of going through that rationale worksheet and reviewing the items that I have listed in there for you as you come up to the next stage, and we'll see where we are with the receipt of the items that have been requested in the subpoena.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So, Frank, that means we're continuing stage three?

You can move now from stage three even to stage four if you'd like. And what that would mean is that between now and your next meeting, you're you've already read the policy and procedure. And so by the time you meet again, you'll have that information that you've gone through again. And if you wanna go any further at that point in time, you may. Or if the items that you're seeking aren't there yet, then you may have to put it on hold into the following month until you receive that information to continue with the deliberation and decision making.

Thank you. Commissioner Ward?

Just want to make sure I'm clear. So the intent of the discussion of policy today is really to identify the policies that exist around use of force and deadly force application, not necessarily to suggest or propose anything new. It's really to kinda understand the existing policies?

That's correct. Yeah. There's another stage that if there's any if there's any recommendation for any kind of a policy change request or something to the effect for the police department, that comes at a later stage if that were to come up. But this right now has to do with the understanding of this particular OID as you're going to be looking at this and making a determination, was it within policy? Well, you need to know what those policies look like and how they read.

K.

Yeah. I think I have a question, but I I'm not sure if it's if it's it's probably for later. So I won't I'll just hold it until later or maybe talk offline about it. Or I guess we can't

do that.

Well, you can talk to me.

Okay. Well, maybe I'll But

any any concerns or anything, anyone's every every one of you is always open to contacting me about any questions or concerns that you have about any of this. Okay. So never hesitate.

Okay. I'll follow-up with you offline because I'm not sure it it fits this discussion.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Does anyone have a motion to to either stay who wanna stay at stage 3, who wanna move to stage 4? Comments on that, commissioner Ferguson.

I will make a motion to move to stage four.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second?

I'll second that.

Thank you, commissioner Tucker. I will go ahead and vote on moving from stage three to stage four.

I think I'm still missing a

vote please

No. Okay. I will reset that. Okay please vote.

Perfect

thank you. Motion passes unanimously.

All right. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Alrighty. And now we will we will move into closed session. Clerk clerk, please announce the closed sessions.

The Community Police Review Commission will now adjourn to closed sessions pursuant to government code section five four nine five seven to discuss issues pertaining to public employee personnel matters related to CPRC Riverside Police Department case number PC2411055, 2412064, 2412067, 25, zero one zero zero one, and twenty five, zero one zero zero five. Thank you.

We'll move on to the city attorney report on closed session actions.

Yeah. There are no reportable actions.

Thank you. Brief report on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by the CPRC. Commissioner Ferguson.

Yes. Thank you. I had an opportunity to do a ride along with officer Leary and K nine, his K nine tux. The ride along gave me a really good insight into what law enforcement has to deal with on a day to day basis. And I just have to commend officer Leary was really good at just every step of the way the whole time that I was with them, just really educating me.

And I felt like it was, like, the best training because it was actually side by side. We had a couple of calls that I went on, and each step, he was just really, like, you know, educating me on what was going on and, you know, what the different scenarios could have been if this happened. And I really am looking forward to it, I definitely want to do it again. I encourage all of my fellow commissioners, if you have not done a ride along, I highly encourage it. It will give you an insight into what goes on in the field.

How do we coordinate those? Oh, okay.

And Frank can set up the

Yeah. You can contact me. Contact me, and I'll get you set up.

And that's also for Thank you. If we wanna sit in with dispatch too. Correct, Frank?

Yes. And and, actually, the the chief had opened it too if you ever wanna go on a a ride with a helicopter. But, yeah, just let me know. Reach out to me, and I'll get it arranged for you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

CPRC Ad Hoc Committee update. Commission Vice Chair Gutierrez.

So we have an Ad Hoc Committee meeting that is scheduled for July 15 at six p. M. Via Teams. We did receive some very good helpful information as usual from Frank. Thank you, sir, for all of your diligence and hard work. A lot of time is invested. He provided some feedback in terms of recommendations that the ad reviewing. Ad And then once we've done our own first initial run, we'll then engage for the collective to better understand the recommendations and the like. So I wanted to let everyone know that's where we are at this juncture.

Thank you. Rearside Police Department updates.

Hello, everybody. I just wanted to take a moment to remind everybody, I was able to collaborate with Frank and Daisy and get two days set up for CPRC training. Those two dates are going to be July 22 and July 31 from eight in the morning till noon. Those will have a lot of the traffic stops, shoot, don't shoot with the fat simulator and different things that is very exclusive that only generally people like you would get to do that our officers train on very frequently. So if you have not yet done that, I know Commissioner Teichert and some other people have done it because they've been around a while.

But if you're newer to this, it will really open your eyes to some of the training and experiences that we deal with day to day. Once again, those dates are July 22 and July 31 from eight till noon. If you haven't seen on the news the last couple weeks, we've been a little bit busy with some protests and things in the city. That's basically what our focus has been the last couple months is just or last couple weeks is just running our intelligence and seeing what's popping up in the city. We had two very large protests last week, one on Friday, '1 on Saturday. Both were very peaceful. We were blessed. Everything was legal. It was lawful, and we had a good relationship with the protesters. It went very well.

On Saturday, we had 5,000 attendees. Just some very, very minor incidents when you get that many people together and they get fired up. But I believe we didn't have any arrests or any real issues with it. Just some minor vandalism stuff around the downtown area, but nothing real major. And then I just wanted to report that we just had 12 new police recruits graduate from the SBSO Academy on June 12, and they're in the FTO program. We're over 400 sworn now. We're hoping to be, like I always said, completely staffed by the end of the year. So things are looking really well. We're doing a good job recruiting the right people for the police officer positions, dispatchers, things like that. So I want everyone in this commission to know that we really appreciate.

I know the amount of time that all of you are putting into reviewing these cases, and I think in seeing all the different commissions I've been a part of and been around, this one takes it one of the most serious I've seen. So we do appreciate that and the amount of time and effort that everybody's putting into it. Thank you. We really appreciate it. Does anybody have any questions for me while I'm up here?

I just have a comment. I just wanna thank you departments for your swift actions on that that hit and run during the protest. Just Yeah. Just how that that all happened. Just the way you guys handled it was was amazing.

Thank you. Yeah. It was very unfortunate for that that poor person in the street. It was terrible.

I noticed you have a grief ribbon on your badge. Can you comment on that?

Yeah. There was an officer in Orange County that was killed last week. They're gonna be buried tomorrow up in Ontario.

Sad to hear that.

Yeah. Thank you. Anything else?

I had a question about the shoot don't shoot training whatnot. Can we remind the folks or myself which date we were scheduled to attend?

So on July 22, we have Commissioner or Chair Bell, Commissioner Ward and Commissioner Lundy. On July 31, have Vice Chair Gutierrez, Ferguson and Teichert.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I know that Commissioner Ferguson went on a ride along, and I think she already scheduled her ride along or her sit along with dispatch in July. The access that you have to the different police resources is incredible. And I know Chief Gonzales has reached out and said, if you wanna ride in the helicopter, that you should do it. That's something very special and very cool. And if you do that, I would do it right before dark, because then you get the daylight and the nighttime experience, which it completely changes once it gets dark. It's very cool. Try to go on a Saturday night, or a Friday. It'll be very busy and a lot of fun. Same with your ride alongs. Try to go in the swing shift.

Anything else? No? Thanks Thank

City manager's office updates.

I do have one update. The citizens training for fall twenty twenty five will run from September 11 to November 20. Class registration closes on July 31 or until the class reaches capacity.

What were those dates again?

It's running from September 11 to November 20. And registration closes on July 31.

Thank you.

Mhmm.

Any items for future community police review commission's consideration as requested by members of the CPRC?

Yes. I've got one. I would like to bring back up for discussion the RIPA presentation that was made the last meeting, I believe. So

Anything specific or just

Well, they had asked for recommendations, and I think, you know, my thinking is we wanna provide some recommendations to them for consideration given what the data showed us. And I know there's some pending actions with analyzing the data that are going on right now, but I think there's enough information for us to at least propose some general guidance given what we're saying and given the trends over the last couple years and given the trends next to California's data as well.

Thank

you. Frank, do you have anything?

No, chair. Thank you very much for asking.

Thank you. The next regular scheduled police review commission is Wednesday, July 23. Meeting meeting is adjourned at 08:25. Good night.

Thank you.