Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-01
POLICECITIZENSREVIEWBOARDABoardoftheCityofIowaCity410EastWashingtonStreetIowaCityIA5224018263193565041rTOCityCouncilO5ComplainantnCStephenAtkinsCityManagerRJWinkelhakeChiefofPoliceOfficersinvolvedincomplaintcoCFROMPoliceCitizensReviewBoardREInvestigationofPCRBComplaint0301DATE7July2003ThisistheReportofthePoliceCitizensReviewBoardstheBoardreviewoftheinvestigationofComplaintPCRB0301theComplaintBoardsResponsibilityUndertheCityCodeoftheCityofIowaCitySection887B2theBoardsjobistoreviewthePoliceChiefsReportReportofhisinvestigationofacomplaintTheCityCoderequirestheBoardtoapplyareasonablebasisstandardofreviewtotheReportandtogivedeferencetothereportbecauseofthePoliceChiefsprofessionalexpertiseSection887B2WhiletheCityCodedirectstheBoardtomakefindingsoffactitalsorequiresthattheBoardrecommendthatthePoliceChiefreverseormodifyhisfindingsonlyifthesefindingsareunsupportedbysubstantialevidenceareunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousorarecontrarytoaPoliceDepartmentpolicyorpracticeoranyFederalStateorLocalLawSections887B2abandcBoardsProcedureTheComplaintwasreceivedattheOfficeoftheCityClerkon26February2003AsrequiredbySection885oftheCityCodetheComplaintwasreferredtotheChiefofPoliceforinvestigationTheChiefsReportwasdueon27May2003andwasfiledwiththeCityClerkon21May2003PCRB0301Page1 TheBoardvotedtoreviewtheComplaintinaccordancewithSection887B1aontherecordwithnoadditionalinvestigation887B1binterviewmeetwithmplairtand887B1eperformancebytheBoardofitsownadditionalinvestigatiorcaTnh1Brudgumst2t0c3onsidertheReportonthefollowingdates27May200323FindinqsofFactOn23March2002theComplainantwasinvolvedinaonecarvehicleaccidenttowhichanofficeroftheIowaCityPoliceDepartmentwasdispatchedSubsequentlytheComplainantwasarrestedonachargeofOperatingWhileIntoxicatedFourallegationsweremadeintheComplaint0301butthreeofthoseComplaintsexceedthe90daylimitunderwhichthePoliceCitizensReviewBoardmayconsiderthemSee883DThereforethisReportisaconsiderationonlyofAllegation4thatthevideotapesubmittedinevidenceatthesubsequenttrialwaseditedandalteredfromitsoriginalformInJuly2002theComplainantonadvicefromtheJudgechangedattorneysThesecondattorneywasabletohavethechargesagainsttheComplainantdroppedon8December2002ThesemattersprecedethematterofthevalidityofthesubmittedvideotapeandcannotbeconsideredinthisinvestigationHoweverthematteroftheeditedoralteredvideotapeapparentlywasontherecordduringthecourtheadngItfallswithinthe90daylimitofthefilingoftheComplaintandthereforewillbeconsideredTheComplainantsallegationisthattheintroductionofthiseditedoralteredvideotaperesultedintherevocationoftheComplainantsdriverslicensebytheIowaDepartmentofTransportationTheComplainantassertsthattheICPDofficerstartedthevideotapewellafterinitialcontactwiththeComplainantandmoreoverthattheICPDofficerdeliberatelyaimedthevideocameraatthehoodofthecarwhichpreventedthevideotapefromshowingtheinteractionsbetweentheofficerandtheComplainantUndertheexistingCityCodeoftheCityofIowaCitySection887B2thePCRBmayconsideronlythoseComplaintsthatarefiledwithin90daysoftheincidentandmayconsiderthePoliceChiefsReportofhisinvestigationoftheComplaintThePoliceChiefsReportincludesalogofthecontactsbytheInvestigativeOfficerwiththeComplainantandwitnessestotheincidentcopiesofdocumentsincludingtheCallforServiceMotorVehicleAccidentReportIowaCityPoliceImpoundReportstatementsbytwocivilianwitnessescomplaintformsbythearrestingofficerIDOTform4320131000H1102resultsofthebreathanalysisattheUofIICPDOWlchecklistArrestReportRightsSheetstatementmadebythedriverresultsoffieldsobrietytestsinterviewwiththeComplainantsummariesofinterviewswiththetwocivilianwitnessesandaCoralvillepoliceofficerwhowasfirstontheaccidentsceneandmoreextendedtranscriptsoftheinterviewswiththetwocivilianwitnessesItisrelevanttopointPCRB0301Page2 outherethatmostofthesedocumentsdonotdealwiththematterofthevideotapetheonlyallegationwhichthePCRBisabletoconsiderTheinvestigationbythePCRBincludedarequesttotheICPDforacopyofthevideotapeforviewingacopyoftheaudiointerviewwiththeCoralvillepoliceofficerandacompletetranscriptoftheinterviewwiththeICPDofficerPCRBreceivedacopyofthevideotapeandtheaudiotapeon3June2003butICPDdeclinedtoforwardtheofficerstapedinterviewbecauseitwasacompelledstatementMembersofthePCRBviewedthevideotapeandlistenedtotheaudiotapeOn16June2003membersofthePCRBmetwiththeComplainantandconsulteddocumentationwhichsheproducedandalsoviewedthevideotapewhileshecommentedThiscompletedtheinvestigationbythePCRBofComplaint0301ConclusionAlleqation1Beyondthe90daysdeadlineforfilingSummarydismissal8Dand883E3TIAlleqation2Beyondthe90daysdeadlineforfilingSummarydismissal8DIF1and883EzAlleqation3Beyondthe90daysdeadlineforfilingSummarydismissaleee88Dand883EAlleqation4SubmissionofanalteredvideotapeofthearrestatacourthearingWhilethePCRBbelievesthattherearevalidquestionsrelatingtosaidvideotapeweareunabletoverifywhetherornotanyportionsofthevideotapehavebeeneditedoralteredThesequestionswillbedealtwithintheCommentsectionofthePCRBReportBecauseofourinabilitytoverifywhetherornotanyportionsofthevideotapehavebeeneditedoralteredtheBoardfindstheChiefsconclusionthatthevideotapewassubmittedinthesameformitwasrecordedandthereisnoevidenceofalterationissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousAllegation4isNOTSUSTAINEDCOMMENTThereareseveraltroublesomeelementsaboutthevideotapewhichwefeeloughttobeexplainedThevideotapebeginsat1956yetthearrestreportindicatesthattheofficerarrivedatthesceneat1941adiscrepancyof15minutesThevideocamerawasnotaimedthroughthewindshieldatthesceneinsteaditwasaimeddownatthehoodofcartherebyexcludingthevisualevidenceFrom2101until2116aperiodof15minutesatPCRB0301Page3 thePublicSafetyOfficethereisnosoundonthetapeandthescreenisblackAudiovideoresumeatthePublicSafetyOfficeat2116Thereisnoaudiovideoduringthefirst15minutesoftheincidentorduringanother15minuteswhileattheUofIPublicSafetyOfficeThevideocameraanglechangedat2125WehavenocommentonwhetherornotthevideotapemighthavebeeneditedoralteredandasnotedinourresponsetoAIleqation4weaccepttheChiefofPolicesconclusionQuestionsremainwhythevideotapewasnotbegunwhentheofficerarrivedonthescenewhythevideocameraremainedpointedatthehoodofthecarinsteadofwheretheofficerwasandwhythereare15minutesunaccountedforwhenthatperiodoftimecouldbenodifferentthantheimmediatelyprecedingandfollowingtheunaccountedfortimeThepurposeofhavingavideocamerainasquadcaristodocumentinanaudioandvisualformtheinteractionsofanofficerandacitizenduringanincidentofrecordthencertainlythecameraoughttobeaimedattheinteractionthatistakingplaceWhenthecameraisinappropriatelyaimedandtheaudioisnotcontinuousthevalueoftherecordingisseverelycompromisedWerecommendthatthedepartmenturgeitsofficerstousethisresourceefficientlyandeffectivelyQualityofthetapeispoorandrequeststheDepartmentupgradingqualityoftapesandorequipmentPCRB0301Page4