HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-1999 Public Reports PCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
iR°:: Ir
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the "Board")
review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #99-04 (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 3, 1999, the 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 Chief completed his
Report and submitted it to the Board on August 30, 1999. The Board voted
to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7 B.l(a), which
means that the Board may examine all complaint in[ormation on the record
with no additional information.
The Chief included with his Report copies of the Iowa City Police
Supplemental Report and the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) record, both
relating to the incident that led to the complaint; and summaries of
interviews with the complainant and the Police Records Clerk. A summary
of an interview with the officer was not submitted to the Board.
The Board met on September 2, and 14, 1999 to consider the Report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At approximately 1:45 p.m., the complainant appeared at the iowa
City Police Department (ICPD) to get information about his driving record.
The Police Records Clerk who was assisting him thought that she detected
the odor of alcohol about him, that his eyes did not seem to be focusing
properly, that his speech was slurred, and that he showed some confusion.
She asked if the complainant had driven to the ICPD and received an
affirmative answer. She then informed the dispatcher of her perception of
his condition and of her concern that he not drive.
The dispatcher requested that Officer A investigate the situation.
Officer A spoke briefly with the Records Clerk, then approached the
complainant in the lobby and asked if he had been drinking. The
complainant denied that he had been drinking, and stated that he had not
had a drink for 16 years, Officer A detected an odor that he felt, but was
not sure, was alcohol, and was not certain there were any other indications
that the complainant had been drinking. Officer A accompanied the
complainant as he left the Civic Center to return to his car. Once outside,
near the complainant's car which was parked in front of the Civic Center,
Officer A asked him to submit to a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT). The
complainant took the test, which registered .002 (a reading of .1 indicates
intoxication according to Iowa law). Officer A informed the complainant
that he was free to leave.
CONCLUSION
Allegation 1. The officer administered the breath test without
reasonable suspicion or ~robable cause. The officer requested the PBT
because the Police Records Clerk had reported her suspicion that the
complainant had been drinking and was concerned that the complainant not
drive away from the ICPD if he had been drinking. She had detected an
odor of what she thought was alcohol, and other characteristics she felt
indicated he might be intoxicated. The officer was aware that the
complainant intended to drive from the ICPD, and was rightfully concerned
about public safety and the safety of the complainant if he was to drive
while under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, the conclusion in the
Chief's Report that the officer had probable cause to administer the PBT is
supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. Allegation 1 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2. The officer failed to advise the comJ)lainant that he
could refuse to take the test. Under iowa law, officers are not obliged to
inform individuals that they can refuse to take a field sobriety test.
Accordingly, the conclusion in the Chief's Report that the officer did not
wrongfully fail to inform the complainant that he could refuse to take the
test is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary,
or capricious. Allegation 2 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3. The officer used an inaccurate Preliminary Breath Test
unit to conduct the test or administered the test wrongly. Because there is
no record that Officer A signed out a PBT on the date of the incident, it was
not possible to determine the accuracy of the unit he used. However, the
reading of .002 is [ar below the level set for intoxication according to Iowa
law. Accordingly, the conclusion in the Chief's Report that there is no
evidence to support a finding that the testing unit was used incorrectly or
4
was malfunctioning is supported by substantial evidence and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 3 is NOT SUSTAINED.
COMMENT: The Board recommends that the Chief insure that appropriate
administrative policies and procedures be developed and/or followed to
permit routine identification and tracking of each PBT unit in the field.
DATED: September 14, 1999