HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-1999 Public ReportsPCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the ~Board")
review of the investigation of PCRB Complaint//99-02 (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 8-8-7 B.2(a),(b), and (c).
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The complainant originally contacted the PCRB by letter dated March
18, 1999. She was advised by letter dated April 1, 1999, of the
procedures and deadline for filing her complaint; a PCRB complaint form was
enclosed with this letter.
On April 6, 1999, the Complaint was received at the office of the City
Clerk. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was
referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief's Report was
received on May 7, 1999.
The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section
8-8-7 B. 1 (a)(d), which means tha~thet Board may request ad~diti~nal
investigation by the Police Chief or request police assistance in the Board's
own review. On July 27, the Board voted to review the Complaint in
accordance with Section 8-$-7B.1(b), which means that the Board may
interview or meet with the complainant.
By letter dated May 13, 1999, the Board requested the following
additional information: transcript of the interview with the complainant and
transcript of the interviews with the two officers who are subjects of the
Complaint. As an attachment to a letter dated June 18, 1999, the First
Assistant City Attorney provided a synopsis of the complainant's statement,
which had been taken by two internal affairs investigators before she filed
her Complaint. She also reported that the officers had declined to release
their statements to the Board. On July 28, a Board member interviewed the
complainant by telephone.
The Board met on May 11, May 25, June 8, June 21, July 13, July
27, and August 10,1999 to consider the Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In March 1999, at approximately 5:15 p.m., Officers 1 and 2
followed the complainant, a black female, who was driving a friend's Nissan
pickup truck, and whom they had originally observed at the Town and
Campus Apartments on Arthur Street, from the intersection of Highway 6
and Gilbert Street to the intersection of Highways 923 and 921, on South
Riverside, where they stopped her for the traffic violation of crossing the
center line with both left tires. The officers were wearing identical civilian
clothing and were driving an unmarked light blue vehicle. Officer 1 asked
the complainant for her license and proof of insurance, which she produced.
He ran a records check on the complainant and her vehicle, told her she
was free to go, and turned away from her. As she prepared to leave,
Officer 1 then turned back and asked her if he could have permission to
search the truck. The officers reported that they advised the complainant
that they were assigned to the Special Crimes Action Team (SCAT) and
explained what they do.
At first, the complainant refused to permit the search. Then,
reporting that she felt pressured to do so as the officers continued to ask
and to question her refusals, she reluctantly assented to the search. She
was told to step away from the truck during the search. She was asked if
she had any weapons or drugs and she replied no. She was then told to
empty the contents of her pockets on the hood of the officers' vehicle. She
complied. No illegal items were found, no traffic citation was issued, and
the complainant was allowed to leave the scene. The officers reported that
the search was cursory and took less than a minute, and that they thanked
the complainant for her cooperation.
The Chief's investigation included an interview with the complainant
conducted by two internal affairs investigators at her residence on April 6,
1999, before the Complaint had been formally filed with the PCRB; it was
not tape recorded. The transcript provided to the PCRB is a synopsis based
on notes taken during the interview session.
CONCLUSION
Allegation 1. The complainant believes she was unfairly targeted,
singled out, and stopped, when other drivers were committing more serious
traffic violations in the area where she was stopped. The officers report
that they followed the vehicle because they had observed some suspicious
behavior on the part of the nephew of a co-worker of the complainant when
the vehicle she was driving was parked at Town and Campus Apartments.
The complainant stated she was parked in the area because the young man
had locked his keys in his car near Muscatine and 7th Avenues and had
requested that she give him a ride to his uncle's apartment in the Town and
Campus complex to pick up a spare set of keys. She was waiting in her
parked truck while he was inside the complex.
4
The officers reported that there is substantial drug and other illegal
activity in the general area of the city that includes the apartment complex
and that they noted the following suspicious behavior on the part of the
young man: he was talking to someone seated in the parked truck; he
"leaned into" both sides of the parked truck; he seemed nervous and kept
looking at the officers from time to time; he looked into the window of
another parked vehicle. They reported that he then got into the passenger
side of the truck.
The officers stopped the complainant for the minor traffic violation of
crossing lane lines, which she does not dispute, though she pointed out that
two other drivers (both white) in the immediate vicinity were at the same
time committing clearly visible, more serious offenses (speeding and making
erratic lane changes without signaling). No citation was issued and the stop
was of short duration.
We find that the Chief's conclusion that the officers' observations of
activity they deemed suspicious warranted their actions in following the
vehicle, since probable cause is not required to continue observing e subject
in plain view and they did not violate department policy or applicable law.
Further, we find that the Chief's conclusion that the officers' stop of the
complainant for crossing the center line, which she did not dispute, was
supported by probable cause and did not violate department policy or
applicable law. In both cases, the Chief's conclusions are supported by
substantial evidence, and are not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Allegation 1 of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
Allegation 2. The complainant feels that she was intimidated into
consenting to a search of the vehicle and that by pressuring her to do so,
the officers "overstepped the bounds" and violated her rights. The officers
reported that the events leading up to the assent to search consisted of an
explanation of their role in SCAT, a request to search the vehicle, and
several questions to the complainant as to why she was refusing the search.
Although the complainant does not claim she was treated overtly
inappropriately during the stop, she reported that she felt she had been
singled out because of her race and felt insistently pressured to assent to a
search. She reported that although the officers did not "bully" her, their
constant and, to her, insincere smiling bordered on condescension. The
complainant said that since she felt intimidated by the officers' behavior,
had nothing to hide, and felt that she would not be permitted to leave until
she assented, she agreed to permit the search.
In her interview with the PCRB Board member, the complainant stated
that the location of the traffic stop on South Riverside was a remote area
and that dark was approaching. She said she did not understand why the
officers followed her so far and stopped her in such a remote area rather
than in town. She reported that she felt uncomfortable and unsafe when
the officers persisted in questioning her refusal to submit to a search.
The Chief's Report concludes that feelings of intimidation are common
in traffic stops and have not served to nullify voluntary consent. We find
that the Chief's conclusion that the search was proper under the law is
supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. Allegation 2 of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED.
COMMENTS
In his recommendation, the Chief cites the importance of securing
voluntary consent for vehicle searches, and recommends that these officers
review department policy on traffic stops and the law concerning consent to
search.
DATED: August 10, 1999