Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
98-19
PCRBPUBLICREPORTTOTHECITYCOUNCILjiiZThisistheRepoofthePoliceCitizensReviewBoardstheBoardreviewoftheinvestigationofComplaintPCRB919theComplaintBOARDSRESffiNSIBILIUndertheCityCodeoftheCityofIowaCitySection887BtheBoardsjobistoreviewthePoliceChiefsRepoReportofhisinvestigationofacomplaintTheCityCoderequirestheBoardtoapplyareasonablebasisstandardofreviewtotheRepoandtogivedeferencetotheReportbecauseofthePoliceChiefsprofessionalexpeiseSection887B2WhiletheCityCodedirectstheBoardtomakefindingsoffactitalsorequiresthattheBoardrecommendthatthePoliceChiefreverseormodifyhisfindingsonlyifthosefindingsareunsupportedbysubstantialevidenceareunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousorarecontrarytoaPoliceDepartmentpolicyorpracticeoranyFederalStateorlocallawSections887B2abandcBOARDSPROCEDUREOnNovember161998thisComplaintwasreceivedattheofficeoftheCityCleAsrequiredbySection885oftheCityCodetheComplaintwasreferredtothePoliceChiefforinvestigationTheChiefrequestedanextensionoftimetoJanuary131999tocompletehisrepoTheBoardgrantedthateensiononDecember151998TheChiefcompletedhisRepoandsubmiedittotheBoardonJanuary131999TheBoardvotedtoreviewtheComplaintinaccordancewithction887B1dandewhichmeansthatitchosetorequestadditionalinformationfromthePoliceDepartmentandtoconductitsowninvestigationTheBoardrequestedadditionalinformationandreceivedandreviewedtranscriptsofinterviewswithwitnessesandoneofttwoofficerspresentatthescene 2aswellasavideotapeofsomeoftheeventsthatarethesubjectoftheComplaintInordertosecurethetimenecessarytoobtaintheseadditionalmaterialstheBoardrequestedanextensionof30daysfromtheCityCouncilforitsconsiderationoftheReportThatextensionwasgrantedbytheCityCouncilonFebruary9TheBoardmetonDecember81998January19261999February16231999andMarch2and91999toconsidertheReportBecauseofaconflictofinterestonememberoftheBoarddidnotparticipateinanyBoardreviewdiscussionordecisionofthisComplaintFINDINGSOFFACTThecomplainanta20yearoldfemalewasinanIowaCitybarShehadanalcoholicdrinkinherhandalthoughshewasnotoflegalagetopossessalcoholApoliceofficercameuptoherandaskedifshehadastamponherhandindicatingthatshewaslegallyoftheagetopossessalcoholShesaidshedidnotThereisadisagreementaboutwhethertheofficertoldthecomplainantthatshewasunderarrestatthatpointornotbutitisundisputedthattheofficerturnedawayfromherforamomentThecomplainantdecidedtotryandgetlostinthecrowdandbeganmovingawayfromtheofficerWhentheofficerturnedbacktoherandsawthecomplainantwastryingtomoveawaytheofficergraspedherfirmlyandpropelledheroutthedoorofthebarOnceoutsidetheofficerplacedthecomplainantoveratrashreceptaclehandcuffedherandplacedherunderarrestThecomplainantwaschargedwithpossessionofalcoholwhileunderthelegalagepublicintoxicationandobstructionofofficersWhentakentothejailshewasgivenapostarrestbreathtestandwasfoundtohaveabloodalcoholconcentrationof18InherComplaintandinhersubsequentinterviewwiththeinvestigatingofficersthecomplainantassertedthattheofficerusedexcessiveforceinremovingherfromthebarthatitwasinappropriateto chargeherwithobstructionofofficersandthatshedidnotlikethemannerinwhichshewastreatedbytheofficerTheChiefrestatedtheseallegationsasdescribedbelowTheinvestigationconductedbythepoliceinvestigatorsincludedinterviewswiththecomplainantnumerouscivilianwitnessestotheeventstheofficerinvolvedandanotherofficerwhowasinthebaratthetimeoftheincidentCONCLUSIONSAllegation1ThecomplainantclaimsthattheofficerusedexcessiveforcewhenarrestingherThereisconsiderabledifferenceofopinionabouthowmuchphysicalforcewasusedandwhetherthecomplainantlostherfootingwhilebeingremovedfromthebarItappearshoweverthattheofficergrabbedherbytheleftupperarmgraspedherrightshoulderfirmlywithhisownarmandwalkedherbrisklyoutofthebarWhilethiswasaforcefulmannerofremovingthecomplainantfromthecrowdedbarthatapproachwasnotinappropriateinviewoftheofficersreasonablebeliefthatthecomplainantwastryingtoeludehimandavoidarrestforaviolationoflawAccordinglytheconclusionintheChiefsReportthattheforceusedbytheofficerwasnotexcessiveissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousThisallegationisNOTSUSTAINEDAllegation2ThecomplainantarguesthatthechargeforobstructionofofficerswasnotwarrantedWhetherthecomplainantisguiltyofthisoffenseisamatterthatwillberesolvedjudiciallyButtheChiefsconclusionthatbasedonthecomplainantsapparentattempttoeludetheofficeratthescenetheofficerhadprobablecausetochargeherwithobstructionofofficersissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousAllegation2oftheComplaintisNOTSUSTAINED 4Allegation3TheChiefinterpretstheComplaintandsubsequentinterviewwiththecomplainantasanobjectiontothebrusquemannerandattitudeoftheofficertowardsthecomplainantandthestaffofthebarWedonotreadtheComplaintasobjectingtoanythingotherthantheofficerstreatmentofthecomplainantThePoliceChiefsconclusionthattheofficerstreatmentofthecomplainantwhilefrankandbusinesslikesteadyandbriskwasacceptableissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousAccordinglyallegation3isNOTSUSTAINEDDATEDMarch91999