Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-05POLICECITIZENSREVIEWBOARDABoardoftheCityofIowaCity410EastWashingtonStreetIowaCityIA5224018263193565413TOCityCouncilFROMPoliceCitizensReviewBeardREReportofPCRBComplaint89905DATEMarch142000CCComplainantStephenAtkinsCityManagerRJWinkelhakeChiefofPoliceOfficersinvolvedinComplaintThisistheReportofthePoliceCitizensReviewBoardstheBoardreviewoftheinvestigationofPCRBComplaint9905theComplaintBOARDSRESPONSIBILITYUndertheCityCodeoftheCityofIowaCitySection887BtheBoardsjobistoreviewthePoliceChiefsReportReportofhisinvestigationofacomplaintTheCityCoderequirestheBoardtoapplyareasonablebasisstandardofreviewtotheReportandtogivedeferencetotheReportbecauseofthePoliceChiefsprofessionalexpertiseSection887B2WhiletheCityCodedirectstheBoardtomakefindingsoffactitalsorequiresthattheBoardrecommendthatthePoliceChiefreverseormodifyhisfindingsonlyifthesefindingsareunsupportedbysubstantialevidenceareunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousorarecontrarytoaPoliceDepartmentpolicyorpracticeoranyFederalStateorlocallawSections887B2abandcPCRB9905PageI BOARDSPROCEDURETheComplaintwasreceivedattheofficeoftheCityClerkonSeptember291999AsrequiredbySection885oftheCityCodetheComplaintwasreferredtothePoliceChiefforinvestigationOnOctober291999theBoardrequestedthattheChiefprovidethecompletecasefileandanyvideotaperegardingitalongwithhisReportTheChiefsReportwasdueJanuary182000OnDecember291999theChiefrequesteda30dayextensionofthedeadlineOnJanuary112000theBoardgrantedtheextensionasrequestedTheChiefsReportwasreceivedJanuary312000summationoftheinterviewwiththecomplainantwasattachedtotheChiefsReportTheBoardvotedtoreviewtheComplaintinaccordancewithSection887B1awhichmeanstheBoardreviewstheComplaintonrecordwithoutrequestingadditionalinformationTheBoardmetonOctober12andNovember91999January11February8February22March7andMarch142000toconsidertheComplaintFINDINGSOFFACTInSeptember1999lateatnighttwoIowaCitypoliceofficersrespondedtocomplaintsofaloudpartyinvolvinganestimated80100peopleatahouseinIowaCityThecomplainantwhowasinthehousewhentheofficersarrivedcameoutsideandbyaskingquestionsinterjectedhimselfintoaconversationbetweenOfficerAandthecomplainantsroommateWheninformedthatbothheandhisroommateweretobeticketedthecomplainantpressedformoreinformationaskingfurtherquestionsheclaimedwereintendedtoclarifythesituationOfficerAwhowasattemptingtocontinuetalkingtotheroommateinformedthecomplainantthathewasunderarrestOfficerAthenbeganhandcuffingthecomplainantcausinghimtodropacupofbeerhehadbeenholdingThePCRB9905Page2 complainantquestionedwhyhewasbeingarrestedanddidnotcooperatewiththecuffingprocessAtthispointOfficerAtoldthecomplainanthewouldbesprayedwithachemicalsprayifhecontinuedtobenoncooperativeThecomplainantwashandcuffedandplacedheclaimsthrownintothebackofasquadcarbyOfficerAThecomplainantwasnotMirandizedandwasrequiredtositinthebackofthesquadcarforaperiodoftimecomplainantalleges15minuteswhiletheofficerscompletedtheirbusinessatthesceneThecomplainantwasquotedinhispoliceinterviewasclaiminghealsohadtowaitinthesquadcaratthejailwhiletheofficerdidpaperworkThecomplainantwaschargedwithdisorderlyconductThereappearstobesubstantiveagreementbetweentheaccountsprovidedbythecomplainantandtheofficerregardingtheeventsthatoccurredietheactionsthatoccurredandtheirsequenceDisagreementissubstantialregardingthedemeanoroftheparticipantsandhoweachinterpretedhisherownactionsandthoseoftheotherCONCLUSIONAllegation1OfficerdidnotexplainwhythecomplainantwasbeingarrestedTheinvestigatingofficerreportedthatthecomplainantwasnottoldwhyhewasbeingarrestedbecausehewasdisruptiveandargumentativeandbecauseofthesituationforwhichtheofficersweredispatchedTheChiefsReportandthecomplainantagreethathewasinformedbyOfficerAofthereasonwhentheofficerenteredthesquadcartodrivethecomplainanttojailGiventhecomplainantsselfreportregardingbeingupsetandthefactthatthecomplainantwasinformedbeforebeingtransportedtojailtheBoardfindstheChiefsconclusionthatthecomplainantwasappropriatelyinformedissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousAllegation1oftheComplaintisNOTSUSTAINEDPCR89905Page3 Allegation2OfficerslappedadrinkfromcomplainantshandwhilecuffingthecomplainantsrighthandTheChiefsReportacknowledgesthattheactionsofOfficerAcausedthedrinktofallfromthecomplainantshandIntheinvestigativeinterviewthecomplainantstatedthedrinkwasslappedfromhishandimmediatelypriortothehandcuffingTheBoardconcursthattheChiefsconclusionthatthedrinkwasdroppedasaresultofthehandcuffingprocedureissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousAllegation2oftheComplaintisNOTSUSTAINEDAllegation3OfficerthreatenedtospraythecomplainantinthefacewithOCTheChiefsReportacknowledgesthatthecomplainantwasadvisedthatchemicalspraywouldbeusedifhefailedtocooperatewiththehandcuffingprocedureTheReportstatesofficersarerequiredtotellsomeonetheywillbesprayediftheycontinuetoresistTheChiefsReportconcludestheallegedbehaviorwasnotonlyappropriatebutwasconsistentwithapprovedpracticeTheBoardfindstheChiefsconclusionthatthewarningregardingthepossibleuseofchemicalspraywasappropriateandissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousAllegation3oftheComplaintisNOTSUSTAINEDAllegation4OfficerthrewcomplainantintothebackofthesquadcarTheChiefsReportindicatesthatplacementofthecomplainantintherearofthesquadcarwasobservedbyOfficerBwhoreportedproperprocedureswerefollowedTheBoardfindsthattheChiefsconclusionthatproperprocedurewasfollowedinplacingthecomplainantintherearseatofthesquadcarissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousAllegation4oftheComplaintisNOTSUSTAINEDAllegation5OfficerleftcomplainantinthebackofthesquadcarforfifteenminutesThecomplainantreportedthathewasheldinthesquadcarfor15minutesatthesceneofthecomplaintTheChiefsReportconcludedUTimelineindicatorsdonotrevealanunreasonableamountoftimebeingPCRB9905Page4 usedbytheofficertofinishaddressingthesituationandissuingacitationtotheroommateTheBoardfindstheChiefsconclusionthatthecomplainantwasnotheldinthesquadcaraninappropriatelengthoftimeissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousAllegation5oftheComplaintisNOTSUSTAINEDAllegation6OfficerdidnotadvisethecomplainantofhisMirandarightsTheChiefsReportstatesthatMirandarightswerenotrequiredasthecomplainantwasnotinterrogatedwhileincustodyTheBoardfindstheChiefsconclusionthattheMirandawarningwasnotrequiredissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisnotunreasonablearbitraryorcapriciousAllegation6oftheComplaintisNOTSUSTAINEDPCRB9905Page