Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-2002 Public Reports POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint 'FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #01-06 DATE: March 12, 2002 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #01-06 (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 The Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk on September 27, 2001. 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 December 21,2001. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B.1 (b), interview/meet with complainant and Section 8-8- 7B. 1 (e), which means performance by Board of its own additional investigation. The Board met on January 8, 2002, January 22, 2002, February 5, 2002, February 26, 2002, and March 12, 2002 to consider the complaint. PCRB 01-06 Page FINDINGS OF FACT On an early July morning the complainant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by an Iowa City police officer. The vehicle was stopped at the intersection of Lucas Street and Market Street for being driven the wrong way down a one way street. Officer A ordered the driver out of the vehicle and administered field sobriety tests. The complainant advised that while this was happening, a second officer (Officer B) arrived and ordered the complainant and two other passengers out of the vehicle. Officer B identified all 3 passengers. According to the complainant, he politely asked Officer B why his friend was being arrested. The complainant went on to say that Officer B apparently took exception to being questioned and told the complainant he had until the count of two to leave the area or be arrested, then immediately counted, "1,2". ~ complainant estimated that this was way too fast for anyone to be able the scene. The complaint was subsequently arrested and charged with~l~lic intoxication and obstruction of a peace officer. ~--}' The complainant said that Officer B then approached the remaining two__. ~: ~t --~ passengers and told them to leave before they were arrested as well. T_h~:~ complainant said he didn't resist being placed into the squad car as indi~:~ted b~ Officer B in his obstructing officers charge. During the subsequent police investigation into the complainant's concerns of Officer B's conduct, Officers A and B, the complainant, and one of the two additional passengers were interviewed. Officers A and B both told investigators that the complainant's questions about his friends arrest were answered and that he was allowed to leave with the other passengers. The complainant started to leave but returned and continued to ask questions concerning his friend's arrest. Officer B told investigators he offered to speak with the complainant when he was sober. Both officers indicated the complainant was given 3 opportunities to leave the scene and that Officer B did count to three slowly, paused, and then arrested the complainant when he didn't leave. One of the passengers was interviewed on the phone by ICPD investigators. The passenger said that all the passengers were told to leave after the driver was arrested and they did so. When asked by investigators why he thought the complainant was arrested, he told them he thought it was for asking the officer questions. The complainant's information was the same as the complaint that he filed with the board, however he did tell police investigators that he did resist Officer B's attempt to place him in the patrol vehicle. PCRB 01-06 Page On 20 February 2002 a member of the board conducted independent interviews with the complainant and the driver of the vehicle (the board member was unable to make contact with the other two passengers). The driver said he was still on the scene and standing about 20 feet away from Officer B and the passengers for most of the incident. The driver said that all the passengers were told they could leave. The complainant stayed and continued to ask the officer questions. The officers told the complainant to leave two to three more times before he was arrested. The driver couldn't recall the officer counting and didn't see the complainant when he was placed in the squad car. CONCLUSION This complaint focuses on two issues: (1) Officer B's decision to arrest the complainant for public intoxication considering the circumstances surrounding the arrest (mainly the complainant being a passenger in a vehicle); (2) Whether there was probable cause for the obstruction charge. Chiefly, was the complainant allowed to leave, was he warned he woutd be arrested and did he resist being p~aced in the squad car after the arrest, Alle.qation I: The complainant was inappropriately arrested for public intoxication. While police officers are no longer at liberty to arrest a passenger directly from a vehicle for public intoxication, all the evidence presented to the board indicates that the complainant was allowed to leave and stayed of his own free will. At that point he was no longer a passenger in a vehicle but a pedestrian in a public place. Allegation #1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Alle.qation 2: The complainant was inappropriately arrested for obstruction of justice. All parties interviewed, with the exception of the complainant, said the complainant was initially allowed to leave with the other passengers, and that he was warned to leave at least twice prior to being arrested. With regard to whether or not the complainant resisted being placed in the squad car, the complainant told the police and a judge during the trial that he resisted the officer when being placed in the officer's car. Allegation #2 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS None. PCRB 01-06