HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2000 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 #00-03
DATE: October 10, 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 #00-03 (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 #00-03-Page
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on May 30,
2000. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred
to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief completed his Report and
submitted it to the Board on August 23, 2000. The following documents were
included with the Report: synopsis of interview with complainant and
complainant's attorney; copy of ICPD Training Bulletin 01-04 regarding ~Turn In"
Agreements.
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.
The Board scheduled a name-clearing hearing, but was informed by the
Chief that the office would not attend.
The Board met on September 12 and 26, and October 10, 2000 to consider
this Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In February 2000, Officer A and Officer B were provided information from
another officer that drugs were being used or sold at the complainant's address.
In their efforts to contact the complainant, Officers A and B drove by the address
on a number of occasions until they observed lights on in the residence late one
evening.
The officers proceeded with a "knock and talk" interview, during which the
complainant allowed the officers into her residence. The officers informed the
complainant of the reasons for their visit. The complainant denied using or selling
drugs in the apartment and said she had only lived there for two months.
When asked if she had ever used drugs, the complainant said she had.
When the officers asked the complainant if she had drugs or drug paraphernalia in
PCRB #00-03- Page
the residence, she hesitated. The officers pressed the point and the complainant
eventually produced a small amount of marijuana and a pipe. The complainant
consented to a search of the residence, which did not reveal any additional
evidence.
The officers asked the complainant to reveal her source for the drugs,
suggesting that charges could be reduced or dismissed if she cooperated. The
complainant declined to reveal her source. Officer A informed the complainant
that the evidence would be sent to the laboratory for testing and that if charges
were to be filed, he would call her so that she could turn herself in rather than be
arrested on a warrant.
In early March 2000, the complainant's attorney requested by letter that
Officer A notify him in the event charges are filed so that he could arrange for the
complainant to turn herself in. He also requested that all contact and questions
for the complainant be directed to him.
A charge of Possession of a Schedule I Controlled Substance was filed by
Officer A in late March 2000, and an arrest warrant was issued. In May 2000,
Officer C, who had not previously been involved in the incident leading to this
complaint, was assigned to contact by telephone persons who were the subject of
arrest warrants. The complainant was contacted and turned herself in
immediately.
On May 30, 2000, the complainant filed PCRB Complaint #00-03 with the
following allegations:
Allegation 1: The police should not be following up on complaints of
personal use of marijuana by confronting single women alone in their apartment at
10:30 p.m. This is a misallocation of police resources and time.
Allegation 2: Officer A was deceptive as to why he wished to enter her
apartment, referring to an event in the neighborhood which they wished to discuss
with her.
PCRB #00-03- Page 3
Allegation 3: Officer A's questioning was accusatory, lacked a reasonable
basis in fact, invaded her personal space, and was frightening to her at that hour
and under those circumstance.
Allegation 4: The complainant should have been notified of a warrant for
her arrest as Officer A had advised her that he would do. She should have been
provided the opportunity to turn herself in rather than waiting 38 days after the
issuance of the warrant before notification of the warrant. Such a lapse of time
may have caused unnecessary embarrassment and inconvenience had she been
stopped for a traffic offense or if it were served at any other time which could
have caused unnecessary disruption and be a waste of officers' resources and
time.
Based on the investigating officer's interview with the complainant and the
complainant's attorney, the following allegation was added:
Allegation 5: The complainant states that during the search of her
residence, Officer A pulled open a drawer in the kitchen. This drawer had knives
in it and Officer A made a statement to the effect that he didn't like knives and
that she should not make any sudden moves. She felt this was very intimidating
and frightening to her.
CONCLUSION
Allegation 1: The police should not be following up on complaints of
personal use of marijuana by confronting single women alone in their apartment at
10:30 p.m. This is a misallocation of police resources and time. The officers
were informed that the sale of drugs, not just use, might be taking place at the
residence. The officers stated that they had attempted to contact the complainant
on two or three previous occasions, and that it appeared that the complainant was
up and about at the time of the "knock and talk." The Board finds that the Chief's
conclusion that Officer A and Officer B acted appropriately and in compliance with
PCRB #00-03 ~ Page
departmental policy and the law is supported by substantial evidence, and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2: Officer A was deceptive as to why he wished to enter her
apartment, referring to an event in the neighborhood which they wished to discuss
with her. Although it does not appear that Officer A was entirely forthright about
the purpose of the visit, there is not agreement on exactly what was stated. The
Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that Officer A acted appropriately is
supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious. Allegation #2 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3: Officer A's questioning was accusatory, lacked a reasonable
basis in fact, invaded her personal space, and was frightening to her at that hour
and under those circumstance. Officer A was conducting a "knock and talk" at
the complainant's residence based on information provided by another officer. A
"knock and talk" is an assertive interview procedure with a purpose of gaining
permission for a search. The complainant invited the officers into her residence,
responded to questions, and permitted the search. The Board finds that the
Chief's conclusion that Officer A's actions were reasonable under the law and
departmental policy, and were conducted appropriately is supported by substantial
evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #3 is NOT
SUSTAINED.
Allegation 4: The complainant should have been notified of a warrant for
her arrest as Officer A had advised her that he would do, She should have been
provided the opportunity to turn herself in rather than waiting 38 days after the
issuance of the warrant before notification of the warrant. Such a lapse of time
may have caused unnecessary embarrassment and inconvenience had she been
stopped for a traffic offense or if it were served at any other time which could
have caused unnecessary disruption and be a waste of officers' resources and
time. Officer A failed to follow through with the statement to the complainant that
she would be called in the event that charges were filed, and also failed to comply
PCRB #00-03- Page
with the attorney's request that he be the contact for the complainant. The Board
concurs with the Chief that Officer A should have contacted the complainant's
attorney to inform him of the charges against the complainant, as addressed in
ICPD Training Bulletin 01-04. Allegation #4 is SUSTAINED.
Allegation 5: The complainant states that during the search of her
residence, Officer A pulled open a drawer in the kitchen. This drawer had knives
in it and Officer A made a statement to the effect that he didn't like knives and
that she should not make any sudden moves. She felt this was very intimidating
and frightening to her. Both Officer A and Officer B deny that such a statement
was made. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that there is insufficient
evidence to support the allegation is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Allegation #5 is NOT SUSTAINED.
PCRB #00-03-Page