HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-1998 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 ~-5-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 45-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, 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