HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-11-1998 CommunicationF I
98 AUG -3 I'M 1: 52
Ck i rEkf�
IOWA CITY, 10111A
July 15, 1998
Iowa City Police Citizen's Review Board
Civic Center
410 east Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240:
Dear Member's of the Board:
John Robertson
Attorney at Law
209 East Washington, Suite 303
Iowa City Iowa 52240
Phone 319 338 9852
Fax 319 351 8312
email john-robertson@uiowa.edu
hftp://soli.inov.net/-jroberts/law_Qffice-homepage.html
I am writing to express my views and concerns related to the Iowa City Police Department.
I am an attorney in private practice here in Iowa City. A significant portion of my practice involves
criminal and juvenile defense. I am also, and have been for a number of years, an Instructor in the
Criminal Justice Department at Mount Mercy College in Cedar Rapids. Prior to all this, I was
intimately involved in the criminal justice system in Missouri and Kansas, where I worked for
approximately ten years as a program director overseeing juvenile delinquency and youth alcohol
and drug treatment programs.
Presumably there is a community consensus that the events preceding creation of the PCRB
give genuine cause for concern. In those months, allegations concerning overly aggressive police
behavior, racism, and the shooting of Eric Shaw all supported creation of the Board. In the months
following your creation, local law enforcement has taken a number of very public steps to assure
the community it is seriously delving into the issues and factors behind that loss of trust.
Unfortunately, I am not convinced those efforts are sufficient to competently address Iowa City's
concerns.
The basis for that thought involve a number of anecdotal events. First, as a member of the
community and as a lawyer, I continue to be confronted with allegations of insensitivity and
coarseness on the part of the ICPD. Second, a few months ago an officer tasked with domestic
abuse investigations resigned his position after at least one (and perhaps more) complainants came
forward alleging sexual misconduct. 'Mird, the police's continued use of exceptionally aggressive
and arguably unconstitutional alcohol interdictions ought to alarm all of us. Fourth, and finally, the
Department's response to the gunplay incident in the Broadway neighborhood and its insistence
that that event evidences "gang" activity, coupled with associated new allegations of racism and
overly aggressive interventions targeting young people and minorities is clearly of grave concern.
Perhaps more important, in response to these allegations, the Department seems to have
adopted a general posture of defensiveness and resistance to real change. Although any law
enforcement agency is subject to allegations of misconduct on a reoccurring basis, the quantity,
quality and similarity of those allegations in our community, coupled with the fact that most come
from law abiding citizens, and coupled with the fact that in general we enjoy a very low crime rate
that seems inconsistent with the kinds of interventions the ICPD utilizes, indicates the
Department's general response to these charges seems misplaced at best, and indicative of a larger
dysfunction that requires resolution.
Let me begin my suggestions by emphasizing that the concerns I raise here are not targeted
to any particular officer. The individuals who make up the Department are generally well educated
and trained. They seek to perform their duties with professionalism and integrity, and they further
hope to have the kind of personal and professional accomplishment any of us seek in our chosen
professions.
Instead, the evidence supports the concern that if the Department truly continues to be
dysfunctional, responsibility for that lies more within it's culture and at a policy-makihg and
supervisory level. Let me explain:
There are two general approaches to law enforcement utilized within the criminal justice
system. The first involves the idea that the job of the police (and prosecutors) is to enforce the law,
Under this approach, police success is measured in arrest rates, convictions, crime suppression,
and crime rate. Under such a policy, officers are expected to establish a strong and aggressive
police presence within the community, tend to remain aloof from the citizenry, are expected to have
a low tolerance towards alleged misconduct, and are tacitly expected to make many arrests. Such
an approach not only generates controversy within the community, but also tends to be associated
with concerns about police brutality, aggression, over zealousness, racism and the targeting of
minorities and those who do not fit the profile of an "approved" member of the community.
In such a jurisdiction, those who fit that of a model citizen have few or no contacts with
police regardless of their day to day behavior. Those who do not fit that model tend to have many
police contacts, tend to get arrested for petty offenses, tend to experience harassment and
reoccurring police interventions, and tend to treat law enforcement as an adversary. In such
communities, police tactics function to intensify conflict, engender power struggles, create conflict,
and polarize the populace. Under such a regime, law enforcement (i.e., arrest and prosecution)
serves as the sole or primary method of intervention. Police view their job as one of control over
an increasingly ragged and disruptive population. In response, their professional efforts go
towards catching these identified violators of community norms. Thus, and at least on the part of
the targets of the police (which includes many law abiding persons and people who although
perhaps in violation of a statute ought not be stopped and arrested) those professional interventions
are viewed negatively with disrespect.
Because of all this, such communities tend to reflect a higher crime and arrest rate, which in
turn supports increased police funding, expanded law enforcement services, a larger prosecutor's
office and expanded Court systems. That increased crime rate is not truly indicative of the amount
of crime in the jurisdiction however, because in order to make an arrest a crime must be alleged;
so, if the primary intervention is one of arrest, then associated crime occurrences must also be
identified, thus skewing the statistics. Citizens who are not the target of police behavior tend to
support those system enlargements because they believe they are at increased risk of crime
victimization. The voices of those who become victims of such a policy get ignored (on the theory
that their concerns are actually protestations meant to excuse their own illegal behavior).
In such communities, the message from law enforcement tends to be one of alarm and the
identification of classes of offenders and potential offenders who deserve increased scrutiny. Only
through additional funding and the expansion of the criminal justice system can such risks be,,,
E; co
2
r
Cn
N�
reduced. Only through increasingly harsh interventions, adjudications, and penalties can the
community ever be safe.
If such an approach is utilized in a community that, objectively speaking, does not require
such tactics, the police find themselves regularly forced to identify new threats. If, for instance the
community enjoys an objectively low and non -serious crime rate, new offenses and social
problems must be found, new populations must be targeted, and additional needs must be
identified. For instance, in such communities, there tends to be demands from law enforcement for
additional staffing, additional weapons, additional units (i.e., SWAT teams, canine teams, drug
task forces, etc.), and additional technology. More and more of the community becomes defined as
criminal, or at least adversarial. Polarization increases, police trust decreases, power struggles
intensify, and eventually the system begins to collapse. An example of just such occubance exists
in Los Angeles. Although within the white community, the police there are either not seen at all, or
are seen and viewed as a benefit, little or no trust and support deservedly exists within the black or
latino community.
In Iowa City the Department regularly identifies now threats and needs. Whether it is crack
cocaine, urban gang invasions, drunken students, or illegal aliens, the police routinely raise new
concerns as to the threats we face. Not coincidentally, the Department also regularly seeks
expanded space, equipment, staffing, and funding to thwart these threats. In turn, and because the
core success of the Department is measured in arrests and interdictions, those expanded
organizational capabilities lead to increased arrests and therefore increased allegations regarding the
crime rate, which cycles the process through an additional expansion of services. In the meantime,
public trust , albeit better than in the aftermath of the shooting, remains fragile at best and the arrest
rate continues to expand although an objective assessment of the crime rate shows were are an
exceptionally safe and crime free community.
A second approach to criminal justice exists and ought be utilized in communities such as
Iowa City. Under this alternative approach, the police function not to enforce the law but instead,
to keep the peace. Under this view, the officer's job is to make interventions designed to maintain,
and reestablish where needed, a baseline level of peacefulness commensurate with the norms,
mores, and values of the community. The interventions available to a police department utilizing
this approach include not only the power to arrest, but also the power to diffuse situations, reduce
tension, and alleviate social turmoil. Under such a view, and certainly regarding petty activities,
officers are expected to use their positional power and authority only as a last resort and only if no
other intervention is applicable. Under such an approach, the best approach is one that not only
stops the disruptive behavior, but returns the participants to the status they enjoyed prior to the
activities that required intervention. Therefore, if an intervention is possible that reestablishes
peace, and carries with it he likelihood that additional problems related to public safety will not
ensue, the officer is expected to respond accordingly.
Additionally, officers are expected to create non -power based relationships wherever
possible. Through regular communication and relationship building not only within the law abiding
majority community but also within groups that perhaps are at risk to offend, officers establish
trust and rapport such that even when interventions and arrests are required the targets of those
interventions remain in a position of respect and support. Thus, officers are trained and expected to
utilize conflict management skills, non -confrontational behavior models, and non-violent
intervention skills wherever possible.
Moreover, under such an approach, officers are expected to understand and support the
needs and concerns of those members of the community who do not fit the majority profile. Jh
co
2;.
3
C'n
Iowa City, that includes students, minority members, the young, and those who embrace
alternative lifestyles. Understanding and supporting those persons, in turn, requires the ability to
relate to their life experiences, avoid judgment and condemnation, and support those individual's
decisions regarding their lot in life.
Under such an approach, decisions regarding arrest are made based not upon whether the
officer necessarily believes a crime has occurred, but based upon whether the officer believes the
peacefulness and safety of the community can be reestablished via an alternative intervention. For
instance, in a situation where the officer faces a person who is eligible for arrest for public
intoxication, not only does he or she have the option of arrest, but also the option to ignore, assist
in calling a cab, driving the person home, or transporting to a hospital or clinic, etc. In a situation
where the officer faces a loud party, and although arrests and citations remain availabie, other
lessor interventions also exist and would be utilized such as helping to reduce noise, assisting in
calming participants to the party, seeking an end to the festivities, etc.
Under such an approach, the activities of the law enforcement community involv es patrol
and policing, and also lobbying for real and constructive solutions to the social problems the
jurisdiction faces. For instance, in Iowa City there is a perceived problem with excessive alcohol
consumption, public intoxication, and drunk driving by students. Although the ICPD has
intervened primarily via zero tolerance DUI interventions, roadblocks, bar sweeps, high arrest
rates, and zealous prosecution (all on the theory that through coercion and punishment students can
be made to drink less) better approaches involve helping bars to more effectively identify and
refuse service to minors, expanding bus and taxi service, creating altemative activities that do not
involve drinking, and supporting those persons (the vast majority) who do choose to drink
responsibly.
Another example involves the ICPD's response to the Broadway gunplay incident.
Objectively speaking, to suggest that our community has an urban gang problem is preposterous
on its face. Our's is a community that has almost no African Americans whatsoever, much less
gangs of urban street kids running amok. To the extent we have a problem with youth crime and
misbehavior, the vast majority of such conduct involves white working class kids who tend to
come together into poorly organized affinity groups, but who in general lack the competence (and
therefore the threat) that a real gang might represent. Thus, to intervene as if such groups truly
were present represents a gross misunderstanding of what we face. Instead of establishing what
amounts to a war zone, officers ought to work to connect in a non adversarial fashion with such
youths, ought to utilize interventions meant to instill trust and respect both towards the department
and from the department towards the kids, and ought to reserve arrest and juvenile adjudication for
the few who are not amenable to lesser interventions.
Police agencies that utilize this approach also enjoy other benefits. For instance, the culture
that exists in all police organizations is changed from one of "us versus them", one that supports
the code of silence, and one that tolerates internal misbehavior, to one that treats the community as
a constituency, one that demands openness and integrity, and one that refuses to countenance
police misbehavior. This is so because in such a police force, the options it has available in its
work in the community also exist internally. Where a law enforcement based agency has few
alternatives save punishment, in peace keeping agencies, the responses to internal problems
include counseling, support, retraining, and alternative interventions designed to return to officer to
a position of competence and trust.
1-0
Such agencies also tend to require less funding, enjoy more stable staffing patErns, alLd
clearly less oversight requirements. Officers therein also enjoy less stress and greaterjob-
4
c-n
r\)
satisfaction. Such Departments maintain an expanded ability to adapt to change, function more
cohesively, and avoid controversies such as what the ICPD endures on a reoccurring basis. The
citizenry who enjoy such a police philosophy maintain significant trust and camaraderie towards
the department, view officers not as adversaries but as supporters, and identify their criminal
justice agencies as organizations of people, not institutionally as bureaucracies.
As you can tell from what I have written, it is my belief that the ICPD operates utilizing the
law enforcement model. You can also no doubt tell that my belief is that such an approach is
always problematic and clearly inappropriate for Iowa City. Because of this, not only was I not
surprised by the Eric Shaw incident, but until the kinds of indicators we routinely experience
disappear, I foresee additional such controversies in the future.
You may also remain skeptical of my suggestion that an alternative approach to policing
exists and works. Although I doubt these agencies identify their approach using the terms I offer
above, the University of Iowa Campus Security and the Johnson County Sheriff s Department
both rely upon interventions supported by the peace keeping view I advocate, and I invite you to
review their policies and approaches for further insight.
In the meantime, I encourage you to consider the ideas and argument contained in this
letter, as you shape your policy recommendations for the City Counsel.
Stely,
obertson
J hnR
Attorney at Law
�O
CO
CD
C=
r-n
PCRB PUBLIC FORUM REVIEW
ISSUES
0 Use of Force (including use of deadly force)
Police/Community Relations (tone, attitude, respect for general
public)
0 Discrimination
0 Downtown Policing Policies & Practices
* Community Standards — what are priorities
PCRB F� Ismen/g/1 1/98
MEMORANDUM
POLICE CITIZENs REVIEw BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
4 10 East Washington Street
Iowa City A 52240-1826
(319)356-5413
COPY
TO: R.J. Winkelhake, Police Chief
FROM: Paul Hoffey, PCRB Chair
RE: PCRB Complaint #98-11 — Second Request for Extension
Your request for a second extension of PCRB Complaint #98-11 was
received by the board at its Special Meeting on July 28, 1998, and was
approved with some reservation.
We want to express our concern and disappointment regarding your
continued delay in meeting deadlines set for this Complaint. The PCRB
Special Meeting was scheduled specifically to coincide with our expectation
of your first extension request and would have been the beginning of the 30-
days allowed for the board's response.
It appears your report may not be available for board review until
August 20, 1998, which is nearly three months after the Complaint was
filed! We believe this delay is not fair to the Complainant nor is it fair to the
Police Citizens Review Board.
Fk MA T r9T;T_,rJRM
August 11, 1998
To: Police Citizens' Review Board
Sandy Bauer
Marian Karr
From: Douglas S. Russell
RE: PCRB Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines
Attached are my contributions to the PCRB Standard Operating Procedures and
Guidelines document which was prepared by Sandy Bauer and which I received on July
14, 1998. 1 have included proposed numbering for these paragraphs so they will fit the
numbering and format of Sandy's memo.
III B. Place of Posting Notices and Agendas. Follow requirements of Section 21.4,
The Code.
The City of Iowa City provides the notice bulletin board in the lobby of the Civic
Center. Note also that notice of a meeting will be provided in media boxes located in
the Civic Center.
III J. Electronic Meetings
1 . Follow the requirements of Section 21.8, The Code. "Electronic meeting"
as defined in this section presumes that a majority of the members of the Board are
participating electronically.
2. Electronic participation in meetings. There is no prohibition in Section
21.8, The Code, for a member or members of the Board to participate by electronic
means when a majority of the Board convenes in person. In this case, the absent
members participating electronically be placed on a speaker phone so that their voices
may be heard by the members present in person and the public attending the meeting.
In addition, the meeting and its minutes should note the electronic participation of the
absent members and the reason for the absence. The person or persons participating
electronically are part of the quorum for the meeting, may make or second motions and
may vote.
III K. Quorum and Voting Requirements
1 . Quorum. See By -Laws V.2
2. Voting. See By-LawsV.10.
3. Voting to close a session. See Section 21.5, The Code.
III L. Iowa Open Records Law.
1. The Board must follow all the requirements of Chapter 22, The Code.
Examination Of Public Records (Open Records). This means every person has the
right to examine and copy the public records of the PCRB pursuant to that Chapter.
2� The lawful custodian of the PRCB public records is the Iowa City Clerk.
3. All records of the Board shall be public except as specifcally provided for
in Chapter 22, The Code or in the By -Laws. Only certain records shall be kept
confidential and only in a case where they are specifically authorized to be kept
confidential by Chapter 22, The Code.
4. Confidentiality of complaints, reports of investigations, statements and
other documents or records obtained in investigation of any complaint. See By -Laws
VI 1. 1 (a).
5. Confidentiality of the minutes and tape recordings of closed sessions. See
By -Laws VI 1. 1 (b).
6. Confidentiality of mediation matters. See By -Laws VII. 1 (d).
7. Confidentiality of information protected by the Iowa Open Records Law or
the Iowa Open Meetings Law. See By -Laws V11.1(c).
H] M. Iowa Open Meetings Law.
The Board must follow all the requirements of Chapter 21, The Code, Official
Meetings Open to Public (Open Meetings).
IV L. Conflicts of Interest and Ex Parte Contacts.
1. Conflicts of interest. See By -Laws V.9.
2. Ex Parte contacts. See By -Laws V.8.
Complaint Statistical Information
We will use the following information, which concerns classes of people protected
under Iowa City's Human Rights Ordinance, only to prepare our PCRB annual
report. We will not use your name or other identifying information in this report.
You do not have to provide this information to file your complaint.
Please indicate your:
Age
Color
National origin
Gender identity
Sex
Sexual orientation
Marital status
Mental disability
Physical disability
Religion
Draft 8/10/98
Space for intake stamp
Other office information
City of Iowa City
Police Citizen Review Board Citizen
Filing a Complaint
Use this form to file a complaint with the Iowa City Police Citizen Review Board
(PCRB). File your complaint in the office of the City Clerk or at the Iowa City Police
Department, both located in the Civic Center, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City
You must file your complaint within 60 days of the incident you are complaining
about. If you don't file within 60 days, the PCRB will not be able to review the
investigation of your complaint.
What Happens Next
A copy of your complaint will be sent to the Police Chief, who will investigate the
police conduct you describe. To assist the Police Department in the investigation,
you may be required to provide additional information and/or be interviewed.
If you wish, you may be accompanied by a person of your choosing during all
inter -views. After receiving the Chief's report on the investigation of your
complaint, the PCRB may also request additional information and/or hearings.
Changing or Withdrawing Your Complaint
You may amend your complaint, in writing, until 30 days after you file it, to provide
new or additional evidence or information. You may withdraw your complaint at
any time, by submitting to the PCRB a written, signed, dated notice of withdrawal
that also states that you have not been coerced or intimidated into doing so.
Formal and Informal Mediation
Formal mediation is an option at any time during the investigation of your
complaint, provided you and the officers named in your complaint agree to
mediate. If you wish, you may also meet informally with the police officers and
their watch commander at any point in the investigation process.
Confidentiality/Public Information
Although the PCRB conducts reviews of reports on complaints confidentially, it is a
public agency and, as such, its records and files, including your complaint form, are
or may become public information.
About the Iowa City Police Citizen Review Board
Established in 1997, the Iowa City Police Citizen Review Board consists of five
members appointed by the City Council. The PCRB has its own secretary and legal
counsel. The PCR13 has only limited civil administrative review powers and has no
power or authority over criminal matters. It is not a court of law and is not intended
to substitute as a tort claims procedure or as litigation against the City. Under State
law, only the Police Chief and the City Manager may impose discipline against a
police officer.
The Complaint Review Process
- The PCRB receives a completed citizen complaint form and immediately forwards
a copy to the Police Chief for internal affairs investigation. The Chief completes the
investigation within 30 days and issues a detailed written report that concludes with
a finding that the complaint is "sustained" or "not sustained." The 30-day limit may
be extended, by written request, in unusual circumstances.
- Copies of the report are sent to the PCRB and to the complainant, the police
officers, and the City Manager.
- Within 30 days of receipt, the PCRB reviews the Chief's report and may conduct
additional investigation or request that the Chief do so. The Board issues a written
report that contains detailed findings of fact and a conclusion that explains why and
the extent to which the findings in the Chief's report on his investigation of the
complaint should be "sustained" or "not sustained." The 30-day limit may be
extended, by written request, in unusual circmstances.
Copies of the PCRB's report on the Chiefs investigation are sent to the complainant,
the police officers, the City Manager, and the City Council.
* The PCRB may recommend that the Chief reverse his findings if it determines
that they are unsupported by substantial evidence; are unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious; or are contrary to Police Department policy or practice, or any federal.
state, or local law.
Other PCRB Activities and Responsibilities
The PCRB may:
* Hold public forums and other projects desiged to encourage citizens to provide
information, recommendations, and opinions about police policies and practices.
-Review police policies and practices and recommend modifications.
8/98
Iowa City PCRB 9 Citizen Complaint
Name
Address/other contact information
Telephone
Date of birth
ace -Gender
Tell in your own words what happened. Give as many details as possible.
For example: When and where did it happen? Who else was there?
Describe the specific police actions you are complaining about. Give officers' names,
badge numbers, descriptions.
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, and under penalty of perjury, the
statements I have made on this form are true.
Signature Date
8/98