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.