HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-29-1998 Public ReportsPCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CiTY COUNCIL
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the ~Board')
review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB 98-15 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the
Board's jbb is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report') of his
investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a
"reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference"
to the Report" because of the Police Chief's...professional expertise."
Section 8-8-7 B(2). While the City Code directs the Board to make 'findings
of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by
substantial evidence," are 'unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are
"contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or
local law." Sections 8-8-7B(2)a, b, and c.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
On July 27, 1998, this Complaint was received at the Office of the
City Clerk. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint
was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief completed his
Report and submitted it to the Board on August 26, 1998. The Board voted
to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7 B.1 (a), which
means that it chose to review the matter on the record before it without
additional investigation by the Board. The Board met on September 1, 8, 15
and 22, 1998, to consider the Report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Four police officers arrived at the complainant's residence to serve an
arrest warrant on the complainant's son. Two officers, Officer 670916 and
Officer 950829, went to the front entrance of the residence and two
officers, Officer 891023 and Officer 970106, went as directed to the rear
entrance. The complainant informed Officer 670916 that his son was very
upset about returning to jail and was in the kitchen with two knives
threatening to kill himself. The complainant agreed to take Office 670916
to his son. When Officer 891023 and Officer 970106 entered the rear
door, the complainant and the complainant's wife became more upset and
fearful for their son's safety. At some point the son cut his hands with the
knives and was b~eeding. Officer 670916 directed the complainant to
remain on the back porch with Officers 891023 and 970106. The
complainant attempted to re-enter the house but was barred from doing so
by Officer 891023. The complainant stated that he needed to re-enter the
house because it was time to take his medication, but was told he could not
go into the kitchen. Eventually the complainant returned to the house and
assisted Officer 670916 in persuading his son to surrender. At some point
the complainant took his medication.
As a result, the complainant made the following allegations against
Officer 891023 and/or 970106.
Allegation 1: The complainant was treated improperly and rudely by
the officers.
Allegation 2: The complainant was not allowed to take his
medication.
Allegation 3: The court and police erred by not informing his son of
the outstanding warrant when he was in court that morning. (This
allegation was not part of the original complaint, but was made during the
course of the investigation.)
The investigation by the Chief included interviews with the
complainant and the four officers, and a review of the arrest warrant.
CONCLUSIONS
Allegation 1: Improper and rude treatment. The officers attempting
to serve the arrest warrant on the complainant's son were faced with a
highly volatile situation. The complainant and his wife were visibly and
audibly upset. The son was threatening to kill himself and, in fact, had cut
his hands. The officers acted to de-escalate the situation. The Board finds
that the conclusion in the Report, that the officers did not act improperly or
rudely, is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, Allegation 1 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2: Not a!lowed to take medication. Officers stated that
the complainant was not prevented from taking his medication, but was
barred from obtaining the medication by going through the kitchen. The
Board finds that the conclusion in the Report regarding Allegation 2, that the
complainant was not prohibited from taking his medication, is supported by
substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
Accordingly, allegation 2 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3: Not informed of the outstanding wa.rra~nt. The
investigation does not address the question of why the complainant's son
was not informed of the warrant when he was in court that morning.
However, the Board finds that the conclusion in the Report regarding
Allegation 3, that the warrant was valid and the officers were assigned to
serve it, is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, Allegation 3 is NOT SUSTAINED.
DATED: September 23, 1998