HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-1998 Public ReportsPCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
~:':.:':.:. :. :. · ~' ~.' ~"~ [n~
...... ~ ~ ................ ::/~ :: :.~: .......... :...~....: .. .................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the "Board") review of the
investigation of Complaint PCRB97-2 (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 to the Board of the investigation of a complaint (the
"Report"). 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 finding 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."
Sections 8-8-7B(2)a, b, and c.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
On October 20, 1997, this Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Section 8-8-5, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for
investigation. On November 19, 1997, the Board granted an extension to the Police
Department to complete its investigation of Complaint 97-2. The Report was completed
and submitted on December 30, 1997. The Board voted to review the Complaint in
accordance with Sections 8-8-7B(1)b, d, and e. On January 8, 1998, the Board requested,
and was subsequently granted by the City Council, a 45-day extension of the 30-day
reporting deadline for this Complaint. The Board met on January 7, 8, 23, 29, 1998 and
February 5, 9, 17, 25, 1998 to consider the Report.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
This Complaint is one of three filed in 1997 by the complainant. Because these
three complaints appeared to arise fi.om interrelated events and because of the nature of
the various allegations in the complaints, the Board decided that, although we would
review the Report on each complaint separately, it would be helpful to obtain information
about the context for certain allegations contained in all three complaints.
On December 29, 1997, a subcommittee of the Board met with the complainant to
obtain more information about his perspective on the complaints and to reiterate the
availability of mediation. On January 23, 1998, the complainant delivered a package of
materials and documents that he felt were relevant to the complaints. Because of the
expansiveness of these materials, the Board asked the subcommittee that had met with the
complainant to review the materials. The subcommittee reviewed all of the contents of
the package of materials, including an audio tape, and reported to the full Board a
summary of its meeting with the complainant and the materials submitted by the
complainant. In addition, as part of its review of the Report of another related complaint,
the Board viewed a police videotape of events related to the complainant's arrest for
simple assault.
The review of the supplementary and background information reveals that the
complainant's dissatisfaction with the Iowa City Police Department extends back several
years and involves a number of claims by the complainant. These claims, listed below,
are part of the background information collected, but are not specifically the subject of
complaints to the Board.
· Police investigation of complaints concerning incidents involving his car in his
former apartment complex parking lot and at his current residence.
· Other interaction with police related to his tenancy at this apartment complex.
· Investigation of a property accident involving his bike and a car in a supermarket
parking lot.
3
· His treatment by police in connection with an arrest during Homecoming Parade in
1994.
· Continuing problems with a current neighbor and with police handling of these
problems.
· Alleged surveillance of his home and family by police.
· Vehicle stops by police that the complainant considers unwarranted.
· Various other interactions with the police in general, and several officers in particular,
that he considers to have been insensitive, harassing, and vindictive.
· A pervasive feeling that his civil rights are being continuously deprived by the police.
FINDINGS OF FACT
An officer was dispatched to the complainant's residence in response to a call
from the complainant's wife regarding a dispute with a neighbor. The officer spoke with
the complainant's wife and the neighbor and determined that charges against neither party
were warranted. The officer attempted to conciliate the dispute.
Later the same day, the officer was informed that the complainant had called the
dispatcher and wanted to speak to the officer. The officer returned to the station and
called the complainant. The conversation consisted primarily of reasons the complainant
felt that charges should be filed against the neighbor and the officer's reasons for not
filing charges. (This conversation was tape recorded by the complainant and the
subcommittee of the Board listened to this tape). During the course of the conversation,
the officer questioned the complainant regarding an alleged eviction fi.om a former
apartment residence. The complainant denied that he had been evicted and asked the
officer to tell him the source of the allegation. The officer told him that the allegation
came fi.om another officer.
The Complaint alleges:
· The Iowa City Police conspired to deny his rights;
· Two officers specifically conspired against the complainant;
4
· The officers were vindictive and made up charges.
The investigation by the Police Chief included interviews with the complainant,
the neighbor, the officer and the officer's supervisor.
Allegation 1: Police conspired to deny complainant's rights. The incident that
precipitated this Complaint was a dispute between a neighbor and the complainant and
his family. Police involvement was in response to a call fi.om the complainant's wife and
a subsequent request by the complainant to talk to the officer that responded to his wife's
complaint against the neighbor. The Board finds that the conclusion in the Report
concerning allegation #1 is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, the first allegation of the Complaint is NOT
SUSTAINED.
A,11¢g~tion 2: Two officers conspired against the complainant. The two officers
involved in this Complaint, one of whom was the other's supervisor, discussed the
situation after the meetings with the complainant's wife and the neighbor. The discussion
included some background information regarding the complainant. While this
information appears to have been unsubstantiated and even erroneous, it does not signify
to the Board the existence of a conspiracy to harm the complainant. The only action that
was discussed and carried out was to return the complainant's phone call. The Board
finds that the conclusion in the Report concerning allegation #2 is supported by
substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly the
second allegation of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
5
Allegation 3: The officem were vindictive and made up charges. While asking
the complainant about his alleged eviction did not appear to be relevant or important
enough to be mentioned during the phone call with the complainant, it was stated as a
question and not an accusation. The tone of the taped conversation does not demonstrate
any vindictiveness on the part of the officer and them is no other evidence of
vindictiveness regarding the handling of this incident. No charges were filed against the
complainant regarding this incident. The Board finds that the conclusion in the Report
concerning allegations #3 is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly the third allegation of the Complaint is NOT
SUSTAINED.
DATED: February 25, 1998
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 PCPJ397-3 (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 Chiei?s Report to the Board of the investigation of a complaint (the
"Report"). 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 8-8-7B(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," 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."
Sections 8-8-7B(2)a, b and c.
BOARD'S pROCEDURE
On November 17, 1997, this Complaint was received at the Office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to Section 8-8-5, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for
investigation. The Report was completed and submitted on December 17, 1997. On
December 23, 1997, the Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with
Sections 8-8-7 B(1)b, d, and e. On January 8, 1998, the Board requested, and was
subsequently granted by the City Cotmcil, a 45-day extension of the 30-day reporting
deadline for this Complaint. The Board met on January 7, 8, 23, 29, 1998, and February
5, 9, 17 and 25 to consider the Report.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
This Complaint is one of three filed in 1997 by the complainant. Because these
three complaints appeared to arise from interrelated events and because of the nature of
the various allegations in the complaints, the Board decided that, although we would
review the Report on each complaint separately, it would be helpful to obtain information
about the context for certain allegations contained in all three complaints.
On December 29, 1997, a subcommittee of the Board met with the complainant to
obtain more information about his perspective on the complaints and to reiterate the
availability ofmediation. On January23, 1998, the complainant delivered apackage of
materials and documents that he felt were relevant to the complaints. Because of the
expansiveness of these materials, the Board asked the subcomanittee that had met with the
complainant to review the materials. The subcommittee reviewed all of the contents of
the package of materials, including an audio tape, and reported to the full Board a
summary of its meeting with the complainant and the materials submitted by the
complainant. In addition, as part of its review of the Report of another related complaint,
the Board viewed a police videotape of events related to the complainant's arrest for
simple assault.
The review of the supplementary and background information reveals that the
complainant's dissatisfaction with the Iowa City Police Department extends back several
years and involves a number of claims by the complainant. These claims, listed below,
are part of the background information collected, but are not specifically the subject of
complaints to the Board.
· Police investigation of complaints concerning incidents involving his car in his
former apartment complex parking lot and at his current residence.
· Other interaction with police related to his tenancy at this apartment complex.
Investigation of a property accident involving his bike and a car in a supermarket
parking lot.
· His treatment by police in connection with an arrest during Homecoming Parade in
1994.
· Continuing problems with a current neighbor and with police handling of these
problems.
· Alleged surveillance of his home and family by police.
· Vehicle stops by police that the complainant considers unwarranted.
3
· Various other interactions with the police in general, and several officers in particular,
that he considers to have been insensitive, harassing, and vindictive.
· A pervasive feeling that his civil rights are being continuously deprived by the police.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A neighbor of the complainant filed a complaint against him with the Police
Department. The officer assigned to the case (Officer 780911) requested a review of the
complaint by the County Attorney's office. The County Attorney's office subsequently
advised the officer that a simple assault charge against the complainant was in order. The
officer wrote the charge for simple assault and obtained a warrant for the complainant's
arrest.. Because the officer was concerned that the complainant would make allegations
against him and the police department, he requested and was granted permission to
videotape the arrest. Officer 78091 ! and three other officers attempted to serve the
warrant at the complainant's home. The complainant's wife stated to the police that her
husband was not home. This sequence of events at the complainant's home was
videotaped.
The complainant voluntarily appeared at the police station a few hours later,
accompanied by his wife and mother. He was met by Officers 780911 and 950906. He
was placed under arrest, handcuffed by Officer 950906, using two sets of handcuffs
linked together, and placed in a police vehicle for transport to the county jail. At the jail
the complainant was processed by Johnson County deputies. Bond was posted by one of
the complainant's family members and the complainant, his wife, and his mother
departed the jail. These events at the police station and the county jail were videotaped.
The complainant alleges that:
· Officer 780911 slandered the complainant;
· Officer 780911 attempted to incite him;
· Excessive force was used against the complainant because the handcuffs
placed on him were too tight;
· Officer 780911 videotaped the complainant's daughter;
· Officer 780911 maliciously charged him and harassed him;
4
The investigation by the Police Chief included interviews with the complainant,
Officer 780911, Officer 950906, three Johnson County deputies, and an assistant County
Attomey; and a review of the videotape of the events surrounding the arrest.
CONCLUSION
Allegation 1: Officer 780911 slandered the complainant. The Report on
the investigation of Complaint PCRB97~2 reveals that another officer, not Officer
780911, told another officer that the complainant had been evicted from a previous
apartment residence. The Board finds that the conclusion in the Report concerning
allegation #1 is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious: Accordingly the first allegation of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2: Officer 780911 attempted to incite him. The videotape reveals that
Officer 780911 made two remarks, one at the police station and one at the county jail,
which could be characterized as sarcastic or condescending. The officer's comments did
not appear to incite the complainant and the officer's comments did not persist. While
the tone of the comments could certainly be questioned, the Report's finding that the
statements were not intended to incite the complainant is supported by substantial
evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly the second
allegation of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3: Excessive fome was used against the complainant because the
handcuffs'were too tight. The videotape shows that two pairs of handcuffs
linked together were used for the complainant's arrest. The videotape shows that the
deputy at the jail could put at least two fingers between the cuffs and the complainant's
wrist. The cuffs were double locked to prevent tightening. One deputy stated to the
investigator that the cuffs were "too loose." The Board finds that the conclusion in the
Report concerning allegation #3 is supported by substantial evidence and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly the third allegation of the Complaint
is NOT SUSTAINED.
5
Allegation 4: Officer 780911 videotaped the complainant's daughter. Officer
780911 denies videotaping the complainant's daughter. Officer 950906 denies seeing the
daughter. The videotape does not reveal that any child was videotaped. The Board finds
that the conclusion in the Report concerning allegation #4 is supported by substantial
evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly the fourth
allegation of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 5: Officer 780911 maliciously charged him and harassed him. This
Complaint stemmed fi.om a report by a neighbor to the Police Department alleging assault
by the complainant. Officer 780911, who was assigned the case, requested that the
County Attorney's office review the merits of the neighbor's allegation against the
complainant and was told that there was probable cause for a charge of simple assault
against the complainant. The Board finds that the conclusion in the Report concerning
allegation #5 is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. Accordingly the fifth allegation of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
DATED: February 25, 1998
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 PCRB97~7 (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 to the Board of the investigation of a complaint (the
"Report"). 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," 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."
Sections 8-8-7 B(2)a, b, and c.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
On December 1, 1997, this Complaint was received at the Office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to Section 8-8-5, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for
investigation. The Report was completed and submitted on December 30, 1997. The
Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Sections 8-8-7 B(1)b, d, and e.
On January 8, 1998, the Board requested, and was subsequently granted by the City
Council, a 45-day extension o£the 30-day reporting deadline £or this Complaint. The
Board met on January 7, 8, 23, 29, 1998, and February 5, 9, 17, 25, 1997 to consider the
Report.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
This Complaint is one o£three filed in 1997 by the complainant. Because these
three complaints appeared to arise fi.om interrelated events and because of the nature of
2
the various allegations in the complaints, the Board decided that, although we would
review the Report on each complaint separately, it would be helpful to obtain information
about the context for certain allegations contained in all three complaints.
On December 29, 1997, a subcommittee of the Board met with the complainant to
obtain more information about his perspective on the complaints and to reiterate the
availability of mediation. On January 23, 1998, the complainant delivered a package of
materials and documents that he felt were relevant to the complaints. Because of the
expansiveness of these materials, the Board asked the subcommittee that had met with the
complainant to review the materials. The subcommittee reviewed all of the contents of
the package of materials, including an audio tape, and reported to the full Board a
summary of its meeting with the complainant and the materials submitted by the
complainant. In addition, as part of its review of the Report of another related complaint,
the Board viewed a police videotape of events related to the complainant's arrest for
simple assault.
The review of the supplementary and background information reveals that the
complainant's dissatisfaction with the Iowa City Police Department extends back several
years and involves a number of claims by the complainant. These claims, listed below,
are part of the background information collected, but are not specifically the subject of
complaints to the Board.
· Police investigation of complaints concerning incidents involving his car in his
former apartment complex parking lot and at his current residence.
· Other interaction with police related to his tenancy at this apartment complex.
· Investigation of a properly accident involving his bike and a car in a supermarket
parking lot.
· His treatment by police in connection with an arrest during Homecoming Parade in
1994.
· Continuing problems with a current neighbor and with police handling of these
problems.
· Alleged surveillance of his home and family by police.
· Vehicle stops by police that the complainant considers unwarranted.
· Various other interactions with the police in general, and several officers in
particular, that he considers to have been insensitive, harassing, and vindictive.
· A pervasive feeling that his civil rights are being continuously deprived by the
police.
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Two officers were dispatched to the home of a neighbor of the complainant. The
neighbor alleged that the complainant had used his automobile to cut him off while the
neighbor was running near Sycamore Mall. At approximately 10:00 p.m. the two
officers went to the residence of the complainant to interview him. The officers observed
lights on in the house. One of the officers knocked on the front doorframe and, when no
one answered, opened the storm door and knocked on the entrance door, which has panes
of glass. One officer noticed that at least one pane of glass was already cracked and that
the other officer knocked directly on a pane of glass. Neither officer believed that they
had caused a pane to crack. There was still no response, so the officers left after about
ten minutes. They didnot retumbecause ofothercalls for service. The complainant
admits that he was home and heard the knocking, but did not want to open the door at
10:00 p.m.
The complainant alleges that:
· He was harassed by the police;
· He was denied his human fights;
· He was subjected to malicious prosecution;
· Officers cracked the glass in his fi'ont door;
The investigation by the Police Chief included interviews with the complainant, the
complainant's wife, the neighbor, and the two officers; and an inspection of the door.
Allegation 1: He was harassed by the police. The two officers involved in this
case responded to a complaint by a neighbor against the complainant. After interviewing
the neighbor, the officers went to the complainant's home to interview him. After
knocking for about ten minutes, the officers left. The Board finds that the conclusion in
the Report concerning allegation #1 is supported by substantial evidence and is not
4
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly the first allegation of this Complaint
is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2: He was denied his human rights. The investigator of the Complaint
states that, based on his interview with the complainant, this allegation pertains to events
addressed in PCRB Complaint 97-3. The Board finds that the conclusion in the Report
concerning allegation//2 is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly the second allegation of the Complaint is NOT
SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3: He was subjected to malicious prosecution. No charges had been
filed at the time of the Report. The investigator states that this allegation pertains to
events addressed in PCRB Complaint 97-3. The Board finds that the conclusion in the
Report concerning allegation #3 is supported by substantial evidence and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly the third allegation of the Complaint
is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 4: Officers cracked the glass in his front door. The Report finds that
there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the claim and that, if the officers did
cause damage, it was unintentional. Statements by the complainant, the complainant's
wife, and the two officers are not consistent. The recommendation to file a claim with the
City Finance Department appears appropriate. The Board finds that the conclusion in the
Report concerning allegation g4 is supported by substantial evidence and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly the fourth allegation of the Complaint
is NOT SUSTAINED.
DATED: February 25, 1998