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