Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04POLICE 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 Complainant Stephen Atkins City Manager Sam Hargadine Chief of Police Officer s involved in complaint os O JJ cJ c c n r N N FROM Police Citizens Review Board n iT 1 RE Investigation of PCRB Complaint 05 04 c 3 J1 J1 DATE March 21 2006 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board s the Board review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB 05 04 the Complaint Board s Responsibilitv Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City Section 8 8 7B 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 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 Board s Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk November 22 2005 As required by Section 8 8 5 of the City Code the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation The Chiefs Report was due on January 31 2006 and was filed with the City Clerk on January 10 2006 The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8 8 7B 1 a on the record with no additional investigation The Board met to consider the Report on February 14 2006 FindinQs of Fact The complaint alleges Officer A failed to properly investigate a disturbance complaint and used a condescending tone The general facts of the incident as follows are not in dispute On October 27 2005 at approximately 1918 hours the complainant reported a disturbance in the apartment above the complainant s In the complaint filed with the PCRB the complainant described the disturbance as pounding jumping and stomping Upon arrival of Officer A there was no disturbance as described by the complainant The complainant also mentioned vandalism to private property and related this to living noise There was no further discussion of vandalism On November 15 2005 during the subsequent police department investigation both Officer A and the complainant were interviewed As per complainant s request Officer A spoke with the complainant prior to speaking with the residents of the apartment above the complainant s The complainant stated Officer A asked Is this about the kids againand felt it was said in a condescending tone Officer A maintained the conversation was professional in nature The Internal I nvestigation Report dated November 15 2005 suggests prior complaints with police response After speaking with the complainant Officer A went upstairs and spoke with a person in the apartment about the complaint Officer A reported not hearing any type of disturbance while interviewing the complainant or speaking with the person at the apartment above the complainant s The complainant did not state there was any type of disturbance while the officer was present The complainant stated past similar disturbances have caused pictures to fall and ceiling light globes to fall to the floor The complainant does not bel@Ye the disturbance was normal household noise E 0 r j In the Interview Report dated November 15 2005 the complainant stat q JIlerEN to be one actual complaint that being the perceived condescending manl rin N which Officer A asked Is this about the kids again 11 7 Ul U1 By unanimous vote the Board set the Level of Review for this complaint at 8 8 7 B 1 a believing there to be enough information in the Chiefs Report and other attached materials to allow the Board to come to an informed conclusion The Board vote was 3 0 with 2 members of the Board absent The Board finds allegation 1 to be not sustained The officer responded to the call spoke with the complainant prior to contacting the people in the other apartment spoke to a person at the other apartment about the problem and provided the complainant an alternative course of action to the problem There is a question if the noise perceived by the complainant is a disturbance or is usual noise associated with multiple story apartment living Conclusion The Board further finds allegation 2 to be not sustained From the interviews of the Officer and the complainant it is evident that other complaints have been Tl in iJ lodged by the complainant concerning disturbances and that Officer A had some knowledge of those complaints This would account for the question Is this about the kids again Other than the words used there is nothing in the complainant s complaint or interview that suggests the tone used by the officer was condescending It does suggest repetition of complaints which might lead to a perception of a condescending tone on the part of the complainant or an actual frustrated or condescending tone on the part of the responding officer With the evidence before it it is impossible for the Board to ascertain if either of these accurately portrays what occurred The Board concludes the findings of the Chief of Police are supported by substantial evidence are reasonable not arbitrary or capricious and are consistent to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal State or Local Law Complaint 05 04 Alleqation 1 Failure to properly investiqate a complaint Allegation 1 against Officer A is not sustained Alleqation 2 Usinq a condescendinq tone when speakinq to complainant Allegation 2 against Officer A is not sustained Comment None 02 0 11v N 2i N mm1022Jrj U1 Ul