HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-2002 Public Reports POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
TO: City Council
Stephen Atkins, City Manager -
R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
FROM: Police Citizens Review Board
RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #01-02
DATE: January 22, 2002
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board")
review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #01-02 (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 Chiefls...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 those
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).
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on April 9,
2001. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred
to the Police Chief for investigation.
On April 24, 2001, the Board received a letter from the complainant's attorney
requesting that the Board 1 ) decide that the complaint was timely and 2)
postpone investigation of the complaint until criminal charges against the
PCRB 01-02
Page
complainant's husband are resolved. The attorney also requested that the Board
consider an independent investigator, At its meeting on May 8, 2001, the Board
discussed the attorney's letter and directed the Board's Legal Counsel to draft a
response. At its meeting on May 16, 2001, the Board approved an extension of
the Chief's deadline to September 7, 2001, for good cause and directed the
Legal Counsel to communicate its decisions with the Chief and the complainant.
At its meeting on August 22, 2001, not having heard from the complainant, the
Board approved an additional extension of the Chief's report to October 8, 2001.
The Chief and the complainant were informed of this decision by letter on August
27, 2001. The complainant's attorney responded by letter and requested an
additional extension until the complainant's dispute with the Iowa City Housing
Authority was resolved. At its meeting on September 11,2001, the Board
approved an extension to November 15, 2001. At its meeting on Octobe_r 9, ?~
2001, in response to a question from Capt. Widmer, Watson reported that he ~
was notified through a phone call from the complainant's attorney that t~ ?~
housing dispute was resolved and that the investigation could proceed.~- ---' ;'~
The Chief completed his Report and submitted it to the Board on Novern~-r. 15~
2001. ~_~ ,~
The following documents were included with the Report: Use of Force R'~eports,~
Calls for Service Report, correspondence between the complainant and the Iowa
City Housing Authority, PCRB correspondence, Incident Reports, statements of
charges against the complainant's husband, and a Rights Notification of the
Victim of Abuse signed by the complainant.
At its meeting on November 27, 2001, the Board voted to review the
Complaint at level 8-8-7(B)(1)(b), interview/meet with the complainant, and 8-8-
7(B)(1)(e), performance by the board of its own additional investigation. The
Board also directed staff to request a transcript of the 9-1-1 call from the
complainant's son and additional pages that were apparently missing from an
officer's narrative. These were received from the Chief on January 4, 2002.
Representatives of the board contacted the complainant and requested
interviews with the complainant, the complainant's husband, and the
complainant's son. The complainant, the husband, and the complainant's sister-
in-law appeared for interviews, but the son did not appear for the interview.
The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: November 27,
2001; December 11, 2001; December 27, 2001; January 8, 2002; and January
22, 2002.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In March, 2001, Officer A and Officer B were dispatched to the
complainant's home in response to a 9-1-1 domestic disturbance call from the
PCRB 01-02
Page
complainant's son. Officer A arrived first and was admitted by the complainant's
son. Officer A found the complainant's husband sitting on the couch. He
attempted to speak with the husband, but the husband became agitated and
started yelling at the children and the officer. He did not comply with a request for
identification or the officer's inquiry about what had happened. The husband
refused to stay seated as directed by the Officer A. He said he was going to
make a phone call and went to the basement. The husband placed a phone call
but continued to be agitated, to ignore verbal commands by Officer A, and to not
comply with the officer's request for information.
Officer B arrived at about this time, having been admitted by the complainant's
son. The husband continued to yell and refused to put the phone down. At this
time the officers decided to place the husband in handcuffs. The husband
resisted to the extent that OC spray was used to control him.
Up until this time the complainant had been in the bathroom, but stated that she
and a three-year old son were present when her husband was handcuffed. The
complainant stated that she was not injured.
The husband was transported to an emergency treatment center for OC
exposure and back pain, examined and released. He was then transported to the
Johnson County Jail and charged with Interference with Official Acts Causing
Injury (one officer sustained a scratch) and Assault on a Police Officer. The
husband was subsequently found guilty of Interference with Official Acts.
Both the complainant and her husband stated that they informed the officers that
no one had been injured and that it should have been obvious that there was no
longer any trouble at their home. They asked the officers to leave, but the
officers continued to order the husband around. The complainant and her
husband stated that the situation escalated because the officers would not leave
their home as they requested.
CONCLUSION
The complainant alleged the following in her complaint:
--~
Allegation 1: Officers A and B abused their authority by provokin~
husband, by not informinq him of the charges a.qainst him, and by'not re~inq
him his rights.
Officer A was responding to a report of domestic abuse at the
complainant's residence. The transcript of the 9-1-1 call shows that the
complainant's son initially reported that the disturbance was verbal, but later in
the call said that his mother told him that her husband had hit her. The ICPD
General Order on Domestic Abuse is a "pro-arrest" policy if physical assault has
occurred. The policy states:
PCRB 01-02
Page 3
The Code requires a peace officer to arrest and take into custody the
primary physical aggressor of the domestic abuse assault when the
assault caused a bodily injury, involved the use or display of a dangerous
weapon or was committed with the intent to commit a serious injury...In
identifying the primary physical aggressor, a peace officer shall consider
the need to protect the victims of domestic abuse, the relative degree of
injury or fear inflicted on the persons involved, and any history of domestic
abuse between the persons involved, and shall not be based solely on the
absence of visible indications of injury or impairment.
Officer A and B had an affirmative duty to ascertain whether domestic abuse had
occurred, whether the complainant had been injured, and whether there was any
risk of retaliation against the complainant or the complainant's children. Although
both the complainant and the husband denied that his behavior justified the
officers' actions and the arrest, the husband's behavior was consistent with the
complainant's own report via the son's 9-1-1 call.
The complainant was formally charged at the Johnson County jail. There is no
requirement that a person be informed of charges at an earlier time. There was
no obligation for the officers to read the husband his rights unless they intended
to question him and use his statements as evidence against him.
The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that Officers A and B did not abuse
their authority is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable,
arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2: Officers A and B were rude and ill-mannered.
In their interviews, both the complainant and the complainant's husband
stated that the officers were demanding, "unprofessional," "immature," and
"nasty and rude." While the Board understands why the family felt that the
officers behaved rudely, the affirmative duty of the officers stated above required
that they gain control of the situation and ascertain the well being of each
person. The use of authoritative and loud verbal direction was appropriate and in
accordance with the General Order on Use of Force. The Board finds that the
Chief's conclusion that Officers A and B acted in accordance with ,policy is
supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary ~
capricious. Allegation #2 is NOT SUSTAINED. ~ ~ '~
Allegation 3: Officers A and B caused damaqe to property in the-
apartment. ~ ._
j>
PCRB 01-02
Page 4
In her interview with Board representatives, the complainant stated several
things were overturned during the struggle between the officers and her
husband, but that nothing was broken. Allegation #3 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 4: The Police printed lies in the newspaper regarding this
incident.
A brief report of the incident, approximately one column inch, was reported in the
"Police Column" of a local newspaper the day following the incident. It contained
a summary of the charges filed in public documents and no officer was quoted.
Allegation t/4 is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 5: Officers used improper rome durinq the arrest by utilizinq
pepper spray in close proximity to a three-year-old child.
Officer A and Officer B deny any awareness that a child was in close
proximity, although all persons in the house were probably affected by the OC
spray to some extent. The complainant and the husband stated that the three-
year-old was in the vicinity, but their statements regarding proximity were not
consistent. 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.
COMMENTS
Although two officers were dispatched as recommended by the ICPD General
Order on Domestic Abuse, one officer arrived several minutes before the
second. The Board recommends that the Chief review the General Order to
determine whether the General Order should be more specific regarding the
circumstances requiring an immediate response by one officer and/or the
circumstances that might require the presence of two officers.
PCRB 01-02
Page 5