HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-30-1999 Public ReportsPCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board")
review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #98-19 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the
Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his
investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a
'reasonable basis' standard of review to the Report and to "give deference"
to the Report "because of the Police Chief's...professional expertise."
Section 8-8-7 B(2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings
of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by
substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are
"contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or
local law." Sections 8-8-7B(2)a, b, and c.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
On November 16, 1998, this Complaint was received at the office of
the City Clerk. As required by Section 8o8-5 of the City Code, the
Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief
requested an extension of time to January 13, 1999 to complete his report.
The Board granted that extension on December 15, 1998. The Chief
completed his Report and submitted it to the Board on January 13, 1999.
The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-
7B. 1 (d) and (e), which means that it chose to request additional information
from the Police Department and to conduct its own investigation. The Board
requested additional information and received and reviewed transcripts of
interviews with witnesses and one of the two officers present at the scene,
as well as a videotape of some of the events that are the subject of the
Complaint. In order to secure the time necessary to obtain these additional
materials, the Board requested an extension of 30 days from the City
Council for its consideration of the Report. That extension was granted by
the City Council on February 9.
The Board met on December 8, 1998, January 19, 26, 1999,
February 16, 23, 1999, and March 2 and 9, 1999 to consider the Report.
Because of a conflict of interest, one member of the Board did not
participate in any Board review, discussion or decision of this Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The complainant, a 20-year-old female, was in an Iowa City bar. She
had an alcoholic drink in her hand, although she was not of legal age to
possess alcohol. A police officer came up to her and asked if she had a
stamp on her hand indicating that she was legally of the age to possess
alcohol. She said she did not. There is a disagreement about whether the
officer told the complainant that she was under arrest at that point or not,
but it is undisputed that the officer turned away from her for a moment.
The complainant decided to try and get lost in the crowd and began moving
away from the officer. When the officer turned back to her and saw the
complainant was trying to move away, the officer grasped her firmly and
propelled her out the door of the bar. Once outside, the officer placed the
complainant over a trash receptacle, handcuffed her, and placed her under
arrest. The complainant was charged with possession of alcohol while
under the legal age, public intoxication, and obstruction of officers. When
taken to the jail, she was given a post-arrest breath test and was found to
have a blood alcohol concentration of .18.
In her Complaint and in her subsequent interview with the
investigating officers, the complainant asserted that the officer used
excessive force in removing her from the bar, that it was inappropriate to
charge her with obstruction of officers, and that she did not like the manner
in which she was treated by the officer. The Chief restated these
allegations as described below.
The investigation conducted by the police investigators included
interviews with the complainant, numerous civilian witnesses to the events,
the officer involved, and another officer who was in the bar at the time of
the incident,
CONCLUSIONS
Allegation 1. The complainant claims that the officer used excessive
force when arresting her. There is considerable difference of opinion about
how much physical force was used and whether the complainant lost her
footing while being removed from the bar. It appears, however, that the
officer grabbed her by the left upper arm, grasped her right shoulder firmly
with his own arm, and walked her briskly out of the bar. While this was a
forceful manner of removing the complainant from the crowded bar, that
approach was not inappropriate in view of the officer's reasonable belief
that the complainant was trying to elude him and avoid arrest for a violation
of law. Accordingly, the conclusion in the Chief's Report that the force
used by the officer was not excessive is supported by substantial evidence
and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. This allegation is NOT
SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2. The complainant argues that the charge for obstruction
of officers was not warranted. Whether the complainant is guilty of this
offense is a matter that will be resolved judicially. But the Chief's
conclusion that, based on the complainant's apparent attempt to elude the
officer at the scene, the officer had probable cause to charge her with
obstruction of officers is supported by substantial evidence and is not
unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 2 of the Complaint is NOT
SUSTAINED.
Allegation 3. The Chief interprets the Complaint and subsequent
interview with the complainant as an objection to the brusque manner and
attitude of the officer towards the complainant and the staff of the bar. We
do not read the Complaint as objecting to anything other than the officer's
treatment of the complainant. The Police Chief's conclusion that the
officer's treatment of the complainant, while "frank and businesslike,~
"steady," and "brisk," was acceptable, is supported by substantial evidence
and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 3 is
NOT SUSTAINED.
DATED: March 9, 1999