HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11&12-1999 Public ReportsPCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the "Board")
review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB 98-18 (the 'Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the
Board's job 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 8(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 8-8-78(2)a, b, and c.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
On October 30, 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. On November
23, 1998, the Chief requested, and the Board agreed to, an extension for
submission of his report to December 11, 1998The Chief submitted his
Report on December 1, 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 December 15, and 22, 1998, and on January 5,
1999, to consider the Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In October 1998, at 2:30 A,M., Officer #1 saw a vehicle attempt to
pull over a curb into a yard, illegally park over the sidewalk, and damage a
city-owned parking area. Officer #1 requested backup and Officer #2
arrived on the scene within a few minutes of the call. Officer #1
approached the vehicle, in which a male driver and three passengers (two
males, one female) were seated. When Officer #2 arrived, the driver, the
three passengers, and the complainant were standing in the front yard of a
residence. The complainant had come out of a house where he resides, and
where a birthday party was being held. One of the passengers was his
roommate.
Officer #1 began to conduct field sobriety tests on the driver. At
Officer #1's request, Officer #2 asked the passengers for identification and
they complied. He also asked the complainant for identification. The
complainant questioned why this was necessary, stating that he had not
been a passenger in the car. The roommate and the female passenger
confirmed this to Officer #2, who then moved to a position to observe the
sobriety tests being administered to the driver.
Officer #1 arrested the driver for operating while intoxicated. The
complainant questioned why the driver was being arrested since, in his
opinion, the driver had "done well" on the field sobriety tests. The officers
reported that the complainant refused to leave the area when requested to
do so, used abusive language, swore, and called the officers names. Officer
#2 then asked the complainant to take a breath test. The complainant
refused, offering to take a blood test instead. After further observing the
complainant's demeanor and appearance, and detecting an odor of alcohol,
Officer #2 placed him under arrest for public intoxication. The
complainant's arrest, transportation to the jail, and processing at the jail
were completed without incident.
The Chief's Report indicates that the following people were
interviewed during the investigation of this Complaint: the complainant, the
officers, and a witness to the events who is acquainted with the
complainant.
CONCLUSIONS
Allegation 1. The complainant was arrested for public intoxication in
his own yard on private~ not public~ property. Because the complainant was
in the front yard of his residence, it was reasonable to conclude that he
was, at the time of his arrest, subject to Iowa law prohibiting public
intoxication. The Chief's conclusion that the arrest was made in accordance
with the law is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation I is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2. The complainant was asked to leave the area only
on. cer not three times~ as claimed in his citation. When interviewed by the
investigator, the complainant agreed that the officers asked him to leave the
area at least once and that he may not have heard any subsequent requests
that he move away. He did not comply with the request, stating that he
lived at the address where the incident took place. The Chief's conclusion
that the complainant acknowledged hearing at least one request that he
move away from the area and that the actual number of requests the
officers made and/or the complainant heard is irrelevant is supported by
substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
Accordingly, allegation 2 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3. The complainant said his contact with Officer #2, who
arrested him, was limited. The complainant said that he spoke to Officer #2
only when asked for identification, when asked to take a breath test, when
the driver of the vehicle was arrested, and when he himself was arrested.
4
The Chief's conclusion that the officer used this contact time to evaluate
the complainant's state of intoxication, and that there is no standard
amount of contact time required to formulate an opinion about intoxication,
is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. Accordingly, allegation 3 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 4. The complainant expressed disagreement with the
officer's reporting of the facts of the incident and the reasons for his arrest,
as included in the citation. Specificall¥~ he does not believe he was
intoxicated when he was arrested. The Chief's Report refers to the
statements of a witness to the incident who is acquainted with the
complainant. The witness said he saw the complainant drinking on the
evening/morning of the incident, first at a bar downtown and then at the
birthday party. The Report notes that others on the scene tried
unsuccessfully to persuade the complainant to go back inside the house.
Both officers stated that the complainant was agitated and verbally abusive,
swearing and calling them names. The Chief's conclusion that "under the
evidence presented, the officer's exercise of discretion to charge the
complainant with public intoxication was not unreasonable" is supported by
substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
Accordingly, allegation 4 is NOT SUSTAINED.
DATED: January 5, 1999
PCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the "Board")
review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB 98-20 (the 'Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the
Board's job 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 theBoard 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 November 19, 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 of
Police submitted his Report on December 18, 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 December 22,
1998, and January 5, 1999, to consider the Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In November 1998, at approximately 7:45 P.M., when the
complainant was leaving a local restaurant, he told the restaurant employee
who inquired about "how everything was" that he was dissatisfied with
both the service and the ventilation. He later admitted that he was, at the
time, upset. In response to his complaint, the restaurant reduced the
amount of his bill by one half. While at the restaurant, the complainant had
consumed two beers, one tall and one short.
Still upset, the complainant drove home to drop off one of his
passengers (his oldest child). He then left home again, with his two
younger children in the car, At 8:08 P.M., about a block from the
complainant's home, Officer #1 stopped him. He informed the complainant
that he was doing so in response to a call from the restaurant about his
conduct there and while driving away, and about his possible intoxication.
The officer asked the complainant to step out of the car and then attempted
to perform a horizontal gaze nystagmus test to assess the complainant's
sobriety. The officer reported that he was not able to obtain usable results
because the complainant did not follow his directions correctly. (The
complainant later stated that Officer #2 had by then arrived on the scene as
backup and commented to the complainant that he had passed the
nystagmus test.) Officer #1 then asked the complainant to perform a
preliminary breath test. The result was .056, under the .10 presumptive
level of intoxication for OWl. Officer #1 then permitted the complainant to
drive off.
The Chief's Report indicates that the following people were
interviewed during the investigation of this complaint: the complainant,
Officer #1, and restaurant staff.
CONCLUSIONS
Allegation 1. The complainant was unreasonably searched out and
stopped. Officer #1 stopped the complainant in response to a report from
the restaurant that he was upset, possibly intoxicated, and had driven away
from the restaurant at a high rate of speed, it was appropriate for the
officer to pursue this matter. When interviewed, the complainant stated
that his real complaint was with the restaurant. He also confirmed that
during the course of the stop, the officers were courteous and professional
in their dealings with him. He noted that he wished the complaint would
end with the investigation. He said he intended to further discuss his
dissatisfactions directly with the restaurant. The Chief's conclusion that
Officer #1 followed proper procedures upon receiving a complaint of a
reckless and possibly intoxicated driver and followed it up to a resonable
conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 1 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2. The complainant was unnecessarily given an alcohol
breath test. The complainant admits that he had two beers while at the
restaurant. Officer #1 detected an odor of alcohol on the complainant's
breath when he stopped him. Reporting difficulty in obtaining usable results
with the nystagmus test, Officer #1 then administered a breath test, which
the driver passed. The Chief's conclusion that, as a result of the report
made by the restaurant and in light of Officer #1's subsequent observation
of the driver, it was reasonable and proper to administer a breath-alcohol
test is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary,
or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 2 is NOT SUSTAINED.
DATED: January 5, 1999