The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-01POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board ofthe City ofIowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City,IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 November 16,2011 To:City Council Complainant City Manager Sam Hargadine,ChiefofPolice Officer(s)involved in complaint From:Police Citizen's Review Board r-..:l= 0 ~r'('?Z "1>:~0<• n.-..<r-~n --.l -<;'"T.J m...rTi J i -''-l"'.''l --:..".:....."Jc.:)::::;:r0 ~~::;~~....~ ',".;:- N Re:Investigation ofPCRB Complaint #11-01 This is the Report ofthe Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board")review ofthe investigation ofComplaint PCRB #11-01 (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 ofreview to the Report and to "give deference"to the Report "because ofthe Police Chiefs professional expertise",Section 8-8-7 B (2).While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings ofFact",it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modifY his [mdings only if these [mdings are "unsupported by substantial evidence',are "unreasonable,arbitrary or capricious"or are "contrary to a Police Department policy orpractice,or any Federal,State or local law",Section 8-8-7 B (2)a,b,c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on June 24,2011.As required by Section 8-8-5 (B)ofthe City Code,the Complaint was referred to the ChiefofPolice for investigation. The Chiefs Report was filed with the City Clerk on September 20,2011. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on September 27,2011,October 12,2011,October 25,2011 and November 16,2011.At the September 27th meeting the Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(b),Interview/meet with complainant and 8- 8-7(B)(I)(c),Interview/meet with named officer(s)and other officers.At the October 12th meeting the Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B)(I)(e), Performance by Board ofits own additional investigation. BOARD'S PROCEDURES (Continued) At the October 12th meeting the Board granted a request by Chief Hargadine to present a power point presentation of his investigation findings.The Board invited the Complainant to appear before the Board ifshe desired and to contact the Chiefto review his fmdings. At the October 25th meeting the Complainant appeared before the Board.The Complainant was asked if she had reviewed the Chiefs investigation and she stated yes she had.The Complainant was asked for any additional information that she felt needed to be added to the investigation.It was determined by the Board that further follow-up investigation may be needed,and it would be undertaken by the Board itself FINDINGS OF FACT On March 26,2011,the Complainant held a birthday party for her daughter at the Saddlebrook Clubhouse on Heinz Road in Iowa City.Juveniles from Cedar Rapids came to the party ofwhich several were reported members from "Hardbodies","All About Money"and "Money ofAnything" gangs.Some ofthe juveniles from Iowa City were members ofthe "Broadway Goons"gang.It is well known that there is a violent history between the gangs from Iowa City and Cedar Rapids.In her written complaint the Complainant acknowledged that problems began to mount at the party and that she had to turn up the lights and turn down the music at least three different times and threatened to end the party.Complainant appeared to minimize these problems in her statement referring to the juveniles as "singing in harmony".After about 45 minutes a large fight broke out resulting in one juvenile being injured. A total ofnine 911 calls were received by the Johnson County Emergency Communication Center. (mcC)The first call was received by the JECC at 23:05:41.The Complainant in her statement indicated that she called three separate times.The Complainant's first call at 23:07:27,(mCC times are used throughout the findings by the Board)stated that there was a large fight,someone was hurt and "they have guns."Many ofthe responding officers searched the area looking for suspects with guns.No weapons were found and no arrests were made that night. The Complainant had direct contact with four officers.Ofthe four officers near the Complainant, only one officer's (Officer A)audio unit appeared to malfunction,however their conversation was recorded by OfficerB. The Complainant was charged with Disorderly House and a warrant was obtained through a Judge. The Complainant filed a complaint with the PCRB alleging improper actions and false reports by Officers A,B,and C,relating to the disturbance and fight at The Saddlebrook Clubhouse and the follow-up investigation by Officer D. r--.:>= C' ~:::~"""-fUtn,.~...0 e ~ ~--l ..-.::: ("";l-'t:f~"-1("')-.J , ~..--rn....',i \J'*r~-..-....~.......~~ c··<~_:.~:J.,:;:;.:....-..N.,.~... :;~':O ~ f'..) ALLEGATION #1 Officers did not respond in a timely manner after her 911 calls for assistance.Complainant asserts that officers arrived almost 20 minutes after the shift change of11 :OOpm. Thefirst call to JECC was noted at 23:05:41 and not dispatched until 23:09:22 andfirst officer was logged arriving at 23:12:42.The Board notes the lag time between 23:05:41 and 23:09:22 is a concern,however this is not under the control ofthe Iowa City Police.Once the officers were dispatched it was only approximately 3:20 until arrival Evenfrom 23:05:41 it was less than the 20 minutes alleged. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #2 No audio/video from in-car cameras from responding officers. Video and audio was available from most officers.One officer who had contact with the complainant had audio problems,but another officer in the vicinity was able to recordfor the both ofthem.Some officers who responded were in unmarked vehicles and did not have the capability to record video or audio. The Complainant was unfortunately led to believe,by her attorney,that there were no in-car recorders being operated by officers that night.The attorney representing the City advised the Complainant's attorney that he could request copies ofrecordings from the Iowa City Police Department. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #3 Officers made untrue statements in the submitted written reports. The three officers who had contact with the Complainant that evening wrote reports.All three reports matchedthe audioportions oftheir contacts.The Complainantfelt statements were made in retaliationfor statingshe was goingto callthe Chiefthat night. ~~':l'iU:_ i r:"''I1''''l;t:~ ~""-.,1,'='" NOT SUSTAINED Further written statements made by officers that the Complainant felt were inaccuratf!,will be addressed individually later.a ~,-'~j :::::i:;;~i ~ ALLEGAnON #4 Improper conduct/treatment by responding officers during interaction with her. After reviewing audio tapes and talking with the officers involved the Boardfound the Chiefs findings were reasonable.During contact with the Complainant one officer had to ask the Complainant to let himfinish with his comments andthat he was notgoing to talk over her.This was notpresentedin an offensive tone or attitude. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #5 The Complainant stated that Officer C was untruthful in telling her that three guns had been recovered. Although not recorded,Officer C denied ever telling Complainant that guns had been recovered. He believes there must have been some miscommunication when they discussed the presence of guns during the incident.During the initial 911 callfrom the Complainant,she stated guns were involved. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #6 Officer C made false statements in his report.The report stated the Complainant used profanity when referring to the Cedar Rapids juveniles and was more interested in cleaning up the mess in the clubhouse than speaking with officers. When reviewing the video and audio portions of the initial units arriving at the scene,the Complainant is observed running to the police vehicle pointing the vehicles leaving and using profanity. Comments written by Officer C in his report ofthe Complainant being more concerned with the cleaning ofthe clubhouse and her overall demeanor were based upon his observations and his .opinion based upon her behavior. NOT SUSTAINED r--..:>=a ::~CJ ~~=~1'::.)j~.~<I ~--C")--'::~;"P.."GUUQI -.l , -1("")"'1 r-Tl:-....:::~u •U (-"t..;r:)~.....,,~~M+;:'".+.:.~~q......:;;:...........r'v.....,... ...F···.;;:"'"r-,,) ALLEGATION #7 Officer C inquired ofher personal information while apossible suspect was seated in the back ofthe patrol car and overheard the conversation. When asked about logging personal information about the Complainant while inside the car with the juvenile in the back seat,Officer C conceded that he could have handled it differently.The Board understands the Complainant's discomfort,however there is no violation ofpolice policy or regulation. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #8 Not being told by Officer C that she was going to be charged with Disorderly House and questioned why a warrant was issued for her arrest. Officer C reported that it was not until a few days later when he completed his investigation that he believed a charge was appropriate for Disorderly House.He applied for an arrest warrant which was reviewed and signed by a District Court Judge after determining probable cause existed.There is no policy violation in obtaining an arrest warrant.Officer C stated there was no malicious intent on hispart in obtaining the warrant. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #9 Officer C called A&M Management apprising them of the damage and telling them that he was going to charge the Complainant for the damages. Officer C's report also involved documenting the damage at the Saddlebrook Clubhouse.It is customary for the owner or management to be contacted regarding damages.Officer C advised that he did not tell A&M Management that he was planning to criminally charge the Complainantfor the damage. NOT SUSTAINED r-,= 0 ·<C):;e:"".n~-0 o#'~--!~:t (-,~(~.. !!'~ -l("")-.l ~ "'~m-<••~..../"7l -0 3:",o2~r=l~.,~......o;"l.N 'u=",:~-;..r;:- N ALLEGATION #10 Officer A had made false statements in his report.Report indicated that Complainant had yelled at him and that he made the statement that he was not going to speak with her ifshe continued to yell. The Complainant asserts this remark was in response to her asking for his name and badge number to report him to the police chief. Officer A advised that during his interview with the Complainant she became upset when she believed officers let a female involved in the fight leave the area.The Complainant interrupted him andhe asked her to wait until he was done talking;that he was not going to play the game of talking over her.The audio does portray the Complainant's voice elevated and her statements and tone accusatory.Officer A's voice remains calm.Officer A's impression was the Complainant was yelling at him. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #11 Officer B made false statements in his report that the Complainant made remarks and comments about the police being worthless.Complainant denies making this statement and asserts the officer did this to get back at her since she was calling the chief ofpolice for how she was treated. Officer D advised he was initially contacted by the Human Resources Vice President of Four Oaks.Officer D advised hisfirst conversation was on 3-30-11.During the ICPD investigation it was confirmed that she had contacted Officer D first.The Complainant initially brought up the matter to Four Oaks on 3-28-11.The Human Resources VP confirmed that Officer D did nothing to compromise the Complainant's employment _~U'~r:~~i NOT SUSTAINED Officer B's recollections ofthe comments made by the Complainant were similar to "what good are you,you're goodfor nothing,andyou took too long to get here."Officer B clarified that his use of "worthless"in his report was meant to be a summarization of the Complainant's comments.He advised his only response to the Complainant was "that maybe you should not be out here fighting."It was this comment that Officer B believed prompted the complaint.Officer B denied this was a personal attack or that he used inappropriate language when he spoke with the Complainant His statement to the Complainant appeared to be neutral @d non- ~~m~~0~C'j §:::>J <n-< -in -.l ~~l--~'~-t? z.=;;~,=t Officer D called the Complainant's employer with the intent ofgetting her fired. ALLEGATION #12 NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #13 Officer D contacted A&M Management in an effort to get them to file charges and informed them that charges were already pending against her. OfficerD advised hefirstspoke with the officer manager atSaddlebrook on 3-31-11.He was told that damage was done to a table,piano bench andpiano estimated at $350.00.Officer D advised that when he met with her that the Complainant had already been chargedwith disorderly house. Officer D advised that there wouldbe no other criminal charges that would be appropriate in this case.The manager wasfirst contactedby Officer C via the after-hours line.Shefurther reported that Officer C said nothing negative about the Complainant,nor did he attempt to influence any complaint ofcriminal charges against her.She advised she has been contacted in the past after hours bypolice officer ofother issues. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #14 Officer D interviewed and questioned juveniles at the schools about alcohol and guns without parent consent,a violation ofschool board policy. In reviewing the policy it is apparent that it was followed by Officer D and school officials.The police department did not receive any complaintsfrom school officials orparents. Police Citizen's Review Boardfollowed-up with the Iowa City School Superintendent who was .very emphatic thatIowa City Community SchoolDistrictpolicy was not violated. In follow up the City High School Principal said thepolice did not violate thepolicy.The officer asked to speak with the students andthe school gave permission.The Principal saidthe staffdid discuss what happened afterwards,and he felt the school had an opportunity to improve how situations like this were handled in the future.The school understood the students who were interviewed were not under investigation or in trouble and the students were being helpful in providing information. There is no violation ofstate law or policies,procedures and general orders ofthe Iowa City PoliceDepartmentin regards to Officer D'sfollow-up at the schools. NOT SUSTAINED ""= a:;Ec-)z ""'j;j]0 fi ~>;-<==a.:"')--<rL......~ -!0 -l L "'..-~Y1:::L:.:-n t~-:J .."'-':s:(""iio<;.~;;:...v.......r....).~:;:~- N