HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-1998 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 PCRB 98-11 (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 May 28, 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. On June 25, 1998, the
Chief requested a 4§-day extension to complete his investigation. In a
memo to the Chief on June 26, 1998, the Board agreed to a 30-day
extension. On July 24, 1998, the Chief requested a second extension of
time for completion of his report, to August 20, 1998. The Board agreed to
this request with reservations, citing in its memo to the Chief concerns
about the effect of continuing delays on the Board's working schedule and
on fairness to the complainant. The Chief's Report was received on August
20, 1998.
The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section
8-8-7B(1)(d) and (e), which means (d) that the Board may request additional
investigation by the Police Chief or request police assistance in the Board's
own review, and (e) that the Board may perform its own additional
investigation.
The Board requested additional information from the Chief in a letter
dated August 27, 1998. On September 3, 1998, the Board requested from
the City Council a 45-day extension to file its public report. At its meeting
on September 9, 1998, the City Council agreed to the 45-day extension.
The following information was transmitted to the Board on September
28, 1998:
· Identification numbers for the arresting officer and backup officers
· Information about police policies and procedures for handling
reports of lost, unattended, or abandoned children
· Copy of the police department incident report
· Copy of the use of force report
· Copy of the complaint form filed by the arresting officer
· Copy of the report to the Department of Human Services
· Transcripts of interviews the department conducted with the
following:
Person who took control of the child and initiated the requests
for police assistance
This person's spouse
Person who made the calls for police assistance
Witness who is a resident of the area where the arrest took
place
Officer 790206 (dispatched as backup to the arresting officer)
Complainant and complainant's counsel
· Also,
Notes on a telephone conversation with a sister of the
complainant
Notes on an interview with the second backup officer,
970106
Notes on a "narrative" provided by a woman who attended
the baby shower
The first assistant city attorney explained in her transmittal letter to
the. Board that since the statement of the officer who is the subject of this
complaint was compelled during the internal affairs investigation, the
transcript cannot be released without authorization, and the officer declined
to authorize further release.
Because the Board was awaiting this information, on September 3,
1998, it requested a 45-day extension to file its public report from the City
Council.
The Board met on June 25, July 28, August 25, September I and
22, and October 6, 13, 20, and 29, 1998 to consider the Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On April 5, 1998, Officer 950831 was dispatched to the 1100 block
of Oakcrest Street to investigate a report of a possible lost, unattended, or
abandoned child. The call had been made by an employee of Oaknoll
Retirement Center at the request of a visitor. The visitor said she had
observed a black child about four years old crying and wandering
unattended for at least fifteen minutes. Despite considerable effort, she
was unable to find his guardians, locate his apartment, or communicate very
well with him. Concerned for his welfare, particularly since he had been
headed toward a busy street, she took him inside the Oaknoll complex to
await the police. When the officer first arrived, he was unable to locate
anyone and left the area. The employee made a second call and the officer
returned. By this time, the complainant (who, it was later determined, was
the child's aunt), had arrived and claimed the child, and was walking toward
a nearby apartment complex with him. The officer attempted to ascertain
the child's situation and obtain identification from the complainant. The
complainant appeared to ignore the officer's repeated requests that she talk
to him and began to run off. The officer pursued and grabbed her. Because
4
she was resisting, he bent her over a nearby-parked car, cuffed her, and
placed her in his patrol car.
The child was part of a large group of African people who had
gathered at the 1100 Oakcrest complex for a baby shower for the
complainant, who was seven months pregnant. At this point in the
unfolding situation, a number of the shower guests came outside, some in
an agitated state. The officer called for backup support in a manner that
suggested to his fellow officers he needed that support "now."
Simultaneously, the child's mother arrived at the apartment complex parking
lot and was identified by members of the assembled group. In addition, the
group told the officer that all of them (and not just the complainant) were
responsible for the child. They asked that the complainant be allowed to go
free.
The officer instead took the complainant to the Johnson County Jail.
In response to her report that she was in pain during transport and
processing, he then took her to University Hospital, where she was
examined and released after about two hours. The officer returned her to
the jail. She was charged with interference with official acts.
CONCLUSIONS
Allegation 1. The arresting officer was unprofessional in his contact
with the complainant on April 5~ 1998. Although the situation the officer
encountered may have escalated unnecessarily because of culturally related
differences in perceptions about what was happening and how best to
resolve the matter, the evidence suggests that the officer did attempt to
follow procedures appropriate for handling a report of a "lost, unattended,
or abandoned child." These include determining the child's situation
identifying the appropriate custodial party, resolving the situation in the
child's favor, and making a report to the Department of Human Services.
The Chief's conclusion that the officer acted in a professional manner and
followed the steps he was obliged to is supported by substantial evidence
and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 1
is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2. The officer used excessive force during the contact.
The officer requested that the complainant, who had taken the child by the
hand and was leading him toward an apartment building, show him some
identification. He made this request twice, but the complainant appeared to
be ignoring him. The officer made a third request, telling the complainant
that she would be arrested if she did not comply. At this, she began to run
from him. The officer pursued and grabbed her. Because she was
vigorously resisting him, he bent her over the hood of a nearby car, put
handcuffs on her, and placed her in his police car. Witnesses confirm that
the complainant was loud, agitated, and uncooperative during this time, and
that she attempted to push and kick the officer.
After the complainant, who was seven months pregnant at the time,
said she was in pain while being taken to the Johnson County Jail and
during processing there, the officer transported her to University Hospital.
She was examined and observed for several hours. No evidence of any
injury to her or compromise to her pregnancy was identified. She was
released from the hospital and taken back to jail by the officer.
The Chief's conclusion that the officer did not use excessive force
during his contact with the complainant is supported by substantial evidence
and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 2
is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3. The officer's conduct was not civilized while handling
the incident. It is clear from the information provided by a variety of
witnesses that the situation in which the officer became involved escalated
quickly, at least in part because of culturally based differences in
perceptions of what was happening and how it ought to be resolved. The
evidence does indicate, however, that the officer attempted to pursue a
legitimate course of conduct and, when the complainant resisted, did not
apply excessive force in restraining and subduing the complainant. The
Chief's conclusion that the officer was direct and to the point in his
inquiries, explained his intention and the complainant's options, and did not
engage in inappropriate action or use inappropriate language is supported by
substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Accordingly, allegation 3 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 4. There was a strong element of racial discrimination in
the officer's handling of the situation. The officer may not have been
sensitive to the influence that behaviors and perceptions of people of a
culture different from that of mainstream midwest America were having on
the situation he was dispatched to investigate. But the Chief concluded,
and the record supports, that there was no evidence of racist remarks
having been made or any activity that indicated bias or racial attitude.
While racially disparaging treatment could exist even absent such express
evidence of racial animus, the Chief's conclusion that it did not here is
supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. Accordingly, allegation 4 is NOT SUSTAINED.
OOMMEN¥$
Although the Board is not sustaining any of the allegations made in
this Complaint, we are concerned that the situation that produced them
escalated very rapidly and perhaps unnecessarily. While acknowledging that
emotions were already intensifying at the time the officer arrived on the
scene, we believe that he could have chosen a course of action that was
more situation sensitive than the one he followed. For example, he could
have chosen to communicate with the assistance of one of the assembled
7
group who might have been able to calm the situation. He could have
chosen to interpret the complainant's lack of cooperation with his orders as
being the result of fear, panic, shame, or confusion. Since she was dressed
in a manner that did not suggest that she had identification with her, he
could have accompanied her to her apartment, where, it could be presumed,
she would have produced it. In other words, he might have exercised more
flexibility about how to fulfill his official, standard responsibilities in the
context of a clearly 'nonstandard" situation - one that included a large and
agitated group of people of a different culture, many speaking an unfamiliar
language. Instead, the situation escalated so quickly that it would not be
unreasonable for a lone officer to feel threatened. Indeed, when officer
950831 called for backup soon after arriving on the scene, officer 970106
reported detecting the urgency in his voice.
While it may be unfair to expect the officer to have perceived
immediately that the Africans he was dealing with might have a different
attitude about specifically 'who" among a group is responsible for the
welfare of a child, this is an issue that should be part of the training of
police in a community as diverse as ours
Finally, in the emotionally charged atmosphere that developed, the
welfare of the child - the issue the officer had been called to investigate in
the first place - appears to have rapidly become a concern peripheral 'to the
behavior of the complainant.
We support the Chief's recommendations for department action
concerning further training in awareness of cultural diversity.
DATED: October 29, 1998