HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-1998 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 PCRB98-1 (the "Complaim").
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 Chiefs 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," 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-TB(2)a, b, and c.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
On February 2, 1998, this Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Section 8-8-5, the Complaim was referred to the Police Chief for
investigation. The Chief submitted his Report on February 17, 1998. The Board voted to
review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8~8-7B(1)a, which specifies that the
complaint will be reviewed "on the record with no additional investigation." The Board
met on February 25, March 4 and March 11, 1998, to consider the Report.
FIbIDINGS OF FACT
This Complaint is one of four filed in 1997 and 1998 by the complainant.
Officer 950829 and Officer 670916 were dispatched separately to the
complainant's home, in response to his call reporting that his neighbor had just assaulted
him. The neighbor also called the police just after the complainant did, to report the same
2
incident. Officer 950829 arrived first and spoke with both the complainant and the
neighbor. Officer 570916 arrived soon afterwards and talked to the complainant.
According to the incident report filed by the officers and the supplemental report
prepared by Officer 670916, the complainant said that while he was walking on the
sidewalk in front of his home, the neighbor, who was jogging near the sidewalk,
approached him and poked him in the chest. The neighbor said that while he was jogging
in the parking area near the sidewalk, the complainant stepped in front of him, making him
run around the complainant. The neighbor stated that neither he nor the complainant
touched or threatened the other.
Both officers examined the patterns of footprints in the snow and one officer also
examined the tread patterns on the footwear of both the complainant and the neighbor,
On the basis of this examination, they concluded that at the time of the incident, (1) the
neighbor was running east on the south side of the street, about one foot from the
sidewalk, (2) the complainant was walking west on the sidewalk, (3) the complainant
stepped in front of the neighbor, (4) the complainant and neighbor came face to face about
two feet apart, and (5) the footprint patterns at (4) didn't indicate that there was any
contact, pushing, or shoving.
The officers advised the complainant that they would write an incident report and
turn it over to the County Attorney to determine whether any charges should be filed. The
complainant agreed to this. According to the Report, no decision had been made at the
time the Report was sent to the PCRB about whether any charges would be filed in this
matter.
The complainant alleges:
1. That, as a victim, his right to be protected by the police was violated;
2. That he is being denied the ability to live in peace in his home;
3. That he has been subjected to police harassment.
The investigation by the Police Chief apparently included discussions with the
responding officers, review of the incident report, review of a supplemental report by
Officer 670916, and discussion with the County Attorney's Office.
CONCLUSION
Allegation 1: The complainant's right, as a victim, to be protected by the police,
v~as violated. Within a few minutes after his call reporting assault, two police officers
were dispatched to his home to investigate the alleged incident. The Report concludes
that neither the complainant's description of the reported incident nor the results of police
investigation, including examination oftha physical evidence, establishes that he was the
victim of an assault. The Board finds that the conclusion in the Report concerning
allegation 1, that the evidence does not support the complainant's claim that he was a
victim and that the police failed to protect him, is supported by substantial evidence and is
not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the first allegation of the
Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2: The complainant is being denied his right to live in peace in his
house. The Report indicates that the complainant requested the police come to his house
to investigate his report of assault and notes that the complainant was not inside his house
at the time of the alleged incident. It fi~rther concludes that the physical evidence does not
support his claim of assault by the neighbor. The Board finds that the conclusion in the
Report concerning allegation 2, that the police are not denying the complainant his right to
live in peace in his house, is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the second allegation of the Complaint is NOT
SUSTAINED,
Allegation 3: The police are harassing the complainanL The Report indicates that
the officers were dispatched to the complainant's home at his request and that they
conducted an investigation to establish the facts relevant to the alleged incident. The
Board finds that the conclusion in the Report concerning allegation 3, that there is no
evidence to support the allegation that the police are harassing the complainant, is
supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Accordingly, the third allegation of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
DATED: March 11, 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 PCRB 98-2 (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 ("Report") of his investigation ofa complaim. 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 they are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are
''unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or "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 February 2, 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
February 27, 1998 The Board voted to review the Complaim 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 March 4 and March 11,
1998, to consider the Report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
This Complaint is one of five filed in 1997 and 1998 by this complainant.
On January 25, 1998, the complainant was driving down the street. He observed a
police officer parked on the street talking to a neighbor of the complainant. The officer
2
followed the complainant, pulled his car over, and wrote him a ticket for driving with an
expired driver's license.
The officer reported that he believed that the complainant was driving with an
invalid driver's license. The circumstances that caused the officer to learn this information
about the complainant, a citizen he did not know, are not clearly set out in the Report.
When the complainant drove by, the neighbor identified the complainant to the officer.
The officer got into his squad car and checked the complainant in the computer, following
the complainant while he awaited a response. When the officer received information that
the complainant's driver's license was in fact expired, he pulled the complainant over and
wrote him a traffic ticket. The officer then allowed the complainant to drive his car home.
The complainant claims that the stop of his vehicle was without probable cause,
that he was subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, and that he is being harassed by
the police.
The Chief's investigation evidently included review of a supplemental report
prepared by the officer in question and a review of the ticket written by the officer.
CONCLUSION
Allegation 1 and 2: The complainant alleges that the stop of his vehicle was
without probable cause, and further that he was subjected to an unreasonable search and
seizure. We view these as claims that stopping his vehicle was unlawful and in violation of
his rights under the Constitution, and we treat them together.
Driving with an expired driver's license is unlawful. An officer who has reliable,
current information that indicates that an individual is driving with an expired driver's
license has "probable cause" to believe that that individual has violated the law. This
"probable cause" gives the officer a legitimate reason to stop that individual when he is
driving a vehicle and to write a citation for that violation.
The officer in this case believed that the complainant was driving with an expired
driver's license. He checked the complainant's name on the data terminal in his car right
before making the stop. He also believed that it was the complainant driving the ear
bemuse the neighbor told him so. This information gave the officer "probable cause" to
stop the complainant's vehicle. The methods the officer used to determine that the
complainant was violating the law - checking the status of the complainant's driver's
license on the computer terminal, and obtaining information from the neighbor about the
complainant's identity -- did not violate the complainant's constitutional rights.
The Board finds that the conclusions in the Report concerning Allegations 1 and 2,
that the complainant's constitutional rights were not violated during this stop, are
supported by substantial evidence and are not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
Accordingly, these allegations are NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3: The complainant alleges that this incident constituted police
harassment. The Report concludes that because the stop was legitimate, the complaint of
police harassment is without merit. While we do not agree that a lawful stop can never be
the basis of a claim of harassment, the police conduct complained of does not seem to the
Board to constitute harassment. The officer allowed the complainant to drive his own
vehicle home, even thought the officer could have (and according to the Report, the police
department ordinarily would have) required him to stop driving the car and have it towed.
This decision by the officer avoided expense and inconvenience to the complainant. In
addition, the complainant's license had been expired for over four months at the time of
this incident. In light of these facts, the Board finds that the conclusion in the Report
regarding Allegation 3, that the stop did not constitute harassment, is supported by
substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accord'mgly,
Allegation 3 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
DATED: March 11, 1998