Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2000 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 #00-02 DATE: September 26, 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 #00-02 (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, and c. PCRB #OO-02 Page BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on May 19, 2000. 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 and was received on August 17, 2000, together with the complete case file. On September 13, 2000, the Board requested the Chief to address two additional allegations and provide an amended report, The Amended Report was received on September 21, 2000. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7 B.l(a), which means the Board will review the complaint on the record .without requesting additional information. The Board met on September 12 and 26, 2000 to consider this Complaint. FINDINGS OF FACT Police responded to a 911 call reporting a fight at the Cedarwood Apartments. The information received reported the complainant armed with a knife entering a specific apartment. The complainant's interview varies considerably from those of officers and other witnesses regarding the events that occurred. The complainant and his wife had been drinking at the apartment of friends in the evening. The complainant left the apartment. He repeatedly called his wife to ask her to return to her own apartment so that he could get in. The wife did not respond. She did leave at one point but returned to the neighbors' apartment with her children, requesting to spend the night. The neighbors assumed the couple had had a fight. They advised the complainant's wife not to let him into the apartment if he came to get her. The neighbors were roused later by noise in their living room. The complainant was there demanding his wife return home. The male neighbor asked the complainant to leave and tried to physically move PCRB #00-02 Page him from the room. A large knife fell from the complainant to the floor. The wife and children fled the apartment while the female neighbor called the police. The female neighbor reported the complainant was in a rage. The complainant denies having a knife or being involved in this incident. His wife would not agree to a police interview. Officer A and B responded first to the call. An uninvolved party pointed the officers to the complainant's apartment. The officers knocked for several minutes with no response. They heard a baby cry. A female (the complainant's wife) did eventually answer the door and stated the suspect was not inside. The officers discussed getting a search warrant after her denial that the complainant was in the apartment. The complainant's wife went to the back of the apartment several times. The complainant appeared after officers told his wife she would be charged with interference and her children would be taken into custody by DHS. Officer A later charged the wife with obstruction and released her on her signature, making it unnecessary to call DHS. Officer A stated he would probably call DHS to report on the unsanitary condition of the apartment. It appears that eight officers, as well as the watch commander, responded to the call and witnessed the complainant being taken into custody. The apartment manager was also present. According to the apartment manager, the complainant is not named on the lease of his wife's apartment. Officers and witnesses' stories are consistent but differ from the complainant's description of events. The complainant appeared from the bedroom clad only in a sheet. Officer A stated that he drew his weapon as the complainant's hands were not visible and because he had been the subject of a complaint regarding a knife. Officer C drew, but did not deploy OC. The complainant was ordered to display his hands. When he did display his hands, the sheet dropped and officers were able to see the complainant had no weapon. There was an estimated 12-15 second interval when Officer A'sweapon was drawn. The complainant alleges that up to three guns PCRB #00-02-Page were pointed at his head. All officers stated this was not the case but rather only one weapon was drawn and it was pointed upward. Officers then attempted to handcuff the complainant to arrest him. He resisted and was secured against a wall and then on the floor in order to accomplish the cuffing process. The wife was instructed to bring pants for the complainant, which were put on prior to his leaving the apartment. The complainant stated he was taken outside the apartment with no clothes on. Witness and officer statements dispute this. Officers asked the complainant's wife the location of the knife neighbors stated the complainant had brought to their apartment. She was asked for consent to search her which she gave. A three-year-old child advised an officer that the knife was in a closet. Officer A went to the closet and found the knife wrapped in newspaper on a shelf. The wife was charged with obstruction and released on her own signature. The complainant was charged with disorderly conduct and interference with official acts. The apartment manager ordered the complainant, who was not named on the lease, off the property. He was given a criminal trespassing warning. The neighbors refused to file charges against the complainant regarding his bringing a knife to their apartment and pushing the male resident. The complainant's wife did not meet with police to be interviewed. On May 19, 2000, the complainant filed PCRB Complaint #00-02 with the following allegations: Allegation 1: The police were trying to kick in his door, causing damage to his door where it cannot be locked. Allegation 2: While arresting him, police threw him from wall to wall and then took him to the floor. He further stated that he had guns placed to his head during the arrest. Allegation 3: Officers questioned his three-year-old child without permission. PCRB #00-02 Page Allegation 4: Officers attempted to coerce compliance from his spouse by threatening DHS involvement. CONCLUSION Allegation 1: The police were trying to kick in his door, causing damage to his door where it cannot be locked. In interviews with the officers and the apartment manager who were present at the time the officers sought entry, all parties agree officers did not knock hard enough on the door to cause damage. Additionally, the property manager states the complainant is not named on the lease of that apartment and has no standing by which to make a claim of damage to this property. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to prove the allegation is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 2: While arresting him, police threw him from wall to wall and then took him to the floor. He further stated that he had guns placed to his head during the arrest. Officers received a call that the complainant was displaying a knife in a neighbor's apartment. When complainant appeared garbed in a sheet with hands not visible, Officer A drew his weapon for 12 to 15 seconds until officers were able to see the complainant had no weapon in his hand. Based on officer interviews, it appears the complainant struggled as officers were trying to handcuff him, causing officers to back the complainant against a wall and then to the ground to secure the handcuffs. 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 questioned his three-year-old child without permission. After securing the complainant, officers asked where the knife was placed. The complainant's wife was looking in the closet and the child pointed to PCRB#O002 Page the upper shelf. The child repeatedly pointed out the location. The officers did not further question the child. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that the officers did not directly question the child is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #3 of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation #4: Officers attempted to coerce compliance from his spouse by threatening DHS involvement. When the complainant's wife was asked if the complainant was home she initially said no several times. Based on witness statements, the officers knew the complainant was in the apartment. The officers did tell the complainant's wife that they would get a warrant if she did not let them into the apartment. If this happened, she would be charged with interference and arrested and DHS would have to be called to take custody of the children. She did comply with the request to enter at that time. Officer A later stated DHS would probably be called based on the unsanitary condition of the apartment. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that the officers did not attempt to coerce compliance is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #4 of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. PCRB #00-02- Page