Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-2002 Public Report 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 Complainant 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 #02-03 DATE: November 13, 2002 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #02-03 (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 Chief's...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 July 16, 2002. 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 October 4, 2002. The following documents were included with the Report: Incident Report and certified mail receipt. The complainant did not respond to the investigator's requests for an interview. At its meeting on October 22, 2002, the Board voted to review the Complaint at level 8-8-7(B)(1)(a), review the Complaint on the record with no additional investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: October 22, 2002 and November 12, 2002. FINDINGS OF FACT In July, 2002, Officer A observed a mother and her small child on the downtown pedestrian plaza. The officer observed that the child ran in and out of a store, collided with an elderly woman, urinated in a planter, and was held by a man that the officer knew had been intoxicated earlier in the day, had felony charges against him in another state, and showed numerous sores and wounds. The officer was also aware of previous complaints by other citizens about the child's behavior and the mother's lack of supervision. The officer addressed his concerns to the mother. The mother disagreed with the officer's assertion that she was not providing adequate supervision and stated that her daughter's behavior was not inappropriate. The officer stated to the woman that, because of her lack of care and supervision and refusal to acknowledge responsibility for her child's behavior, he was going to contact the Department of Human Services (DHS). Before calling DHS, Officer A contacted his supervisor, who advised him to call DHS. He then contacted a social worker at DHS and explained the situation. Officer A stated that the worker advised him to arrest the woman. He contacted his supervisor again and was advised to try to have the mother come to the ICPD to resolve the matter. The mother agreed to this, but complained_!_oudly and angrily about the situation to others on the plaza. CONCLUSION The Complainant alleged the following: Allegation '1: Officer A actions toward the mother were inappropriate. Officer A observed behaviors of the mother and her child on the pedestrian plaza that led him to believe that the mother was not exercising adequate care and control. He stated his concerns to the mother. When she disagreed with his statements regarding her child's behavior and her supervision, he contacted his supervisor (twice) and a DHS worker regarding the situation. The advice he received was that the mother's and child's behavior indicated that adequate care and control might be lacking. 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 #1 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS None. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (3'19)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant 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 DATE: November 13, 2002 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #02-04 (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 Chief's...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 July 16, 2002. 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 October 9, 2002. The following documents were included with the Report: Incident Report and Summation of Complainant Interview. At its meeting on October 22, 2002, the Board voted to review the Complaint at level 8-8-7(B)(1)(a), review the Complaint on the record with no additional investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: October 22, 2002, and November 12, 2002. FINDINGS OF FACT In July, 2002, Officer A observed the Complainant and her small child on the downtown pedestrian plaza. The officer observed that the child ran in and out of a store, collided with an elderly woman, urinated in a planter, and was being held by a man that the officer knew had been intoxicated earlier in the day, had felony charges against him in another state, and showed numerous sores and wounds. The officer was aware of previous complaints by other citizens about the child's behavior and the mother's lack of supervision. The officer addressed his concerns to the mother. The mother disagreed with the officer's assertion that she was not providing adequate supervision and stated that her daughter's behavior was not inappropriate. The officer stated to the woman that, because of her lack of care and supervision and refusal to acknowledge responsibility for her child's behavior, he was going to contact the Department of Human Services (DHS). Before calling DHS, Officer A contacted his supervisor, who advised him to call DHS. He then contacted a social worker at DHS and explained the situation. Officer A stated that the worker advised him to arrest the woman. He contacted his supervisor again and was advised to try to have the Complainant come to the ICPD to resolve the matter. The complainant agreed to this, but complained loudly and angrily about the situation to others on the plaza. The Complainant, the Complainant's former husband and father of the child, Officer A, and the DHS worker met at the ICPD. The Complainant continued to maintain that her child's behavior was "natural" and appropriate. The Complainant did agree to accompany the DHS worker to MECCA for drug testing. ~ CONCLUSION -. -'-: The complainant alleged the following in her complaint: ;7 Alle.qation 1: Officer A made an inappropriate contact with her because.~ daughter had urinated in some bushes on the Ped Mall. '~' 2 Officer A observed behaviors of the Complainant and her child on the pedestrian plaza that led him to believe that the mother was not exercising adequate care and control. He stated his concerns to the mother. When she disagreed with his statements regarding her child's behavior and her supervision, he contacted his supervisor (twice) and a DHS worker regarding the situation. The advice he received was that the mother's and child's behaviors indicated that adequate care and control might be lacking. The Board finds that the Chiefs conclusion that Officer A acted appropriately is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 2: Officer A made an improper referral to DHS concerninq the Comp ainant's parenting of her daughter. As a mandatory reporter of suspected child abuse or neglect, Officer A is required to report incidents of suspected abuse or neglect. Both his supervisor and the DHS worker confirmed to the officer that intervention was appropriate. The Board finds that the Chiefs conclusion that Officer A acted in accordance with policy and guidelines is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #2 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS None.