HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2000 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: Public Report of PCRB Complaint #99-08
DATE: July 13, 2000
CC: Complainant
Stephen Atkina, City Manager
R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police
O~cer(s) involved in Complaint
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board")
review of the investigation of PCRB Complaint #99-08 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILI,T~.
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 reoommend 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 99-08
Page ]
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on
November 17, 1999. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the
Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. Because the
Complaint was partially in reference to an incident that occurred in August,
1999, and partially in reference to media reports beginning in October, 1999,
the Chief and the complainant were informed that parts of the Complaint
appeared to be filed too late (i.e., not within 90 days of the incident
compla, ined of).
The Chief and the complainant were both informed that the Board
would consider the timeliness of the complaint at its meeting on December
14, 1999. The complainant provided no additional information for the Board
to consider regarding the timeliness of the Complaint. On December 14,
1999, the Chief submitted a memorandum to the Board that described the
actions of the officer and procedures for handling juvenile cases.
The Board considered the timeliness of the Complaint at its meetings
on December 14 and December 28, 1999. On December 31, 1999, the
Board informed the Chief and the complainant by letter that complaints
about the officer's conduct in August, 1999, were found to be untimely and
were summarily dismissed, but that other complaints about the officer's
conduct were timely and should be investigated. The Board requested a
complete copy of the case file. On January 6, 2000, the Board requested
from the Chief, in addition to his Report, a copy of the complete case file
and any videotape regarding 899-08.
On February 9, 2000, the Board received a memorandum from the
Chief (dated January 18, 2000) that provided additional information
regarding PCRB Complaint #99-08 and that requested the Board dismiss the
Complaint in its entirety. On February 25, 2000, the Board reiterated to the
Chief by letter that the Board had found that certain portions of the
PCRB 99-08
Page 2
Complaint were timely and should be investigated. Because the Chief's
Report was originally due on February 15, 2000, the Board granted the Chief
an extension to April 6, 2000.
The Chief completed his Report and submitted it to the Board on April
6, 2000. The following documents were included with the Report:
Summary of Discussions with Juvenile Intake Person, Summary of
Conversations with the Assistant County Attorney, Summary of Discussions
with Brian Sharp of the Press Citizen, and Summary of Interview of
[complainant] by the iCPD Interviewer. The interview with the complainant
was conducted on October 28, 1999, which was approximately three weeks
before the Complaint was filed.
At its meeting on April 11, 2000, the Board voted to request from the
City Council a 45-day extension of its report deadline to July 5, 2000. Such
extension was granted.
On April 13. 2000, the Board requested a copy of the entire case file,
including: a copy of the officer's supplemental report, and transcripts of
interviews with the compleinant, witnesses, and the officer subject of the
complaint, by April 20, 2000.
The Chief informed the Board by memorandum on April 19 that there
was no supplemental report by the officer, and that interviews had not been
recorded, so there were no transcripts. The Chief further informed the Board
that the case file was written in August, 1999, and reminded the Board that
it had dismissed ~that part of the complaint."
On May 2, 2000, the Board informed the Chief that it wished to
review facts of the case as recorded by the officer in August, 1999, and
again requested case file documents by May 9, 2000. On May 17, 2000, a
copy of the case file was received from Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant
City Attorney.
The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section
8-8-7 B.1 (b) and (e), which means interview/meet with complainant, and
PCRB 99-08
Page 3
performance by Board of its own additional investigation. The Board met on
December 14, 28, 1999, February 2, 2000, April 11 and 25, 2000, May 9,
and 23, 2000, and June 13, 2000.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In August 1999, Officer A responded to a call about an older woman
who was being harassed by some children. Officer A located the woman,
who reported that four children threw sand and dirt in her face, kicked and
hit her, and threw her groceries into a creek. The woman identified two of
the children as daughters of the complainant. Officer A spoke with the two
children and reported that they admitted to the actions.
Officer A subsequently filed Juvenile Complaints charging both with
assault causing injury. At a later date, a juvenile court officer recommended
that the two children be charged additionally with robbery. The additional
robbery charges were subsequently filed by the County Attorney's Office.
In October 1999, the incident and subsequent charges were reported
in the news media. The news reports included statements from the
complainant, the complainant's older daughter, Officer A, and two Assistant
County Attorneys.
On November 17, 1999, the complainant filed PCRB Complaint
#99-08 with the following allegations which were timely:
Allegation 1: The ICPD gave the media copies of police reports and
caused the subsequent publicity, including the publishing of her daughters'
pictures.
Allege'don 2: Officer A made further inappropriate comments to the
press regarding the incident.
..CONCLUSION
Allegation 1: Court information used for the media stories came from
the public record at the County Courthouse. Additional information about
PCRB 99-08
Page 4
the incident came from press interviews with the complainant and her
daughter, county officials, and Officer A. The photographs of the children
were not provided to the press by the Iowa City Police Department. The
Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that the ICPD did not provide copies
of police reports to the press or cause the publicity about the incident is
supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious. Allegation//3 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2: Although the Board believes that some of Officer A's
remarks to the press were imprudent and potentially prejudicial, they were
made on the basis of the officer's knowledge of the incident and in response
to statements of the complainant and the complainant's older daughter. In
addition, Officer A's remarks to the press appear to be within the guidelines
set out in the Policy Manual of the Iowa City Police Department, Section
402.3 RESPONSIBILITY OF OFFICERS TO SUPPLY INFORMATION. The
Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that Officer A did not make
inappropriate comments to the press is supported by substantial evidence,
and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #4 is NOT
SUSTAINED.
COMMENT
It is the Board's opinion that Section 402.3 of the ICPD policy manual
is too broad. We agree with the basic premise that police officials should be
responsive to requests for information from the public and the news media.
However, we recommend that the policy be changed to 1) permit the Chief
to designate a primary spokesperson for the Department for issues or
incidents that are potentially sensitive or high profile; and 2) more clearly
restrict the release of information that is not factual in nature.
PCRB 99-08
Page ~