Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-1998 Public ReportsPCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB 98-12 (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 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," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or 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 June 12, 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. After requesting and receiving a 45-day extension of time to complete his report, the Chief submitted the report to the Board on August 26, 1998. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(d), which means that the Board may request additional investigation or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation. The Board requested and was granted a 4§-day extension of time from the City Council. The Board requested additional information from the Chief on September 3, 1998, which was provided in a letter received on September 8. The Board met on September 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and October 6 and 13, 1998 to consider the Report. FINDINGS OF FACT The complainant, who is black, was driving in her two-door car with her nephew and son, who are both teenagers, at approximately 8:00 p.m. on a Saturday evening. The nephew was seated in the back, and the son was in the front passenger seat. Officer 950828, driving an unmarked vehicle, pulled the complainant over on South Gilbert Street. There is some dispute over whether there was a legitimate basis on which to stop the vehicle; the complainant did not believe that she had violated any traffic laws, while officer 950828 claimed that she ran two stop signs. While officer 950828 was approaching the complainant's car after stopping it, he saw the complainant's son pass a shiny item, approximately three inches long, to the complainant's nephew. To the officer, the rear seat passenger appeared to be nervously concealing the item. Officer 950828 immediately approached on the passenger side of the car, opened the door, and demanded to see what the two boys had been passing between them. He ordered the nephew out of the car. The complainant and her nephew both say that the officer used profanity, which the officer denies. According to the officer, the nephew slid across the back seat away from the officer. Officer 950828 then grabbed the nephew by the arm and tried to pull him out of the car. Both the complainant and the officer agree that the son then gave some resistance to the officer's removal of the nephew from the car, though they disagree about exactly what happened; the complainant says that her son was holding on to the nephew with one hand, while the officer says the son punched the officer and threatened him. The officer decided to arrest the son and attempted to handcuff 'him; he also threatened to use ~mace" to get the son to cooperate. At this time, officer 950901 arrived and assisted officer 950828. All in all, 84 seconds passed from the time officer 950828 stopped the vehicle until the time the first backup officer arrived on the scene. Other backup officers, 891023, 960826, and 670916, arrived on the scene later - the chronology of their arrivals is not clear. The son was removed from the car and taken down to the ground. The nephew was also required to get on the ground. The complainant's son, while only 15 years old, is described as 5'1 ' and 220 pounds. At this time, the complainant's dog got loose from the car. When the complainant tried to retrieve the dog, one of the backup officers put her arm up her back and told her he would retrieve her dog, and told her to get back in the car. One of the officers did retrieve the complainant's dog and it was returned to her. The back-up officers searched the complainant and her car. No contraband was found. The item in question, which the officer saw passed between the two boys, turned out to be a crucifix. The complainant received a citation for running one stop sign and a warning for the other claimed violation. Her son was charged with assault and interference with official acts. The complainant was permitted to take her son home after he was cited. The complainant objected to the way officer 950828 handled the encounter, believing it to be harsh, vicious, and unnecessary. She believed that the officer overreacted and was out of control. She complained that profanity was used and complained that her son was unjustly accused of assault as a result of the incident. The Chief's investigation included interviews with the complainant, her nephew and her son, as well as interviews with officers 670916 and 960826. While the report does not expressly state that officers 950828, 4 891023, or 950901 were interviewed, it contains references to statements that are claimed to have been made by those officers. CONCLUSIONS Allegation 1: The Chief articulated the complainant's first allegation as being that the officer's initial contact with the occupants of her car was done in a vicious and violent manner. The Board asked the Chief to consider, as well, whether the conduct of the officer had been unnecessary. The Chief concluded that, even taking this claim into account, the complaint was unfounded. In his view, the officer's conduct, in response to the furtive movement he saw in the complainant's vehicle while he was making the traffic stop, was a reasonable response to what he saw, because swift action was necessary to avoid potential destruction of evidence. The Chief concluded that the officer's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. We find the Chief's conclusion, that the officer's conduct in this case was acceptable, to be unreasonable. The Chief determined that the officer was responding to the furtive movement he saw within the car, noting that the officer said he acted to prevent the destruction of evidence. However, there was little danger that the evidence the officer saw - a shiny metallic object - would disappear while the officer was watching the complainant's vehicle. Moreover, the officer's response to the situation was to grab the back seat passenger in a two-door car where both front seats were occupied by persons of substantial size, and evidently to try and pull him out of the car. There was no way this tactic was going to produce the desired result. On the contrary, it unnecessarily escalated the situation. Not only was it poor procedure (the policies on traffic stops submitted to us by the Chief recommend waiting for a back-up officer or supervisor to assist even with the arrest of a traffic violator who refuses to sign a traffic citation, let alone a situation in which the officer suspects evidence of crime to be in the car), it creates a hostile and adversarial climate for law enforcement. These citizens, even though suspected of wrongdoing, deserved to be given a reasonable opportunity to comply with police orders. We do not dispute that the officer believed that the object he saw exchanged might be evidence of a crime. Though it turned out to be innocent, an appropriate attempt to secure the evidence and the scene would not have been improper. Pursuing that evidence was part of the officer's job. But proceeding as the officer did here was not appropriate. Accordingly, the Police Chief's conclusion that the officer's conduct was acceptable is unreasonable. The first allegation of the complaint is SUSTAINED. Allegation 2: The complainant alleges that the officer used profanity extensively during this encounter. Her nephew and son confirmed these reports, while the officer denied that he used profanity. The Chief concluded that the investigation failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this allegation. In a circumstance where it is the word of a complainant and her family members against the word of an officer, we cannot say that the Chief's determination that the officer was truthful, in one such isolated instance, was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial evidence. We note, however, that such conclusion might be progressively more questionable in the face of multiple allegations of such conduct; it will not always be "reasonable" for the Chief to accept the word of his officer over the word of a citizen. In this case, the Police Chief's conclusion that the officer did not use profanity is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 2 of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 3: The complainant alleges that the assault charges filed against her son were unwarranted. The Chief concluded that there was sufficient probable cause to file the charges against the complainant's son. The merits of that claim will be determined elsewhere. The Chief's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 3 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS We question the appropriateness of using plainclothes police officers in unmarked vehicles for traffic enforcement. DATED: October 13, 1998