HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240 1826
319 356 5041
March 7 2007
n
To City Council
Complainant
Stephen Atkins City Manager
Sam Hargadine Chief of Police
Officer s involved in complaint
C0
1
U1
W
From Police Citizen s Review Board
Re Investigation of PCRB Complaint 0605
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board s the Board review of
the investigation of Complaint PCRB 06 05 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 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 7 B 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 Section 8 8 7 B 2 a b c
BOARD S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on November 3 2006 As
required by Section 8 8 5 B of the City Code the Complaint was referred to the Chief of
Police for investigation
The Chiefs Report was due on February 1 2007 and was filed with the City Clerk on
January 25 2007
The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on February 22 2007 and March 13 2007
The Board by a vote of 3 0 with two members absent voted to review the Chiefs Report
in accordance with section 8 8 7 B 1 a on the record with no additional investigation
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Complainant was stopped on August 18 2006 by Officer A for a traffic violation on
Interstate 80 Subsequently the stance of the K 9 Officer led the officer to a non
consensual search of the vehicle driven by the Complainant All incidents relating to the
stop the search and other issues brought forward in the Complaint were recorded on
the Officers in car camera
The Complainant accused Officer A of taking too long to accomplish the ticketing of
using a harsh tone of voice of whistling during the encounter of glaring at her and the
other occupant of the vehicle and of using disrespectful language on at least two
occasions The Complainant also accused Officer A of taking too long to search the
vehicle of a delay before a Supervisor arrived of questioning the other person in the
vehicle and completely insulted degraded and took the job beyond reasonable limits for
no reason as well as showing prejudice
CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the Complaint and the Chiefs Report the Board concluded that the
complaints were not substantiated The evidence per the Chiefs report from the in car
camera recording did not uphold the Complainant s version of events It is difficult to list
all of the allegations made by the Complainant in this case because they were so
numerous and overlapping Therefore we take the Chiefs Report numbering of thirteen
13 separate Complaints and consolidate them into two 2 inclusive and general
allegations for purposes of our Report
Allegation 1 Unwarrantable delay in accomplishing the ticketing and searching tasks
NOT SUSTAINED The evidence per the Chiefs report does not support the accusations
of any delays in performing these duties o
r
Allegation 2 Use of harsh tone of voice of glaring at the Complainant Of ng lIdisrespectfullanguageofinsultinganddegradingtheComplainantCitfsholing
prejudice NOT SUSTAINED The evidence per the Chiefs report does nQC ppponthe naccusationsofanyinappropriatewordsoractionsbyOfficerAr
J
COMMENTS J Ji
We commend the Officer involved in this case for activating the in car camera The
evidence from the recorded video made it possible for the investigating officers to
compare the accusations received from the Complainant with what was captured by the
in car camera This Complaint demonstrates the value of consistent use of the in car
cameras when there is need for later review of actions