Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2004 Police Citizens Review BoardAGENDA POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD February 10, 2004 — 7:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM 410 E. Washington Street ITEM NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED Minutes of the meeting on 01/13/04 ITEM NO. 3 NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 4 OLD BUSINESS ITEM NO. 5 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM NO. 6 BOARD INFORMATION ITEM NO. 7 STAFF INFORMATION ITEM NO. 8 CONSIDER MOTION 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. ITEM NO. 9 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • March 9, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • April 13, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • May 11, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • June 8, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room ITEM NO. 10 ADJOURNMENT MEMORANDUM POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City DATE: February 6, 2004 TO: PCRB Members FROM: Kellie Tuttle RE: Board Packet for meeting on February 10, 2004 Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting: • Agenda for the meeting on 02/10/04 • Minutes of the meeting on 01/13/04 • PCRB Complaint Deadlines • PCRB Office Contacts —January 2004 Other resources available: National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement NACOLE provides information regarding civilian oversight in law enforcement nation wide. For more information see: www.NACOLE.orq DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — January 13, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Candy Barnhill, Loren Horton, Greg Roth, John Stratton, and Roger Williams; Board member absent: None. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle present. Also in attendance was Capt. Tom Widmer of the ICPD. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #03 -08, #03 -09, and #03 -10. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Stratton, seconded by Williams, to adopt the consent calendar. • Minutes of the meeting on 12/09/03 • ICPD Use of Force Report —November 2003 • ICPD Use of Force Report — December 2003 • ICPD Quarterly /Summary Report— IAIR /PCRB, 2003 Barnhill had a question concerning the number of allegations listed on the Quarterly Summary Report for item IAI #03 -14. Widmer explained that there are three allegations for that item, only two were listed on this report because the third allegation came in after the report was complied and that the information would be corrected on the next summary. Motion carried, 5/0. NEW BUSINESS None. OLD BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle requested each Board Member to check their information on the updated member list. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Williams, seconded by Stratton, to adjourn into 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 PCRB -Page 2 January 13, 2004 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, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 7:06 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:40 P.M. Motion by Stratton, seconded by Barnhill, to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #03 -08, #03 -09, and #03 -10 to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Stratton, seconded by Barnhill, to set the level of review for Complaint #03 -11 to 8-8-7(B)(1 )(a), on the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 5/0. MEETING SCHEDULE • February 10, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • March 9, 2004,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • April 13, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Horton will not be in attendance at the February meeting. Stratton will possibly be gone for the March meeting and Barnhill will not be available for the April meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Stratton, to adjourn. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M. February 10, 2004 Mtg Packet PCRB COMPLAINT DEADLINES PCRB Complaint #03 -11 Filed: 10/10/03 Chief's Report due: 01/08/04 Chief's Report filed: 01/08/04 PCRB Report due: 02/23/04 PCRB Complaint #03 -13 Filed: 10/17/03 Chief's Report due: 01/16/04 Chief's Report filed: 01/15/04 PCRB Report due: 03/01/04 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD OFFICE CONTACTS January 2004 Date Description 1/29/04 Faxed complaint form. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 -1826 (319)356 -5041 rJ 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 #03 -08, #03 -09 and #03 -10 DATE: 13 January 2004 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #03 -08, #03 -09 and #03 -10 (the "Complaint "). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs 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 Chiefs professional expertise" Section 8 -8 -713 (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. Board's Procedure The Complaints were received at the Office of the City Clerk. Two were filed on August 1, 2003 and a third on August 20, 2003. As required by Section 8 -8 -5 of the City Code, the Complaints were referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on October 30, 2003. An extension was requested and granted with an extended due date of December 5, 2003. The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on December 3, 2003. PCRB #03 -08, #03 -09 and #03 -10 Page 1 The Board voted to review the Complaints in accordance with Section 8- 8- 713(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on December 9, 2003, and January 13, 2004. Findings of Fact — PCRB Complaints #03 -08 and #03 -09 On June 11, 2003, Officer A was summoned to a convenience store in response to a dispatched fight in progress call. Complainants A and B and Participant C were all present. Officer D recalled being the second officer to arrive at the scene. Upon arrival, Officer D noted that Complainants A and B were standing toward the north end of the west side of the storefront and Participant C was at the south end of the store. Conflicting information obtained in interviews with Complainants A and B, Participant C, and Clerks A, B, and C make it difficult to determine the exact sequence of events, who was involved in the altercation, who remained inside and /or outside the store, who placed the call to the police and if the altercation was simply verbal or if physical contact occurred. After the initial confrontation between Complainants A and B and Participant C began outside the store, Clerk B exited the store, separated the parties, directed Complainant A inside the store, and requested Participant C to leave the property. Participant C refused to leave the premises stating he wanted to wait for the police to arrive. It is unclear when Complainants A and B exited the store. All parties interviewed agreed that only Officer A spoke with Complainants A and B during the information gathering and resolution period. Officer A described his personal demeanor as stern and projected with an elevated voice level to the Complainants to affirm his directive that they needed to immediately leave the area or be arrested. The Complainants were also informed by Officer A that charges would not be filed against Participant C for their allegation that he had committed an assault. Complainant B informed Officer A he had left personal property inside the store and was unwilling to leave the premises without retrieving it. In his interview, Officer A admitted to touching Complainant B on the shoulder to direct him to speedily retrieve his property from the store and leave the premises. Witness accounts support that Officer A did touch Complainant B's shoulder, but not in a manner to cause pain or injury or to be insulting to Complainant B. In his interview, Clerk B, stated that "Officers returned inside and asked if the store wanted any trespass warnings issued. He said they told the officers they wanted Participant C issued a trespass warning. After delivering the message to Participant C, the officers and the two parties left." [P. 6, Investigation section, Chief's Report dated 12/3/03]. With respect to PCRB complaint #03 -09, interviews with Participant C, Clerks A, B, and C, and Officers A, B, and D affirm that Officer B was not present at the call. In their O PCRB #03 -08, #03 -09 and #03 -10 n Page 2 �1 y C11 c, separate interviews, Complainants A and B both indicated that when they had called the Police Department on 6/11/03 to ask who had responded to the altercation at the convenience store, they had been told it was Officer B. Complainant B, in his interview regarding complaint #03 -09 said, "...Complainant A gets information scrambled due to the amount of medications she's on. Complainant B said that this happens to him as well." [P. 4, Investigation section, Chief's Report dated 12/2/031. In his interview Complainant B said that Officers B and D looked somewhat alike. He did not recall Officer B responding to the call. Officer B, when asked by the Chief of Police and again by the officers investigating the PCRB complaints if he responded to this particular incident said there was no doubt in his mind that he was not at this call. PCRB complaint #03 -10 involves a series of incidents throughout various locations within the City. In separate incidents, both Complainants A and B departed the area where they were to meet officers before the Officer(s) arrived. In both instances, Officer C made an effort to locate Complainants A and B. Upon locating them, contact was initiated and Officer C took appropriate action as requested by Complainant A, i.e. the issuance of a directive to Participant C to have no contact with Complainant A; drive -bys of locations of alleged vandalism on property owned by Complainant A and on property not owned by her; and obtaining a copy of her journal. Complainant A did not provide names of the alleged witnesses to the vandalism so Officer C could follow -up with those parties. Complainant B declined to take any action following the alleged assault nor is there any record of his having made a request for Officer C to take any further action at a later date. Conclusion Complaint #03 -08 Allegation # 1: Rudeness The observations and statements of all witnesses to the event of June 11, 2003 including Complainants A and B, Participant C, Clerks A, B, and C, and Officers A and D indicate Officer A had sole contact with Complainants A and B after his arrival on the scene. Officer D recalled Complainant B becoming belligerent with Officer A's position on the call. Officer A indicated he projected his personal demeanor as stern and with an elevated voice level to affirm his directive to Complainants A and B that they needed to leave the area or be arrested after Complainant B had become argumentative with him. Statements by Clerks A and C indicate some confusion as to their recollection of this particular event due to numerous prior altercations between Complainants A and B and Participant C. Clerk B denied any rudeness on the part of Officer A toward the Complainants. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 of the O PCRB #03 -08, #03 -09 and #03 -10 - Page 3 6 C,� complaint is not sustained. Allegation # 2: Assault. Complainants allege that Officer A committed an assault by shoving the shoulder of Complainant B when he turned toward the convenience store to retrieve his personal belongings which were still inside the store. Officer A admitted to touching Complainant B when directing him into the store to retrieve his property and to bring a more speedy conclusion to the disturbance. The observations of Officer D, Clerks A and B lend no support to the contention that Officer A's actions were done with any intent to cause pain, injury or to be offensive to Complainant B. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #2 of the complaint is not sustained. Complaint #03 -09 Allegation # 1: Failure to Supervise. Testimony of responding officers, officer not at the scene, Participant C and Clerks affirmed that Officer B was not present at the call. As noted in the Chiefs report, "There were additional concerns related to the accuracy of the complainant's accounts of this matter given the fact that no one ... supports the complainant's assertion at Officer B was present at the scene of the fight in progress call. This obvious discrepancy lent itself to questions regarding the complainant's recollections about the entire matter." [P. 2, Synopsis section, Chief's Report dated 12/3/03]. Complainant B also stated that both he and Complainant A sometimes do not recall events accurately. The Chiefs report concluded, "Regardless of which officer may have been present, there is no evidence to suggest that intervention was necessary or appropriate, and as such, the failure to supervise claim is without merit." [P. 10, Conclusion of Fact, Chief's Report, dated 12/2/03]. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 of the complaint is not sustained. Complaint #03 -10 Allegation #1: Failure to Investigate. The Board believes that reasonable steps were taken by Officer C to address the issues of continued harassment and vandalism by Participant C against Complainant A. The Board also recognizes that Officer C took additional actions to locate and initiate contact with Complainants A and B when they had departed the areas they were to have met him at prior to his arrival. Officer C, at the request of Complainant A, located Participant C and issued a harassment warning and continues to reaffirm the warning PCRB #03 -08, #03 -09 and #03 -10 j N Page 4 CD �i CIi with Participant C each time Officer C sees him. Officer C obtained copies of Complainant A's journal which contained information regarding prior harassment incidents. Officer C initiated drive -by visual verifications of vandalism to property belonging to Complainant A and also to property she reported as being vandalized by Participant C but not owned by her. Complainant B, on the night he was assaulted, declined to be involved in the issuance of a criminal complaint. The Chief's report stated that there was no evidence to support Complainant B's statement that he'd told Officer C at a later time that he wanted to pursue a criminal charge. The Board will defer to the Chief's assessment, If any insufficient act is to be attributed to Officer C, it is the fact that he did not make a more assertive effort to have Complainant A identify the witnesses she claimed to have. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 of the complaint is not sustained. Comment None. PCRB #03 -08, #03 -09 and #03 -10 Page 5 C7 N C71 cn