Laserfiche WebLink
JANUARY 20, 2021 4 <br />stamped. Mr. Heller then asked if it was just not necessary because that is being captured <br />already. Chief Ruszkowski said that was one of the conundrums faced during 21CP <br />discussions, because on one side 21CP pointed out the City has an enormous amount of <br />reporting requirements and on the flip side there is not enough reporting. Chief indicated he <br />is trying to find the middle ground. He shared that based on his position and personal <br />experience, this language is a four- or five-time redundancy. Mr. Heller said he had no more <br />questions for that section. <br />309: Canines: Mr. Heller had one or two questions on education. In Section 309.4, the <br />change was from a uniform division to patrol division, and Mr. Heller wanted to know if <br />these terms were synonymous. Chief Ruszkowski responded in the affirmative, stating that a <br />lot of that is wording changes to get up to speed. <br />309.7: Apprehension Guidelines: Mr. Heller stated the wording was changed from <br />“arrestable offense” to “serious offense” and asked for clarification regarding how serious <br />offense is being defined. Attorney Martinez responded that it falls in line with the <br />investigative nature of the call and the officers are trying to determine probable cause and <br />this falls in line with the apprehension guidelines at how to and what point do you deploy a <br />K-9 and what considerations do you take into account when making that determination. At <br />that point probable cause may still be developing as opposed to fully developed, that is why <br />that language is important. Mr. Heller asked if there was a way to objectify “serious <br />offense.” Attorney Martinez stated that would be something the Courts litigate each and <br />every day and that is why Graham v. Connor referring to the use of force is applicable <br />because what constitutes reasonable in one case may be totally unreasonable in another case. <br /> Chief Ruszkowski also added that the intent was to raise the threshold for use of a K-9. <br />309.8.2: Narcotics Detection: Mr. Heller inquired whether or not the phrase “probable cause” <br />that is noted in Section C should not be added to Section A as well? Attorney Martinez said <br />that the use of a K-9 in (A) could be just for patrolling purposes whereas in (C) it is more <br />specific to an applicable circumstance where probable cause is necessary for building up a <br />case or in support of a case. Mr. Heller had no more questions for this section. <br />318: Victims and Witness Assistance: No questions or comments. <br />420.4: Pat Down Searches: Mr. Heller inquired about the definition of “officer’s safety <br />risk.” Is that at the officer’s discretion? Chief Ruszkowski responded that a reason needs to <br />be articulated why that person poses a safety risk to the officer. <br />420.6.2: Factors When Establishing a Reasonable Suspicion to Frisk: Letter C: The Person’s <br />Actions: Mr. Heller is asking since these are subjective, are there any safeguards in place <br />against implicit bias? Attorney Martinez responded the officer must consider all factors listed <br />in Letter C and stated that context is absolutely critical and that is why these factors are not <br />exclusive and no officer can latch on to one particular factor because ultimately they will be <br />judged on the totality of the circumstance and level of objective reasonableness. Dr. Heller <br />clarified that the officer must be able to articulate this very clearly within the context. <br />Attorney Martinez further clarified that reasonable suspicion is the starting point from which <br />probable cause is built, and that criminal encounters are along a continuum. There were no <br />more questions for this section. <br />429: Medical Aid and Response: No questions or comments. <br />433.4.1: Chain of Command: Mr. Heller is asking whether or not this “agreement for <br />services” is a public document? Attorney Martinez states that if it is a written agreement <br />between the school and the local Police Department then the answer is yes. <br />433.6: Training: Mr. Heller asked why training is not a requirement for assignment? Why is <br />training delayed? Chief Ruszkowski responded that they still have an FTO process they go <br />through with a seasoned SRO and that is based on Indiana Law Enforcement Academy’s <br />availability as to when they can put on the FTO class. It is a shadowing component until they <br />can get the training and certification. No further questions on this section. <br />504: Operating While Intoxicated: No questions or comments.