Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-1998 Public ReportsPCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB97-4. BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under Ordinance § 8-8-7(B), the Board's job is to review the Chief's Report of the investigation of the complaint. The Ordinance requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Chief's Report, and to "give deference to the...Report because of the Police Chief's ...professional expertise." Ordinance § 8-8-7(B)(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 Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State, or local law." Ordinance §8-8-7(B)(2)(a), (b), (c). BOARD'S PROCEDURE On November 17, 1997, this Complaint was received at thc 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 "Chief's Report") which was completed and submitted on December 17, 1997. The Board voted to review thc Complaint in accordance with Ordinance §8-8-7(B)(1)(c). The Board met on December 23, 1997; January 7, 8, 23, 29, 1998; and February 5, 9, 1998 to consider the Chief's Report. IN F T This Complaint arises out of a situation that also gave rise to Complaint 97-6. In November 1997, the complainant's son was arrested and brought to the Johnson County Jail. The complainant alleges that while she was waiting with her daughter-in-law for her son to be released on bail, the officer who is the subject of this Complaint videotaped the complainant while she was waiting and again as she was leaving in her car. All witnesses agree 2 that some videotaping took place. The complainant claims that this videotaping violated her civil rights, that it was done in an attempt to harass and intimidate her and her family, and that it was done to incite her son. The Complaint was referred to the Police Chief, who ordered an investigation of the Complaint. The investigator interviewed several witnesses, including the officer who did the videotaping, another officer present at the time, the Johnson County deputies present at the time, and the jail control operator. The complainant's son was also interviewed. The Board, in addition to reviewing the Chief's Report, has reviewed the videotape. The Board also received letters on January 14, 1998 and January 27, 1998 from complainant regarding her complaint. The Chief's Report concluded that the videotape was prepared because, based on pr/or experience with the complainant's son, the officer was concerned that allegations of misconduct were likely to be made against him after the arrest, and the officer wanted to document the circumstances of the arrest. The Report concluded that the purpose of videotaping the complainant briefly was to note that she was not traumatized, not to harass or upset her or to incite her son. This conclusion is consistent with the contents of the videotape viewed by the Board, is supported by substantial evidence, and is not arbitrary or capricious. The Chief's Report further concluded, based on a memo prepared by the City Attorney's office, that videotaping the complainant in a public place was not a violation of her civil rights. The Chief's conclusion that the videotaping did not violate the law, which was based on this memo, is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, the Complaint is blOT SUSTAIblED. The Department may wish to consider the preparation of a guideline or policy clarifying under what circumstances videotaping is necessary or appropriate. DATED: February 9, 1998. PCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ~" :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::~::~i '::;~:~::'~i[' ':'~;:iii:[ .................. This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB97-5. BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under Ordinance 8-8-7(B), the Board's job is to review the Chief's Report of the investigation of the Complaint. The Ordinance requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Chief's Report, and to "give deference to the...Report because of the Police Chief's...professional expertise." Ordinance 8-8-7(B)(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, arbitTary, or capricious," or if they are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State, or local law." Ordinance 8-8-7(B)(2)(a),(b),(c). BOARD'S pROCEDURE On November 24, 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 "Chief's Report"), which was completed and submitted on December 23, 1997. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Ordinance 8-8-7(B)(1)(e). The Board met on January 7, 8, 23, 29, 1998 and February 5, 9, 1998 to consider the Chief's Report. FINDINGS OF FACT In November 1997, the complainant was arrested for public intoxication and brought to the Johnson County Jail. The complainant was arrested on the porch of a private residence. Police responded to an anonymous call reporting that the complainant had been observed lying 2 on an outside back porch for some time, in cold weather, in an apparently intoxicated state, possibly holding a baby. The arresting officer and backup officer both identified signs of intoxication exhibited by the complainant: breath odor of alcohol, impaired speech, disorientation, unsteadiness on her feet, vomiting. No baby was found; the caller had apparently mistaken a rolled up sweatshirt for an infant. The complainant was arrested. The complainant alleges that (1) she was arrested on private, not public, property; (2) she was not permitted to prove that she was currently residing at the address where the arrest was made; (3) the arresting officer did not read her her rights; (4) she was forced to take a breath test. Her complaint also alleges that while at the Johnson County Jail, she was subjected to treatment she considered a violation of her rights, including denial of access to a phone, denial of access to a toilet, not being allowed to take asthma medication, not receiving medical attention during an asthma attack, and being placed in a solitary confinement cell with insufficient clothing and blankets. The Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The investigator interviewed the complainant, the arresting officer, and the officer called to provide backup transportation at the time of the arrest. The Board reviewed the Chief's Report on January 7, 1998, and requested additional information about two subjects: (1) the allegation that the complainant was not read her rights, which was not addressed in the Chief's Report, and (2) the general policies governing arrest of a person for public intoxication. The Chief responded to these questions in a memo to the PCRB dated January 15, 1998. The Chief's Report and supplementary memo address the four allegations that fall within the purview of the Iowa City Police Department, which are the only parts of this complaint the Board has the authority to address. The complainant has not denied being intoxicated at the time of her arrest. There is no indication that the arresting officer read the complainant her rights. A breath test was administered after the complainant's arrest at the Johnson County Jail. The complainant claimed that she felt she had to take the test, but not that she was physically forced to do so. The consent form lists an oral consent to the test. The test revealed a blood alcohol level of .200. 3 A number of the compla'mant's allegations relate to her treatment while at the Johnson County Jail. While these allegations are serious, they fall outside the jurisdiction of the Iowa City Police Department and are therefore beyond the Board's authority to address. The Iowa City Police Department has forwarded a copy of her Complaint to the Sheriffs Department and she has been referred there to address her concerns about jail operation. Arrest for public intoxication The arrest appears to have been made in accordance with current Iowa City Police Department policy on arrests for public intoxication, and on the basis of state statute 123.46, which addresses public intoxication. The arresting officer and backup officer concurred that the complainant exhibited clear signs of intoxication. The arresting officer had been called to the arrest site by a concerned citizen and the complainant does not deny having been intoxicated. In fact, she had been the subject of a "woman down" call near the Vine tavern a half hour prior to her arrest at the apartment complex. The officer responding to that call had let the complainant go with her friends, who had said they would see to her well-being. At the time of her arrest, she was alone. Arrest on private property While the complainant does not deny being intoxicated, she claims she was arrested in a private, not public, place. Moreover, she claims that, at the time she was arrested for public intoxication, the arresting officer would not permit her to prove that she was actually at her home. The Chiefs Report conceded that the arrest took place on private property, but concluded that the complainant's conduct could still violate the public intoxication statute, since it took place in public view. Accordingly, proof that she resided at the house where the arrest took place would not have benefited her. 4 This legal question will be resolved in the complainant's criminal proceeding, but the Report's conclusion that the arrest was appropriate is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Failure to "read rights" In a supplement to the Chief's Report, the Chief indicates that the complainant, after discussing with an attorney at Legal Aid the matter of"reading of rights," indicated to the department investigator that she no longer wished to pursue this part of the Complaint. Consent to breath test The records indicate that the complainant gave oral consent to the breath test at the County Jail. However, she maintains that she felt required to take the test, although not physically compelled to do so. She indicates that she understands the medical reasons for administering the test, but maintains this should have been made clearer to her at the time of administration. The Chief's Report concluded that the administration of a breath test was carded out in accordance with established policy and did not violate the complainant's rights. This conclusion is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS The Department might consider further clarifying the policies and procedures governing the arrest and transport of persons cited for public intoxication. The Department should seek assurance that persons released to the custody of the Johnson County Jail routinely receive adequate and appropriate treatment. Some of the complainant's allegations about her treatment at the jail may merit investigation by appropriate authorities. DATED: February 9, 1998 PCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB97-6. BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under Ordinance § 8-8-7(B), the Board's job is to review the Chief's Report of the investigation of the complaint. The Ordinance requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Chief's Report, and to "give deference to the...Report because of the Police Chief's ...professional expertise." Ordinance § 8-8-7(B)(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," are "unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State, or local law." Ordinance §8-8-7(B)(2)(a), (b), (c). BOARD'S PROCEDURE On December 1, 1997, this Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Ordinance 97-3792 (the "Ordinance"), § 8-8-5, thc Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Police Chief prepared a Report to the Board (thc "Chief's Report") which was completed and submitted on December 23, 1997. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Ordinance §8-8-7(B)(l)(e). The Board met on January 7, 8, 23, 29, 1998 and February 5 and 9, 1998 to consider the Chief's Report. FINDINGS OF FACT This Complaint arises out of the same situation that gave rise to Complaint 97-4. In November 1997, police officers in several police cars came to the complainant's home to arrest her husband. When the complainant opened her door in response to an officer's knock, the police officers were using a video camera to videotape her and, she claims, one of her children as well. Her husband was not home, and the officers departed. After the officers left, the complainant located her husband and accompanied him to the Iowa City Police Department. She 2 waited there for more than an hour. She complains that she was videotaped while at the police depamnent and at the Johnson County Jail, and as she was leaving the jail in her car. The complainant alleges that the videotaping was done in retaliation because a prior charge against her husband was unsuccessful. She also contends that the arrest of her husband was not legitimate. The Complaint was referred to the Police Chief, who ordered an investigation of the Complaint. The investigator interviewed several witnesses, including the officer who did the videotaping, another officer present at the time, the Johnson County deputies present at the time, the jail control operator, and the complainant's husband. The Board, in addition to reviewing the Chief's Report, has reviewed the videotape. There is minor dispute about the facts here. The complainant alleges that one of her children was videotaped; the Report indicates that no child was videotaped. The complainant alleges that she was videotaped driving away in her car; the officer denies that the family was videotaped leaving the jail. Neither matter has any bearing on the substance of the Complaint. The Chief's Report concluded that the videotape was prepared because, based on prior experience with the complainant's husband, the officer was concerned that allegations of misconduct were likely to be made against him after the arrest, and the officer wanted to document the circumstances of the arrest. The Report concluded that the purpose of videotaping the complainant briefly was to show that she was not upset or distraught. This conclusion is consistent with the contents of the videotape viewed by the Board, is supported by substantial evidence, and is not arbitrary or capricious. The Chief's Report further concluded, based on a memo prepared by the City Attorney's office, that videotaping the complainant in a public place was not a violation of the complainant's civil rights. The Chief's conclusion that the videotaping did not violate the law, which was based on this memo, is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. 3 The Chief's Report also addressed the allegation that the charge against the complainant's husband, for which he was arrested in November, 1997, was not legitimate. The Chief's Report noted that the information leading to the charge was reviewed by an Assistant County Attomey, who advised that the charge was appropriate, before the complainant's husband was arrested. The Report's conclusion, based on this information, that the Complaint was legitimate and not based on an officer's malice towards the compla'mant's husband is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. As noted in the report on PCRB97-4, the Department may wish to consider the preparation of a guideline or policy clarifying under what circumstances videotaping is necessary or appropriate. DATED: February 9, 1998