HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1997 Public ReportsPUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Re: Investigation of Complaint PCRB97-1
This is the Report of the Police Citizen's Review Board's review of the investigation of
Complaint PCRB97-1.
THE BOARD'S PROCEDURE
On August 7, 1997, this Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk. Pursuant
to Ordinance 97-3792 (the "Ordinance"), § 8-8-5, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief
for investigation. The Police Chief prepared a Report to the Board (the "Chiefs Report") which
was completed and submitted on September 8, 1997. The Board, then newly constituted,
received the Report on October 2, 1997. On October 8, 1997, the Board voted to review the
complaint in accordance with Ordinance §8-8-7(B)(1)(e). The Board requested an extension of
time from the City Council to consider the Report on October 3, 1997, and requested additional
information from the Police Chief on October 8, 1997. The additional information requested was
received on October 9, 1997. The Board met on October 8 and 10, 1997 to consider the Report.
THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under Ordinance § 8-8-7(B), the Board's job is to review the Chefs Report of the
investigation of the Complaint. The Ordinance requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis"
standard of review to the Chiefs Report, and to "give deference to the...Report because of the
Police Chiefs ...professional expertise." Ordinance § 8-8-7(B)(2).
2
While the ordinance directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that we
recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are
"unsupported by substantial evidence," if they are "unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious," or if
they are "contrary to a Police Deparmaent policy or practice, or any Federal, State, or local law."
Ordinance §8-8-7(B)(2)(a), (b), (c). Accordingly, our job is not to re-decide the factual issues
raised by the Complaint, but to review the f'mdings in the Chiet~s Report, conduct whatever
additional investigation we think necessary, and determine whether those findings comply with
the requirements of the ordinance.
Our report does not include the names of the complainant, the officers, or any other
persons involved.
F T
This complaint arose out of the arrest of an individual (whom we shall refer to as "the
individual") on Friday, August 1, at about 9:20 p.m., on Clinton Street south of Burlington.
The individual, a young man, was approached by two police officers on the Pedestrian
Mall. The individual was making lewd, sexual comments to passers-by and officers. When
approached by the officers, the individual ran away. The officer communicated over the police
radio that the individual was being chased on foot. The radio communication did not advise
other officers as to the nature of the individual's suspected offense.
Within 43 seconds, another officer (whom we shall refer to as the arresting officer)
received the transmission, and used his squad car to block the path of the individual along
Clinton Street. The arresting officer ordered the individual, who had slowed to a walk, to get up
3
against the wall. The individual put his hands in the air and faced the wall, which was the comer
of the old Goodyear building on Clinton Street. The arresting officer pushed the individual into
the wall. He then took the individual to the ground, where he was handcuffed. The individual
had some superficial abrasions as a result; no serious injury is claimed. The individual
ultimately pled guilty to a charge of public intoxication and a charge of obstructing an officer
arising out of this incident.
The Complaint was filed by a witness to the arrest of the individual. The Complainant
asserted that excessive force was used in arresting the individual.
There is disagreement about the facts in two areas.
The first disputed issue is whether the individual in question was still resisting or
attempting to flee the officers at the time the arresting officer encountered him. There is no
question that he fled the officer on the Pedestrian Mall. There is, however, some difference of
opinion as to whether he had completely stopped trying to get away when the arresting officer
pulled up in his car. The individual says he had stopped and put his hands on the wall; the
arresting officer says that the individual was still moving at an angle towards the comer of the
building and the officer was not sure whether the individual was going to try and mn away. The
views of other witnesses to the incident are somewhat divided on these issues. The chiefs
Report concluded that the individual had not clearly stopped his flight at the time he was
arrested. That conclusion is consistent with the statements of a number of the witnesses, is
supported by substantial evidence, and does not appear unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
The second disputed issue is how much force the arresting officer used in pushing the
individual into the wall or to the ground. There was some disagreement among the witnesses
4
about whether pushing the individual into the wall or taking him to the ground was done in a
controlled or uncontrolled manner. The Chief's Report concluded that the force used was
controlled and that the individual was not forcefully thrown into the wall or onto the ground.
That conclusion is consistent with the reports of a number of the witnesses and with the
comparatively minimal injuries suffered by the individual, is supported by substantial evidence
and does not appear unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
On the night of the incident, the complainant went to the Iowa City Police Department to
complain to the sergeant in charge. The sergeant was defensive and became emotional, asked the
complainant if he was in law enforcement, and tried to get the complainant to see the matter from
the officer's side.
The Complaint was referred to the Police Chief, who ordered an investigation of the
complaint. The investigator interviewed sixteen witnesses, including the complainant, the
individual involved, the arresting officer, and the sergeant, as well as a number of passersby who
observed the incident and several police officers.
The Chief's Report treated this complaint as setting forth two allegations and we will do
the same.
&ll.e, gtlig.~: use of excessive force
The critical issue is whether the individual was still attempting to flee the officer at the
time he was arrested. This matters because under the Iowa City Police Department policy on use
of force, the degree of force that may be used in arresting a person is related to the degree of
5
resistance by that person. Where a person subject to arrest is actively resisting arrest, the policy
permits the use of compliance techniques, which may, where reasonable and necessary, include
taking a suspect to the ground to control him in order to take him into custody.
The Chiefs Report's findings on the two critical questions here are supported by
substantial evidence and we must defer to them. Those findings indicate that the individual was
still moving at the time the arresting officer stopped him and that the arresting officer believed
that he might continue to flee even though he had his hands in the air, and that as a consequence
the officer took the individual to the ground in a controlled manner. In addition, the
accompanying circumstances were relevant. There was an avenue of potential escape only a few
feet away from the point where the individual was stopped. The arresting officer did not know
what offense the individual was suspected of having committed. He did, however, know that
other officers were pursuing the individual, and that he had tried to flee before and looked as
though he might try again. Under the existing use of force policies of the Iowa City Police
Department, taking an actively resisting suspect to the ground, in a controlled and limited
manner, to place the individual under arrest, was consistent with applicable policy. Accordingly,
the first allegation of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
/MI.~9.I~: inappropriate response to a citizen complaint
The sergeant in question was defensive in response to the complaint, became emotional
and argumentative and tried to present the officer's side of the story to the complainant. This
defensive response was inappropriate. Nobody likes criticism, but, hard as it may be, the
department must learn to accept input--negative as well as positive-from the community.
6
Informal interactions such as these give the department the chance to understand the
community's view of its conduct. Moreover, these occasions present a meaningful opportunity to
demonstrate openness to community concerns. Trying to talk complainants out of their views or
treating them in an aggressive and challenging manner may lead to perceptions that police
officers are rigid, defensive, or unwilling to hear other sides of a story. The second allegation of
the complaint is SUSTAINED.
When we address a complaint, we must consider it in light of the policies that were in
force at the time the actions in question took place. Any other approach would not be fair; police
officers, like anyone else, should be able to stay out of trouble by relying on the rules, and a
critical element of justice is that people know what is expected of them. The arresting officer
acted consistently with the policies in effect at the time of this incident. At the same time, the
policies underlying this complaint may be worthy of review. The policies or practices of the
department regarding arrest of intoxicated individuals, the charging of obstruction of justice for
those who attempt to flee arresting officers, and the policy on use of force, which, as we
understand it, considers only the resistance of the suspect, and not the severity of the underlying
offense, in determining the degree of force appropriate in apprehending a suspect, are all worthy
of further public discussion.
We note that the Chiet's Report expresses the intention, first, to include as part of routine
training the recommendation that officers need whenever possible to inform other officers of the
cause of a particular pursuit, and second, to train supervisors and others dealing directly with the
7
public in the appropriate objective manner to take complaints bom the public. We urge that
these highly appropriate additions to training not be delayed, but be made with all possible speed.
Dated: November 6, 1997