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