HomeMy WebLinkAbout22-07COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
September 13, 2022
To: City Council
Complainant —
City Manager
Chief of Police
The officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #22-07
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #22-07 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY:
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa
City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named the officer(s) and other the 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(13)(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)(3)).)
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 May 19, 2022. 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 July 8, 2022. As per Section 8-8-6(D) of the City
Code, the Complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the Chiefs report.
The Board voted on August 16, 2022 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 (13)(1)(a).
The Board met to consider the Report on July 8, 2022, August 16, 2022, and September 13, 2022.
._j
Prior to the July 12, 2022 meeting, the Board had the opportunity to review the complainI and the Police
Chief's report. At the July 12, 2022 meeting, the board had the opportunity to watch and -listen to body
worn camera and/or in -car camera footage showing the interaction between the offcer,athd the
complainant.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
G.��)
On 3/29/2022, the officer took a phone request for a theft and returned the call. The Complainant
advised she had hired a mover in 2020 to move belongings from a location in Iowa City to a location in
Texas, and pieces of her property were not delivered after paying for the services. The officer advised
the Complainant that it was a civil matter and not criminal. The Complainant then left another message
for the officer with the mover's contact information. The officer spoke with the mover and then contact
the Complainant, advising her of the conversation with the mover, and suggested to her to work out the
situation with the mover.
On 4/13/2022, additional calls from the Complainant were received by a supervisor, who emailed the
officer. The officer contacted the Complainant on 4/15/2022, and advised her if the Complainant wanted
to make a fraud report, she should work with her bank. An additional call was received by a supervisor
from the Complainant on 5/19/2022, an email was sent to the officer, who returned a call to the
Complainant on 5/21/2022 when he returned from time off. The Complainant emailed the officer her
bank statement, and the officer advised he would let her know if there was anything criminal. The
officer determined the issue was still a civil matter.
The officer had no unanswered contacts from the Complainant and all calls were recorded. The Cedar
Rapids Police Department was originally contacted by the Complainant on 5/22/2020, she was advised
the matter was civil and referred to the Iowa City Police Department as the reported transaction
occurred in Iowa City. The Complainant did not contact Iowa City until 3/29/2022.
On 6/8/2022, the Complainant was contacted by a supervisor from ICPD who advised the Complainant
the situation was a civil matter. The supervisor discussed the reasons why with the Complainant, and
case number was provided for her insurance company.
COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #1 — _Neglect of duties
Chief's conclusion: Not sustained
Board's conclusion: Not sustained
Basis for the Board's conclusion: The Complainant alleges that the officer refused to help her
regarding an alleged stolen credit card and stolen property, and failed to return emails or call the
Complainant back. The officer returned every request he received to contact the Complainant. A
review of the Information supports this conclusion. There may have been a misunderstanding
on the part of the Complainant about what the police were doing, and she believed it to be
criminal, however the Complainant had been advised on more than one occasion, the matter
was civil and not criminal. The Complainant's claims were documented to assist her with the
civil process. The officer's actions were not in violation of policy.
COMMENTS: None
U0
"1