FINAL Adopted 09-08-2021 - Pennsylvania Office of State ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FINAL Adopted
09-08-2021
PENNSYLVANIA STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
Special Meeting of the Bias-Based Policing Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for
Wednesday, August 25, 2021, at 1:00 p.m.
(Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams Platform)
At 1:09 p.m. Executive Session
Sha S. Brown, Chairperson, began an Executive Session of the Bias-Based Policing Review
Committee of Pennsylvania State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission (Commission). The
Executive Session began with Chairperson Brown’s welcome of Review Committee members and an
overview of the Review Committee’s proposed Special Meeting Agenda. Following Chairperson Brown’s
request that the Review Committee consider appointment of a Secretary for purposes of roll call,
preparation of meeting agendas and recording of meeting minutes for all proposed Review Committee
meetings, Review Committee Chairperson Marvin Boyer appointed Commissioner Canagarajah to serve
as the Acting Secretary of the Review Committee for purposes of this meeting. The Chairperson
[Commissioner Boyer] and members of the Review Committee agreed that members will serve as Acting
Secretary on a rotating schedule.
Chairperson Brown then explained the next steps [workflow process] of the Review Committee
concerning the cases selected for review and announced that Ms. Jalila Parker [non-voting member and
designee of the Governor’s Office] will join the Review Committee pursuant to the Commission’s Bylaws.
As an administrative matter, Chairperson explained that representatives of the Pennsylvania State Police
(PSP) expressed challenges in finalizing video presentations in time for the Review Committee’s Special
Meeting scheduled for September 8th. According to PSP representatives, video presentations will be
available for the Review Committee’s Special Meeting scheduled for October 6th. After some discussion,
the Review Committee decided that it was preferrable to proceed with PSP’s Oral Presentations on
September 8th and September 22nd first and then have video presentations for on October 6th.
Commissioner Ashe asked for a clarification on what was expected during this meeting of the
Review Committee. Chairperson Brown explained that the goal of this meeting is about deliberating and
discussing relevant concerns and/or questions regarding cases selected for review. Any concerns and/or
questions raised by the Review Committee will be submitted to the Covered Agencies for relevant
additional information to help the Review Committee complete its reviews. The next meeting of the
Review Committee will be dedicated to Oral Presentations by Covered Agencies and the Review
Committee will vote on its recommendations in the final meeting.
The Executive Session ended at 1:36 p.m.
Office of State Inspector General | PA State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
Page 1 of 9At 1:37 p.m. Special Public Meeting Started and Recording Began
At 1:38 p.m. Call to Order, Roll Call and Opening Announcements/Reminders by
Commission Chairperson (Sha Brown)
Chairperson Brown called the Special Meeting of the Commission’s Bias-Based Policing Review
Committee to order, announced that the meeting was being recorded and participation in the meeting
conferred consent to being recorded. Chairperson Brown conducted a Roll Call and Commissioners
Marvin Boyer [Review Committee Chairperson], Denise Ashe and Suresh Canagarajah were present
remotely and a quorum of the Review Committee was present. Commissioner Marisa Williams was absent
with excuse. The Commission’s Vice Chairperson Beth Pittinger was also present as an advisor. A copy
of the Roll Call and Attendance Form is attached hereto and made a part hereof [see Attachment 1].
At 1:40 p.m. Public Comment Reminder
Chairperson Brown reminded members of the public of the various ways citizens may participate
and offer public comment before and during all meetings of the Commission and the Commission’s
Review Committees to ensure public participation and transparency. For purposes of this Special
Meeting, public comment was limited to three minutes per speaker.
At 1:41 p.m. Motion to Approve Bias-Based Policing Review Committee’s Meeting
Agenda by Unanimous Consent
Chairperson Brown read the Bias-Based Policing Review Committee’s Meeting Agenda aloud into
the record and asked for a motion to approve the Meeting Agenda by unanimous consent. The Motion
was offered and seconded by Review Committee members in attendance. Chairperson Brown asked if
any Review Committee member had any objection(s) to the Meeting Agenda and after hearing no
objections, Chairperson Brown recognized the approval of the Bias-Based Policing Review Committee’s
Meeting Agenda by unanimous consent. A copy of the Bias-Based Policing Review Committee’s August
25, 2021 Special Meeting Agenda, as adopted, is attached hereto, and made a part hereof [see Attachment
2].
At 1:42 p.m. Other Review Committee Administrative Matters
Chairperson Brown outlined administrative procedures for discussion, public comment,
deliberation, and adoption of objectives concerning completed internal investigations currently under
consideration by the Bias-Based Policing Review Committee as follows: (1) a summary of the facts of
each selected incident will be read aloud; (2) the public will be invited to comment on the specific case;
and (3) members of the Review Committee will deliberate to determine objectives for each review and
identify any information that may still be needed to complete each review and outstanding factual
questions in preparation of Oral Presentations by Covered Agencies. Chairperson Brown relinquished
business of the meeting to Review Committee Chairperson Boyer.
Review Committee Chairperson Boyer announced appointment of Commissioner Canagarajah as
the committee’s Acting Secretary for purposes of meeting minutes for this meeting and emphasized that
the committee’s Review Process is designed to be transparent, noting that transparency was fundamental
to the establishment of the Commission.
At 1:42 p.m. Case Review Process Discussion and Deliberation
Office of State Inspector General | PA State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
Page 2 of 9The Review Committee moved to case review process, discussion, and deliberation of matters
currently under consideration. Cases are reviewed to determine if completed internal investigations are
prompt, fair, impartial, complete, consistent with policy, and discipline (if issued) was reasonable.
Chairperson Brown presented a summary of the facts of each case under review.
1) Internal Case Number #21-0006-P [Incident Date is February 4, 2016 involving the Pennsylvania
State Police Barrack Troop G]. Summary of Incident as determined by internal investigation
records is as follows:
On May 4, 2016, the Complainant reported the following – on February 4, 2016, the
Complainant alleged he was pulled over and arrested for unknown charges for being an
African/American male driving a 2015 Infinity. He further alleged that $1,575.00 was
seized from him. According to the Complainant, he was ordered to take two (2) field
sobriety tests then arrested and transported to the hospital for a blood draw to determine if
he had marijuana in his system.
The Complainant was then taken back to the station and fingerprinted and photographed.
The handcuffs were removed, and the Complainant alleged he was warned not to try
anything because the last guy whose handcuffs were removed had to be killed and the
Trooper shot him six (6) times.
The Complainant was allegedly informed that his money was going to be seized and he
stated that they had no right to take his money. The Complainant alleged further he was
threatened that if he mentioned anything about the money or being profiled, he would be
held over the weekend in a jail cell before seeing the judge. The Complainant then was
told to call his wife to pick him up.
A PSP Corporal requested copies of the reports and the Mobile Video Recording (MVR)
on May 9, 2016. The report was linked on May 11, 2016, and the MVR was linked on
May 13, 2016 to the Blue Team record.
On May 16, 2016, the Complainant was notified of the decision from the Pennsylvania
State Police’s (PSP) Bureau of Integrity and Professional Standards that it would not
investigate the allegations. The notification letter stated, in part, “A review of court
documents indicates that the charges against you are currently pending court. The
appropriate remedy for your complaint is through the court system or the appellate court
system. The PSP, Internal Affairs Division, will not take any action based upon your
complaint at this time.”
a) Public comment was invited by the Commission’s Chairperson, but none was received.
b) Discussion and deliberation among Review Committee members followed.
Review Committee Chairperson Boyer said that this case raised many questions. For example,
Review Committee Chairperson Boyer wanted more information on the following questions: (1) why the
Complainant was pulled over in the first place; (2) what the charges were; (3) what caused the alleged
threat to the Complainant by the State Trooper and/or did the Complainant do anything to prompt such
alleged statements by the Trooper; and (4) was the seized money returned.
Both Commissioner Canagarajah and Commissioner Ashe wanted to know what happened to the
underlying criminal case against the Complainant that PSP’s Internal Review Committee cited as the
reason for not conducting an internal investigation of the complaint. Given that the incident occurred on
Office of State Inspector General | PA State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
Page 3 of 92/4/2016 [and the complaint was filed on May 4, 2016], a long time seemed to have passed without a
review.
Commissioner Ashe also had a number of questions, including: (1) what was the reason for search
of the vehicle; (2) is there an inventory record for the confiscated item; (3) if an arrest of the Complainant
was not made, why were the funds seized and/or not immediately returned on site; (4) was the alleged
comment made by the state trooper about shooting someone a fact or merely stated as a threat and/or was
any discipline issued against the Trooper for making such alleged statements; and (5) was the canine unit
involved in the search.
Review Committee Chairperson Boyer added that the committee wanted to see the video of the
underlying interaction [field sobriety test] with the Complainant. Commissioner Canagarajah also wanted
to know more about the relevant policy on when State Troopers can confiscate or seize money from
citizens when they are stopped for a search and the funds are unrelated to any charges filed. Review
Committee Chairperson Boyer also asked if there were any previous complaints filed against said Trooper.
2) Internal Case Number #21-0007-P [Incident Date is November 26, 2016 involving Troop M of
the Pennsylvania State Police]. Summary of Incident as determined by internal investigation
records is as follows:
On November 26, 2016, a citizen reported being harassed on two separate occasions
because he was a black man driving a BMW. The citizen alleged less than one year prior
to his complaint that he was driving with cruise control engaged in the left lane at
approximately 1:30am in the morning when he observed a vehicle approaching from the
rear at a high rate of speed. The vehicle approached to within one (1) car length of the
citizen’s vehicle. The citizen advised the vehicle created a hazard for his safety and he
assumed it was someone trying to make trouble because it was so early in the morning.
The citizen quickly moved to the right lane to avoid the vehicle. The vehicle abruptly
followed and at that time police lights were engaged, and the citizen realized the vehicle
was a police officer.
The Trooper allegedly told the citizen he crossed over the white line and changed lanes
without signaling; however, the citizen disputed the Trooper had the time to observe the
alleged driving behavior. The Trooper gave the citizen a warning notice for what the
citizen described as “harassment”.
The citizen also reported to be again driving in the left lane when he observed a vehicle
rapidly approaching from the rear. When the car was about a car length behind the citizen,
the police lights were engaged. The citizen disputes the Trooper had time to observe any
driving behavior. The citizen quickly pulled to the right side of the road. Upon being
approached, the Trooper advised the citizen, he was “weaving” in the road. The citizen
received a citation for turning or changing lanes without safety and or without signaling.
The citizen expressed concerns the Troopers were creating the traffic offenses using
aggressive driving tactics and then using the minor traffic offense [lane violation] as a
justification for the traffic stop. The citizen believed he was targeted and profiled because
he is black for the purpose of checking his credentials.
On November 30, 2016, the citizen was sent a letter confirming the decision from the
Pennsylvania State Police’s (PSP) Bureau of Integrity and Professional Standards that it
would not investigate the allegations. The notification letter stated, in part, “A review of
Office of State Inspector General | PA State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
Page 4 of 9court documents indicates that the charges against you are currently pending in court. The
appropriate remedy for your complaint is through the court system or the appellate court
system. The PSP, Internal Affairs Division, will not take any action based upon your
complaint at this time.”
a) Public comment was invited by the Commission’s Chairperson, but none was received.
b) Discussion and deliberation among Review Committee members followed.
Review Committee Chairperson Boyer asked whether the same Trooper was involved in both
events mentioned by the Complainant and whether both events happened in the same location or area.
Review Committee Chairperson Boyer also asked if the Trooper had a history of similar complaints and
observed that the internal inquiry was closed after only four days and whether video of either incident was
available. Commissioner Ashe asked for more information on the demographics of the Complainant and
Troopers involved in both incidents and for data (and accompanying demographics) regarding other stops
in the same area. Commissioner Canagarajah agreed with comments and questions of other
Commissioners and wanted more information about the process of internal inquiry, including: (1) whether
an internal inquiry was done; and (2) did Internal Affairs even talk to Troopers before closing internal
investigation.
Chairperson Brown clarified that it seemed an internal investigation might not have happened
because the letter stated there was an ongoing criminal investigation [charges] at the time. Review
Committee Chairperson Boyer and Commissioner Ashe both observed that it was not reasonable that an
internal inquiry about the merits of a bias-based policing complaint was postponed and/or never initiated
because of an underlying criminal case since the complaint itself was unrelated to any actual criminal
charge(s) or citations issued. Both Commissioners added that the issuance of a citation and/or criminal
charges does and should not exclude an internal investigation of alleged bias-based policing and wanted
information about PSP’s policy in this regard [adding that such a policy was not fair or reasonable to a
complainant]. Commissioners Canagarajah and Ashe asked for more information about the nature of the
underlying criminal case (i.e., was it related to the complaint or not, were charges dropped or reduced,
was Complainant found guilty or entered a plea, was the case appealed to an appellate court and/or was
any civil litigation filed) and Commissioner Ashe added that she wanted to know the justification for
running the Complainant’s tags in the first place (especially if an individual’s only offense is that of merely
driving a vehicle).
3) Internal Case Number #21-0008-P [Incident Date was February 23, 2018 and involved personnel
from Troop H of the Pennsylvania State Police]. Summary of Incident as determined by internal
investigation records is as follows:
On February 23, 2018, the citizen alleged two Troopers lacked just cause to follow and
stop her and racially profiled her during the traffic stop. Prior to the traffic stop, the
Troopers followed the citizen’s vehicle for several blocks after the citizen allegedly pulled
into a parking stall from the right lane without using a turn signal.
According to the Pennsylvania State Police’s (PSP) records, the Troopers were assigned to
assist with a saturation patrol in an area described as a “known high crime area”. The
Troopers observed the citizen’s vehicle and began to follow the vehicle while querying the
vehicle’s registration in the CLEAN system. The Troopers confirmed the vehicle was a
rental vehicle. Based on the training and experience of both Troopers, they knew that rental
Office of State Inspector General | PA State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
Page 5 of 9vehicles are used at times to transport illegal drugs and guns. After a few blocks, the
Troopers believed the vehicle was making evasive turns and turned into a parking stall
without signaling.
The Troopers activated their emergency lights and pulled in offset from the vehicle. The
Trooper approached the citizen and asked the citizen was she home to determine the
citizen’s justification for parking in that area. The Trooper asked the citizen about her use
of the rental vehicle and the citizen confirmed she was using the rental because her vehicle
was in the repair shop. The citizen provided the Trooper her license upon request. PSP’s
Internal Investigation determined, “The purpose of the stop was to make a criminal arrest
based on the indicators of possible criminal activity to include the use of a rental vehicle
in a high crime area at night and making what appeared to be evasive turns.” The Troopers
reported to the citizen she was stopped because she failed to use her turn signal when
pulling into the parking spot. The citizen quickly disproved all the Troopers suspicions of
criminal activity. The Trooper indicted the citizen was not who they were looking for that
night, returned her license and ended the traffic stop.
Upon review of the Mobile Video Recording (MVR), it was confirmed the citizen moved
from the travel lane into her parking spot without utilizing a turn signal as required by Title
75 Section 3334(a) - Turning Movements and Required Signals of the Vehicle Code.
Therefore, the Troopers had sufficient probable cause to initiate the traffic stop. Through
interviews with both Troopers, it was confirmed they were not aware of the citizen’s race.
The investigation revealed no evidence to suggest the Troopers were aware the citizen was
African American prior to the traffic stop.
a) Public comment was invited by the Commission’s Chairperson, but none was received.
b) Discussion and deliberation among Review Committee members followed.
Review Committee Chairperson Boyer summarized his preliminary assessment of the internal
investigation of this incident (i.e., five months between date of complaint and completion of investigation,
records indicate probable cause for stop, etc.) and posed the following questions: (1) what did the video
recording reveal about the event; (2) were there previous complaints against the Trooper involved; (3)
Does internal affairs have a history of complaints against Troopers in this particular Troop or barrack; (4)
did the Troopers who were interviewed request union representation; (5) did they submit written
statements?; and (6) was there a citation issued to the citizen.
Commissioner Pittinger clarified that records indicated two administrative warnings were given to
the Trooper involved. However, Commissioner questioned whether the Complainant was made aware
that discipline was taken against the Troopers involved and what was PSP’s policy of informing
complainants of the result(s) of an internal investigation.
At 2:17 p.m. Public Session Paused [Commissioner Ashe had technical difficulties]
At 2:19 p.m. Commissioner Ashe Rejoined Meeting and Public Session Resumed
Commissioner Ashe wanted more information regarding PSP’s use of rental vehicles as
justification for traffic stops. Particularly, Commissioner Ashe indicated that PSP should require another
reason or other justification for Troopers to initiate contact than simply an individual driving a rental
vehicle in a high crime area.
Office of State Inspector General | PA State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
Page 6 of 94) Internal Case Number #21-0009-P [Incident Date was October 25, 2018 and involved personnel
from Troop J of the Pennsylvania State Police]. Summary of Incident as determined by internal
investigation is as follows:
On October 25, 2018, while conducting motor vehicle enforcement, two Troopers utilized
their vehicle’s Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) to conduct a vehicle registration query
through the Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV). The query returned
information that one of the registered owners had a suspended license and an active arrest
warrant. Based on the information and a visual observation of the operator in question, the
Troopers concluded reasonable suspicion was established that there was a violation of the
Vehicle Code, and that the vehicle operator had an active arrest warrant.
A traffic stop was initiated, and it was determined the operator of the vehicle, was not the
individual with the active arrest warrant, and in fact possessed a valid driver’s license. The
Troopers advised the citizen of the mistaken identification, and he was released. The
Trooper was found to be professional during the entire traffic stop, explained the reason
for the traffic stop and apologized several times to the citizen for any inconvenience. The
citizen was shown a photograph of the wanted person during the traffic stop and adamantly
disputes that the wanted man looked like the citizen who filed this complaint, thus
challenging the “reasonable suspicion” for the traffic stop.
a) Public comment was invited by the Commission’s Chairperson, but none was received.
b) Discussion and deliberation among Review Committee members followed.
Review Committee Chairperson Boyer summarized his preliminary assessment of the internal
investigation of this incident (i.e., four months between date of complaint and completion of investigation)
and asked: (1) to view the video recording of the incident; (2) was there a previous history of complaints
filed against this particular Trooper concerning such stops; (3) was there a pattern of biased-based
incidents [regardless of investigation outcome] involving this Trooper, and were there any other internal
investigations relating to the Trooper; and (4) whether there were any conflicts of interest between
investigators and Troopers involved.
Given the length of the internal investigation, Commissioner Ashe wanted to know why it took so
long to complete the internal investigation since tasks should have been limited. Commissioner
Canagarajah wanted to know more on what the citizen complained about [requested copy of actual
complaint], and what was Complainant’s response to the results of the internal investigation.
Commissioner Pittinger pointed out that one of the Troopers was involved in field training (being
trained by another Trooper on how to use equipment and conduct surveillance) at the time of the incident.
Commissioner Pittinger advised that the Review Committee should seek information about the length of
training, field experience and service of the supervising Trooper, how long the trainee Trooper was
involved in field training at the time of the incident, and whether there were any prior bias-based policing
complaints filed against the supervising Trooper.
5) Internal Case Number #21-00010-P [Incident Date was January 14, 2019 and involved personnel
from Troop F of the Pennsylvania State Police]. Summary of Incident as determined by internal
investigation records is as follows:
Office of State Inspector General | PA State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
Page 7 of 9On January 14, 2019, at approximately 1226 hours, Troopers conducted a traffic stop of a
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee for following too close and illegal window tint. A probable
cause search of the vehicle was conducted after a police canine alerted to the presence of
illegal drugs in the vehicle during an exterior sniff.
During the traffic stop and subsequent search, the two citizens occupying the vehicle were
described as argumentative and refused positional movement requests and pat downs by
the Troopers. While outside the citizen’s vehicle, a Trooper moved the citizen while going
chest to chest and walking him backward to make room for the canine.
The search did not reveal any contraband and both citizens were released after being issued
a warning.
a) Public comment was invited by the Commission’s Chairperson, but none was received.
b) Discussion and deliberation among Review Committee members followed.
Review Committee Chairperson Boyer summarized his preliminary assessment of the internal
investigation of this incident (i.e., five months between date of complaint and completion of investigation)
and asked: (1) if there were any previous complaints of bias filed against these Troopers; and (2) were
there written statements submitted by the Troopers and did they request union representation.
Commissioner Ashe questioned why there was a request made for an exterior vehicle search by
the K9 unit, how a traffic stop and license check necessitated the need to initiate a search of the vehicle
and occupants [need probable cause to search vehicle – was a search warrant obtained at the scene to
conduct canine search, what information was provided to establish probable cause (.e., were drugs seen
on plain sight) and/or was consent to search given by driver] and what was the outcome after the traffic
stop. Review Committee Chairperson Boyer also asked for copies of relevant policies (standards) that
predicate a search of this nature and Commissioner Ashe added that she wanted copies of policies
concerning warrantless searches. Commissioner Canagarajah wanted to know more about policies
concerning initiating traffic stops on mere suspicion (i.e., engaging in otherwise legal conduct like driving
a rental vehicle) and use of “criminal indicators” [most of which is otherwise legal conduct] versus
initiating traffic stops and subsequent searches based on probable cause. Given today’s climate and the
need for people to feel respected, Commissioner Ashe suggested that there may be a need for more training
to at least end interactions on a professional note after an unjustified or wrongful stop so that better
relations are built between law enforcement and citizens. Commissioner Boyer asked whether a field
sobriety test was given during this stop.
Commissioner Pittinger suggested that it appeared (based on information that may have been
contained in the Blue Team Incident Report) that the Trooper had some familiarity with this male driver
which maybe instrumental to understanding the Troopers actions. With Commissioner Ashe concurring,
Commissioner Pittinger wanted to know the following: (1) what was Trooper’s knowledge of this
individual; (2) was that prior knowledge used as justification to conduct [what appears to be] a warrantless
search of the driver’s vehicle and/or canine search; (3) whether the Trooper arrested driver before; and (4)
was driver targeted based on any prior conduct and why this particular male was stopped at this time.
Commissioner Pittinger also wanted to know whether it was that prior history which occasioned the calling
of the K9 unit to the scene.
Office of State Inspector General | PA State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
Page 8 of 9At 2:42 p.m. Case Review Process Discussion and Deliberation Closed
With no additional cases currently under review, Review Committee Chairperson Boyer closed
the case review and deferred to Commission Chairperson Brown. Chairperson Brown reported that he
would relay all requests for additional information to Covered Agencies in preparation of Oral
Presentations.
At 2:43 p.m. Announcements by Commission Chairperson
Chairperson Brown provided closing remarks and informed the public about how to file complaints
using the Commission’s hotline, access the Commission’s webpage, and contact the OSIG and BLEO for
assistance. Chairperson Brown also reminded members of the public of the dates of the next meetings of
this Review Committee as scheduled for September 8th and 22nd.
At 2:48 p.m. Special Meeting of Bias-Based Policing Review Committee Adjourned
Office of State Inspector General | PA State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
Page 9 of 9ATTACHMENT 1
pennsylvania
OFFICE OF STATE
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Roll Call and Attendance Form
Type of Commission Meeting: Quarterly Special Rescheduled
Date and Time of CommissionMeeting:
Pursuant to Article 6, Sections 2 and 5 of the Pennsylvania State Law Enforcement
Citizen Advisory Commission's (Commission)Bylaws, I hereby attest to performing a Roll
Call of Commission Membership at the above listed Commission meeting and recording
attendance of Commission members as indicated below:
Attendance
Seat Name Name of Commission Member Excused
Present Absence Absent
At-Lar e Seat 1 David A. Sonenshein
At-Lar e Seat 2 Dr. A. Suresh Cana ara•ah, Ph.D.
At-Lar e Seat 3 Kelle B. Hod e, Es uire
At-Lar e Seat 4 Denise Ashe
At-Lar e Seat 5 Elizabeth C. Pittin er
At-Lar e Seat 6 Maurice A. Tomlinson
Troo A Seat Jeffre Wilson
Troo B Seat BrendaTate
Troo C Seat Joshua S. Maines, Es uire
Troo D Seat Marisa C. Williams
Troo E Seat Bisho Curtis L. Jones, Sr.
Troo F Seat Honorable Erick J. Coolid e
Troo G Seat Charima C. Youn
Troo H Seat S T. La as, J.D., Ph.D
Troo J Seat Honorable Khadi•ah Al Amin
Troo K Seat Andrea A. Lawful-Sanders
Troo L Seat William Colon
Troo M Seat Marvin Bo er
Troo N Seat Maril n M. Brown, Ed.D.
Troo P Seat Rev. Shawn M. Walker
Troo R Seat Krista Somers
Signature of Sha S. Brown,
CommissionChairperson
Office of State Inspector General I State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8thFloor. Forum Place I Harrisburg, PA 17101 |Ph: 717-772-4935 |www.osig.pa.gov
OSIG 430- 1/21ATTACHMENT 2
PENNSYLVANIA STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
BIAS-BASED POLICING REVIEW COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
The Pennsylvania State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission (Commission),
established by Executive Order 2020-04 (as amended by Governor Tom Wolf on April 30, 2021)
announces a Special Meeting of the Commission’s Bias-Based Policing Review Committee (Review
Committee) to be held virtually (pursuant to House Bill No. 854 which allows for continuation of virtual
meetings until September 30, 2021) via the Commission’s information technology platform (Microsoft
Teams) on Wednesday, September 8, 2021, at 9:00am (Executive Session) and at 10:00am [Public
Session).
In accordance with 65 Pa.C.S. § 709(b) and Article 6, Section 2 of the Commission’s Bylaws, the
Review Committee’s Meeting Agenda consists of the following items:
(1) Executive Session [closed to the public – Oral Presentations of completed internal
investigations by Covered Agencies selected for review and other administrative matters];
(2) Call to Order and Roll Call [expected to begin at approximately 10:00am];
(3) Acceptance of Meeting Agenda;
(4) Approval and adoption of previous Special Meeting Minutes from August 25, 2021;
(5) Approval of administrative and/or other procedural matters;
(6) Report of the Bias-Based Policing Review Committee’s Chairperson [State of the Bias-
Based Policing Review Committee];
(7) Opportunity for public comment; and
(8) Discussion and deliberation regarding (i) adequacy and substance of Oral Presentations
and comprehensive written summaries provided by Covered Agencies for selected
investigatory reviews currently under consideration; (ii) adequacy of policies, procedures,
regulations, practices and/or training applicable to each of the investigatory reviews
currently under consideration; and (iii) identification of additional information (if any)
needed from Covered Agencies to complete each review.
Individuals having questions regarding this Special Meeting of the Commission’s Bias-Based
Policing Review Committee, which is open to the public, should contact the Bureau of Law Enforcement
Oversight within the Pennsylvania Office State Inspector General (OSIG) at (717) 787-6835. Media
inquiries may be directed to the OSIG’s Deputy State Inspector General for External Affairs Jonathan
Hendrickson at (717) 265-8396.
Sha S. Brown, Chairperson
Pennsylvania State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory
Commission
Office of State Inspector General | State Law Enforcement Citizen Advisory Commission
555 Walnut Street, 8th Floor, Forum Place | Harrisburg, PA 17101 | Ph: 717-772-4935 | www.osig.pa.gov
OSIG 424 – 1/21You can also read
