Community Police Review Commission - Regular Meeting

Can you read the prompt please? Can they read the prompt?

Test.

Testing, testing. Yep, it's low.

They said it's low. Oh, okay. Can you read the prompt, please?

Pursuant to the City Council rules of procedure and 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 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 you to the Community Police Review Commission, May 27, 2026. This meeting is called to order. Would Commissioner Gutierrez please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. We'll now take a moment of silence. Thank you. Madam Clerk, will you take roll call?

Chair Bell?

Here.

Vice Chair Gutierrez?

Here.

Commissioner Ward?

Here.

Commissioner Lundy? Here. Commissioner Hundley?

Here.

Commissioner Ferguson? Here. Commissioner Dillon?

Here.

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

Thank you. We'll now enter 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 star 9 to be placed in the queue to speak. Individuals in the queue will be prompted to unmute by pressing star 6 when you're ready to speak. To participate via Zoom, use the following link. Select the Raise the 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. We do have a comment from our audience. Mr. Macias?

Hi. Good evening. I'm not sure really how this works, but I was supposed to be here a year ago, and I missed the date. I was arrested. March 31st, 2024, because of an ex and her boyfriend who had accused me of getting violent with them. And at the time, I had told the police officer who was arresting me, I was like, look, that is a false story. and I told him there was actually witnesses. I came to you guys about a year ago and shared my story when he was trying to steal my dog and I defended myself with the dog and I'm not sure if you guys recall. So fast forward to today, well, kind of complete the story. I had told the officer there was witnesses. He failed to investigate the witnesses and I was arrested anyways. He even wrote in the police reports that it was too late to... It was 7 p.m. It was never too late to investigate witnesses. But he put it in the police report anyway, which is why I filed a complaint. This board found no further evidence to kind of support anything. I think it just led to dead ends where it was very, very difficult to find my witnesses, I guess, at that point. And I think that closed last year around April. Later that year, last year in September, September 4th, I took her to court, family court, because of other things, but I brought that up as well. And I finally was able to bring one of the neighbor witnesses to the stand. And then after the whole trial, the court, they interviewed my ex, ex-wife, and so tried to lie out of it. But with video evidence that I've supported with the court, she was contradicting herself and then finally admitted to lying to police or peace officers to get me arrested. And the court found that she had actually lied. She had confessed under oath that she had lied to get me arrested. I went through a lot of trouble because of it. I lost potential job opportunities. I lost time to be able to get time with my kids through the courts because of her lies. One thing after the other, it's just been really tough on me. The reputation, just the guilt of But it felt really good to finally, under court, be exempted from that. So I tried to come to the police. After they found that she had done that, they gave her three years restraining order and a few other things that she had to do. But I came to the police station. I was like, hey, look, I got this document here saying that she lied. And that's what the court found. And so can you guys please update the police report? She lied to you guys. I want some sort of justice, at least follow up on this and probably bring it here too. But they didn't want to They didn't want to amend the reports for some reason. I took it up to the superiors. They didn't want to amend the report, and I just keep hearing that they don't want to amend this report. I'm not sure why, but I'm not sure what next I could do because I just ran into all the... There's nothing else I could do. That's what I was told. So I come here to see if I could get some help from you guys, some advice.

Thank you. The only... We can't speak to this, but you can. Yeah.

Yeah.

That's right. Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, it is.

I mean, is this also the investigation that we closed? Is it able to be reopened or is that no longer possible?

Yes.

Okay. That's all.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Do we have any callers? No colors. Thank you. We'll move to the consent calendar. Does anyone wish to pull any items from the consent calendar for discussion? Do we have a motion to approve consent calendar as is?

I'll make that motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Dillon. I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner Teichert. We'll go ahead and vote. Mine's not working.

Thank you. Motion passes.

Thank you. We now have a presentation from Captain Dittmer.

Good evening, everybody. It's a little loud. Ours is a little louder than yours today. I just wanted to brief everybody on an officer-involved death investigation that occurred in April. I know Commissioner Bell had asked about this last time. I did not have the information yet because it was in such close proximity to our last meeting, but I do today. On Tuesday, April 7th, at approximately 5.54 a.m., our Public Safety Communications Center received numerous calls for service that a partially clothed male was walking in the street, yelling and throwing rocks at vehicles in the 5000 block of Jones Avenue. Riverside police officers assigned to the field operations division responded to the area and located an adult male acting erratically in front of a residence. The officers contacted the partially robed 52-year-old male subject, who was later identified as Ruben Perez of Riverside, and took him into custody. Shortly thereafter, the officers observed Mr. Perez displaying signs of a medical distress. Officers quickly requested medical aid and initiated life-saving measures until relieved at the scene by Riverside Fire Department personnel. Despite these efforts, Mr. Perez was later pronounced deceased at the scene. Detectives assigned to our Robbery Homicide Unit along with the investigators from the Riverside County Sheriff's Force Investigations Detail responded and assumed the investigation. They have been assisted by the Riverside County Sheriff Coroner's Office later. The exact cause of death is still pending, and the coroner's investigation and toxicology results have not yet been released. This investigation is being led by Riverside County Sheriff's Department's force investigations detail under case number MB252780001. And the initial police response is documented under Riverside Police Department file number 26 I'm here to answer any questions you may have that I might be able to answer.

So for clarity, my understanding is that this is now tied to the officers simply because when they respond to a call, should someone pass, it now becomes integrated whether or not it was related to the response. Is that accurate?

Correct. If we take somebody into our custody and they pass while they're in our custody, no matter what the cause is later determined, we treat it as the same as an officer-involved death.

Thank you. Yes. And just to confirm, there was no use of force?

As far as right now, no. So let me clarify. There's no reportable use of force other than just putting them in handcuffs and getting them in custody. Yes. Yes.

Any further questions or comments.

Was there has there been a release of the coroner's report with regards to the cause death.

Unfortunately because it's been such close proximity to the incident those things generally don't come out for several months. So answers now. Thank you.

To the discussion calendar. Item number six, determine whether the absence of Vice Chair Gutierrez on April 22nd, 2026 regular meeting should be recorded as excused or unexcused. At this time, we invite public comments regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling 951-826-8688 to comment on this item. Press star nine to be placed in the queue, star six to speak. To participate by Zoom, select the raise the hand function to speak. You'll have three minutes. Do we have any comments in the audience or callers at this time?

No comments in the chamber and no callers online.

Thank you. Do we have any comments from our commissioners? Do we have a motion to excuse or unexcuse? Not excuse. The absence. Commissioner Ward.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were on item six. Sorry. Okay. Is there any background in terms of was there an emergent situation or do we have any of that perspective?

No, there was a confidential HIPAA protected medical situation that was addressed.

Thank you.

You speak into your mic.

Motion to make her absence excused.

Now second.

Thank you, Commissioner Lundy, Commissioner Ferguson. Motion to excuse Vice Chair's absence from the last meeting. Go ahead and please vote.

Motion passes with Vice Chair Gutierrez abstaining.

Thank you. Item number seven, Racial and Identity Profiling Act, RIPA, Ad Hoc Committee Policy Recommendations. Before we get to public comment, I just want to see, Commissioner Ward, did you want to present anything?

I prepared a document that's four pages. So the content, hopefully everyone has had an opportunity to review it. If there are questions we need to answer or if you'd like

It's on the screen if you wanted to go through it. I did have just one question. Did the ad hoc look at getting RPDs or the city manager's office opinions on maybe some of the thoughts on how the process may look? I know the recommendations just on maybe how that process may look or if there was anything else that was needed.

No, we did not collect input.

Before we get to the substance, could you take public comment?

I apologize. 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 star 9 to be placed in the queue and star 6 to speak. To participate by Zoom, select the raise a hand function to speak. You'll have three minutes. Do we have any comments online or in person?

Okay. Okay.

So my question is, did you seek their opinion on any of that?

We did not seek it within the committee, the subcommittee. What we did for the PD is they attended the captain as well as the chief attended a few months ago. Now in the perspective that was shared at that time, we tried to reflect into the report. So from that standpoint, we thought we had the input ON WHICH TO BASE OUR DECISIONING IN RECOMMENDATIONS. AND IN TERMS OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE DIDN'T PURSUE THEM TO BE A PART OF THIS QUITE FRANKLY BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS SOMETHING WE EITHER NEEDED TO DO OR SHOULD HAVE DONE. AGAIN, THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE THOUGHT THAT THE GOAL WAS TO PROVIDE OUR FEEDBACK BACK TO THE SAFETY COMMITTEE. AND FROM THERE, IT WOULD RUN ITS COURSE THROUGH WHATEVER APPROVALS ARE NEEDED WITHIN THE CITY. SO WE WEREN'T LOOKING TO GET PREAPPROVAL BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO APPROVES ALL POLICIES FOR THE CITY. that's to be determined and worked through after we submit our opinions on what we think might be helpful in terms of policy.

Yeah, my only thought on why we would get the city managers, because they're the ones who present us with the information. And so I was like, I know we heard from RPD on some of the updated data that they provided over. I just didn't know if the city manager's office had weighed in.

Not on what we proposed other than what input we got from the last time we reviewed the proposal because what we've submitted today or for today are three of the nine items that I think we initially discussed as a commission.

Okay. Would you mind, even if we put it on the screen, just going over what the suggestions were that we want to propose?

Certainly. I'd be happy to do that. Thank you. But can we use the other document? Because that's kind of the one I have my notes on. There's a four-pager that was... Okay. All right. Well, let me just run through it, and then if you could just stay with me, you can change as I go from section to section. Is that okay? No, if you could click for me, that'd be great. I've lost my PowerPoint skills since retiring. All right. Okay. So the material that we sent out for the commission to review was a four pager and I'm going to reference that as I go through this. When we got together as the ad hoc, the thing that we thought we needed to do was provide a little bit of perspective for the safety and wellness and youth committee. So we reordered the content of our recommendations to provide that perspective so that everybody's kind of starting on the same page with regard to the information that's at issue, if you will. So we prepared it more like a white paper. So it starts with an objective and part of that objective states that the PRC is requesting that the staff bring policy recommendations to the safety and wellness and youth committee. From there, it moves briefly into what is RIPA, again, just to make sure that everybody knows what the acronym stands for. So we provided that information in there as well. We talked about the purpose of RIPA and how the reports are prepared on an annual basis. From there, we get into a section called data limitations. And the data limitations try to represent what we heard from the police department a few months ago with regard to the concerns with the data. So for instance, we know that calls for service that flag down and non-residents are all in the numbers. And that was expressed as a concern that it may have some influence on the numbers. And I think we, you know, we agree from a calls of service standpoint and flag down that that's probably the case. The question would be is, Is the impact material? And that we don't know unless we do further review or investigation. But we do recognize the fact that there could be some challenges with that information being included in the overall data. So that's part of the input from the police department that is in the report. And then we also listed the next section talks about stops data review. And that's the data that was shared with us. That's the detail data that was shared with us. uh with us and we simply took a a chart view and listed out the information uh you'll see it on um you go to the next there it is you'll see that on the left side race and ethnicity is listed then the 2020 census data And then from there, we pulled three years from the data that we've reviewed over the last two years, the RIPA report from the last two years, last year's and then this year's. So we were able to include 2024, 25, and 26. And this allows you or one to see what the numbers are relative to the census data. And they kind of speak for themselves. Everything looks pretty good. The challenging area is black or African American being at least twice as much as the 20 census data. And again, the PD shared their perspective on why they believe that, you know, what may be influencing that number. But I think, again, that's to be determined in terms of a little bit further research hopefully will help us better understand the numbers. There are some observations that are listed below there. So, you know, we just did a quick three-year average on the African American line and looked at that relative to the percentage of the population. So that's there. We make a statement about all of the races are stopped at a rate that is below their percentage of the population. or within a reasonable tolerance. And then there's a comment about, you know, overall 90, almost 94% of the city's population as categorized by racial groups are stopped at or below expected rates. The only group that isn't is the African American population. And then the report talks a little bit about some of the other actions that officers take after the stops. And they're listed there, warnings, citations, arrests with warrants and arrests without warrants. And then when you look at the African-American experience with those other actions, they're all above one. So one and a half times, up to three times the expected proportion. And then everybody else kind of fits within that. within reason to their proportion of the population. So it's just one more thing to kind of that, again, we wanted to highlight and point out. So the recommendations, and here are the ones that we basically shared initially boiled down to four areas. The first one is under data analysis. And we're saying here that we're recommending that the city manager's office run additional analysis, removing calls for service, flag downs, non-residents from the data set. We're not suggesting that any new data be captured or recorded. We're saying that if this information is available in the data set, then we should attempt to run these numbers not for reporting sake but for our own understanding sake so that we will understand the impact that these items have on the overall numbers. Because a hypothesis has been presented in terms of, you know, the police department believes those numbers could be different than what they actually are. So what we're suggesting here is really, well, let's go ahead and do the additional analysis and prove out the hypothesis. Basically, we want to have some statistics behind what is being suspected in terms of influencing the numbers. The second item is data interpretation. Bear with me one minute, please. Data interpretation, so on this particular item, one of the things that we raised early on was there aren't any parameters that tell us when something is an issue. So we're left to have a discussion and maybe debate or discuss or what have you, but we don't have a starting point. And what we're suggesting here is that we have some kind of parameters that tell us when something is out of bounds. So we're recommending the deviation standards be created to identify when a result is considered problematic and requires further research or audit to get at the underlying reasons behind the actual numbers. The third item is the RIPA audit and we're suggesting here, recommending that if the RIPA data exceeds certain deviation standards, an audit be set, I'm sorry, an audit of the data set be conducted so that we can better identify the issues at hand. And we're talking about also potentially standardizing the audit so that there's a consistent approach to how we do things in terms of when we look at data. That's to be determined, but the thinking is those are the things that we want to recommend so that we have a process in place for reviewing things. And then the last item in terms of the recommendations is goal setting. So if we do find concerns or issues after doing additional research, then do we or we're suggesting here setting some type of goal that helps to get that number into a category that's a little bit more expected or similar to what we're experiencing with all the other groups. Then there's a conclusion that just wraps it. So let me pause there and see if there are any questions or comments or comments that the other subcommittee members want to make.

Just a quick question. Is the other data available, for instance, is the data available that they are from out of town, you know, the other various things. Is that data available in the set that we have?

I don't know the answer to whether it's available or not. I know when I looked at the collection form, I didn't see whether or not they were from out of town or not. So I don't know whether that's available. But the whole we do what's available is really what the recommendation is. So these are the things that were of concern. So if we happen to capture it some kind of way, then we would try and pull it in.

The way that I understand it, the form that they use, that is per the state. That is the data that's required by the state. Correct. So if they're not capturing whether or not they're in town, is that going to be, is that going to make this more difficult to parse that data?

Well, I think if it's not something that we collect, then we're not going to be able to do the analytics on it.

Well, I would say, I mean, how far are we willing to invest on this? Yeah, that wasn't anything that we wanted to ask the city or the PD to do.

We were really more focusing on if this information can be obtained through the database, then let's go ahead and do the analysis.

If it's not, we're not asking for anybody to do any additional work.

Additional work in the sense to go out and get some more data.

Commissioner Teichert.

With respect to the issue of resident versus non-resident, I believe that at meeting before last, there was some information that was provided by I believe both Frank and police department. They have gone in and they've looked at certain number of their numbers that they can extract and they have extracted. some of that but as the subcommittee we concluded that it's really irrelevant whether somebody's a resident or a non-resident the issue is the proportion of stops based upon race is the issue and whether they're a resident or a non-resident it should be consistent with Again, the city's census data for black African Americans is very, very similar to the state's census data. I think it's within, you know, it's like 6.4 versus 6.6. So it's not like. We're out of proportion to the rest of the state. So it still reflects I guess an over Number of you know greater number of stops Disproportionate number of stops based upon race whether it's your resident or non-resident And and I just wanted to add that I The committee tried to be very constrained in what our recommendations were. We felt that it was part of our duty under the city charter to make policy recommendations, and after having three, four years of data being produced about the number of these stops, it I think has risen to the point where It's incumbent upon us to raise it to the attention of, in this city it would be the subcommittee for the city council, to take a look at, for them to decide, is this a problem, is it not a problem? It isn't something that the committee subcommittee felt comfortable in making a conclusion that it means This data means this we think that that's in a more appropriate for the city council committee the safety committee to make that call or decide you know as has been discussed what additional steps need to be taken in order to to make that call also i wanted to point out that under the state law they do contemplate that this data will be looked at by cities that oversee law enforcement agencies and for those that do have uh police oversight agencies or like cprc here that they will look at that and make recommendations and take action a good um i think my look at this information it's a good dozen cities throughout the state have actually taken those steps and have made recommendations about different actions that should be taken in order to reduce this disproportionate stopping of African Americans, blacks within the community. So anyway, that was all I had to say. Thank you.

And I'm sorry, just a couple of other comments for the body. Really, we're trying to keep the recommendations focused on a little bit further research and further analysis to help us get at a better understanding in answer to what we're seeing here. If there's reasons for it, then, you know, we want to understand that. So, you know, it looks problematic to us, so we want to make sure that we do everything that we can and be proactive in further understanding the numbers. So just wanted to make note of that.

Thank you. I just had one question. I believe on the audit slide it said after a certain percentage that the CPRC would audit the findings. Did I read that correctly? Maybe I can go back to a couple slides. Greater than 50% are expected distribution in current red audit and report findings to CPRC and city leadership. I know we receive this report yearly from the city manager's office. I don't know if this falls under our current city charter purview for the CPRC so that

Yeah, the only intent of that information, those bullet points, was to provide some kind of example of a framework that could be used. So we're not necessarily suggesting that everything in there is a recommendation as much as an idea of how you might want to structure or whomever needs to consider this as a potential option and build it out. The recommendations need to be further developed. We didn't do that because that's full-time work. But it probably belongs with paid staff within the city, more importantly. So that's just an example. I wouldn't get too tied into this being absolutely something that has to be. It's more a proposal for a way to think about it.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Dillon?

My question was answered already, so I think I'm okay. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. So based off the... The ad hocs committees recommendations which are people is back on the screen. The data analysis did interpretation rip audits and in goal setting. Do we have a motion to send it to the safety wellness youth committee. Thank you commissioner taker.

I vote second.

Thank you, Commissioner Ferguson. Is there anything else that anybody else wanted to discuss before we vote?

I just had a quick wondering, in all the analysis from the various cities and the data that was collected, I heard a statement was a little ambiguous that it's not clear whether or not that particular percentage or threshold is good or not, or whether or not it reaches the criteria of concern. So I wondered if any of those other cities created some sort of a rubric or a calibrator or a tool by which to make the determination of the percentage being too much.

I wondered the same thing when I attended one of their sessions, RIPA sessions last month, and whether or not there was criteria that would help outline that very thing. I didn't get a response to the question that I sent in on that, so I don't have information. But It was something that I was actually going to suggest that they help the cities develop. But just no response back on the question.

Thank you. That would explain, I guess, the data interpretation piece. I mean, otherwise we don't have anything by which to interpret the data. So thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Commissioner Teichert.

Yes, I was just going to say that I haven't come across any city that has, you know, set a number that if you exceed this, then you have to do this. It's what I have encountered are the cities that have just looked at their raw data and they've concluded we need to do something about this and they've taken steps to reduce the number of discretionary stops. It's kind of the primary thing that they've done in order to address the issue.

And just one other comment on that, and it's probably going to be different per city, and that one set of criteria won't necessarily help somebody else, just depending on where people are starting from and what it is and how long it's been happening. Is it multiple years? Is it one year? Did it go up one year, down the next year? So I think all of that has to be looked at in order to determine which right for each city and certainly for Riverside.

Thank you. Again, we have the motion to is to send these recommendations to the Safety, Wellness, and Youth Committee. It was motioned by Commissioner Teichert, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson. If there's no other comments, we'll go ahead and vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Item number 8, RPD complaint process ad hoc committee outcome. At this time, we invite public comments regarding the item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling 951-826-8688 to comment on this item. Press star 9 to be placed in the queue and press star 6 to speak. To participate by Zoom, select the raise a hand function to speak. You will have three minutes. Commissioner Dillon was the chair of this ad hoc. Would you like to discuss this item?

Okay, if we could bring up the PowerPoint, I believe you have.

All right, so. Do you want the clicker?

Oh, I can do the clicker, sure.

Can we pass the clicker down?

Thank you, sir. All right. Let's see how this works. Okay. Again, there were three of us primarily on the ad hoc committee to review the expedited discipline, how it works. I want to thank Commissioners Lundy and Ferguson for their participation as well as our chair, Chair Bell. And of course, Frank Hopman for his knowledge and support throughout the process. The expedited discipline process will only affect certain criteria of complaints, and we can get a little bit more into that. It is a voluntary option for the employees. It is not mandatory. Let me move on here. Eligibility for the expedited discipline may, and that is underlined, be offered only when the alleged misconduct does not include serious misconduct. And I won't go through each of these conduct that may result in termination, criminal conduct, repeated or aggravated misconduct. So this is for things that don't fall into any of those categories. It's also important that the facts are reasonably clear based on it. The employee is willing to admit the responsibility and it goes through a multi-level vetting process at the police department with internal affairs, a lieutenant support services captain, subject employees division commander, and the appropriate deputy chief. So it goes through quite a review process on that side. Within the document, these are the sections that are important. 20-2, correction 20.2, covers the offer of the expedited discipline. 20.3 goes over the effects of declining, which in a nutshell, there are no adverse consequences for the police officer or the employee for declining. The department is not bound to the initial proposed discipline, so if something comes to light, they can rescind that expedited discipline offer. Intermissibility of the offer as far as other cases and things of that nature, transparency in labor expectations. where an expedited disciplinary agreement is reached, within the existing documentation under 100920, there's already some information about who will document what. And in this case, they go over it again, the division commander handling the discipline case shall prepare a memorandum summarizing the misconduct, the employee's admission, and that the corrective action has been taken. That complaint, discipline agreement, and all relevant information will be retained by the department through its normal practices. This was added for the CPRC. This is the original document and I want to draw your attention to the underlined word consistent. Our ad hoc asked and did receive a change on this part of the document and that will be on the next slide. We were uneasy with the word consistent with Section 1009.14, and I hope the rest of the Commission is familiar with 1009.14. It's kind of the... the rules as far as all investigations that come to us, what's provided, what's not provided, those things. So rather than being consistent, we asked that the verbiage be changed to compliant, as shown in this screen, with section 1009.14, and we even went through each section, A through E, to make sure that all sections were covered. And the PD was more than happy to make that change. In fact, it's already been changed. So as far as that's concerned, the ad hoc was very, very happy with that change. This section goes through that 1009.14, so I'm going to go through this quickly. I'm not going to read each one. This is what happens on every complaint that we receive. These are kind of the rules of the road. You guys can review that at a later time, but I did want to get it up so that if anybody had any questions about it. I'm going to go ahead and go on to slide 15. The important part about the result of our ad hoc is the CPRC will still receive all of the same investigative material, reports, body worn cameras, dash cam, Frank or the consultant's case synopsis for closed session review as we do with all other cases. For case disposition, we did have some discussion about that. We were concerned that we would have to come up with a different disposition, but after further discussion, we'll either concur or not concur with what the police department decides. The CPRC, we may add comments to our PD for either disposition. And that is it. Any questions or comments?

Do we have any comments or questions from our audience or online? No? Commissioners? Commissioner Teichert?

Thank you for that report. That's a very interesting overview. My question deals with what happens if during closed session we vote to not concur

Yeah. And that's a, yeah, that's a good question. We do all the results of that go to the police department, but what happens beyond that, I think what falls into personnel, did you have any input on that captain?

Yeah, I think the unique thing about this process is probably if it came to you, 100 times out of 100 times it's going to be sustained. That's why they've already, you know, pled the fact that they knew that they violated a policy and we're going to discipline them for it. So unless you didn't think they violated the policy, that would be the only time I think there would maybe be a disagreement. But the officer has already admitted that I did violate the policy. So that would be another instance where it's a disagreement that could be reviewed by the chief of police. But under most instances, when it comes to this, it's going to be sustained. That's what they're basically saying is that I violated the policy. And I agree that I did. So I just want to get this over with.

Thank you. And the police department has already updated this into Lexapol, correct?

They have. It now has the verbiage consistent. Or excuse me, no. It has the verbiage compliant. Let me get back to that screen. With that section rather than consistent. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments? Okay. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Dillon and the ad hoc for doing that. We will move on to item number nine, the review of the 2026 quarter one work plan update. Ms. Castillo from the city manager's office.

Can we get the clicker?

Can we get the clicker?

So earlier this year we went over the CPRC's work plan and this body voted to keep the old work plan as it was. So the Five goals that the CPRC has is the first goal is to ensure all wards are represented at community police review commission meetings by establishing a commissioner attendance of 80%. And it looks like The CPRC successfully maintained an average attendance rate of 88% for Q1. The objective of goal number two was to achieve a 90% review rate of case files to facilitate effective discussions of citizen complaints before commission meetings. And as of April 2026, the CPRC has received and discussed six closed session cases achieving 100% review rate and completing over 178 hours of reviewing cases. Goal number 3 is to achieve 100% review rate of all case files and accompanying rationale sheets for officer-involved death cases. One 2025 OID case is currently pending on hold, pending the release of all evidence, including body-worn camera footage from protected custody. Additionally, two OID cases are pending initiation. Goal number four, the goal is for the commissioners to complete ward-specific outreach efforts quarterly and citywide outreach efforts at least twice annually. Only one commissioner attended a community engagement event for Q1 of 2026. So goal number four needs to be worked on by all commissioners. And goal number five, report commission performance quarterly and ensure all commission annually complete a ride-along. So the goal here, and it's as of April of 2026, no commissioners have completed a ride-along during the first quarter. So that needs to be completed also. That concludes my update.

Thank you. 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 star 9 to be placed in the queue and star 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 our audience or callers at this time? Thank you. Do we have any comments from our commissioners? Commissioner Ward.

Last meeting or so, because I missed last month, I thought we had mentioned that we were going to add on to this report some of the work under the ad hocs that have been going on.

Was that another discussion?

That was, you requested that to be added to the annual report and it was added.

The annual report. Okay. So, okay, I thought this was the same thing, but I guess it looks similar maybe.

This is your work plan?

Yeah, I understand that it's a work plan. It looks similar to the one we were discussing, so maybe I was just confusing the two. So that's fine. If it got added to where it needed to, that's fine.

Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Ferguson.

On item number four, are we made aware of potential outreach opportunities in order to do better at the item number four?

So prior CPRC members used to form an ad hoc committee for community outreach, and you guys can decide which community meetings you want to attend. If you want a calendar of meetings, that's available in the Riverside Explorer magazine, and it lists whatever community meetings are there and you can attend them.

But the outreach, not just attending meetings, but also we can have a booth at an event, a resource event. Okay.

I would also encourage you to reach out to your respective city council member. I reached out to council member Roblard, and his staff was able to give me a list of all of his meetings that he has planned out for the year, his community engagements, so that way I can let him know. And then I'll be like, hey, I can be at this one. And then he writes it into his agenda for that night so I can speak to the residents of Ward 3.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Awesome.

All righty.

At this time, Madam Secretary, can you announce the closed session cases?

Pursuant to government code of subsection 54957, the commission will discuss issues pertaining to case PC26-02006 and PC26-02008.

Thank you. We are now in closed session. Move to item number 12, the city attorney report on closed session actions.

No reportable actions.

Thank you. Item 13, brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by CPRC. Commissioner Ferguson.

So I attended, it was actually yesterday, that the city had their memorial celebration. They have it a day after Memorial Day. They said so that it won't compete with everything that's going on at Memorial. And I represented us there. And it was a really good event.

Thank you for that. Commissioner Lundy?

On the 29th of last month, I attended a LEAC, Law Enforcement Appreciation Committee, dinner that recognized all the officers in Riverside proper and different Corona and so on and so forth and represented us.

Awesome. Thank you. You're welcome. Vice Chair Gutierrez.

I was able to attend Ward 3 community meeting. It was a presentation by police and fire, and it was at Sandals Church in the community. I was able to learn quite a bit about our community through that, so I enjoyed it.

Very good. Thank you. All righty. Item 14, Ad Hoc Committee Update Racial and Identity Profiling Act. Any updates to that? Or do we need to... Okay, so that'll be a future item. Well, since we recommended it to go, we motioned, do we need to extend it? Is there anything else that the ad hoc needs to complete? Do we need the ad hoc? Is the current ad hoc good with that commission award reporting back what happens for the health and wellness?

I think the reporting is appropriate to come back. I guess the question I would have is if a modification comes from, they ask us to do a follow-up, do we have to reconvene the ad hoc to do that follow-up?

Yeah, we'd have to form another ad hoc or agenda for next month to extend the current ad hoc.

Okay. All right.

Okay. Riverside Police Department updates. Captain Dittmer.

Yeah, I just wanted to point out to the commission and just let everybody know the new police station project is full speed ahead. Starting last week, we've started our relocation project from the downtown station to other police stations throughout the city, mostly at the MAG police station. Probably within two weeks, we'll be completely moved out of that station and relocated. um internal um testing and different um parts of taking the interior part will begin some part in july and the actual teardown of the structure will occur at the end of october and uh we'll be in full construction and uh with anticipation of hopefully completing the new police project by october of uh 2028 so it's going to be beautiful and i hope all of you are at the at the ceremony when we dedicate the new building so it's going to be awesome

Very good. I know Commissioner Dillon mentioned earlier in passing that the FAA drone, the RPD, is currently on the fourth Wednesday. Is that correct? Commissioner Dillon?

No, that was a completely separate discussion.

It was nothing to do with the city. It was an FAA safety meeting. Because I know the RPD just launched their drone.

Yeah, so we're testing different drone as a first responder tool throughout the city. We concluded our test with Skydio and we're moving on to Flock and there's a couple different vendors we're going to go through. This is a long-term investment for the city. We want to make sure we get the right equipment and the right platform that's best for the city. It's been remarkable and it's been great in helping solve crime with the limited resource that we had during the test. We were able to get several suspects in custody in the downtown area and we look to spread that out throughout the city where it might be most beneficial. So we're looking forward to moving forward in that realm. We're just waiting to go up with our next test platform, which should be within the next two to three weeks. And we're going to test two to three different more platforms before we make a decision what we're going to do moving forward.

Is there a way that... We could be invited to some of those. Absolutely. Or a demonstration.

Absolutely. Once we get the next platform up, I will let all of you know. That way we have time to coordinate that. The first one we did was a completely free demo, so we only got it for like a month. But this next one should be for several months, and I'd love to have you guys come in and check it out for sure.

Very good.

Commissioner Ferguson.

Just a quick question with 4th of July coming up. Yes. And you may have previously at another meeting, I can't remember if you touched on this, but are the drones going to be deployed in time for 4th of July because of the increase of illegal fireworks everywhere?

Yeah, that's a good question. Um, so we still have a drone program. So there's two different, actually several different aspects of the drones. Like we have some that work inside with the SWAT team, you know, for clearing buildings. We have some that we use in patrol. We have some that are special operations uses, and then we also have the drone as a first responder, um, which is kind of attached to our CAD software. So if a call comes out, this drone launches from somewhere in the city and it's on station. But for something like a special use, like, you know, firework enforcement, it's something we did last year. It was very successful. I think we wrote over a hundred citations for illegal firework operations in the city around the 4th of July. And it's something we're going to do again this year, but that is, that's a different purpose than the drone as a first responder. We already have those tools that we can deploy for that purpose. And yes, we'll be doing that again this year.

Yay, thank you.

For sure.

Any other questions, comments for the captain? Awesome. Thank you, sir.

Can I say one more thing, Commissioner? So first of all, I just wanted to thank this commission. I know some of you are relatively new to this commission, and some of us have been around for several years. And all of you take this very seriously, and this is the most engaged group I've seen. You're the most punctual and the most engaged. willing to participate on a monthly basis i think i would say and we're we're always making sure that we have quorum we're always hearing the cases on a monthly basis there's been other commissions that have not taken it as seriously or been able to be here as much and we've had to cancel meetings because we don't have quorum and you can see the discussions we have how in-depth they get behind behind closed doors and if we don't have quorum and instead of having two or three cases now we have five or six or seven cases It becomes very tedious. I've been here at midnight before still reviewing cases, and I know Eileen has too. So the fact that you all are here every meeting and we can get out of here at a reasonable time, I know personally I completely appreciate that. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. City Manager's Office updates.

Nothing to report.

Awesome. Frank, do you have anything?

Nothing further at this time. Thank you very much for asking.

Is he on my phone? Yes.

Oh, there he is.

We can see you, Frank.

Oh, yeah. Thank you very much.

We cannot hear you.

I'm sorry.

How do we get Frank's volume up?

Can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. Yes. No, thank you very much.

I don't have anything further at this point. Thank you. Are there any items for future Community Police Review Commission for the CPRC? Commissioner Deichert? Yes. This is a suggestion by Mr. Hoffman.

I'd like to request that the police department do a presentation to the commission regarding the MTO program. I feel trained in it.

Commissioner Lundy.

Every year, the city of Riverside Police Department, along with other police departments, have a memorial at the soon-to-be-defunct police station. I suggest that we attend it as a group and be proud of it.

And do you know when that is this year?

Captain, when was that, last week?

Oh.

So in a year. Okay. Yes, we did. We missed it last year, too. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gutierrez.

Just a quick inquiry. I know we need to do our ride-alongs, and I believe that Mr. Hopman was the one who coordinated that for me last time, if I'm not mistaken. So I'd like to just make sure that I am reminded of the steps.

Yes, I heard you, and I'll do that.

Thank you, sir.

You bet. Any other items that we would like to have agendized for next month or just brought up? If not, the next regular scheduled Community Police Review Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, June 24th at 5.30. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you all.