Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 522401826 319 3565041 November 18 2008 To City Council a Complainant m Y Michael Lombardo City Manager z Sam Hargadine Chief of Police Officers involved in complaint From Police Citizens Review Board D Re Investigation of PCRB Complaint 0806 This is the Report ofthe Police Citizens Review Boards the Board review ofthe investigation ofComplaint PCRB 0806the Complaint BOARDSRESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City Section 887B 2 the Boards 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 ofreview to the Report and to give deference to the Report because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise Section 887B 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 887B 2 a b c BOARDSPROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 21 2008 As required by Section 885 B of the City Code the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation 1 The Chief s Report was due on October 20 2008 and wasfiled with the City Clerk on October 10 2008 The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on October 28 2008 and November 18 2008 The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 887B 1 a on the record with no additional investigation ALLEGATIONS l Officer A slandered the reputation ofcomplainant by calling him a drug dealer r2OfficerAharassedcomplainantbygivinghimacriminaltrespasswarningforthroayvay Street apartment complex FINDINGS OF FACT A Officer A was patrolling area of 1900 Broadway in response to citizens complaints ar intellince ofpossible drug controlled substances activity in the area Officer A had previously been actvised ofthe possible sales of controlled substances in the azea and had physical evidence Corner Tears corners of plastic bags torn offto package controlled substances to corroborate the complaints As officer A neared the area a group of subjects was seen sitting on the steps The men yelled FiveO FiveO and ran At this time Officer A had a reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot This is supported by the complaints ofdrug activity in area the corner tears recently found by Officer A the possible alarm given FiveO FiveO as in Hawaii Five0 police and the fleeing ofthe subjects that had given the possible alarm Two ofthe fleeing men ran into apartment B7 The third subject was located outside the apartment door Officer A spoke with the tenants of apartment B7 and received consent to enter the apartment A protective sweep for the protection of the apartment residents and the officers was constitutional at this time According to the Call for Service the officers were dealing with 10 individuals Officer A located 56 other men in a back bedroom of B7 Officer A recognized the complainant as one of the men in the back bedroom All the people in the apartment were patted down for weapons In an investigatory stop an officer needs a reasonable suspicion a subject is armed and dangerous to conduct apatdown search which is a limited patting of the external clothing for weapons The patdowns of the people present in the apartment were justified due to the courts repeated recognition of a strong association between illegal drug dealing violence and weapons This is almost a per se exception to the warrant requirement The complainant also stated he gave the officer permission to search his person Officer B remembered the consent Officer C could not remember any specifics ofthe conversation 2 Officer C performed the search of the Complainant Any officer present in a situation where consent is given or there is reasonable suspicion to conduct apatdown search can perform the search Officer C felt a large bulge in the complainantspants pocket and believed the contents to be contraband An officer conducting a consent search does not need to believe an item is seizable to take it out of a pocket and examine it An officer conducting a patdown search for weapons can seize any object if the officer believes its evidentiary value is immediately apparent Officer C retrieved the contents believing it was contraband It turned out to be aroll of money In a search what the object seized actually is is immaterial Only the legality of the search matters in regard to the admissibility of the evidence Officer B later counted the money which was 700 in twenty dollarbills The tenants of the apartment gave officers permission to search the apartment After the search officers exited the apartment and spoke with Complainant The amount of money found on complainant is discussed and the complainant told the officers the money was pay from his workplace Officer A tells Complainant before his explanation of the money it looked like he was dealing illegal drugs Officer A phones a member of SCAT Special Crimes Attack Team Officer A tells the Complainant that SCAT believes he is dealing drugs but Officer A does not call the complainant a drug dealer The Complainant does profess to a history ofdrug dealing butnies current dealing c The conversation between Officer A and the Complainant took place in an area wee oriyth police and the complainant could hear what was said ti r The Complainant also complained about the length of the detention In an InveQiatorStop officers can use the time which is reasonable to conduct the investigation This could ilude but would not be limited to the detention of subjects Officers inform the complainant hewrl get a receipt for the money The Complainant declines and by doing this actually increases the time necessary to conduct the investigation atthe scene During the questioning by Officer A Officer D tells the Complainant that Officer D purchased a car that was seized and forfeited from the Complainant Officer A stated he discussed this statement with Officer D after the investigation but before the complaint Officer A told Officer D that the Complainantsreaction to the comment messed up the questioning by Officer A At no time does any officer threaten to take the complainantsmoney or phone Officer A issues the complainant a Criminal Trespass warning and explains it Officer A tells the Complainant the warning does not prohibit the Complainant from visiting friends but does restrict the Complainant from loitering The Complainant is then allowed to leave The Chief s report of the length of detention ofthe Complainant is approximately 15 minutes The Call for Service 3 log shows an officer on scene at 182306and backup officers amving on the scene at 182539 182541and 182546The first officer leaves the scene at 183507All the other offices clear the scene at 193351Due to the fact the initial officer waited for backup a search ofpersons and the apartment was conducted and the first officer cleared the scene approximately 12 minutes after the first officer was on the scene there is nothing to make the Board believe the detention was any longer than the Chiefs report states A squad carrecording also documents the length oftime ofthe conversation outside the apartment to be approximately 15 minutes On September 03 2008 a subject from Southgate Property Management was contacted about officers issuing criminal trespass warnings The contact stated that Southgate had given officers permission to issue warnings for loitering and other nuisance activities Other nuisance activities was not defined in the Chief s report The contact for Southgate stated the officers had requested and authorized officers to approach individuals and determine if they lived in the complex andor were visiting someone who lived there Southgate Management also requested officers issue criminal trespass warnings to persons that do not live in complex and are involved in questionable activity On July 21 2008 the Complainant filed a Police Citizens Review Board PCRB complaEint r CONCLUSIONS o o c N From the evidence provided nothing suggests that any officer on the scene did anything to daihage the reputation of the complainant According to a letter dated 081308 the police department repeatedly attempted to contact the complainant At no time did the complainant come in for an interview and instructed the police to stop calling him The letter went on to provide the complainant with another opportunity which the Board assumes was turned down due to the lack of complainant interview materials included with the Chiefs Report The officers did not call the Complainant a drug dealer but stated they suspected he was due to the current situation past criminal history ofComplainant and money in specific bill denominations The conversation between Officer A and the Complainant was in an area removed from others except police officers and there was nothing that was said to be publicized about the complainant the search the money and him being called a drug dealer Allegation 1 Officer A slandered the name and reputation of the complainant by calling him a drug dealer NOT SUSTAINED A phone call on 090308 to Southgate Management Property Management confirmed that the Broadway Condominiums Association had given permissionauthority for Southgate and the police department to actively enforce loitering and other nuisance activities An Internal Affairs Investigation Report dated 090308 documents the conversation Officer E had with a representative from Southgate Property Management supporting the above information The officers at the scene were acting within the scope of this authority although in this particular situation it is not totally relevant other than as a basis ofintelligence Allegation 2 Officer A harassed the Complainant by issuing the complainant a criminal trespass warning NOT SUSTAINED BOARD COMMENTS The Board is concerned about the issuing of a criminal trespass warning without prior written authorization from the property owner The Board is also concerned with the statement made by Officer D to the Complainant about purchasing a car that was seized and forfeited from complainant This comment was made at the time Officer A appeared to be in charge ofthe situation The comments could imply that the money found would be seized and forfeited also This comment did not appear to further the investigation and the Board feels that Officer D should be spoken with about this behavior J ranza ero gg iy C a Y 3J 5