HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-2000 Public Reports POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5413
TO: City Council
FROM: Police Citizens Review Beard
RE: Report of PCRB Complaint 899-05
DATE: March 14, 2000
CC: Complainant
Stephen Atkins, City Manager
R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in Complaint
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board")
review of the investigation of PCRB Complaint #99-05 (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 these 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).
PCRB 99-05
Page I
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk on
September 29, 1999. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the
Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. On October 29,
1999, the Board requested that the Chief provide the complete case file and
any videotape regarding it, along with his Report. The Chief's Report was
due January 18, 2000. On December 29, 1999 the Chief requested a 30-
day extension of the deadline. On January 11, 2000, the Board granted the
extension as requested. The Chief's Report was received January 31, 2000.
^ summation of the interview with the complainant was attached to the
Chief's Report.
The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section
8-8-7 B. 1 (a), which means the Board reviews the Complaint on record
without requesting additional information. The Board met on October 12 and
November 9, 1999; January 11, February 8, February 22, March 7, and
March 14, 2000 to consider the Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT '~'
In September 1999, late at night, two Iowa City police officers
responded to complaints of a loud party involving an estimated 80-100
people at a house in Iowa City. The complainant, who was in the house
when the officers arrived, came outside and, by asking questions interjected
himself into a conversation between Officer A and the complainant's
roommate. When informed that both he and his roommate were to be
ticketed, the complainant pressed for more information, asking further
questions he claimed were intended to clarify the situation. Officer A, who
was attempting to continue talking to the roommate, informed the
complainant that he was under arrest. Officer A then began handcuffing the
complainant, causing him to drop a cup of beer he had been holding. The
PCRB 99-05
Page 2
complainant questioned why he was being arrested and did not cooperate
with the cuffing process. At this point, Officer A told the complainant he
would be sprayed with a chemical spray if he continued to be non-
cooperative. The complainant was handcuffed and placed (he claims
thrown) into the back of a squad car by Officer A. The complainant was not
Mirandized and was required to sit in the back of the squad car for a period
of time (complainant alleges 15 minutes) while the officers completed their
business at the scene. The complainant was quoted in his police interview
as claiming he also had to wait in the squad car at the jail while the officer
did paperwork. The complainant was charged with disorderly conduct.
There appears to be substantive agreement between the accounts
provided by the complainant and the officer regarding the events that
occurred, i.e., the actions that occurred and their sequence. Disagreement is
substantial regarding the demeanor of the participants and how each
interpreted his/her own actions and those of the other.
CONCLUSION
Allegation 1. Officer did not explain why the complainant was being
arrested. The investigating officer reported*that the complainant was not
told why he was being arrested because he was disruptive and
argumentative, and because of the "situation for which the officers were
dispatched." The Chief's Report and the complainant agree that he was
informed by Officer A of the reason when the officer entered the squad car
to drive the complainant to jail. Given the complainant's self-report
regarding being upset and the fact that the complainant was informed before
being transported to jail, the Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the
complainant was appropriately informed is supported by substantial
evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 1 of
the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
PCR8 99-05
Page 3
Allegation 2. Officer slapped a drink from complainant's hand while
cuffing the complainant's right hand. The Chief's Report acknowledges that
the actions of Officer A caused the drink to fall from the complainant's hand.
In the investigative interview, the complainant stated the drink was slapped
from his hand immediately prior to the handcuffing. The Board concurs that
the Chief's conclusion that the drink was dropped as a result of the
handcuffing procedure is supported by substantial evidence, and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 2 of the Complaint is NOT
SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3. Officer threatened to spray the complainant in the face
with OC. The Chief's Report acknowledges that the complainant was
advised that chemical spray would be used if he failed to cooperate with the
handcuffing procedure. The Report states, =officers are required to tell
someone they will be sprayed if they continue to resist." The Chief's Report
concludes the alleged behavior was not only appropriate but was consistent
with approved practice. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the
warning regarding the possible use of chemical spray was appropriate and is
supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. Allegation 3 of the Complaint isNOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 4. Officer threw complainant into the back of the squad
car. The Chief's Report indicates that placement of the complainant in the
rear of the squad car was observed by Officer B, who reported proper
procedures were followed. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that
proper procedure was followed in placing the complainant in the rear seat of
the squad car is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 4 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 5. Officer left complainant in the back of the squad car for
fifteen minutes. The complainant reported that he was held in the squad car
for 15 minutes at the scene of the complaint. The Chief's Report concluded,
UTime line indicators do not reveal an unreasonable amount of time being
PCRB 99-05
Page 4
used by the officer to finish addressing the situation and issuing a citation to
the roommate."
The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the complainant was not
held in the squad car an inappropriate length of time is supported by
substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Allegation 5 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 6. Officer did not advise the complainant of his Miranda
rights. The Chief's Report states that, 'Miranda rights were not required as
the complainant was not interrogated while in custody. ~ The Board finds the
Chief's conclusion that the Miranda warning was not required is supported
by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Allegation 6 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
PCRB 99-05
Page $
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5413
TO: City Council
FROM: Police Citizens Review Board
RE: Report of PCRB Complaint #99-06
DATE: March 14, 2000
CC: Complainant
Stephen Atkins, City Manager
R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board")
review of the investigation of PCRB Complaint #99-06 (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 these 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).
PCRB 99-06
Page I
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk on October
20, 1999. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint
was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief's Report was
due on January 18, 2000. He requested an extension to February 3, 2000,
and this was approved by the Board on January 25. The Chief completed
his Report and submitted it to the Board on February 1. The Board voted to
review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7 B. 1 (a), which means
that the Board reviews the Complaint on the record without requesting
additional information.
The Chief included with his Report officer Supplementary Reports,
Laboratory Receipts, Voluntary Statements, Evidence Documents, and the
official District Court Complaint.
The Board met on November 9, 1999, February 8, February 22, March
7, and March 14, 2000 to consider the Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In October 1999, in the early morning hours, several officers were
dispatched to a fight in progress near downtown. Officers A and B were the
first to arrive and found two victims who had received lacerations from a
knife. Two witnesses were also at the scene. They reported that while
walking home they noticed two white males beating a black male. The
witnesses intervened and broke up the fight. The black male then left the
scene and was later found by Officer A several blocks away. Officers C, D,
and E joined Officer A in questioning the complainant. Because of the
complainant's obvious injuries, Fire Department EMT personnel were called
to the area where the complainant was being detained. The EMTs reported
that the complainant refused medical treatment.
PCRB 99-06
Page 2
The complainant stated he had been jumped and beaten up by three
white guys, and that he just wanted to go home. He was detained for
questioning and returned in a police car by Officer E to the scene of the
altercation. While the complainant was being questioned, an officer found a
baggie containing what was believed to be a controlled substance on the
floor of the back seat of the police car in which the complainant was seated.
The complainant told the officers the baggie was not his.
Earlier the two victims and, separately the complainant had spent the
evening at a local bar, where one of the victims and the complainant had
exchanged angry words over a previous incident. After leaving the bar, the
victims claim the complainant came across the street and attacked them
with a knife. The complainant says he found the victims waiting next to his
car and was attacked by them. A knife believed to be the one used in the
altercation was found at the scene. The complainant at first denied that it
was his; however, he later admitted that it was and that he used it only
when he was on the ground and being beaten by the victims.
Officer E transported the complainant to UIHC, where he refused
medical treatment. At the complainant's request, photos were taken of his
injuries. The complainant was then transferred to the County Jail.
Complaint//99-06, filed on October 20, 1999, contains two
allegations against the police: (1) the complainant was arrested based on
prejudice; (2) the officers involved in this arrest have previously harassed
him.
The Chief's investigation included an interview with the complainant
on November 11, 1999, at the Johnson County Jail. This interview
produced two additional allegations: (3) the complainant was not offered
medical treatment for his injuries; (4) the officers involved in this incident
planted a controlled substance about his person, resulting in a subsequent
charge. The transcript provided to the PCRB is an extensive synopsis of the
interview session.
PCRB 99-06
Page 3
On October 29, 1999, the complainant expressed interest in
mediation, and PCRB mediation packets were mailed to the complainant and
to the Chief for delivery to the officers involved in the Complaint. The
complainant signed a 'Consent to Mediate" on November 8, 1999. On
November 9, 1999, the Chief reported that he had received a memo from
the President of the Police Union stating that ~the officers involved in //99-
06 decline to become involved in any mediation effort." Since mediation
may proceed only upon written agreement of all parties, no mediation was
held.
CONCLUSION
Allegation #1. The complainant says he was arrested based on
prejudice, not probable cause. Although there is a difference of opinion
between the victims and the complainant as to how the fight began, the
complainant admitted that the knife was his and the he did use it to injure
the victims. The Board finds no evidence to dispute the contention that the
charges against the complainant were based upon sound probable cause and
were made without prejudice or the use of racial slurs. The Board finds that
the Chief's conclusions are supported by s~Jbstantial evidence, and are not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 1 of the Complaint is NOT
SUSTAINED.
Allegation #2. The complainant says the officers involved in this
arrest have harassed him in the past. Most of the police officers involved in
this incident have had previous contact with the complainant. The contacts
appear to have been in conjunction with normal police duties relating to
investigation of a criminal offense, service of an arrest warrant, and traffic
violations. We have found no indication of harassment by officers in the
incident that is the subject of this Complaint. (The complaint of harassment
by police officers during previous contacts is not considered timely and
therefore is not relevant to this Complaint.) We find that the Chief's
PCRB 99-O6
Page 4
conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, and are not unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 2 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation #3. The complainant says he was not offered medical
treatment for his injuries.. According to statements by police officers, the
complainant refused medical attention. Fire department EMT personnel who
responded also reported the complainant refused medical attention. The
physician at UIHC also recalled the complainant refused medical attention.
The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the complainant was given
several opportunities for treatment, all of which he refused, is supported by
substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Allegation 3 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation #4. The complainant says the officers involved in this
incident planted a controlled substance about this person~ resulting in a
subsequent charge. After being stopped, the complainant was given a pat-
down search. The search produced no contraband or weapon. He was then
handcuffed, placed in the police vehicle and was returned to the scene of the
altercation. Upon arrival, Officers A and B noted a 'baggie" containing what
is believed to be a controlled substance on the floor of the back seat of the
vehicle where the complainant was sitting. 'The officer driving the car told
another officer he checked the area before the complainant was put into the
back seat and that the bag of white powder was not there. The Chief's
Report also states that the driver had checked the rear seat area of the car
after having transported another prisoner, and was absolutely certain that it
was free of any contraband. The officer also denies placing the substance in
the vehicle. The Board finds no reason to dispute the Chief's conclusion that
statements by the police officers clearly support the contention that the
complainant was in possession of the controlled substance. The Chief's
conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 4 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
PCRB 99-06
Page
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5413
TO: City Council
FROM: Police Citizens Review Board
RE: Report of PCRB Complaint #99-07
DATE: March 14, 2000
CC: Complainant
Stephen Atkins, City Manager
R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in Complaint
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board")
review of the investigation of PCRB Complaint//99-07 (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 these findings are ~unsupported by
substantial evidence," are 'unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are
Ucontrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or
local law." Sections 8-8-7B.2(a), (b), and (c).
PCRB 99-07
Page I
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk on
November 12, 1999. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the
Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. On December
20, 1999, the Board requested that the Chief provide the complete case file
and any videotape regarding it, along with his Report. The Chief's Report
was received on February 10, 2000.
The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section
8-8-7 B.1 (a), which means the Board reviews the Complaint on record
without requesting additional information. The Board met on November 9,
1999, February 22, March 7, and March 14, 2000 to consider the
Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In November 1999, in the early morning hours, Officer A and Officer B
were patrolling in their marked police vehicle in downtown Iowa City. Upon
entering an alley, Officer A noticed two individuals near the back door of a
bar. Their presence appeared suspicious because the bar was closed.
Officer A stopped the car and both officers exited. One of the
individuals proceeded toward the police car while the complainant remained
in a crouched position at the back door of the business.
The first person told Officer B he was trying to get the complainant to
go home and was apologetic. Officer B said this person appeared
intoxicated. Officer A went to talk to the complainant. Officer C then
arrived at the scene and assisted Officer A with the complainant. After
noting the complainant's demeanor, Officer A performed a HGN (Horizontal
Gaze Nystagmus) test, which resulted in a point score of 6. Officer C then
obtained a Preliminary Breath Test, which showed a result of . 177.
PCR8 99-07
Page
The complainant, when asked his identity, provided Officer A with the
name of his older bother. Officer B, however, knew the complainant and left
the first person to approach the complainant, addressing the complainant by
his proper name.
Based on the complainant's level of intoxication and providing false
information, Officer A took his arm and told him he was under arrest. The
complainant broke free and a scuffle followed in which an officer was
injured. After several warnings, and the complainant still resisting, Officer A
sprayed the complainant with OC. During these events, the first person ran
from the scene. An investigator tried with no success to later interview this
person. The complainant stated he would be an uncooperative witness.
Both individuals had backpacks with them. The first person fled from
the scene with a backpack. The complainant claimed the backpack left at
the scene belonged to him. In the backpack was a pot pipe with residue in
it. This resulted in a charge of possession of a controlled substance. The
complainant also claimed he had a bag of marijuana, which officers
subsequently found on the ground. No charges were filed because the
officers were unable to determine to whom the bag belonged.
The complainant was taken to UniverSity Hospitals to have his eyes
flushed and treated for OC exposure. He was also treated for superficial
abrasions. The emergency room report stated the complainant was very
uncooperative and spit at persons in the room.
The complainant was then transported to the Johnson County Jail
where he continued to be uncooperative for the booking procedure.
Consequently, booking procedures were completed the next morning. The
complainant was charged with public intoxication, interference with official
acts causing injury, and possession of a controlled substance.
The complainant claims he had no idea why he was arrested. He had
a memory lapse in regard to most events, including taking the breath test
and his trip to University Hospitals. He claims he had smoked marijuana
PCRB 99~7
Page 3
earlier that day but was not drinking. He stated he had a hard time
remembering that night.
CONCLUSION
Allegation 1. Arrested for no reason and the charges are bogus.
The officers detected and acted upon a suspicious scene. The complainant
failed field sobriety tests and gave false information. The complainant
struggled with officers, injuring one. The complainant was in possession of
a controlled substance. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the
charges filed were appropriate is supported by substantial evidence, and is
not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 1 of the Complaint is
NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2. Officers used excessive force while affecting his arrest.
The complainant tried to flee and struggled with three officers. The officers
did use force and O.C. spray during this time due to the struggle of the
complainant. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the officers acted
to prevent further injury to all is supported by substantial evidence, and is
not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 2 of the Complaint is
NOT SUSTAINED. ~ ~
Allegation 3. Officers failed to provide medical attention after his
arrest. The complainant was transported to University Hospitals and was
uncooperative. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the complainant
was given proper medical treatment is supported by substantial evidence,
and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 3 of the
Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
PCRB 99-07
Page 4