HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-2003 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
O
TO: City Council ~ -FI
Complainant
Stephen Atkins, City Manager --< ~-T~ ~' ;r-FI
R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint ~:;~' ~-.
FROM: Police Citizens Review Board
RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #03-01
DATE: 7 July 2003
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of
the investigation of Complaint PCRB #03-01 (the "Complaint").
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.
Board's Procedure
The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on 26 February 2003. As
required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of
Police for investigation.
The Chief's Report was due on 27 May 2003, and was filed with the City Clerk on 21 May
2003.
PCRB # 03-01
Page 1
The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B (1)(a), on the
record with no additional investigation, 8-8-7B (1)(b), interview/meet with q~npla~ ~r~t,
and 8-8-7B (1)(e), performance by the Board of its own additional investigatio_r~c) ~,
The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: 27 May 2003, ,,~J, ul~y 21~3, i ' -
and 12 August 2003. "-~-~*r~ ~. !TI
Findinqs of Fact ~ ~
On 23 March 2002 the Complainant was involved in a one-car vehicle accident, to
which an officer of the Iowa City Police Department was dispatched. Subsequently the
Complainant was arrested on a charge of Operating While Intoxicated. Four allegations
were made in the Complaint 03-01, but three of those Complaints exceed the 90-day limit
under which the Police Citizens Review Board may consider them. See 8-8-3 (D).
Therefore this Report is a consideration only of Allegation # 4, that the videotape
submitted in evidence at the subsequent trial was edited, and altered from its original
form. In July 2002 the Complainant, on advice from the Judge, changed attorneys. The
second attorney was able to have the charges against the Complainant dropped on 8
December 2002. These matters precede the matter of the validity of the submitted
videotape, and cannot be considered in this investigation. However, the matter of the
edited or altered videotape apparently was on the record during the court hearing. It falls
within the 90-day limit of the filing of the Complaint, and therefore will be considered. The
Complainant's allegation is that the introduction of this edited or altered videotape
resulted in the revocation of the Complainant's driver's license by the Iowa Department of
Transportation. The Complainant asserts that the ICPD officer started the videotape well
after initial contact with the Complainant, and moreover that the ICPD officer deliberately
aimed the video camera at the hood of the car which prevented the videotape from
showing the interactions between the officer and the Complainant. Under the existing
City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the PCRB may consider only those
Complaints that are filed within 90 days of the incident, and may consider the Police
Chief's Report of his investigation of the Complaint.
The Police Chief's Report includes a log of the contacts by the Investigative Officer
with the Complainant and witnesses to the incident, copies of documents including the
"Call for Service", "Motor Vehicle Accident Report", "Iowa City Police Impound Report",
statements by two civilian witnesses, complaint forms by the arresting officer, IDOT form
432013 10.00 H-1102, results of the breath analysis at the U of I, ICPD OWl check list,
"Arrest Report", "Rights Sheet", statement made by the driver, results of field sobriety
tests, interview with the Complainant, summaries of interviews with the two civilian
witnesses and a Coralville police officer who was first on the accident scene, and more
extended transcripts of the interviews with the two civilian witnesses. It is relevant to point
PCRB # 03-01
Page 2
out here that most of these documents do not deal with the matter of the videotape, the
only allegation which the PCRB is able to consider.
The investigation by the PCRB included a request to the ICPD for a copy of the
videotape for viewing, a copy of the audio interview with the Coralville police officer, and a
complete transcript of the interview with the ICPD officer. PCRB received a copy of the
videotape and the audio tape on 3 June 2003, but ICPD declined to forward the officer's
taped interview because it was a "compelled statement". Members of the PCRB viewed
the videotape and listened to the audio tape. On 16 June 2003 members of the PCRB
met with the Complainant and consulted documentation, which she produced and also
viewed the videotape while she commented. This completed the investigation by the
PCRB of Complaint 03-01.
Conclusion
Alleqation #1: Beyond the 90 days deadline for filing. Summary dismissal. ~_~r~-~-8-,~D)
and 8-8-3(E).
Alleqation #2: Beyond the 90 days deadline for filing. Summary dismissal. S'~[~I~-8-a~D)
and 8-8-3(E).
Allegation ¢3: Beyond the 90 days deadline for filing. Summaw dismissal. ~e 8-8~D)
and 8-8-3(E).
Alleqation ~: Submission of an altered videotape of the arrest at a cou~ hearing. While
the PCRB believes that there are valid questions relating to said videotape, we are unable
to veri~ whether or not any potions of the videotape have been edited or altered. These
questions will be dealt with in the Comment section of the PCRB Repo~.
Because of our inability to veri~ whether or not any potions of the video tape have been
edited or altered, the Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the video tape was submi~ed
in the same form it was recorded, and there is no evidence of alteration is supposed by
substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitraw, or capricious. Allegation ¢ 4 is
NOT SUSTAINED.
OOMMENT
There are several troublesome elements about the videotape, which we feel ought to be
explained. The videotape begins at 19:56, yet the arrest repo~ indicates that the officer
arrived at the scene at 19:41, a discrepancy of 15 minutes. The video camera was not
aimed through the windshield at the scene, instead it was aimed down at the hood of car
thereby excluding the visual evidence. From 21:01 until 21:16, a period of 15 minutes at
PCRB ¢ 03-01
Page 3
the Public Safety Office, there is no sound on the tape and the screen is black.
Audio/video resume at the Public Safety Office at 21:16. There is no audio/video during
the first 15 minutes of the incident or during another 15 minutes while at the U of I Public
Safety Office. The video camera angle changed at 21:25.
We have no comment on whether or not the videotape might have been edited or altered,
and as noted in our response to Alleqation # 4, we accept the Chief of Police's
conclusion. Questions remain: why the video tape was not begun when the officer
arrived on the scene; why the video camera remained pointed at the hood of the car
instead of where the officer was; and why there are 15 minutes unaccounted for when
that period of time could be no different than the immediately preceding and following the
unaccounted for time. The purpose of having a video camera in a squad car is to
document in an audio and visual form the interactions of an officer and a citizen during an
incident of record, then certainly the camera ought to be aimed at the interaction that is
taking place. When the camera is inappropriately aimed and the audio is not continuous,
the value of the recording is severely compromised. We recommend that the department
urge its officers to use this resource efficiently and effectively.
Quality of the tape is poor and requests the Department upgrading quality of tapes and/or
equipment.
PCRB # 03-01
Page 4