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