HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-01COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
November 1, 2021
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Equity Director
Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #21-01
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the
investigation of Complaint CPRB # 21-01 (the "Complaint").
The Board thanks the Complainant for bringing this matter to the Board's attention. Regardless
of the outcome, it is people in the complainant's position that help keep a 'checks and balances'
on police activity.
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as-followa
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an inve0gatfqh.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
-- ray
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select ore or mDre of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7: 6)(J
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of
review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because
of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police
Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal,
state or local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a
public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact;
and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint
is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(5).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to
discipline the officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The complaint was initiated by the Complainant on July 28, 2021. As required by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on September 2, 2021. As per Iowa City Code
Section 8-8-6(D), the Complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the Chief's report, no
response was received.
The Board voted on September 20, 2021 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs
Report: On the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-
7(B)(1)(a).
The Board met to consider the Report on September 20, 2021, October 12, 2021 and
November 1, 2021.
Prior to the September 20, 2021 meeting, the Board had the opportunity to review the comrplaint,
and watch and listen to body worn cams and/or dash cams that showed the entire_interactidn
between the officers and Person #1. Person #1 is the subject of the complaint. ` - -- -
FINDINGS OF FACT
:3
On or about May 13, 2021, around 2:30 p.m., Officer A responded to a two vehicle accident it
the Sycamore Mall area in Iowa City, Iowa. The two individuals involved in the accident"are
referred to as Person #1 (P1) and Person #2 (P2). Officer A talked to both individuals. THe
vehicles belonging to both individuals suffered minor damage. Officer A received competing
versions of the cause of the accident from the two individuals, each saying the other was at
fault. Officer A then talked to two independent witnesses who had remained on the scene.
Witness #1 said she/he couldn't see what happened since trees were blocking her/his view.
Witness #2 said she/he was able to observe the entire incident. Witness #2 said P1) was at
fault since P1 pulled out in front of the car driven by P2 and did not yield as required by
ordinance. There was no indication that either Witness #1 or 2 knew either P1 or P2.
Prior to any decision being made by the officer as to who was at fault, P1 got on the phone and
remained on the phone for the duration of the incident.
Based on the information from the independent witness, Officer A prepared a ticket/citation and
approached P1. The officer also told P1 that he didn't have SR -22 insurance. P1 corrected the
officer that P1 no longer needed SR -22 insurance.
The officer advised P1 that Officer A was issuing a citation to him/her and she/he needed
her/him to sign and acknowledge it. P1 immediately responded that he/she wasn't taking the
ticket. She/he walked away from Officer A. Officer A then stated to P1 that he/she was under
arrest. Officer A continued saying that he/she needed to sign the ticket or `come with me.' P1
stated he/she would not sign the ticket.
Two other officers responded during this event. Officer B had arrived at the scene, apparently
to ask Officer A a question. Officer B remained on the scene as emotions were escalating.
Officer C was called to the scene later in an attempt to have a higher ranking officer, in this case
a Sergeant, explain the citation process to P1.
Both Officers B and C tried numerous times to explain to P1 that by signing the citation, P1 was
not admitting guilt. Rather, the purpose of signing the citation was to acknowledge the charge
and promise to appear in court at a date in the future to plead not guilty or guilty. They also
explained to P1 that when people don't sign citations they can be arrested.
P1 was not able to accept the explanation of any of the officers. Her/his words were
misogynistic - making statements to the effect that he/she wasn't talking to women because
their brains were not working.
Allegation 1 — The reason for the two "police vans" to be called to investigate the
accident.
The Chief of Police notes in his report that one of the allegations is that two 'police vans' were
called to investigate. He states that it was two SUV's.
The board does not find this relevant to the complaint. So any complaint as to this issue is
unsustained. The board affirmed the opinion set forth in the report of the police chief and/or city
4
manager.
Chief's Conclusion - Not sustained
Board's Conclusion - Not sustained
Allegation 2 — Other person involved in the accident was immediately allowed t�u�-'•leave.
An allegation that P2 was allowed to leave immediately is unfounded and not sustained
P2 stayed through the time that the independent witnesses gave statements to Officer A. The
board affirmed the opinion set forth in the report of the police chief and/or city manager.
Chief's Conclusion - Not sustained
Board's Conclusion - Not sustained
Allegation 3 - First two officers couldn't/wouldn't explain the purpose of the papers.
All 3 Officers at various points throughout the incident made multiple attempts to explain the
purpose of the papers.
Officer A did not do a good or sufficient job of explaining the purpose of the papers until after
she threatened to arrest P1. However, P1 immediately became agitated when told about the
ticket, arguably putting Officer A in a position to believe he/she needed to assert some authority
to maintain control of the situation. This will be further addressed under `comments.' The board
affirmed the opinion set forth in the report of the police chief and/or city manager.
Chief's Conclusion - Not sustained
Board's Conclusion - Not sustained
Allegation 4 — P1 was told he/she would be arrested if he/she didn't sign the papers. The
papers were taken away from her/him so that he/she could not sign the papers,
suggesting Officers never had any intention of letting him sign them.
Officers had every intention of convincing [P1] to sign the citation and stated multiple times they
did not want to take him to jail. The three officers all explained to [P1] that his signature on the
citation was not an admission of guilt but an acknowledgement to take care of the ticket by
appearing in court... [P1] refused to take the papers ... As such the officers never took the
papers away from him removing his ability to sign them....' The board affirmed the opinion set
forth in the report of the police chief and/or city manager.
Chief's Conclusion - Not sustained
Board's Conclusion - Not sustained
Allegation 5 — The 3rd officer had his hand on the holster of his gun while talking to [Man
#1].
While this is true, it is not against department policy and was not a show of unreasonable force.
Man #1 did not appear threatened by this. Nonetheless Comments below will address this. The
board affirmed the opinion set forth in the report of the police chief and/or city manager.
_t
Chief's Conclusion - Not sustained
-
c--, -
-
Board's Conclusion - Not sustained
rD
COMMENTS
1) Prior to issuing a citation, an officer would preface the conversation with words to the
effect: This is a notice to appear in court on [date] and plead not guilty or guilty. Signing this
does not mean you are guilty of anything. The law states you have to sign this citation.
In addition prior to giving the citation consider giving a brief statement of facts supporting it. For
instance, in a case like this, say two independent witnesses said you pulled out in front of the
other vehicle. Perhaps tell subject they can fight this in court.
2) Double check things like violations of SR -22 before telling someone that they are
required to have SR -22 Insurance.
3) Officers should attempt to refrain from resting hands on holsters/guns/stun gun/ other
weapons when in the public view. While these stances are normal to officers who carry a gun
every day, many people have never even touched a gun and may feel intimidated or even
threatened when an officer has his/her hand on a gun.
This does not apply to situations when an officer believes, per recognized procedure, that
he/she may need to use a weapon.
r�+a
CD
"'1