Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout22-06COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 September 13, 2022 To: City Council Complainant ---j C-: City Managers Chief of Police o= . Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Community Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint # 22 - 06 This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB # 22 - 06 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY: Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(2)).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state, or local law. 5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3)).) 6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE: The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on April 7, 2022. As required by Section 8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on June 1, 2022. As per Section 8-8-6(D) of the City Code, the Complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the Chief's report. The Board voted on July 12, 2022 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: on the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(1)(a). The Board met to consider the Report on July 12, 2022, August 16, 2022, and September 13, 2022. Prior to the July 12, 2022 meeting, the Board had the opportunity to review the complaint and the Police Chiefs report, and to watch and listen to body worn camera and/or in -car camera footage showing the interaction between the officers and complainant. FINDINGS OF FACT: Complainant called police about a verbal altercation between him and employees at Hy Vee. He felt he had a dissatisfactory engagement with employees. Police were dispatched. The underlying basis for the altercation between the complainant and the store employees was unclear. When police arrived, complainant was unhappy with treatment of the complaint and how the police officers treated the complainant. These are the things that the complainant felt were not done according to procedure. ALLEGATION 1 — Neglect of Duty — Violation of ICPD Rules and Regs 315 Duty Responsibilities — Officers shall respond to requests for police assistance from members of the public. r_a Chief's Conclusion — Not Sustained 1 Board's Conclusion — Not Sustained Basis for Board's Conclusion — The complainant alleged the officers involved were somehow neglectful in their duties in dealing with complainant's situation. "Both officers listened p6�ntly to the Complainant voice his complaints about a private business, Hy-Vee. However, the officers determined that the employees did not assault or harass the Complainant, so there was no criminal act for the officers to investigate. One officer tried to explain that the situation was not a police matter, and would be best handled by filing a complaint with Hy-Vee management. The other officer told the Complainant the officer did not know how the officers could help the Complainant, and asked how they could help. The officers were called to the scene by Hy-Vee management — not by the Complainant. There is nothing to support the Complainant's allegations that the officers did not respond to a request for police assistance. After reviewing body cam footage, the Board felt there was no basis to the allegation. ALLEGATION 2 — Officer's business cards were not provided — Violation of ICPD Rules and Regs Rule 335.10 Department Business Cards — A personalized card may be used by officers. Chief's Conclusion — Not Sustained Board's Conclusion — Not Sustained Basis for Board's Conclusion - The complainant alleged the officers involved did not have business cards with them. According to rule 335.10, Officers are not required to have business cards on hand, but it is considered the best practice. One of the officers did give their badge numbers and names to the complainant. Therefore, the Board felt there was no basis to the allegation. ALLEGATION 3 — Discourtesy — Violation of ICPD Rules and Regs 320.04 Courtesy — Members shall be courteous and orderly in their dealings with the public. Chief's Conclusion — Not Sustained Board's Conclusion — Not Sustained Basis for Board's Conclusion - The complainant alleged the officers involved were discourteous in the execution of their duty. Both officers were patient, professional and compassionate to the complainant. Both officers behaved courteously and were clearly interested in the complainant's well- being. The officers offered advice to the complainant on how to remedy the matter to his satisfaction. After reviewing body cam footage, the Board felt there was no basis to the allegation. COMMENTS: The Board agrees that carrying of business cards is best practice.