Community Police Review Commission - Regular Meeting

The recording?

Pursuant to the city council meeting rules adopted by resolution number 20 4255, 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 and 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 you to the Community Police Review Commission meeting of August 27. This meeting is called to order. Roll call.

Commissioner Dillon? Here. Commissioner Lundy? Here. Commissioner Ward? Here. Commissioner Ferguson? Here. Commissioner Tigert? Here. Vice chair tight sorry. Gutierrez? Here. Chair Bell?

Here.

We have quorum.

Thank you. Would commissioner Gutierrez please lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

Yes.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Take a moment of silence. Thank you. Move to public comment To comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Community Police Review Commission, you're invited to participate in person or call at (951) 826-8688. Press 9 to be placed in the queue to speak. Individuals in the queue will be prompted to unmute by pressing 6 when you are ready to speak.

To participate via Zoom, select raise the hand function to request to speak. Individual audience participation is limited to three minutes. We'd like to acknowledge that we do have one e comment. Do we have any comments from the audience?

We have no callers online. As you stated, we have one e comment and we also have one participant in chambers.

Jose Macias? Can I be heard? Okay.

I had rock copies. I'm not sure if you guys want what I was gonna read. So I think there was a little bit of a confusion of the date I was supposed to be here. I thought it was today for my hearing, but I'm not sure. Anyway, greetings. My name is Jose Masias. Imagine imagine walking your dog, and out of the blue, somebody comes and tries to steal it from you and it attacks you in order to steal it. What would you do? Would you defend your dog? Would you defend yourself?

On Easter Sunday of twenty '24, something similar happened to me when however, I was the one that got arrested. I dropped off my kids during a child exchange, but my dog jumped out of the car and ran it down the street. Naturally, I got out, walked over to to retrieve my dog, but little did I know that my ex's new boyfriend was gonna come out and steal it from me. He threatened and assaulted me and attacked me, and I had to defend myself the whole time while holding my little dog in my left arm. After I got back to the car, I approached two witnesses that were present at the scene, and I asked if they could testify.

One of them said he would wait for the police to testify, yet they said he didn't wanna get involved. I called 911, and dispatching had told they told me to go home and wait for them. When they finally arrived to my address, they immediately put me under arrest without even asking questions of what happened. Apparently, they took my ex's and ex boyfriend's word as truth even though the body cam footage shows that they contradict each other. My attacker flipped the script and said that I was attacker and that my ex was holding the dog and that I snatched it from her.

The reality of all that she wasn't she never really held the dog at all but made up that story just to get me arrested. The attacking boyfriend and my ex ex's story had red flags to the police off that the police officer should have caught. But if you watch the video carefully, when officer Madrigal asked Claudia at time stamp 08:07 thirty from the police video Madrigal. He asked officer asked, did he physically touch touch you touch you? She nodded and no.

And immediately, the boyfriend intervenes to correct her, and she tries to change her mind, but officer stops him from intervening. That should have been the red flag that their story was not matching up. My attacker also admits on video that he was trying to take the dog from me and that Claudia wanted the dog too at time stamp 07:36 with thirty seconds. But then at 07:46 with twenty seconds, Claudia contradicts the boyfriend's story that she only wanted to take the dog to return it to me. That's on the police cam footage.

He also admits to that the police officer, they had already advised them that to go to court if they wanted custody of my dog, meaning that they were attempting to forcefully take my dog, and it was done with the against police advice from a previous report. They had never filed anything since because they know who purchased the dog, and they were well aware of who the owner is. Officer Mondragos' main main re

Commissioners, you okay with the if he continues? You you can have additional three minutes.

Officer Madrigal's main reason for of arrest was that the child he told me that the main reason for the arrest is because the child exchange should have been a peaceful exchange according to court orders. And this exchange was not peaceful at all, which I do agree with. But my attackers but by by my attackers' own words, he and Claudia were set on their way to take my dog, time stamped 07:30, 06:30, also on the police. They were already set in their ways that they were wanting to do this even after police had already told them not to go to court if they want ownership for the dog. This piece was broke.

The piece was broken by my attacker, not by me. The police should have seen that. What bothers me the most is that my arrest could have been avoided if a little bit of police work had should have would have could have been done. When I was placed under arrest, I told my side of the story, and and I also told the police that there were two witnesses who were waiting to testify. I also showed them pictures of the two witnesses standing by their vehicle when I was about to leave.

Snapped a picture of them. When I called 911, had also told dispatch about these two witnesses who were standing, and they were waiting to talk to them. These two witnesses can be seen at the top left of my ex's surveillance footage. The police officer never did try or attempt to talk to them at any time during my arrest. The testimonies were vital to show that to show the truth because they were third party witnesses who could have been unbiased.

In the police report, the police officer wrote that I had mentioned of the witnesses, but it was too late to interview them. The incident happened at 07:10PM, and it was not late at all. I believe the officer didn't just probably just didn't wanna do the extra work to figure out the truth and took the easier task of just placing me under arrest. I was a victim to an attempted dognapping of my pets. I was a victim to assault and battery.

I was victim to elusive scheme of on behalf of my ex and her boyfriend to set me up by fabricating a story, and I was victim to officer Madrigal's poor judgment and lack of police work. Ultimately, I was arrested, and this in this incident has provoked a lack of faith in Riverside Police. That if I call from an emergency, I could fall victim to arrest even if I'm the victim. Please see justice for me. Kind regards.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will 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 consent calendar as is?

Make that motion.

I'll second the motion.

Thank you Commissioner Dillon. Thank you Commissioner Teichard. Go ahead and please vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay. For the discussion calendar, we have item number four, determine whether the absence of commissioner Gutierrez on 07/23/2025 regular meeting should be recorded as excused or unexcused. At this time, we invite public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling (951) 826-8688 to comment on this item.

Press 9 to be placed in the queue and 6 to speak. 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 online?

No callers online, no participants in chambers.

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

Yes. My understanding is that Ms. Gutierrez was getting ready to come to the meeting and she had an accident that caused her to have to go to urgent care. And so I think this is a bona fide legitimate reason why she was should be excused from attending that meeting.

Thank you. Is that a is that a motion to excuse?

Yes, it is.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you, Commissioner Lundy. And go ahead and vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Move to item number five, continue reviewing stage four of the criminal case book of officer involved death case. 200 or 202200362. Jay Tracy, turn it over to Frank. Oh, sorry. At this time, we invite public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling (951) 826-8688 to comment on this item. Press 9 to be placed in the queue. And 6 to speak. To participate by Zoom, select raise a hand function to speak. You have three minutes. Do we have any comments from the audience?

No callers online, no participants in chambers.

Thank you. Frank yes as a continuation here if this is still in stage four of the review this is the officer involved death investigation involving Joseph Thomas Tracy the fourth incident occurring 01/18/2022 in the city of Emmett, the travel lodge 2625 West Florida Avenue. As of the last meeting there was discussion on whether or not the body worn camera videos that were subpoenaed or requested, whether or not they would be viewable. At this juncture, they're not. RPD does not have these videos.

And we're looking at a way in which these can be reviewed. They can't be reviewed in closed session since there's no citizen complaint that's been filed that this is being looked into I believe by the city attorney's office.

So, by way of update, we have worked out an agreement with the relevant public agencies to give this commission confidential secure access to what they've requested that the other the other side has the problem is that we have to determine what mechanism we can use and provide the proper notice so that you can review the materials requested because those negotiations didn't get concluded until earlier this week we haven't finished the legal review process or the proper noticing of how we're gonna do that for pursuant to the Brown Act so we will have all of that completed by the next meeting but we can't do it now I'm not quite ready to weigh in on what we can and cannot do concerning the agreement I think that we can find a workaround but we want to make sure we get this right it's kind of an unusual thing that we've done here and when other other missions are looking us at us to get this right if they want to do something of a similar nature with legislative subpoenas so we're committed to doing that so we'll have something for you by the next meeting so

you can if you choose want continue deliberation or discussion without having viewed the video. So that's going to be up to this commission.

Commissioner Ward.

When the material is provided, will we be the first one to review? Because we had discussed last month that Frank was going to take a look and help us kind of move through the material, given how many videos there are.

So the way I understand the process is that our PD will be given the materials who will give it to Frank and then it will go through what is the normal process and everyone would be subject to the confidentiality provisions of us. All of it will have to be confidential. So to answer your question, if I have not done so artfully, Frank Gessen first.

Yes, and we're still, as Ms. Cook had mentioned, trying to find the mechanism in which that can be done legally. That's what we're waiting to make a determination on.

Commissioner Gutierrez.

So my question would be does the regular process as articulated be that it will involve a synopsis as well? Was that the intention?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a synopsis.

So you won't be providing a synopsis of these materials, right? We would wade through them at our discretion?

Well, it's going to depend on what that mechanism turns out to be as to how I would be able to facilitate with that for you. At this juncture, I really don't know until we get that information.

Very good. Thank you.

You're welcome. Do we have any other questions? Commissioner Tyker?

Yes, thank you for the update. And I think in response to your question, I would recommend that we stay at this same stage in the review process and not proceed forward. Sounds like we're getting very close to being able to see what it is we want to see. And to address some of the concerns about this is going be so voluminous. It's going to take us too much time.

I know there's one body worn camera video in particular. There's one officer that State Department of Justice said had a clear the only real clear shot of the shooter being shot and that's a Hemet police officer. I think it's gonna be pretty straightforward once we do get access to the videos that we should be able to zero in on what is really important.

Thank you.

That that is, yeah, going to be up to how this commission chooses to proceed.

Commissioner Tucker, is that a motion to stay at stage four?

Sure, yes.

Do we have a second?

Yeah, I'll second that.

Thank you. Do we have any other motions or oppos to that before we vote? Well, go ahead and vote to stay at stage four.

Commissioner Lundy, can you please vote? Motion passes. Thank you.

Yeah, and if there's an update of some sort that we can get on the next agenda, you'll be notified.

Thank you, Frank. You're welcome. Madam Secretary please announce closed session cases.

Pursuant to government code 54957, the commission will discuss case number PC two four one two zero six one, PC two 502008, PC two 504024, and PC two 505028.

Thank you. Move on to item number 10, the city attorney report on closed session actions.

Chair Bell, there are no reportable actions. Can I ask a question? Yes. So,

on a regular basis when we're here in the commission, I've noted that when we come to item number 10, there are no reportable actions. So the wondering would be, what would normally be reportable and what is the standard operating procedure for this particular number?

Well, the short answer is it's rare that there would ever be a reportable action. You would have to take some sort of action as the Commission that would fall within a very precisely defined event. Frankly, I can't conceive of what that would be from your garden variety types of things that you cover in closed session. But let me, if you'd like I can go and research if I can give you an example of one that would be reportable. But I don't know of any, as I've been here and researched the things that would be reported out and I could give you examples in other bodies but it wouldn't be relevant here so I'll resist that urge but there are I can't think of anything that would be reportable out from what you do in closed session.

But we have to have

that placeholder that if there is something it has to be reported out and conveyed to the public if it does qualify.

I see so I imagine since matters that are handled in closed session are relative to personnel items that are confidential in nature that might be why but I just did have that wondering because we receive the same response each time on item 10. Thank you for bringing information and should you have an opportunity to explore it I think that would be something the Commission might benefit from knowing.

Yes, I'll definitely do that but much of your work when you come to a determination is advisory so it doesn't constitute an action. But I'm gonna look into it. Think it's

a good question. Good. Appreciate that.

Thank you. Item number 11, the brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by CPRC. Any of the commissioners? Commissioner Dillon?

Yeah, just real quick. I mean, it's not really a conference or a seminar. Guess our seminars, Frank regularly sends us excellent training material over and I just want to recognize that. I really do appreciate it and they're very valuable. So much appreciated.

Yes. Thank you. Item 12, the CPRC Ad Hoc Committee updates. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Teicher, did you have something before we move on?

It's okay.

I was just going to report I believe three of us did attend the training at the July. Put on by the police department. I just wanted to let you know that so I had attended it the prior one last year as well and it's kind of hesitant as to whether or not it would be repetitive but actually there was a lot of new information that was provided to us and new training. So, I thought it was really well done, well very worthwhile. Thanks to the police department for that. I'd like to comment.

Yeah, thank you so much Commissioner Teichert for reminding us of what a great job was done. We appreciate being accompanied and enjoying the experience especially the immersive one where we had an opportunity for the shoot don't shoot training. We really enjoyed that. We also want to commend everyone who came together and had a very intentional and strategic planned agenda for us. None of the time was wasted.

We stayed, those that I went with, we stayed beyond the time we were expected to stay because the individuals training us from the SWAT group and the like really were invested in ensuring that we would garner some information, new knowledge and we very much appreciate that. So I just really enjoyed how we felt valued and so thank you for that space and voice and we just want to appreciate and commend the work that was put into it. Thank you.

Thank you. CPRC Ad Hoc Committee updates. Vice Chair Gutierrez.

Thank you. Okay so I would like to update that we have had the opportunity to meet in our committees as it related to reviewing the bylaws and policies and the like. We have had an opportunity to spend some deep diving into the language and have been productive over the last few meetings. Really having deep discussions about the next direction we're going to go in in some of these language frames and the like and now we are in a position where some of the materials have been disseminated for us to, the three of us to do a deeper dive independently so when we come together next time we have more information to present. But we have been working hard at it.

Want to let you all know that will be done I imagine in the next few minute meetings. Thank you.

Thank you. Riverside Police Department updates. Thank you. City manager's office updates.

Hi, Ruby Castillo from the city manager's office. I just want to share that we have two potential commissioners going through background right now. So, there is a possibility that in the next month or so we might be a full commission of nine.

Awesome. Thank you. Any items for the future community police review commission consideration as requested by the members of the CPRC? Only items that fall within the powers and duties of the CPRC are set forth in the city charter and or the Riverside Municipal Code will be agendized for future discussion. Commissioner Dillon, do you have anything? Commissioner Lundy? Commissioner Ward? Commissioner Ferguson? Commissioner Tekker? Commissioner Gutierrez? Thank you. Frank, do you have anything?

No, I'm just typing.

Thank you. The next regular community police review commission is scheduled for Wednesday, 09/24/2025. This meeting is adjourned at 07:31.