HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnnual report FY2001 PCRB Annual Report FY 2001 – 1
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001
General Responsibilities
The Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) was created by Ordinance No. 97-3792 of
the City of Iowa City on July 15, 1997 (amended by Ordinance No. 99-3877 on April 28, 1999
and by Ordinance No. 99-3891 on July 13, 1999).
The Board was established to assure that investigations into claims of police
misconduct are conducted in a manner which is fair, thorough, and accurate, and to assist
the Police Chief, the City Manager, and the City Council in evaluating the overall performance
of the Police Department by reviewing the Police Department’s investigations into complaints.
The Board is also required to maintain a central registry of complaints and to provide an
annual report setting forth the numbers, types, and disposition of complaints of police
misconduct. To achieve these purposes, the Board complies with Chapter 8 of the Iowa City
Code and the Board’s By-Laws and Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines.
PCRB responsibilities:
1. Review investigations of complaints of police misconduct
Review the Chief’s reports in a manner that is fair, thorough, and accurate
Issue public reports to the City Council
2. Help the Chief, City Manager, and City Council evaluate the overall
performance of the Iowa City Police Department (ICPD)
Maintain a monitoring system for tracking complaints
Provide an annual report to the City Council
Review practices, procedures, and policies and make recommendations for
change
Recommend ways for the ICPD to improve community relations and be
more responsive to community needs
3. Assure the citizens of Iowa City that the ICPD’s performance is in keeping with
community standards.
Seek and accept comment, opinion, and advice
Hold periodic community forums to gather public input and to inform the
public
Activities and Accomplishments
Meetings
PCRB Annual Report FY 2001 – 2
The PCRB holds regular meetings on the second Tuesday and special meetings as
necessary. To address complaints during the period covered by this report and to handle a
variety of administrative tasks and other activities, the Board held 18 meetings, each lasting
one to three hours. The Board also met once with the City Council.
ICPD POLICIES/PROCEDURES/PRACTICES REVIEW BY PCRB
The ICPD regularly provides the Board with monthly Use of Force Reports,
Demographic Report and various Training Bulletins. A senior member of the Police
Department routinely attends the open portion of the PCRB meetings, and is available for any
questions Board members have regarding this report. The Department also provided various
General Orders for the Board’s review and comment. During this past year, the ICPD gave
presentations to the Board, including:
“FBI Training” by Sgt. J. Steffen;
Sgt. Sid Jackson spoke to the Board about his attendance at the Southern Police
Institute at the University of Louisville, to include his research paper on Racial
Profiling;
“Arrest Procedures” by Capt. M. Johnson, Sgt. K. Hurd, and Capt. T. Widmer;
“Internal Affairs and Discipline” by Capt. T. Widmer;
“ICPD Goals and Objectives for 2001” by Captains Johnson and Widmer;
At the Board’s March meeting Professor David Baldus from the University of Iowa Law
School presented a discussion on the interpretation of the ICPD Traffic Stop Data and Racial
Profiling.
In April, the Board hosted a Community Forum on Community Policing presented by
Captain Matt Johnson.
PCRB VIDEOTAPE
The PCRB commissioned the production of a PCRB videotape this year, with the
intent to (1) inform and engage the citizens of Iowa City regarding the origin, role, and
function of the PCRB, and (2) explore some of the issues that surround the PCRB. The
video, when completed, will be used for presentations to community and neighborhood
groups, service clubs, City boards, commissions and employees, and for broadcast.
PCRB Annual Report FY 2001 – 3
Complaints
Number and Type of Allegations
The Board received six complaints in the reporting period covered by this report: four
in 2000 and two to date in 2001. Four public reports were issued. One complaint remains
under review. During the course of the investigation of another complaint, the complainant
chose to take part in an informal mediation; at the conclusion of this mediation, the
complainant was satisfied with the results and withdrew his complaint. The following are the
14 allegations in the four complaints reported on. Each of the complaints contained more
than one allegation.
The Board sustained one of the 14 allegations during the past year.
Allegations
1. Police had a hidden agenda.
2. Police gave false testimony during court.
3. Discrimination based upon gender and race.
4. Police tried to kick in complainant’s door, causing damage
5. While arresting complainant, police threw him from wall to wall and then took him to the
floor. Complainant further states he had guns placed to his head during the arrest.
6. Officers questioned complainant’s three-year-old child without permission.
7. Officers attempted to coerce compliance from complainant’s spouse by threatening DHS
involvement.
8. Police should not be following up on complaints of personal use of marijuana by
confronting single women alone in their apartment at 10:30 p.m. This is a misallocation of
police resources and time.
9. Officer was deceptive as to why he wished to enter complainant’s apartment, referring to
an event in the neighborhood which they wished to discuss with complainant.
10. Officer questioning was accusatory, lacked a reasonable basis in fact, invaded
complainant’s personal space, and was frightening to complainant at the particular hour
and under the particular circumstances.
11. The complainant should have been notified of a warrant for her arrest as the officer had
advised her that he would do. She should have been provided the opportunity to turn
herself in rather than waiting 38 days after the issuance of the warrant before notification
of the warrant. Such a lapse of time may have caused unnecessary embarrassment and
inconvenience had she been stopped for a traffic offense or if it were served at any other
time which could have caused unnecessary disruption and be a waste of officers’
resources and time.
12. The complainant states that during search of her residence, an officer pulled open a
drawer in the kitchen. This drawer had knives in it and the officer made a statement to the
effect that he didn’t like knives and that she should not make any sudden moves. She felt
this was very intimidating.
13. Police entry into the residence of the complainant was unlawful.
14. The complainant’s residence was searched illegally without a warrant.
Level of Review
PCRB Annual Report FY 2001 – 4
The Board decided, by simple majority vote, the level of review to give each report,
selecting one or more of the six levels specified in the City Code:
Level a On the record with no additional investigation 3
Level b Interview or meet with complainant 0
Level c Interview or meet with named officer 0
Level d Request additional investigation by Chief or 0
City Manager, or request police assistance
in the Board’s own investigation
Level e Board performs its own additional investigation 1
Level f Hire independent investigators 0
Complaint Resolutions
The Police Department investigates complaints of misconduct of police officers. The
Police Chief summarizes the results of these investigations and indicates in a report (the
Chief’s Report) to the PCRB whether allegations are sustained or not sustained. (If
complaints are made against the Chief, the City Manager conducts the investigation and
prepares and submits the reports.)
The Board reviews both the citizen’s Complaint and the Chief’s Report and decides
whether the allegations should be sustained or not sustained. The Board prepares a report
for the City Council, with copies to the Chief, the officers involved, the City Manager, and the
complainant. One of the 14 allegations listed in the four complaints for which the Board
reported was released as sustained.
The Board made comments and/or recommendations for improvement in police policy,
procedures, or conduct in one of the reports, which stated:
The Board understood the rationale allowing a walk through of a residence or other
edifice, absent a search warrant, to protect officers from unexpected or concealed
attack, but is concerned that some officers may not fully understand the restrictions
imposed on this limited search. The Board recommended that this topic be
incorporated into routine training.
The Board is unclear to what extent procedural law created for situations involving
adults may be used as guidelines for dealing with juveniles, particularly when the
circumstances are not identical. For example, if a search of an area near adults
who have been arrested for a drug offense is appropriate, is such search
appropriate for juveniles who could be taken into custody but are not. The Board
recommended clarification of this issue in order to reduce ambiguities in the future.
The Board recommended that, if a policy doesn’t currently exist regarding how
Iowa City police officers should handle consent situations involving individuals
under 18 years of age, one should be formulated with particular attention to those
at the lower end of the age consortium.
Name-Clearing Hearings
PCRB Annual Report FY 2001 – 5
The ordinance requires that the Board not issue a report critical of the conduct of a
sworn officer until after a name-clearing hearing has been held. During this reporting period,
the Board scheduled two name-clearing hearings. Officers waived the right to the hearing and
did not attend.
Mediation
Officers and complainants are notified by mail that formal mediation is available to
them at any stage in the complaint process before the Board adopts its public report. All
parties involved must consent to a request for mediation. The ICPD received one request for
informal mediation from a complainant, and that mediation was successful.
Complaint Histories of Officers
City ordinance requires that the annual report of the PCRB must not include the
names of complainants or officers involved in unsustained complaints and must be in a form
that protects the confidentiality of information about all parties, while providing the public with
information on the overall performance of the Police Department.
In addition, at one of its first meetings, the Board independently agreed that it did not
wish to use the names of officers or complainants in cases in which complaints are sustained.
The Board and the Police Chief agreed to use only the unique code numbers the Police
Department has assigned to each officer.
Complaint Histories
Fourteen officers were named in the four complaints this report covers. Two officers
were named in two; the rest were each named once.
ICPD Internal Investigations Logs
The Board reviewed the ICPD Internal Investigations Log, provided by the Chief of
Police on May 11, 2001
Complainant Demographics
The following is demographic information from the four complaints discussed in this
report. Because complainants provide it voluntarily, the demographic information is
incomplete. All four complainants provided some demographic information.
Category Number of Complainants
Age:
Under 21 0
Over 21 4
PCRB Annual Report FY 2001 – 6
Color:
White 3
Asian 1
National Origin:
US 1
China 1
Unknown 2
Gender Identity:
Female 4
Sex:
Female 4
Sexual Orientation:
Heterosexual 1
Unknown 3
Marital Status:
Single 2
Divorced 2
Mental Disability:
No 2
Unknown 2
PCRB Annual Report FY 2001 – 7
Physical Disability:
No 2
Unknown 2
Religion:
Unknown 4
Race:
Caucasian 3
Asian 1
Board Members
John Watson, Chair
Leah Cohen
Paul Hoffey
John Stratton
Loren Horton