Loading...
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