Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-2003 Minutes DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - August 12, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: David Bourgeois, John Watson and Loren Horton; Board members absent: John Stratton.. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Marian Karr also present. Also in attendance was Captain Matt Johnson of the ICPD and citizens Candy Barnhill and Kevin Halstead. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #03-01. NAME CLEARING HEARING Officer signed waiver, and no hearing was held. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Bourgeois and seconded by Watson to adopt the consent calendar. · Minutes of the meeting on 7/03/03 · ICPD Use of Force Report- June 2003 · ICPD Quarterly Summary Report- IAIR/PCRB, 2003 · ICPD Department Memorandum 03-33 Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. NEW BUSINESS No new business. OLD BUSINESS No old business. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Kevin Halstead mentioned that he had visited the website and that it was very thorough and organized. Captain Johnson had some information regarding in-car recording devices. The Board requested he report that information under staff. MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS · September 9, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · October 14, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · November 11,2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · December 9, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room BOARD INFORMATION Horton informed the Board that an extension has been granted by Council for PCRB Complaint #03-02 for 30 days until September 15, 2003. Watson stated this would probably be his last meeting since his term was ending September 1 and wanted to give some of his thoughts on the last six years. The first year after the creation of the board was probably the PCRB-Page 2 August 12, 2003 most intellectually stimulating and interesting year since his first year of grad school. The group of 5 individuals was a tremendous group that did a lot of important work that made it a very gratifying and satisfying year. He feels that this is very important work and that the board should continue to give assistance to the Police department. Watson had 3 areas of frustration: (1) high speed chases- there had been a couple of chases recently that he felt were unnecessary and because there is a policy, shouldn't have occurred. (2) lack of truthfulness - not only within the Police Department, but includes complainants and witnesses being untruthful and misrepresenting. When it's a complainant that is untruthful you don't like it but you kind of expect it because they feel they've been wronged and want to strike back. He feels that it's frustrating when it seems an officer is untruthful and that the public expects more and deserves more. There's no proof of it but there have been some cases where the credibility is not there. He'd rather see officers admit they made a mistake than explain it away. He is also very frustrated by untruthfulness by complainants because it makes the boards job harder to filter through all the information and try to decide what really happened. (3) Youth/Students interaction (drinking) - some officers are very good with young people when they're intoxicated and others seem to treat them as fair game. He hopes that the department will not allow this attitude towards the younger people because these are the people who are going to be leaders someday and you don't want them to have a bad attitude towards officers. Qther than that the Police Department is excellent, they're well trained. Impressed by the Chief and how he runs the department, it's very well run. Horton thanked Watson on behalf of the Board and the public for all his years of service and the many excellent qualities he brought to the PCRB. Bourgeois also thanked him for all the hard work he has put in the past six years. Bourgeois will be leaving the meeting early. Has also approached a friend about applying for the board when there is another vacancy. STAFF INFORMATION Captain Johnson reported on In Car Recording Devices. In 1996 the department secured it's first in-car recording device and it's primary focus of use for the unit at that time was traffic enforcement and the purpose was for documentation of traffic oriented activity. The uses are still very much appropriate for traffic enforcement, but other departments have learned it's an important tool to use for other purposes as well. In 1999 the department secured an additional 16 in car units from a company called Mobile Vision in Bloomington, NJ. The reason the department when with this company was because it was also the vendor that landed the State bid and the City was able to piggy-back onto the State's contract price. Units cost $3450 at that time and still are running about that. The unit consists of the camera itself, a monitor mounted on the dash, a control unit with all the activation buttons such as reverse, fast-forward, PCRB-Page 3 August 12, 2003 record, stop, the general controls you would see on a VCR. In the trunk of the vehicle secured to the deck is the vault itself that holds the video tape and all the recording equipment. It's secured with a lock and in some applications is inaccessible to the patrol officers, some applications meaning other departments. The policy in the general orders allows officers to insert and withdrawal their tape at the beginning and the end of their watch. Activation and use of the equipment is very simple and in most cases is taken entirely out of the officers' hands. With the activation of the emergency equipment or siren in the unit the camera automatically comes on. The officer can disable it by hitting the stop button. In the event that it becomes a situation that should have been recorded, then there should be an explanation as to that action. A wireless mic is worn by the officers. The transmitter device is a leather case that attaches to the belt and in most cases the mic is threaded up through the shirt and clipped on the lavaliere mic. The officer can activate the in car camera remotely with the wireless transmitter. Like any wireless component there are limitations on range, due to power and environment. Officers are encouraged to activate the unit prior to going into a call if they feel it would be appropriate to document that call. The department has started to explore, as the units age, going from VHS to digital. The price however is fairly expensive, approximately $6500. Tapes are issued to each officer and when it is full, the tape is turned in and retained by order for 90 days. The tapes are re-usable, but quality lessons after about 2-3 uses and the tapes are discarded. On average tapes are loaded and unloaded six times per day. With the constant tape changes, many of the components in the vault are plastic and gear driven and tend to fail. A lot of the Iow end maintenance repairs are done by the Police Department. If there is significant damage they do send it to Mobile Vision for repair. There is one backup available when a unit is sent out to be serviced. Most often when they are looking for a tape that doesn't exist, it is because the unit is out of service. Once the tape is turned in, all would have access to the tapes, unless they are turned in to Evidence. The over-all attitude concerning the in car recording device in the beginning was that the officers felt "Big Brother" was watching. Since then, because the tape supported the account that the officer provided, some of those attitudes have went away to a degree. The feeling from the majority of officers is not known. The camera is mounted to the dash of the car, but is on a swivel base and can be moved from the inside of the car to tape different views. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Watson and seconded by Bourgeois to adjourn to Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a PCRB-Page 4 August 12, 2003 government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried 3/0. Open session adjourned at 7:38 P.M. Stratton absent. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:08 P.M. Motion by Watson and seconded by Bourgeois to approve the public report for PCRB Complaint #03-01 and forward to council. Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. Motion by Bourgeois and seconded by Watson to approve the Annual Report and forward to Council. Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. In response to Watson's earlier comments, the Board directed staff to place on the next agenda "Techniques of objective interviewing". Motion by Watson and seconded by Bourgeois to request a 30-day extension for PCRB Complaint #03-02. Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Bourgeois and seconded by Watson. Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. 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 -ii Complainant C'~ ~ Stephen Atkins, City Manager .--< ~ ~ R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police ~ ~: [~ Officer(s) involved in complaint ~ C~ 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 28 February 2009. 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 (~"nplai ~r~qt, and 8-8-7B (1)(e), performance by the Board of its own additional investigatio ~r¢~(-} ~>_-~ The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: 27 May 2003, ~b~J~y 2~3, and 12 August 2003..~-~'r~ ~. Findin.qs 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 Allegation #1 Beyond the 90 days deadline for filing. Summary dismissal. ~-8-~D) and 8-8-3(E). C)~, ~ Alleqation #2: Beyond the 90 days deadline for filing. Summary dismissal. S~-8-~D) and 8-8-3(E). ~:~ ~ Allegation #3: Beyond the 90 days deadline for filing. Summary dismissal. ~e 8-8-~D) and 8-8-3(E). Alle.qation ¢¢-4: Submission of an altered videotape of the arrest at a court hearing. While the PCRB believes that there are valid questions relating to said videotape, we are unable to verify whether or not any portions of the videotape have been edited or altered. These questions will be dealt with in the Comment section of the PCRB Report. Because of our inability to verify whether or not any portions of the video tape have been edited or altered, the Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the video tape was submitted in the same form it was recorded, and there is no evidence of alteration is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation # 4 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENT There are several troublesome elements about the videotape, which we feel ought to be explained. The videotape begins at 19:56, yet the arrest report 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 Allegation # 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 DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - August 14, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: John Stratton, Loren Horton, David Bourgeois, John Watson; Board members absent: None. Staff Kellie Turtle also present. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh absent. Motion by Watson and seconded by Bourgeois to change the order of the items on the agenda and go to Item #3. Motion carried, 4/0, all present. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Bourgeois to adjourn to Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried 4/0, all present. Open session adjourned at 4:02 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 4:20 P.M. SETTING NAME CLEARING HEARING Motion by Horton and seconded by Bourgeois to set a name clearing hearing for Complaint #03-02 on August 28, 2003 at 4:00 P.M. Motion carried 4/0, all present. Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to set the level of review for Complaint #03-04 to 8-8-7-B(1 )(a), on the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried 4/0, all present. Motion by Bourgeois and seconded by Horton to request a 30 day extension for Complaint #03-04. Motion carried 4/0, all present. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Bougeois. Motion carried 4/0, all present. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 P.M.