HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-2002 Minutes POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES - April 15, 2002
CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ATTENDANCE Board members present: Bill Hoeft, Loren Horton, John
Stratton and John Watson; board members absent: Bev
Smith. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (7:05 p.m.), Staff
Kellie Turtle and Cherice Wyckoff present. Also in
attendance was Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD.
CONSENT
CALENDAR The Board discussed an article from the Press Citizen that
incorrectly reported an increase in police misconduct
complaints. A correction was reported Tuesday March 26th
that the complaints had actually decreased.
Horton had a question about the minutes regarding a motion
by Hoeft, seconded by Smith to accept the "public" report.
Horton thought that this may appear that there was also a
private report. Tuttle informed Horton that it is standard to
refer to the reports as "public."
Hoeft had a concern about the two items that were added to
their packets by Councilman Pfab. Hoeft felt that items
should not be added to their packets by Council Members
because of impartiality issues. Stratton said that he will look
at them carefully in the future before placing items in the
packets and may only list items as being available in the
Clerk's'office.
Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to adopt the
consent calendar as presented or amended.
· Minutes of the meeting on 03/12/02
· ICPD Department Memorandum 02-17
· ICPD Quarterly/Summary Report- IAIR/PCRB, 2002
ICPD Use of Force Report- February 2002
Motion carried, 4/0, Smith absent.
OLD BUSINESS
· PCRBVideo
The Board discussed the PCRB video. Tuttle stated that
editing the reference to "problem" from the racial profiling
comments may not be able to be done without cutting the
entire discussion. The Board did not want to lose the whole
discussion on racial profiling and decided that if it could be
edited without damaging it in any other way to do so. If this
is not possible, then the video should be left as it is.
· Age of Consent
The Board discussed the policy of using the age of 12 as the
cut off point for officers accepting permission to enter a
house from a juvenile. The age of 12 was selected because
the State of Iowa defines under the age of 12 as children
and above 12 as juveniles.
Pugh commented on distinctions. A warrantless search is
never okay unless it is with consent, a search incident to
arrest or exigent circumstances exist. There is no in
between - it's either exigent or it's not. The three things that
define exigency are 1.) There is a danger of violence or
injury; 2.) There is risk of the subject's escape; and 3.) There
is a probability, unless taken on the spot, evidence will be
concealed or destroyed. Furthermore, the considerations on
which an officer could move in case of an exigent
circumstance are: whether there is a grave offense involved,
whether a suspect is reasonably believed to be armed,
whether there is probable cause that the subject committed
a crime, whether there is strong reason to believe that the
subject is on the premises, a strong likelihood of escape if
not apprehended and that entry, although not consented to,
is peaceful. When deciding on the age of consent, the
circumstances should not be taken into consideration
because if there is exigency, the officer can enter no matter
what - with or without consent and regardless of the age of
the people at issue. The age of consent consideration is for
non-exigency situations.
Previously the case law decided this matter, so there is no
clear statutory law about this. The rule has been that
minority age alone doesn't mean that an officer can't ask for
consent. There have been case by case considerations of
the maturity, responsibility and level of control of the minor.
A community standard can be narrower, but there's still
overriding common law that says it is not illegal to ask a
minor for consent to search.
Pugh informed that the fourth amendment protects against
unreasonable search and seizure. So the question is: What
is reasonable? Most jurisdictions have not set an age.
Instead the analysis considers whether the person has
control over the premises, understands why the officer is
there, and understands that they have a right to say "no."
Iowa City is trying to create stronger criteria for the officers
to follow by adopting this policy.
Hoeft informed the Board that this situation happens very
infrequently. Hoeft said the court has ruled on the subject
and has not come up with any better solution. So he is
comfortable with that unless the court makes any decision to
change it. He is comfortable with the Police Chief and the
City attorneys to make that decision. He will choose to vote
to keep the situation the same at 12 years of age.
Horton stated he felt a community standard was hard to
define because there is no objective way to poll the citizenry
about the matter, which would bring about a meaningful
result. It is unclear about how the age of 12 can be
accurately determined. He felt that any age picked is
arbitrary because the capacity for giving consent is different
from person to person. Therefore, he felt that the present
policy (General Order Number 01-06) is a reasonable one
and he will not agree to any change.
Pugh said that no matter what the City adopts, the test will
still be case law. Even if they follow the policy, it still may be
unreasonable.
Watson stated that he thinks it is reasonable to ask for
consent of a minor. However, he has a problem with the
age of 12. He feels more comfortable with the age of 14. A
fourteen-year-old can work, drive with supervision, and has
some discretion about deciding where to live (they can talk
to the court). They are treated as someone with judgment.
Furthermore, a 14-year-old is well into junior high and is
much more street smart.
Stratton stated that he believed the policy should be 18
years old. He feels that most young teenagers would
accede to authority.
The Board had considerable division within itself. After a
thorough discussion, there was no recommendation. The
Board decided that Stratton would write a letter to the City
Manager to summarize the thoughts from the PCRB.
Stratton will also call board member Smith to get her opinion
as well.
NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed their speaking experiences at eight
MATS training programs. They discussed some of the
reactions from police officers such as:
· Creation of the Board
· Being Supervised in a special way by the Board
· Board Members being biased because of occupation
Hoeft informed the Board that this situation happens very
infrequently. Hoeft said the court has ruled on the subject
and has not come up with any better solution. So he is
comfortable with that unless the court makes any to
change it. He is comfortable with the Police the
City attorneys to make that decision. He will ch¢ ~e to vote
to keep the situation the same at 12 years of a
Horton stated he felt a community standard hard to
define because there is no o1: ~oll the citizenry
about the matter, which would bring abo meaningful
result. It is unclear about how the age, can be
accurately determined. He felt that a~ picked is
arbitrary because the capacity for gi consent is different
from person to person, present
policy (General Order Number 01 is a reasonable one
and he will not agree to any ch~ :e.
h said that no matter wh. the test will
law. Even if th ~ follow the policy, it still may be
he' it is reasonable to ask for
minor. , he has a problem with the
age of 12. comfortable with the age of 14. A
drive with supervision, and has
some discretion g where to live (they can talk
to the court). 'e treated as someone with judgment.
Furthermore into junior high and is
much more
Stratton that he policy should be 18
years teenagers would
authority.
had considerable within itself. After a
,rough discussion there was no The
~oard decided that ~ a letter to the City
,f Manager to summarize the thou¢ the PCRB.
~ Stratton will also call board memberto get her opinion
, as well.
NEW BU,~NE$$ The Board discussed their speaking ~s at eight
,' MATS training programs. They discussed of the
/ reactions from police officers such as:
jJ · Creation of the Board
· Being Supervised in a special way by the
· Board Members being biased because of occul
· Low number of complaints
· Attendance of Police Department at PCRB Meetings
· Board viewed as irrelevant because they have no power
or sanction.
Stratton reconfirmed that the Board members do not know,
nor have any interest in knowing, the particular officer that
was the subject of a complaint. Watson thought that the
theme he was most disappointed in was a general lack of
appreciation for the advantages of accountability to the
Department. He felt it could be looked at from a positive
standpoint that there is an independent review board, and
with the Board the Department comes out looking pretty
good most of the time.
Captain Widmer felt that it was very good that the Board
spoke at the MATS training. He thinks the Board adds
credibility to the Department, however, he understands why
the officers do not appreciate the Board because it is
another layer of oversight on them. He stated that the Board
was doing just what they should be doing, but don't expect
the officers to like the oversight. The officers do feel good
when a complaint goes through the Chiefs process and then
on to the Board, and the Board agrees with what the Chief
did.
Stratton mentioned some officers challenged the
competence of the Board to judge them since most of the
Board members don't have the experiences of a being
police officer. Stratton said that this is irrelevant because it
is not necessary to understand completely the officers nor
the complainant's feelings when looking at the facts of the
complaints and the law. Judges just look at facts and apply
them to principles.
The Board would like to come back to speak at the training
in the future if they are invited.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION No public discussion
MEETING SCHEDULE
· May 14, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
· June 11,2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
· July 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
· August 13, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
4
· Low number of complaints
· Attendance of Police Department at PCRB Meetings
· Board viewed as irrelevant because they have no power
or sanction.
Stratton reconfirmed that the Board members do not know,
nor have any interest in knowing, the particular officer that
was the subject of a complaint. Watson thought that the
theme he was most disappointed in was a general lack of
appreciation in the advantages of accountability to the
Department. He felt it could be looked at from a
that there is an independent review board
the Board the Department comes out looking pr
most of the time.
felt that it was very good
spoke e MATS training. He thinks the
credibility Department, however, he ur why
the officers c~ot appreciate the Board be it is
another ' ht on them. He the Board
was doing just they should be doin but don't expect
the officers to .~ oversight. The do feel good
when a complaint !through the process and then
on to the Board Board with what the Chief
did.
Stratton mentioned challenged the
competence of the Board t, since most of the
Board members don't being
police officer. Stratton is irrelevant because it
is not necessary to L ~ the officers nor
the complainant's s when at the facts of the
complaints and law. Judges just : at facts and apply
them to princ~r
The Board like to come back to .. g
in the if they are invited.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION Nc discussion
MEETING SCHED[ ~
· May 14, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
· June 11,2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
· July 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
· August 13, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room
BOARD
INFORMATION Horton mentioned an article in the Daily Iowan about the age
of consent issue. The article contained two errors. First, it
· incorrectly said that an 11-year-old girl gave police
permission and secondly, the quote that Watson made was
attributed to Horton.
STAFF
INFORMATION
· PCRB Staffing
The Board introduced themselves to the new minute taker,
Cherice Wyckoff.
·Summer Schedule/Absences
Tuttle requested summer schedules from the Board
members so that she would be able to reschedule meetings
if necessary. The Board members are to call the Clerk's
office with any updates of their summer schedule.
Pugh mentioned being contacted by a person asking her the
"skinny" on an officer. The person was incredulous when
she explained to him that the Board members do not know
who the officers are.
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Hoeft.
Motion carried, 4/0, Smith absent. Meeting adjourned at
$:30.