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