HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2000 Communication Draft 7/7/2000
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000
General Responsibilities
The Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) was created by Ordinance No. 97-3792
of the City of Iowa City on July 15, 1997 (amended by Ordinance No. 99-3877 on April
28, 1999).
The Board was established to assure that investigations into claims of police
misconduct are conducted in a manner which is fair, thorough, and accurate, and to
assist the Police Chief, the City Manager, and the City Council in evaluating the overall
performance of the Police Department by reviewing the Police Department's
investigations into complaints. The Board is also required to maintain a central registry
of complaints and to provide an annual report setting forth the numbers, types, and
disposition of complaints of police misconduct. To achieve these purposes, the Board
complies with Chapter 8 of the Iowa City Code and the Board's By-Laws and Standard
Operating Procedures and Guidelines.
PCRB responsibilities:
1. Review [investigations of] complaints of police misconduct
* Review the Chief's reports in a manner that is fair, thorough, and
accurate
· Issue public reports to the City Council
2. Help the Chief, City Manager, and City Council evaluate the overall
performance of the Iowa City Police Department (ICPD)
Maintain a monitoring system for tracking complaints
Provide an annual report to the City Council
· Review practices, procedures, and policies and make recommendations
for change
· Recommend ways for the ICPD to improve community relations and be
more responsive to community needs
3. Assure the citizens of Iowa City that the ICPD's performance is in keeping
with community standards.
· Seek and accept comment, opinion, and advice
PCRB Annual Repo~ FY '2000- ]
Hold periodic community forums to gather public input and to inform the
public
Activities and Accomplishments
Meetings
The PCRB holds regular meetings on the second Tuesday and special meetings as
necessary. To address complaints during the period covered by this report and to handle
a variety of administrative tasks and other activities, the Board held 23 meetings, each
lasting one to three hours. The Board also met once with the City Council. Board
members assigned to review investigations of complaints and prepare written reports for
the City Council spent an average of [four] hours per complaint to complete these tasks.
During the period covered by this report, Board members each dedicated at least [ ]
hours to the work of the PCRB (for a total of [ ] hours).
Administration
During the year, the City Manager approved a proposal that the Board apply for
membership in National Association for Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement
(NACOLE), a national organization for citizen review boards. NACOLE provides a variety
of relevant services, such as national statistics and information, training, and expert
testimony. The NACOLE membership was established at the associate member level and
the Board Chair will routinely be listed as the PCRB's contact.
A senior member of the Police Department now routinely attends the open portion
of PCRB meetings.
Complaints
Number and Type of Allegations
The Board received 9 complaints in the reporting period covered by this report: 6
in 1999 and 3 to date in 2000. Seven public reports were issued. Five complaints are
now under review. One complaint under review contained several timely allegations and
several allegations that were dismissed as untimely. The following data are based on the
22 allegations in the seven complaints reported on. Six of the seven complaints
contained more than one allegation.
PCRB Annual Report FY '2ooo- 2
Allegatione
Stop or arrest made on basis of race 4
Officer did not explain reason for stop or arrest 2
No probable cause 2
No medical treatment offered 2
Excessive force 2
Intimidation to consent to search vehicle 1
Officer rude and antagonistic 1
Not advised of right to refuse breath test 1
Breath test poorly administered ~ 1
Officer slapped drink from complainant's hand 1
Officer threatened to use OC spray 1
Complainant was left in police car for 15 minutes 1
Failure to Mirandize 1
Officers had previously harassed complainant 1
Officers planted controlled substance I
Level of Review
The Board decided, by simple majority vote, the level of review to give each
report, selecting one or more of the six levels specified in the City Code:
Level a On the record with no additional investigation 7
Level b Interview or meet with complainant 1
Level c Interview or meet with named officer 0
Level d Request additional investigation by Chief or 0
City Manager, or request police assistance
in the Board's own investigation
Level · Board performs its own additional investigation 0
Level f Hire independent investigators 0
Complaint Resolutions
Complaints of misconduct of police officers are investigated by the Police
Department. The Police Chief summarizes the results of these investigations and
indicates in a report (the Chief's Report) to the PCRB whether allegations are sustained
or not sustained. (If complaints are made against the Chief, the City Manager conducts
the investigation and prepares and submits the reports.)
The Board reviews both the citizen's complaint and the Chief's Report and
decides whether the allegations should be sustained or not sustained. The Board
prepares a report for the City Council, with copies to the Chief, the officers involved, the
City Manager, and the complainant. None of the 22 allegations listed in the seven
complaints for which Board reports have been released was sustained.
I'CRB Annul Rcpo, FY '2000 - 3
The Board made comments and/or recommendations for improvement in police
policy, procedures, or conduct in three of the reports. The following are synopses of the
Board's comments and recommendations:
A complainant stated she felt she had been intimidated into consenting to a
search of her car. The Board noted that in his Report the Chief cites the
importance of securing voluntary consent for vehicle searches and
recommends that the officers named in the complaint review department
policy on traffic stops and the law concerning consent to search.
· A complainant alleged that the officer used an inaccurate Preliminary Breath
Test (PBT) unit to conduct a breath test or administered it incorrectly. Since
there was no record that the officer had signed out a PBT on the date of the
incident, it was not possible to determine the accuracy of the unit that he
used. The Board recommended that the Chief assure that appropriate
administrative policies and procedures be developed and/or followed, to permit
routine identification and tracking of each PBT unit in the field.
* A complainant sat in her car for nearly an hour while the officer who had
stopped her for minor traffic violations waited to receive confirmation of
information about her out-of-state license and registration. The complainant
stated that upon receipt of the information, the officer ordered her to get out
of the car and it was impounded.
Considering the lateness of the hour of the stop, the time of the year (late fall)
and the complainant's expressed concern that she was not dressed
appropriately to walk home, the Board concluded that it would have been
common courtesy to a citizen in this situation to offer her assistance in
arranging transportation. The officer's failure to do so is inconsistent with
Section 208 of the Police Policy Manual.
The stop lasted nearly an hour. The Board suggested that a review of
department policy, procedures, and practice is warranted when a simple traffic
stop is of very long duration.
Although there was a video of the stop, there was no audio record. The Board
affirmed 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.
Name-Clearing Hearings
The ordinance requires that the Board not issue a report critical of the conduct of
a sworn officer until after a name-clearing hearing has been held. During this reporting
PCRB Annual Repo~ FY '2000 -4
period, the Board scheduled one name-clearing hearing. The officer waived the right to
the hearing and did not attend.
Mediation
Officers and complainants are notified by mail that formal mediation is available to
them at any stage in the complaint process before the Board adopts its public report. All
parties involved must consent to a request for mediation. The Board received one
request for mediation from a complainant, but the officers involved declined to
participate, upon advice of the union.
Complaint Histories of Officers
City ordinance requires that the annual report of the PCRB must not include the
names of complainants or officers involved in unsustained complaints and must be in a
form that protects the confidentiality of information about ell parties, while providing the
public with information on the overall performance of the Police Department.
In addition, at one of its first meetings, the Board independently agreed that it did
not wish to use the names of officers or complainants in cases in which complaints are
sustained. The Board and the Police Chief agreed to usa only the unique code numbers
the Police Department has assignad to each officer.
In 1998-99, them was a great deal of debate over a proposal to discontinue the
use of these individual unique identifiers and replace them with a numbering system that
would not have permitted the Board to identify (by identifying number only} patterns in
complaints against officers. After lengthy deliberations that included several
presentations by the Board, the City Council agreed not to change the ordinance but to
retain the current practice of preserving officer identity through use of individual unique
identifying numbers assigned by the Police Department. The Board continued to follow
this practice during the period covered by this report.
Complaint Histories
Twelve officers were named in the 7 complaints this report covers. One officer
was named in two; the rest were each named once.
ICPD Internal Investigations Logs
The Board reviewed the ICPD Internal Investigations Log, provided by the Chief of
Police on October 5, 1999.
PCRB Anm~al Repor~ FY '2000
Complainant Demographics
The following is demographic information from the eight complaints discussed in
this report. Because complainants provide it voluntarily, the demographic information is
incomplete. All eight complainants provided some demographic information.
Category Number of Complainants
Age:
Under 21 1
Over 21 7
Color:
White 3
Black 4
Latino 1
Na~onal Origin:
US 1
African 4
Mexican 1
Unknown 2
Gender Identity:
Male 4
Female 3
Unknown 1
Sex:
Male 5
Female 3
Sexual Orientation:
Heterosexual 4
Unknown 4
Marital Statue:
Married 1
Single 3
Divorced 1
Unknown
Mental Disability:
No 1
Unknown 7
Physical Disability:
No 1
Yes 2
Unknown 5
Religion:
Lutheran 1
Baptist 1
Pentecostal 1
Unitarian 1
Unknown 4
Race:
Caucasian 3
Black 4
Latino 1
Some demographic information that was not provided on the sheet attached to
the complaint form was taken from the first page of the complaint form.
Board Concerns and Issues
The Board's concerns and issues include:
1. Continuing to address concerns about limits on/obstacles to access the
information the Board needs to do a thorough review of the Chief's Reports~
Exploring all appropriate ways of obtaining the information we need to execute
fair and balanced reviews.
2. Continuing to monitor and address issues related to race-based traffic stops and
other race-based (profiling) issues in policing. Reviewing a full year of results of
the Iowa City Police Department's new policy on collection of information on race
for all traffic stops as soon as they are available.
3. Continuing to address concerns with limits on the authority of the PCRB and with
the deferential standard of review in the complaint process.
4. Continuing to work on specific areas of concern with respect to department
policies, procedures, and practices ---for example, interview techniques.
5. Non-participation of officers in mediation, name-clearing hearings, and release of
transcripts.
6. Sunset clause
7. "Report card" from the City Council
8. "Cost" of the PCRB
PCRB Annual Repro1 FY '2000 - '7
PCRB Goals for 2000-2001
Mission · Review [investigations of] complaints of police misconduct
· Help ensure that police department is responsive to community needs
Goals
Board Education
· Hold forums (minimum of two a year)
· Continue to streamline Board procedures
· New Board member briefings
Community Education · Hold forums
· Provide information aimed at improving officers' understanding of the Board's
function and educating the public about the PCRB
Policy/Practice/Procedure (PPP) Review
· Review general police policies, procedures and practices, to include the use of
force
· Address the perception of discriminatory enforcement
· Community relations
Board Members
John Watson, Chair
Patricia Farrant, Vice Chair
Leah Cohen
Paul Hoffey
John Stratton
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
{319)356-5413
R. J. Winkelhake
Chief of Police
Iowa City Police Department
410 E, Washington Street
Iowa CiW IA 52240-1826
RE: Police Citizens Review Board Ordinance 8-8-5(B)(4)
Complaint Interviews
Dear Chief Winkelhake:
An issue came up at the Board's meeting on June 13 regarding interviews of complainants
required under the Code Section referenced above. It is our interpretation of the ordinance
that complainants are not formally complainants under the PCRB ordinance until a written
complaint is filed pursuant to Section 8-8-3(C). It appears that in Complaint #99-08, the
complainant was interviewed by your department on October 8, 1999, three weeks prior to
the date a complaint was filed on November 17, 1999.
We understand that occasionally a potential complainant may be interviewed by a
representative of the Police Department regarding an internal complaint filed with the Police
Department, or in an attempt to resolve an issue informally. The Board feels that these
types of interviews should not be substituted to satisfy the requirement of Section 8-8-
5(B)(4).
Once a complaint is filed in writing with the Police Citizens Review Board, the procedure and
process under the ordinance is much different than an internal investigation or informal
resolution of an issue. Therefore, we would ask that such interviews prior to the filing of
the PCRB complaint not be substituted for the complaint interview required by the
ordinance.
No particular comment concerning this issue will be addressed in our report on #99-08.
However, we wanted to make you aware of our expectations in this regard so that any
misunderstanding may be avoided in the future. As always, thank you for your assistance
and cooperation.
Sincerely,
John Watson
Chair, Police Citizens Review Board