HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-2000 Public Reports POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the C~y 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 #99-10
DATE: July 11, 2000
CC: Complainant
Steve Atkins, City Manager
R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police
Officers involved in Complaint.
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the 'Board') review
of the investigation of PCRB Complaint #99-10 (the Complainant')
BOARD,S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B(2), 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 8-8-7B(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, end c.
PCRB 99-10
Page I
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on December 29,
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 March 28, 2000.
The Chief turned in a report March 28, 2000, which included the complete case
file. The Board returned the Chief's Report to be revised consistent with the
standard format for his reports. The revised Report was received April 17, 2000.
The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section
8-8-7 B. 1 (a), which means the Board will review the complaint on the record
without requesting additional information.
At the Board's meeting on May 23, 2000, the Board voted to change the
level of review in accordance with Section 8-8-7 B. l(e), whioh means the Board
will perform its own additional investigation. The Board requested additional
investigative information from the Chief on May 25, 2000.
At the meeting on May 23, 2000, the Board voted to request from the City
Council a 60-day extension of its report deadline to August 1, 2000. Such
extension wes granted.
The Chief responded to the Board's request of May 23 by memorandum on
July 5, 2000.
The Board met on March 28, April 11 and 25, May 9 and 23, June 13, and
July 11, 2000 to consider this Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The complainant was arrested late in December in the early evening as he
was parking on Washington Street near the police station. The arresting officer
had received information regarding a possible OoW. I. of a vehicle occupied by two
black males fitting the description of the complainant's vehicle. Officer A located
the car being driven in an erratic fashion. Officer A then lost sight of the vehicle,
PCRB 99-10
Page~--
but later located it as it was being parked in an erratic manner. When Officer A
made contact with the operator he/she concluded the operator was intoxicated as
he was unsteady on his feet and his speech was slurred. Part of this stop is on
video but there is no sound due to battery malfunction. The complainant informed
the Officer that he had no driver's license and that the car he was driving was not
his. Officer A left the scene to enter a nearby bar where the car's owner a. llegedly
was located. There ha found the second person that had been in the vehicle.
This individual claimed he did not know the driver, but had obtained a ride from
him from another bar. The complainant had been left with Officer B who had also
responded to the radio call regarding a possible Operating While Intoxicated.
When Officer A indicated via radio that he was with the suspect, Officer B drove
to Officer A's location and arrived within 1.5 minutes. A third person, Officer C,
is referred to in both Officers' narratives, but it is not clear when he/she arrived.
When Officer A returned from the bar he informed Officer B that he had an
appointment and requested Officer B to complete the O.W./. investigation. Officer
B agreed and as it was very cold, 'advised" the complainant that they would go to
the Iowa City Police Department to conduct sobriety tests. The complainant was
placed in the back of Officer B's patrol car without handcuffs. He was advised
that he was not under arrest at that point in time. Officer B then drove the
complainant to the Iowa City Police Station. The in-car recorder of Officer B
supports this event, although the complainant reports that he was ~walked" to the
Police Department. Officer C remained at the scene to take care of the car.
At the station the complainant was administered a number of sobriety tests
(H.G.N. and Walk and Turn) on which he did poorly. The complainant was asked
to take the One Leg Stand Test and a P. 8. T. Test, but refused. Officer B then
advised the complainant that he was under arrest for Operating While Intoxicated
and requested that he sit in the intoxilyzer room. The complainant became
agitated and indicated that he would fight before he was done. Officer B read the
Iowa implied Consent Form to the complainant who interrupted the reading several
PCR8 99-10
Page3
times and refused to take the test end to sign a form, During this time two
officers, D and E, were sent to the area by the dispatcher because of the
complainant's behavior as observed on the video. The complainant stood up and
said, 'it's time to fight." When the complainant arose, so did Officer B, D, and E.
Officer B pulled his OC from its case and indicated it would be used if the
complainant became resistive. The complainant was handcuffed behind his back
and the cuffs double locked. The complainant was then taken to the 'front report
writing room" so that Officer B could type the charges. As the charges were
being typed, the complainant rose from his chair end approached Office D. Officer
D asked the complainant to sit back down, but he refused. Officer B arose and
assisted Officer D in attempting to sit the complainant back down. As the
complainant resisted, Officer E took him to the ground as the complainant was
flailing and screaming threats. Officer E held the complainant on the floor until a
transport car wes obtained. The complainant was then assisted to his feet by
Officer E and walked down the hall towards the car. As Officer E and the
complainant approached the Gilbert Street door, the complainant planted his feet
and pulled away from Officer E who then again took him to the ground. The
complainant, after being helped to his feet again, pulled away and tried to run
through the Gilbert Street door. Officer E grabbed the complainant's arm and
pulled him rearward as he impacted the window with his head. The officer
received an injury to his left elbow. The window was shattered completely onto
the outside walkway. The complainant's head was photographed after he was
placed in the squad car to document absence of injuries. The complainant resisted
placement in the squad car. His feet were secured with flex cuffs and he was
taken to the University of Iowa Emergency Trauma Center and examined and X-
rayed. Then he was taken to the Johnson County Jail on three charges: Operating
While Intoxicated- Third Offense, Driving While Barred, and Interference with
Official Acts Causing Injury,
PCRB 99-10
Page ~'
CONCLUSION
The complainant indicated that he had no complaints regarding his treatment
by Iowa City Police Officers until after he was handcuffed in the police station.
His account of what happened and which officers were involved differs from that
of the officers. The complainant charges that excessive force was used in three
different contexts.
Allegation #1. Handcuffs were placed on the complainant too tightly.
Complainant states that handcuffs were placed on him so tightly that they left
marks on his wrists and prevented him from sitting. He indicates that behavior
perceived as resistive and threatening by officers was a consequence of his efforts
to get the officers to respond to his complaints and to loosen the handcuffs.
The Chief's Report states that Officer B normally checks handcuffs for
tightness by placing his fingers between the cuff and the wrist. Officer B does not
have a specific recall of checking the cuffs, but to check the cuffs is his normal
procedure. The Chief's Report states there is no indication in the medical reports
that the complainant suffered injuries to his wrist. The Chief's Report noted that
the aggressive conduct of the complainant would cause pain and discomfort from
the cuffs. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that there is no evidence that
the handcuffs were on too tightly is supported by substantial evidence, and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 of the complaint is NOT
SUSTAINED.
Allegation #2. Officers threw the complainant to the floor and struck and
kicked him. The complainant states that after refusing to take the sobriety test he
stood up and asked the officer who was trying to test him to loosen the cuffs.
When refused, he continued to try to show the officer that the cuffs were too
tight. The complainant states "at least~ two other officers came into the room and
started hitting him, then threw him on the floor where one officer kicked him in
the face.
PCRB 99-10
The Chief's Report states that the complainant wanted to fight with Officer
B throughout the processing of the arrest and that he became more and more
agitated as the charges were completed. His hat and glasses were removed by
Officer D to facilitate the use of pepper spray if necessary. The complainant
became more abusive. When Officer E walked into the room the complainant
backed into the officer who then placed the complainant on the floor to gain
control. The Chief's Report noted that the officer's actions in taking the
complainant to the floor were consistent with the department's use of force policy
and that there is no indication that the officers struck and/or kicked the
complainant. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that the officers used
only the amount of force necessary to contain and control the complainant is
supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious. Allegation//2 of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation #3. Officers forced the complainant's head and upper body
through the ~llass. in.the upper part of an exterior door at the police station.
The complainant states as he was being taken down a hallway to be transported
to jail he was held by two officers, one grasped the handcuffs behind his back and
raised them up. The complainant stated that as he neared the exit door he could
see no one there to open it. When he tried to lean back to see the door he was
grabbed and his head rammed into the door striking the metal portion ~by the door
handle, right below the window." The complainant stated that he backed up and
tried to straighten up and the next thing he knew he was put through the window
of the door.
According to the Chief's Report, as the complainant was being moved
toward the rear door of the station, the complainant moved to face and challenge
the officers following him end he was taken to the floor by Officer E to control
him. When assisted to his feet the complainant pulled away from the officer and
ran toward the windowed rear door, put his head down and drove his head
through the window. Officer E grabbed the complainant, stopping him from
PCRB 99-10
Page 6
seriously injuring himself. The Board finds no reason to dispute the Chief's
conclusions that the officers used only the emoun! of force necessary to oontain
and control the complainant; the officers did not force the complainant into the
door glass. The complainant was responsible due to his attempt to run forward.
The Chief's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #3 of the complaint is NOT
SUSTAINED.
PCRB 99-10
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: Public Report of PCRB Complaint #00-01
DATE: July 18, 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//00-01 (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 00-01
Page I
BOARD'S pROCEDURE
On February 11, 2000, the Complaint was received at the office of
the City Clerk. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint
was referred to the Police Chief for investigation.
At its meeting on February 22, 2000, the Board discussed the
timeliness of Complaint//00-01 and found that, although some portions of
the Complaint are subject to summary dismissal by the Board, other portions
of the Complaint are timely and will proceed. The Board voted to review the
Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7 8. l(a), which means on the
record with no additional information.
The Chief of Police was notified by letter on February 25, 2000 that
allegations regarding officer conduct in the Complaint occurring prior to
November 14, 1999 exceeded the 90-day limitation for filing of complaints,
Section 8-8-3 D. Those were considered untimely end were summarily
dismissed by the Board. Allegations contained in the UBasic Facts"
document attached to the Complaint form under uPart 4. Police's Hidden
Agenda?" relating to a January 2000 discovery, and under "Part 6. Falsified
Testimony in Court by the Other Driver and Police,' are timely and should be
investigated.
The Board requested in the correspondence to the Chief all portions of
the case file relevant to the timely allegations.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on May 10, 2000,
with a number of attached documents, including the incident report, accident
report, citation, arrest warrant, interviews, statements, and trial notes.
The Board met on February 22, May 23, June 13, July 11 and 18,
2000 to consider this Complaint.
PCRB 00-01
Page 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
In August 1999, the complainant was traveling on Hwy. //6 and had
come to a stop on the roadway at an intersection when a truck came from
behind and struck her vehicle on the left side causing minimal damage. The
complainant did not exchange sufficient information with the other driver and
left the scene, saying that she would take care of it later. The other driver
reported the accident to the police later that day. The complainant failed to
report the accident as required by Iowa law.
In September 1999, Officers A and B arrived at the complainant's
apartment to question her about the accident. Officer A explained to the
complainant that a business card and telephone messages had been left but
there had been no response from the complainant. The complainant said she
had been on vacation and did not have time to return the call. The officers
completed that accident report and drew up a citation for leaving the scene
of an accident. When presented with the citation, the complainant refused
to sign the citation. The officers made several attempts to explain that
signing the citation was only an agreement to appear in court. After
continuing to refuse to sign, the complainant was advised by Officer A that a
warrant would be issued for her arrest.
Later in September 1999, Officers C, D, and E were involved in the
serving of an arrest warrant on the complainant at her apartment. The
complainant's parents, recently arriving from China, were also present. The
complainant explained she could not go with the officer because her parents
were visiting from China. A great deal of confusion followed due to
language, since the parents did not understand English and the complainant
was refusing to go with the officers. Some scuffling occurred and the
complainant was restrained and taken to jail.
In December 1999, a jury trial took place. The jury returned a verdict
of not guilty on the charge of leaving the scene of a property damage
PCRB 00-01
Page 3
accident. A verdict of guilty was found against the complainant on a charge
of interference with official acts.
On February 11, 2000, the complainant filed PCRB Complaint #00-01.
Those allegations found to be timely and under consideration by the Board
are the following:
Allegation//1: Police's hidden agenda.
Allegation//1: False testimony during court on December 6, 1999.
Allegation//3: Discrimination based upon her gender and race.
CONCLUSION
Allegation #1: Police's hidden agenda. The Chief makes no mention
in his Report of an alleged police hidden agenda as made by the complainant.
The only reference to a police hidden agenda was found in the Complaint
and appears to be based upon a discussion with the police by an ex-
boyfriend, who is the father of the complainant's child. The complainant
also believed the frequent visits to her apartment by the police were not to
investigate a small car accident but were also part of the police's hidden
agenda.
Since the allegation had not been addressed in the Report, the Board
sent a letter to the Chief on June 22, 2000 asking for a response to the
allegation so that the Board could continue its review and file its Public
Report in a timely fashion. The chief responded with follow-up
correspondence addressing the allegation of a police hidden agenda on July
5, 2000.
In the follow-up correspondence the Chief noted that Officer A had
attempted to contact the complainant during a two week period from August
21 to September 5, 1999 by telephoning the residence, leaving a notice on
the outside of the door, and checking the parking lot periodically looking for
the complainant's vehicle. Other officers also checked the parking lot from
time to time. This is considered routine police practice.
PCRB 00-01
Page 4
The ex-boyfriend contacted the police department on August 24,
1999 looking for the complainant so that he could exercise his visitation
rights. An officer responding to the call for service attempted to aid the
father in locating his child. The officer did not mention this particular 'call for
service" to any other officer.
In further review of all documentation accompanying the Report and
the absence of any information which would lend credence to the allegation
made by the complainant, the Board finds the allegation is not supported by
sufficient evidence, and the Chief's conclusion that no hidden agenda existed
is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation//1 of the Complaint
is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation #2: False..testimqny d.uring court on .pecember 6~ 1999.
The statements made by the police and attached to the Report coincide with
the testimony as viewed in the jury trial notes.
The Board finds that the Report's conclusion of no inconsistent or
false testimony on the part of the officers is supported by sufficient evidence
and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation #2 of the
Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation #3: Discrimination based upon her gender and race. The
officers were following standard police procedure in conducting an
investigation of a property damage vehicle accident and attempting to locate
the driver responsible for not reporting the accident. They made several
attempts to contact the complainant, including leaving telephone messages
on her answering machine and leaving a business card under the door. The
complainant was not taken into custody when she refused to sign the
citation, although the officer had the authority to do so. After explaining the
matter for nearly 30 minutes, the complainant was told before the officers
left that a warrant would be issued. When the officers returned to the police
station, the watch commander made an attempt to contact the complainant
by telephone.
PCRB 00-01
Page
The Board finds the Report's conclusion that the allegation appears to
be based entirely on speculation and perception is supported by substantial
evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation//3 of
the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
PCRB 00-01
Page