HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-1998 Public ReportPCRB 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 98-17 (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 September 21, 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. The Acting
Chief of Police submitted his Report on October 20, 1998. The Board voted
to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7 B(1){a), which
means that it chose to review the matter on the record before it without
additional investigation by the Board. The Board requested from the City
Council an extension of time of its 30-day reporting deadline to December
18, 1998; such extension was granted. The Board met on October 29,
1998, November 3, 1998, and December 8, 1998, to consider the
Complaint. The Board offered a name-clearing hearing to the officer
involved in allegation 2; the officer waived his rights.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In September 1998, at 4:19 P.M., Officer 910903, who was driving a
marked police car, stopped the complainant, who was driving a pickup truck
westbound in the 500 block of East Burlington Street in the lane directly in
front of the police car. The complainant's girlfriend was a passenger in the
truck. The officer left the patrol car, spoke to the complainant and obtained
his driver's license, ran information regarding the stop on the Mobile Data
Terminal (MDT) in the patrol car, returned the license to the complainant,
and issued a verbal warning to him for speeding 32 mph in a 25 mph zone.
The stop was concluded at 4:19 p.m.
The complainant stated that he had been driving behind the patrol car
for several blocks. He claimed that the officer was intentionally driving
slowly in order to watch girls who were walking in the area. He said that,
once the street became four lanes, he observed the driver of a station
wagon accelerate and pass the patrol car. He said he, too, then accelerated
and passed the patrol car. The complainant, a resident of Missouri who
only recently came to Iowa City, said he was unaware of the speed limit on
Burlington Street. When the officer stopped him immediately thereafter, the
complainant admitted he became angry and asked the officer why he was
being stopped. He said that the officer answered that the complainant was
stopped because he was 'stupid for passing a police officer.' He said the
officer used the word 'stupid" at least one more time in their interactions;
his girlfriend later supported this allegation. The complainant said that while
in the patrol car operating the MDT, the officer appeared to be intently using
his rear view mirror to watch a girl walking on the sidewalk. He said that
the officer's manner in handling the stop was arrogant.
CONCLUSIONS
Allegation 1. The .officer had no legitimate reason {probable cause) to
make the traffic stop. The complainant did not deny that he accelerated to
a rate of speed in excess of 25 mph (the limit in the 500 block of Burlington
Street) to pass the patrol car. Neither ignorance of the speed limit nor the
driving behavior of others is a viable excuse for exceeding the speed limit.
The Acting Chief's conclusion that the officer did have probable cause to
stop the complainant is supported by substantial evidence and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation1 is NOT
SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2. The officer used language which is inappropriate and
condescending in nature. Although there is disagreement over the exact
nature of the words used, the Acting Chief's conclusion that the officer's
communication with the complainant was verbally condescending and
inappropriate is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 2 is SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3. The officer watched girls while keeping the.complainant
waiting in his vehicle. Police department records indicate that the traffic
stop that is the subject of this complaint took approximately e!ght minutes.
Records from the MDT in the patrol car indicate that at least half of that
time was taken up running the complainant's information through the MDT
system, and another two or three minutes were required to scroll through
the material to obtain specific information. The Acting Chief's conclusion
that the officer did not take more than a routine amount of time to make the
stop, run the MDT checks, and talk to the complainant is supported by
substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Accordingly, allegation 3 is NOT SUSTAINED.
4
COMMENTS
The Board considers the Acting Police Chief's plan to provide formal
counseling on public contact and demeanor for the officer to be an
appropriate, positive action.
DATED: December 8, 1998