HomeMy WebLinkAbout22-11 & 22-12COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
May 9, 2023
MAY 1 ® 2023
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaints 22-11 & 22-12
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaints CPRB 22-11 & 22-12 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY:
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. 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 Chief's 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 Chief's 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 Complaints were initiated by the Complainants on November 15, 2022. As required by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaints were referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on February 10, 2022. As per Section 8-8-6(D) of the
City Code, the Complainants were given the opportunity to respond to the Chief's report. The
complainants did not respond.
The Board voted on March 14, 2023, to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: Request
additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's
own investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(d).
The Board voted on April 12, 2023, to apply the following Level of Review to the Chief's Report: On the
record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(a).
The Board met to consider the Report on March 14, 2023, and April 11, 2023, and May 9, 2023.
Prior to the March 14, 2023 meeting, the Board had the opportunity to review the complaints, the Police
Chief's report, and to watch and listen to body worn camera and/or in -car camera footage showing the
interaction between the officers and the complainants.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
On 7/28/2022, officers were investigating a report of a stolen electric bike. The victim had a GPS
tracker on the bike, which was followed by officers, and indicated the bicycle was located to an
apartment inside 636 S. Dodge St. Officer A knocked on the door of the apartment and did not receive
an answer. After a discussion with other officers regarding obtaining a search warrant, Officer A then
turned the knob on the apartment door to indicate on the search warrant whether the door was
unlocked. When Officer A turned the knob, the door opened, and the Complainant was standing at the
door. The Complainant yelled and used profanities toward Officer A and tried to close the door. Officer
A put his foot in the door to prevent it from being closed, and at that point was able to see the stolen
bike in the living room. Both Complainants continued yelling at Officer A to close the door. Officer A
remained in the doorway and after difficulty in communicating with the Complainants due to the volume
of the yelling, advised both Complainants they could be arrested for obstruction. The male complainant
returned the bike to Officer A, who remained in the doorway. The female complainant requested to
speak with a supervisor, who was not immediately available. Officer B explained this to the
Complainant, who continued to request a supervisor. Supervisor A eventually arrived, and having
previous knowledge of an outstanding issue with the landlord, discussed this with the Complainant.
Officer A left without arresting the Complainants for the stolen bicycle, and later obtained an arrest
warrant at the request of the victim, who wished to pursue charges.
The additional incidents the Complainants referred to occurred on 11/14/2022 and 11/15/2022. Iowa .
City Police Department Investigators, assisted by additional ICPD officers served a search warrant on a
MAY 1 0 2023
storage unit associated with the Complainants related to an investigation of several burglaries.
Investigators were talking with the male Complainant, and other officers spoke with the female
Complainant. The Complainants were both arrested on charges unrelated to the investigation. The
following day, both Complainants went to the police department requesting their property that was
seized in the search warrant be returned to them. Multiple investigators and officers were present and
after attempting to explain to explain why the property could not be returned at that time, the
Complainants were asked to leave.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #1 — Violation of General Order Search & Seizure.
Chief's conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion
Officer A had observed evidence of a crime and admitted to turning the doorknob to determine if the
door was unlocked, but stated he did not open the door. Body camera footage was reviewed and was
inconclusive as to whether the door opened on its own, was pushed open by Officer A, or was pulled
open by the Complainant. The male Complainant turned over the evidence before a search warrant
was obtained. No violation of ICPD policy and procedure was determined.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #2 — Violation of ICPD Policy Standards of Conduct - An
officer was rude.
Chief's conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion
In reviewing the Chief's report, and video evidence, there is no information to support the allegation that
any officer or investigator was discourteous, disrespectful of discriminatory toward the Complainants,
on November 15th or 16th, 2022.
COMMENTS:
The findings of this investigation reveal a troubling disregard for best practices and professional
conduct by the officer who turned the doorknob. While it may be technically true that no policy was
violated, it is clear that the decision to do so was unnecessary. As law enforcement officials, officers are
expected to uphold the highest standards of professionalism and adhere to best practices at all times.
This includes waiting for a warrant to breach a property when there is no exception to the warrant
requirement.
While the other officer on the scene may not have acted inappropriately themselves, it is every officer's
responsibility to ensure that best practices are being followed and that professional conduct, including
using appropriate language, is maintained at all times. It is imperative that law enforcement -agencies
hold their officers accountable for their actions and provide ongoing assurance that all officers are
equipped with the skills and knowledge necessary to effectively communicate with members of the
MAY 1 0 2023
public and avoid such unnecessary escalations. It is critical that they always strive to deescalate
scenarios and avoid the use of force.
In conclusion, the actions of the officer in this investigation fell short of the high standards of
professionalism and best practices expected of our law enforcement officials, who should always act in
the best interest of public safety and uphold the values of the communities they serve.
MAY 1 0 2023