Community Police Review Commission - Regular Meeting

To ensure that the situation is handled with care, not with excessive force. I want to stress that this is not just about one family's pain. This is about a pattern that erodes trust in our community. Understanding how often our officers are truly trained to handle mental health crisis and whether they are required to call in a mobile crisis team and if this is being regulated. It's about making sure that officers know they are not the judge, jury, and executioner.

Law enforcement is not above the law. They are supposed to protect and serve the people. The grief that families like mine endure is made even deeper by the fact that law enforcement is policing themselves. There's an extreme sense of distress in our community. We need independent oversight to ensure transparency, accountability, to move forward in building the faith and trust in our community with our law enforcement.

Riverside has seen too many in custody deaths, too many lawsuits, and too much blood, and too much pain. We will not stand down. We will continue to raise our voices. We owe it to our community to do better, to train better, to police better, and to ensure that when someone is in crisis, they receive help and compassion, not violence. Thank you.

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? If not, do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar as is?

I'll make that motion.

Thank you Commissioner Dillon. Thank you Commissioner Lundy. Alrighty. Now go ahead and please vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Now for the discussion calendar, we have the ad hoc committee update. At this time, we have to provide public comment regarding this item. The public is invited to participate in person or by calling (951) 826-8688 to comment on this item. Press 9 to be placed in the queue and 6 to speak. To participate by Zoom, select the raise the hand function to speak. You have three minutes. We have any comments from our audience or callers at this time?

No callers online. No participants in chambers.

Thank you. So this ad hoc committee update, when we first discussed it and voted in back in February, commissioner Garcia, Bobby Garcia was selected for the ad hoc committee with resignation, his place would need to be replaced. His placement would need we only we had to have at least a minimum of three on there. Do we have anybody volunteering that would like to join the ad ad hoc hoc committee? Right now, we it's what we have been meeting is just a couple times a month to go over the bylaws and and policies procedures just to update them.

We've been meeting at max, I think, is, like four hours, and it's been like every other Tuesday, but those times can be adjusted. We have a a motion for, commissioner Ward join. Do we have a a second for that?

Yeah. I second that.

Thank you, vice chair. We'll go ahead and vote to add commissioner Ward.

Commissioner Ward, can you please vote? Motion passes.

Thank you. The second part of this is when it was selected in February it was for a term of six months. That would have been the policies and procedures would have been updated by September, which was we not completed those updates. Through discussion, we have looked to possibly extend that out to as far as out as we can, which would be February. It doesn't have to go till February if we get it done before, but that's the farthest we could push it out. So we'd like to see if we can get a motion to extend.

Yes, I'd like to make the motion to extend.

Thank you. Do we have a a second?

I'll second.

Thank you, commissioner Lundy. We'll go ahead and they both did at the same time. And then we'll vote on the extension to February 2026.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Discussion calendar item number five, we're gonna continue reviewing stage four of the criminal case book of officer involved death case 2022Dash00362 for Jay Tracy. 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 to participate by Zoom, select the raise the hand function and you'll have three minutes. Do we have any comments from the audience or callers?

No callers online. No participants in chambers.

Thank you. And I believe we have Frank joining us online.

Is correct. Hi. Good evening. Good evening, chair Bell, also vice chair Gutierrez, and our commission as well as city staff. And for purposes of the general public that may have missed some of these meetings, I'll give a brief overview here.

This is a of course, you're in stage four of this review, and this is an incident that occurred 01/18/2022. At 10:30PM, the Travelodge Motel 2625 West Florida Avenue in the city of Hemet. The decedent in this case is Joseph Thomas Tracy the fourth, male 20 years of age. This incident involved a regional gang task force in this in Riverside County, and there were two actual task forces that were involved in this. And with the actual shooting incident, there were four individuals that were involved in this particular shooting.

You had two from the Riverside County Sheriffs and also one from the Hemet Police Department and detective Kerr from the Riverside Police Department. At, this juncture, as we've been proceeding and moving through, this particular case, there came a point in time in your review that, you felt that you wanted to actually have the opportunity to review the body worn camera videos and also surveillance videos that were part of this investigation that was conducted by this by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and the Department of Justice. And as you know, the I had filed for a Public Records Act request both for the Riverside Sheriff's Department and also the Hemet Police Department. And I was unsuccessful in obtaining that material from them, which resulted in you wanting to proceed forward with the subpoena process. And through the subpoena process, we were still unsuccessful in obtaining this this information, the videos.

And much of this boils down to the fact that there's a protective order on this particular case that was issued back in 12/29/2023 in this particular case. And because of this protective order, it puts you in a position that you're unable to view these videos in in a confidential environment because this is a public review. And with this protective order in place, that is not something that can happen in a public forum. So I had a discussion, the other day, on a conference call with assistant city attorney Jack Lew, also deputy city attorneys Raman Jaren and Thomas Chisholm. And it was in the absence of the deputy city attorney Deborah Cook.

And in are looking through this and the fact that there is this protective order in place, this kind of puts you at an impasse at this point because these the this this is not going to be released. And what this does is it gives you one of two options at this point. The first one is to close this close this review with no finding due to your inability to review the videos, or you can move forward in your review and base your findings on the investigations conducted by the independent investigation conducted by the California State Department of Justice, Riverside Sheriff's Department, and the Hemet Police Department. And in doing this, of course, it'll require a motion and a vote on which direction you, choose to go. Now mister Yaron is with you this evening, and if there are any questions any of you would like to ask of him, he was part of that discussion and conversation.

I'm happy to turn it over to have provide any additional details or open any questions that you might have of him.

Thank you.

I've got a question. This is the first I think that we've heard of the protective order. So I'm just curious about we're just now hearing about it. Why is that? And who puts forth the protective order just so I have a better understanding of how it's managed?

The federal court judge is the one who signed the protective order and it's between the city of Riverside, Hemet, and the sher sheriff's department.

And has it how long has it been in place?

The protective order was issued December 12 or I'm sorry. 12/29/2023.

Okay.

And I had just recently received a copy of this, but I believe it had been mentioned once before that there was a protective order out there. But it is because of the protective order as to why the the material isn't being released.

Thank you. Commissioner Dillon.

Do we know who sought the protective order?

The parties generally will seek a protective order in these type of matters. So I don't I don't know whether it seems like it was It was a stipulation between the parties for the protective order.

So, basically, all three that you mentioned sought the protective order. Is that correct?

That's common in these type of cases. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. No problem.

So what's being protected? I guess I'm just I need to I'd like to better understand it.

So the protective order prevents dissemination of information. Mostly discovered during the case through discovery. Each party has the ability to, file motions to obtain documents, videos, etcetera from the other parties. And in this case, there was a stipulation that all information outside of what's already publicly available is protected from dissemination during the the trial. During the the the pending litigation. Yeah. Better stated.

Did the California Department of Justice have, excuse me, have to get around this protective order, or was this issued after their investigation?

I'm not aware of when they they commenced their investigation. I don't have that information. Okay. I can find out The provide after you.

The California State Department of Justice conducted the investigation at the same time right after this at the time that this incident actually occurred. And, the protective order, to my knowledge, was, issued, afterward. Now they were part of the they conducted investigation, so they, of course, had access to all of this material. And the report that you read from the State Department of Justice was as a result of everything that, that they looked at in this particular case, which is all the evidence, all of the evidence. So this litigation, of course, took is something that came into play at some point in time later.

But as it stands right now, they're the ones that had the access. They went through all of this material as well as the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and also Hemet PD. I does that answer your question?

It does. It doesn't get to the root of my concern, but couple of basic questions, and maybe you can answer this based on your review of this case. Do we know that our officer since that's our purview regarding this case, do we know that his round struck Tracy, and do we know if that round caused the death?

That information is not in the report, the reports that were released. And I And I your review for my review?

My my review showed the same thing, and that and that's my concern. You know? At on one hand, our purview is our officer. On the other hand, we have to basically trust that the DOJ did a thorough job. And I'm not saying we shouldn't, but that's our commission's charter is to do that investigation, and, basically, we can't.

Well, your investigation includes all of these reports. And, you know, the California State Department of Justice, it's an independent, of course, entity that conducted this investigation simply because at the time that the shooting actually took place, the individual, mister Tracy, didn't have the weapon in his possession at the time that it actually took place. The weapon was dropped about 10 feet away from where he was, where the shooting actually occurred. And because of that, because at the time that the actual shooting took place is what initiated this a v 15 o six investigation by the State Department of Justice to look into this. So the only thing I can can tell you at this point is that and I had submitted some investigative notes once again to go have this have all this go over for you to go over this and included detailed information of what was contained inside these body worn camera videos.

Only one video, it was the Hemet sergeant captured the actual shooting itself. Other the other things that took place prior to, there was body worn camera video from two other officers, but it didn't capture the officer involved shooting itself. Because of with the fact that one was one of the body worn cameras was inadvertently deactivated. Apparently, as the detective that was running, he had a 40 millimeter launcher that apparently was swinging on his body as he's running, and it apparently, he felt it may have inactivated it because he was in that in motion. And when the OIS occurred, the other one of the deputies from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, his 40 millimeter launcher actually covered the camera lens.

So that's why there was only one video that actually captured the OIS OIS itself.

In the

DOJ report, the only thing you could get there are those still shots of what things look like at the time that the, Hammond PD sergeant fired his weapon.

How long do these protective orders typically are they in place for cases like this?

Until the end of lit the litigation.

Okay.

When you say the end of the litigation, are there civil suits associated with this at this point? Are those is that the litigation

you speak to? Yes.

The, that's what the protective order is about during the litigation because you have Riverside County sheriffs, the city of Riverside, and also the city of Hemet that are involved in this. My understanding what as far as the protective order is concerned, this trial was supposed to have begun here September 2025. And whether that is now started or not, I don't I don't know if it has or not. I would have to look into that. So, you know, and I believe, as far as I know, that protective order is gonna stay in place until this lit litigation is completed.

Now it's this is actually if if you wanted one more option is to just put this on hold until this litigation is completely over with and perhaps at that point in time see if we're able to obtain this material. And I would have to find out if this trial actually started or if there was a continuance. I don't have that information.

Vice chair Gutierrez.

So I didn't realize that was an option in terms of holding our timeline in advance while the litigation transpired. But it sounds like that is being proposed that the timeline by which we have to make a decision on these cases will be held in advance. Is that right?

Well, you you if this you've been doing your this review has been going on for several months now. Now if you feel that there is there is absolutely no way that you're gonna be able to move forward with this unless you see this body worn camera video or all the body worn camera videos and also the surveillance videos, then let's just put it this way. I would suggest that you do, number one, you close the review with no finding due to the the inability to review the video. Move forward, as I mentioned in option two. Now we can go ahead and take a look at option three and which would say that you wanna put this on hold until the litigation is completed, and then at that point, see what we can do in seeking to obtain this information.

And I don't know, of course, how long that would take. If the trial hasn't started and there's been a continuance, it's just unknown. This this could go on for months. But it's really up to how you wanna proceed with this. There's really nothing that's gonna prohibit you from putting this on hold until the litigation is completed.

Commissioner Dillon? So just to

be clear, it's all information. So we can get no ballistics information, even dis you know, disregard the videos. No ballistics information. No corners information. All of that is part of this nondisclosure?

Is that a question for me or mister chairman?

In general, whomever can answer it.

Correct. There isn't any additional information besides what's probably already been provided that will be released associated with the case until it's completed. I don't know. I'm not familiar. That's why I didn't I don't not familiar with what you've received as far as any ballistics or anything else. I know there was a Department of Justice report, and I haven't read that, so I can't really speak on what's

Understand. There was no ballistics and no corners report associated with that. That's that's the difficult part of this. We don't even know if our officers actions directly resulted in his death. So, I mean, obviously, he was involved, and, that's why we're here. I I personally don't see how we can move forward, honestly, without some minimum of information.

One thing I would like to add, the the fact that, you had a detective Kerr actually, fired his weapon, he discharged the use of deadly force at the time that he fired his weapon.

Commissioner Ward.

What's the likelihood that we will receive the information if we try and wait it out? I mean is it high probability? Is it pretty pretty much assured, or is there still are are there still other hurdles that we would have to overcome?

You know, just from my own basic knowledge, I'm not an attorney or anything, but I don't know if they're going to continue to hold on to this within I don't know if once litigation's over, if perhaps the protective order can still be put in place. And once that's completed, once again, how much of the diff the information is gonna be provided, I I can't I don't know. I wish I could answer that question for you. But until that litigation is over with and we seek this once again through subpoena, we're not gonna have that.

Is there a legal perspective? It

can remain, confidential unless, said evidence is, admitted during trial or party stipulate. So even after the hearing, there may be appellate review, there may be writs, there may be other legal documents filed that could prevent it from happening anytime soon. So I can't give you a accurate timeline because even after the trials is done, there may be an appeal from that trial and that could take take years in and of itself. Thank you.

Commissioner Gutierrez?

I think based on the information we're hearing and from I think the table I'm not sure if a suggestion to potentially table our decision on next steps is something we'd like to explore until we have everyone present potentially. And then perhaps move the decision to the next calendar date or I don't know if we're prepared to have a motion at this time. Any thoughts?

Yeah. I I would support that. At at this stage, it's not gonna it's not gonna hurt because we can't really get anywhere. So So with that

In Scott, is there anything that is there anything that I can prove provide to you at the next meeting or any any inform anything that I I can do that you think you will would like to have in your you have knowledge of before you move any further. I think the one thing that I can find out for you if you choose is to learn where if this actually the trial on this started yet. If not, what the date that it would be starting would be. And if there's anything else that I can do to help you with this, just let me know what that is.

I think from what I'm hearing, if there's any way to just give us a definitive as to I don't know if they can disaggregate data and but the ballistics inquiry I think is something that you know we're interested in knowing if that's something that can be separated.

Provided. Commissioner Dillon.

So did we actually approach the judge from the commission's point of view? I realize the city is one of the people that want this in place. But from a commission, did we approach the judge to pierce that order and allow us to see this information?

I'm not aware of any steps to there really a mechanism to contact the judge and ask him to reconsider from the commission standpoint.

So I guess kind of follow-up.

That's what you're asking?

Yeah. Kind of. So as a commission, obviously everything we do is in public. Is that what is restricting us from getting this information? In other words, if we signed a nondisclosure individually, would that help? Or is it just a matter of the style of this commission that we are public?

It's just the it's mostly the fact that it's been determined to be confidential. And that there's a step that it's confidential and it can't be released. That's the reason beyond to any party. They're they're unable to release it to anyone.

But yet the city did an internal investigation into this.

Well, there's a there's a lawsuit pending against the city of the party.

No. But I'm talking about from the police department's perspective. They did their own internal investigation?

To my knowledge, I'm

don't Yes. They did.

Know what investigation took place as far as the the PD. I can't speak on that. I'm sorry.

Yes. They conducted administrative investigation, which took place at it started at the time that this event actually occurred and until all the reports were completed. So the police department conducted their administrative investigation based upon the reports that you you have in that you had access to. The Hemet RSO and the Department of Justice.

Thank you.

So You're welcome. Frank, I just wanna make sure we have three options at this point. We can either stay at Stage 4 and wait for any more information from you. We can move forward with saying we we know we no longer think we we're gonna have access to the videos, and we can move on to stage five, or we can hold in this position until you know, table until after the litigation is complete.

There was also close

with close

with no finding, I thought.

Well, there's so option number four, close with no finding.

Yeah. Closely with no finding since you didn't have access to review the videos, which would have put a conclusion to your where you just don't come up with a finding because you don't have access to what you felt necessary in order to make a decision. So that would actually it gives you three different options.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Commissioners, do we have a a motion on how we would like to proceed?

I'll I'll make a motion that we table this until our next meeting. We can decide at that point how we want to move forward. So

tabling is staying at stage four technically until next meeting.

I'd like to second that motion.

Okay, so we have a motion to stay at stage four until next meeting and by commissioner Dylan and a second by vice chair Gutierrez. Any other motions that we wanna be discussed? Okay. Can we go ahead and vote on staying at stage four until next month?

Vice chair Gutierrez, can you vote? Motion passes.

Thank you.

Chair Bell?

Yes, Frank.

Yes. Is the this would be a good time if anyone would like me to do any additional research or anything else I can do to assist you up to the next meeting that I can prepare, bring to you, or provide to you between now and then.

Commissioners, is anything that comes to mind?

No. And I think that's kinda why we needed some time to kinda see what we could come up with that you could possibly provide. I'm not sure you can, but that's why I thought a delay would be in order.

Okay. Well, what I what I will just volunteer myself to do is just to, find out where the trial date actually sits.

Very good. Good. Thank you, Frank.

You're welcome.

Alright. Madam secretary, can you please announce closed session cases?

Pursuant to government code 54957, the commission will discuss case number of PC2506032, PC2505029, PC2503018.

Thank you. We are now in closed session. Back from closed session. Move on to communications. City attorney report on closed session action.

No

no report, I believe, Vince.

Thank you. Brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by the CPRC. None to report. CPRC ad hoc committee updates. There's none at this time. Now that we have, commissioner Ward, we'll be able to, when, commissioner returns from her vacation, we'll set up the first meeting with you and we'll share all the notes that we've already kind of have been sharing back and forth. Riverside Police Department updates.

Hello, everybody. Nothing real significant, but I've gotten a couple questions from some of you about the new station rehab. So, I figured I'd talk about that for a minute. So, I think we've discussed this in the past, but the city is still moving forward in tearing down our downtown station, which has been in service since 1964. We'll be tearing it down and rebuilding a new station in the same footprint. It'll just be a little bit larger, more modern, be able to serve the needs of our community for another fifty years. So, that's what we're targeting on doing. It looks like the timeline is right now we're in the design phase. And we're hoping to be out of there sometime next summer and start tearing it down and rebuilding it. The total project is two to three years.

Which brings me to an invitation for the CPRC if you'd like to attend. Our one event that we usually host per year is October 24. It's our trunk or treat downtown. That's a great event. If you have any friends or family or children that you'd like to bring, it's a good opportunity to get them out and visit the police department. We've blocked the whole street down. We have all the SWAT stuff out there, and the robots, and tons of candy, and it's a really good time for your kids and your family to come down. I would have brought it up next meeting, but it's two days after next month's meeting, that's not enough notice. Put it on your calendar if you want to attend, October 24. City Park And Structures at Gurt Place To Park, for that event.

Kinda So, get the luxury of doing that, but we'd love to have you out at the PD and kinda see some of our community outreach that we provide, and just have a good time with the community. 6PM, red at dark usually. And if if you try to get in the general parking lots, we usually have a few thousand people. So, the line to get in is pretty big. So, don't show up at the last minute.

Are they are they still planning on building a temporary department down off? I think it's Magnolia and Van Buren. I believe that's what the city had proposed, I thought.

So, the city bought that building. It hasn't been determined yet what we're gonna use that building for because it still needs extensive rehabilitation before it can be occupied. So, I don't know what the plan is for that. The plan right now for PD is we're probably going to lease some space downtown just for chief's offices and stuff, and then incorporate some personnel into other city facilities, and just kinda figure

it

out for the next two to three years, and try to fiscally not spend any more money than we already are, so. Very good. Any more questions? Yes, correct. So that incident is the McDonald's incident.

There's been updates that should be getting released publicly from the coroner's office, like cause of death and things like that, that I think will put some clarity on the situation. But, that's why I do that briefing a couple months in advance, so you guys kinda have an idea, you're not like, what's that all about? I think you kinda all have a general idea of what that was about, I told you. And then if you didn't see our public release that we emailed out that kinda showed some of the body camera footage and things that happened that day, just kinda put it in your mind because it'll pop up again in another year when you start doing the review like you are on the Tracy one. There's nothing we're doing because it's currently under investigations by FID, which is done independently by the county. So, we don't even have a stake in that. That's something that's done by them.

Just a quick reminder. Can you use the mic for Daisy?

And then, just also to put this on your horizon, we're pretty much caught up on cases right now. So, we may have one or two trickle in for next month, but just kind of enjoy it. It's a good time to, with the holidays coming up and everything, I know all of you work really hard, and I appreciate the amount of time that all of you put in. I'm aware of the dedication that you have. I think you, as a commission, have been spending a lot of time, and I can tell when we're reviewing cases how thorough you are, and the thought that you're putting into them. I think it's very appreciated by the officers in our department that you're ruling on things that you've reviewed, and you're completely aware of what's going on. So, I really wanna say I thank you for the amount of time and dedication you put into that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Have a good month, and if y'all need anything, email Frank or Daisy, or any of us, and we'll

be glad to help you. Awesome. Or Ruby too. Okay?

Thank you.

Thank you. City manager's office updates.

Nothing to report.

Thank you. Any items for future community review commission consideration? I believe next month we are going to revisit the the RIPA. So that'll be on next month's agenda. Anything else you guys would like to discuss?

Okay. Frank, I'm not sure if you're still online. Yes. You have do you have anything?

No. You had already mentioned what I was going to mention, so we're good.

Awesome. Thank you. Well, the next regular community police review commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 10/22/2025. Meeting is adjourned at 07:47. Good night.