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