HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-1998 Public Reports PCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
IRe: Investigation of Complaint PCRB98-6 J
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the "Board") review of the
investigation of Complaint PCRB 98-6 (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 ora 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 they are "unsupported by substamial evidence," are
'~nreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious," or 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 February 24, 1998, this Complaint was received in 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
March 23, 1998. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section
8-8-7 B(l)a, which means that it chose to review the matter on the record before it,
without additional investigation, and in accordance with Section 8-8-7B(1)c, which
means that it chose to interview the named officer The Board met on March 31, April 15
and April 21, 1998 to consider the Report.
FllqDING$ OF FACT
This Complaint is one of nine filed in 1997 and 1998 by this complainant.
2
The Complaint arises out of what appears to be an ongoing dispute between the
complainant and a male neighbor. The neighbor called the Iowa City Police Department
and said that the complainant had fbllowed him to his grandmother's house. Officer
830701 went to the scene and found that the complainant was driving past the
grandmother's address, about twelve minutes after the initial call by the neighbor. The
officer pulled the complainant's car over. The complainant denied doing anything wrong
and said that the neighbor had spit on his windshield. The officer asked the complainant if
he and his neighbor were involved in a relationship, apparently because the behavior of the
complainant and the neighbor resembled behavior he associated with broken relationships.
Officer 770411 learned that the complainant had been stopped and came to the scene to
serve three misdemeanor citations on the complainant.
No charges were filed against either the complainant or the neighbor arising out of
this incident, though officer 830701 advised the complainant and his neighbor to stay away
from each other.
The complainant contends that there was no probable cause to stop his car, that
the police did not pursue his complaint against the neighbor for spitting on his car, that the
first officer at the scene called him a homosexual, and that he was harassed by the police.
The Chief's investigation included review of the case report and review of
interviews conducted with the two officers on the scene.
CONCLUSION
Allegation 1: The complainant alleges that the stop ofhis vehicle was without
probable cause. The stop was, however, based on the neighbor's claim that the
complainant was following him. Accordingly, the conclusion in the Report that the stop
of the complainant's car was based on probable cause is supported by substantial evidence
and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. This allegation is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2: The complainant alleges that the officers' refusal to act on his
complaint against his neighbor violated his rights. Officer 830701 did address the matter,
but chose to handle it without recommending prosecution. In light of these facts, the
Board finds that the conclusion in the Report regarding Allegation 2, that the officer did
address the complainant's allegations against his neighbor, is supported by substantial
evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, Allegation 2 of the
Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3: The complainant alleges that Officer 830701 called hima
homosexual. The Chief's Report concluded that Officer 830701 did not call the
complainant a homosexual and did not sustain the allegation. The officer did not call the
complainant a homosexual. He did, however, inquire whether the complainant and his
neighbor had been involved in a relationship. Had they been, certain other issues -
whether there was a history of domestic violence or of an order of protection - might have
become relevant. While the question might have been phrased more tactfully, the
information sought was relevant and there was no evidence that it was asked with a
discriminatory purpose. Accordingly, the Report's conclusion that Officer 830701 did not
call the complainant a homosexual is supported by substantial evidence and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 3 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 4: The complainant alleges that in serving the misdemeanor citations on
him, Officer 770411 harassed him. The Report's conclusion that Officer 77041 l's actions
were part of his duties is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 4 is NOT SUSTAINED.
DATED: April 21, 1998