The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-13-2000 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 Board RE: Report of PCRB Complaint #99-09 DATE: May 23, 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//99-09 (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 99-09 Page I BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk on December 22, 1999. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. On January 6, 2000, the Board requested that the Chief provide a copy of the complete case file and any videotape regarding it, along with his report. The Chief's Report was received on March 21, 2000. When it met on March 28, the Board noted that the report had not been prepared in the usual format and that the case file and videotape had not been provided. On March 30, the Board sent a letter to the Chief noting that the report did not provide information as specified in the ordinance (8-8- 6 B,1 and 2) and that the videotape and file had not been provided. The Board extended the deadline for receipt of a revised report and enclosures to April 17. The Board received the revised report, plus videotape and transcripts of interviews with the complainant and a Police Department supervisor on April 17. By memo dated April 20, the Board was advised that the accused officer's interview was compelled and that a transcript of it would not be released. A name-clearing hearing was scheduled for May 23, 2000, but the officer involved waived his right to appear. FINDINGS OF FACT In November 1999, in the early evening, Officer A was driving southbound in downtown Iowa City behind the complainant, a Black woman. The complainant made a left turn in a manner that required the officer to brake to avoid striking her car. He entered her license plate information into his MDT and continued to drive behind her as she circled around downtown because, as she later explained, she was looking for a parking space. During this time, he observed that, when she made a right turn, she failed to yield PCR6 99-09 Page 2 to pedestrians in the crosswalk and protected by the 'walk' sign, and that she also made improper lane use. When the MDT returned information that the registration on her car was revoked in Massachusetts for lack of insurance, the officer stopped her. The complainant remained in her car while the officer waited for official confirmation of the information provided via the MDT. The videotape of the stop shows that the officer had several brief conversations with the complainant while she was seated in her car. After about 40 minutes, the officer decided that, given the long delay, he would allow the complainant to leave her car in a nearby municipal parking lot. However, immediately after informing her of this decision, he received official confirmation that her registration had been revoked by the state of Massachusetts, as of July 7, 1999, for lack of insurance. Having confirmed with his supervisor his plan to impound, the Officer told the complainant to get out of her car. The videotape shows that she complied immediately. CONCLUSION Allegation 1. The officer had no probable cause to make the stop. The officer reported that he first observed the complainant when, as he was driving behind her, she made a left turn that caused him to take evasive action to avoid striking her car. He subsequently saw her fail to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk and make improper lane use. When he ran her license plate information in the MDT, he was informed that the registration on her car had been revoked because of lack of insurance. The Board finds that the Report's conclusion that the Officer had probable cause to make the stop is supported by sufficient evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation I of the Complaint is NOT -~U~TAINED. Allegation 2. The officer detained and harassed the complainant because of her race and out of state residence. The Chief reports that the PCR8 99-09 Page officer denied these alleged motivations for the stop. The interview with the complainant does not offer any compelling information to support these allegations. It does, however, clearly express her sense that as a minority woman in Iowa, she feels singled out: ~Cumulatively, I just feel...Iowa is not friendly to me as a driver. I just try to get from one place to another and it's a problem." The Board finds that the Report's conclusion that the officer did not stop and detain the complainant because of her race and state of residence is supported by sufficient evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 2 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 3. The officer was rude and antagonistic during the stop. (Note: The Report states that the complainant did not make allegation 3 until her interview, but her written complaint twice mentions her perception that the officer was 'haranguing' her.) The videotape does not offer any evidence of extended interactions between the officer and the complainant or any sense of aggressive, antagonistic, or threatening 'body language' on the part of the officer. Unfortunately, there is no audio record of the stop. When the stop had extended well beyond the amount of time it would be expeoted to take, the officer decided to permit the complainant to leave her car in a nearby municipal parking lot. He reversed this decision almost immediately, as soon as the confirmation of revoked registration was transmitted to him. The Board reviewed the Police Department's written procedures entitled "Watch Training 00-39: Vehicle Impounds/Holds." It appears that the decision to impound the complainant's car, which the officer discussed and cleared with his supervisor during the course of the stop, was made in accordance with current Police Department policy, not in a selectively punitive manner. The officer told the complainant that she had committed a number of traffic violations; however, he did not cite her for any violations except driving with a revoked registration. PCRB 99-09 Page 4 The Board finds that the Report's conclusion that the officer was not rude and antagonistic to the Complainant during the stop is supported by sufficient evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation 3 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS Considering the lateness of the hour, the time of year, and the complainant's expressed concern that she was not dressed appropriately for a walk, the Board believes that it would be common courtesy to a citizen in this situation to offer her assistance in arranging transportation. The failure to do so is inconsistent with Section 208 of the Police Policy Manual, The stop lasted nearly an hour. The Board suggests that a review of department policy, procedure, and practice applicable when a simple traffic stop is of very long duration is warranted. The Board agrees that it is most desirable that officers verify that audio is functioning during such stops. In this case, since the complainant alleged that the officer had harangued her, the audio record would have been a valuable part of the case file. PCRB 99-O9 Page