Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-1998 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 98-14 (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 Complaint #98-14 was received at the office of the City Clerk on July 23, 1998. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. Because this Complaint and Complaint #98-16 involve the same incident, citizens and officers, the Chief issued the same Report for both. The Chief submitted his Report to the Board on August 21, 1998. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with City Code Section 8-8-7 B.l(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 and was granted a 45-day extension of time from the City Council, The Board requested additional information from the Chief in a letter dated August 27, 1998, The following information was transmitted to the Board on September 28, 1998: · Copy of the traffic citation for illegal right turn · Information about police policies and procedures regarding traffic citations for an improper turn · Copy of the computer printout record of the traffic stop · Identification numbers for t~e two officers involved in the incident · Transcripts of interviews with the following persons: - Officer 970103, the backup officer - Officer 950828, the officer who made the stop - A civilian riding with Officer 970103 - The complainant - The complainant's wife The Board met on August 25, 1998, September 1, 22, 1998, October 6, 13, 20, 29, 1998, and November 3, 1998 to consider the Complaint, FINDINGS OF FACT At approximately 10:15 P.M. on a Sunday night, the complainant, who is black, was driving east on Highway 6 with his wife, the registered owner of the vehicle, as a passenger. He turned right onto Sycamore Street. Officer 950828, in plainclothes and driving an unmarked car, stopped the complainant on Sycamore for making an improper right turn. The officer summoned a backup unit and approached the driver side of the complainant's vehicle with his flashlight shining toward the driver. The complainant objected to the flashlight shining in his face. After informing the complainant of the reason for the stop, Officer 950828 asked for his license and took it back to his car. Officer 970103, the backup officer, joined Officer 950828 to discuss the stop, and it appeared to the complainant that the officers were comparing the driver's license to photos in a book. Officer 950828 wrote a citation for an improper right turn, asked the complainant to step to the rear of the vehicle and gave him the citation. The backup officer placed himself at the right rear of the complainant's vehicle. Officer 950828 asked if there were drugs or weapons in the vehicle. The complainant said there were not. Then the officer asked if he could search the vehicle. The complainant said he did not mind, but that it was his wife's car and the officer should ask her. It is not clear from the witness statements whether permission for the search was asked for or given by the wife. Officer 950828 informed the complainant that he was going to perform a pat down search of the complainant before searching the vehicle. At about the time he was searching the complainant, the complainant's wife began to exit the passenger side of the vehicle and began to protest angrily about the situation. Officer 950828 asked the complainant's wife to step to the rear of the vehicle and directed her to keep her voice down and to stop using profanity. She sat on the curb to the right rear of the vehicle, near where the backup officer was standing. While Officer 950828 searched the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the complainant's wife continued to protest and use profanity. Officer 950828 warned her to calm down several times, and at least once told her that she would be arrested for disorderly conduct if she did not stop using profanity. At some point after the complainant's wife exited from the vehicle, the officers were informed by the complainant and his wife that she had recently delivered a premature baby by C-section, that they were returning from a visit with the baby in the hospital, and that she was feeling stomach pain. Officer 950828 completed the vehicle search, finding nothing, and explained to the complainant that he had performed the search in connection with the SCAT operation in the Broadway area. The complainant and his wife departed. The complainant alleged that Officer 950828's conduct was unjustified, cruel and racially motivated. 4 CONCLUSIONS Alleoation 1. The officer's conduct was unjustified, cruel, and racially motivated. Officer 950828 asked whether he could search the vehicle; the complainant said that this left an impression that he could deny permission for the search. The complainant also stated that he felt Sycamore Street is not in the Broadway area that is the target of the SCAT operation. Nevertheless, Iowa law currently permits the search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle and the person of anyone cited for a traffic violation. The complainant and the complainant's wife both reported that Officer 950828 was rude, profane, aggressive, and intimidating. Officer 970103, the backup officer, stated that Officer 950828 acted professionally and that neither of them used profanity. Although the complainant claimed that his wife was shoved and threatened, in her interview, the wife denied any use of force. The officers and the civilian witness also reported that there were no threats toward either the complainant or the complainant's wife, nor was there any physical contact other than the pat down search of the complainant. The claim of racial motivation came primarily from the complainant's statement that Officer 950828 made reference to "you people" when he was explaining about the SCAT operation. The officer denied using the term "you people." The Chief's conclusion that the officer's treatment of the complainant was not unjustified, cruel, or racially motivated, is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, Allegation 1 is NOT SUSTAINED. It should be noted that this is the second incident within a six-week period that an allegation of the use of profanity has been filed against Officer 950828. In this incident, both the complainant and the complainant's wife claim that profanity was used and both officers claim that it was not, The Board suggests that the Chief make it clear, through whatever means he deems appropriate, that the use of profanity by officers while acting in an official capacity is unprofessional conduct. The complainant's wife had recently had surgery and was in pain. Although she was loud and emotional in her interactions with the officer, Officer 950828's response to her does not appear to have been effective in de-escalating the situation. Although the Board understands that it is not always possible to prevent any given situation from escalating, we encourage the Chief to enhance departmental training in this area. Finally, as noted in other Board reports involving race-related allegations, the use of racial terms, or code words such as "you people," is not the only indicator of racial motivation. We encourage the Chief to reinforce his efforts to insure racial and cultural neutrality in all department policies, practices, and procedures. DATED: November 4, 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 98-16 (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 Complaint #98-14 was received at the office of the City Clerk on July 28, 1998. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. Because this Complaint and Complaint #98-14 involve the same incident, citizens and officers, the Chief issued the same Report for both. The Chief submitted his Report to the Board on August 21, 1998. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with City Code Section 8-8-7 B.l(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 and was granted a 45-day extension of time from the City Council. The Board requested additional information from the Chief in a letter dated August 27, 1998. The following information was transmitted to the Board on September 28, 1998: · Copy of the traffic citation for illegal right turn · Information about police policies and procedures regarding traffic citations for an improper turn · Copy of the computer printout record of the traffic stop · Identification numbers for the two officers involved in the incident · Transcripts of interviews with the following persons: Officer 970103, the backup officer Officer 950828, the officer who made the stop A civilian riding with Officer 970103 The complainant The complainant's husband The Board met on August 25, 1998, September 1, 22, 1998, October 6, 13, 20, 29, 1998, and November 3, 1998, to consider the Complaint. FINDINGS OF FACT At approximately 10:15 P.M. on a Sunday night, the complainant, who is black, was riding as a passenger with her husband, traveling east on Highway 6. The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle. The complainant's husband turned right onto Sycamore Street. Officer 950828, in plainciothes and driving an unmarked car, stopped the vehicle on Sycamore Street for making an improper right turn. The officer summoned a backup unit and approached the driver side of the complainant's vehicle with his flashlight shining toward the complainant's husband. The husband objected to the flashlight shining in his face. After explaining the reason for the stop, Officer 950828 asked for the husband's license and took it back to his car. Officer 970103, the backup officer, joined Officer 950828 to discuss the stop, and it appeared to the complainant that the officers were comparing the driver's license to photos in a book. Officer 950828 wrote a citation for an improper right turn, asked the complainant's husband to step to the rear of the vehicle and gave him the citation. The backup officer placed himself at the right rear of the complainant's vehicle. Officer 950828 asked if there were drugs or weapons in the vehicle. The complainant's husband said there were not. Then the officer asked if he could search the vehicle. The complainant's husband said he did not mind, but that it was his wife's (the complainant's) car and the officer should ask her. It is not clear from the witness statements whether permission for the search was asked for or given by the complainant. Officer 950828 informed the complainant's husband that he was going to perform a pat down search of him before searching the vehicle. At about the time he was searching the complainant's husband, the complainant began to exit the passenger side of the vehicle and began to protest angrily about the situation. Officer 950828 asked the complainant to step to the rear of the vehicle and directed her to keep her voice down and to stop using profanity. She sat on the curb to the right rear of the vehicle, near where the backup officer was standing. While Officer 950828 searched the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the complainant continued to protest and use profanity. Officer 950828 warned her to calm down several times, and at least once told her that she would be arrested for disorderly conduct if she did not stop using profanity. At some point after the complainant exited from the vehicle, the officers were informed by the complainant and her husband that she had recently delivered a premature baby by C-section, that they were returning from a visit with the baby in the hospital, and that she was feeling stomach pain. Officer 950828 completed the vehicle search, finding nothing, and explained to the complainant's husband that he had performed the search in 4 connection with the SCAT operation in the Broadway area. The complainant and her husband departed. The Chief inferred from the complainant's statements the following allegations: 1) excessive use of force; 2) unreasonable search; and 3) unprofessional conduct. CONCLUSIONS Allegation 1: Excessive use of force. Although the complainant and her husband initially claimed that the complainant was shoved and threatened, in her interview, the complainant denied any use of force against her. The officers and civilian witness also reported that there were no threats toward the complainant, nor any physical contact other than the pat down search of the complainant's husband. The Chief's conclusion that there was not excessive use of force is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Alleaation 2: Unreasonable search. The complainant was stopped for a traffic violation. When Officer 950828 asked for permission to search the vehicle, the complainant said that this request left an impression that permission to search the vehicle could be denied. In addition, the complainant was in physical discomfort and anxious to go home to take her medication. The complainant also could not understand why a minor traffic violation would result in questioning about drugs and weapons, and entail a vehicle search. Nevertheless, Iowa law currently permits the search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle and the person of anyone cited for a traffic violation. The Chief's conclusion that there was not an unreasonable search is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, Allegation 2is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS In his report on PCRB #98-14, the Chief inferred a third allegation in PCRB Complaint #98-16 that he did not address in his Findings: unprofessional conduct. Although the Board decided not to refer the Complaint back to the Chief, it should be noted that this is the second incident within a six-week period that an allegation of the use of profanity has been filed against Officer 950828. In this incident, the complainant and the complainant's wife claim that profanity was used and both officers claim that it was not. The Board suggests that the Chief make it clear, through whatever means he deems appropriate, that the use of profanity by officers while acting in an official capacity is unprofessional conduct. The complainant had recently had surgery and was in pain. Although she was loud and emotional with the officers, Officer 950828's response to her does not appear to have been effective in de-escalating the situation. Although the Board understands that it is not always possible to prevent any given situation from escalating, we encourage the Chief to enhance departmental training in this area. Finally, as noted in other Board reports involving race-related allegations, the use of racial terms, or code words such as "you people," is not the only indicator of racial motivation. We encourage the Chief to reinforce his efforts to insure racial and cultural neutrality in all department policies, practices, and procedures. DATED: November 4, 1998