Loading...
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