Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-2003 Public ReportsPOLICE 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 #03-02 DATE: 9 September 2003 FILED 2003 SEP 10 AM 9: 58 CITY CLOW IOW,A CITY, IOWA This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #03-02 (the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs 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 Chiefs professional expertise." Section 8-8-713 (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 these 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 8-8-76 (2) a, b, and c. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on 02 April 2003. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on 01 July 2003, and was filed with the City Clerk on 30 June 2003. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-713 (1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation, 8-8-76 (1)(b), interview/meet with complainant, and 8-8-713 (1)(e), performance by the Board of its own additional investigation. PCRB #03-02 t Additional evidence that was reviewed include interviews from the involved officers and those who responded to the scene, recording of the dispatch transmission, photographs of the scene, the training records of Officers A and B and an interview with a JCPD's Defensive Tactics Training instructor. The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: 3 July 2003, and 12 August 2003, 14 August 2003, and 9 September 2003. FINDINGS OF FACT On February 12, 2003, Officer A responded to a complaint of loud music in an apartment at 2100 Broadway Street. Officer A knocked on the door and after some time passed the Complainant answered the door. Officer A placed his foot in the threshold to keep the door open as the Complainant attempted to step outside the apartment and close the door. An altercation then ensued that resulted in Officer A arresting the Complainant for Disorderly House, Interference with Official Acts, and Assault on a Peace Officer Causing Injury. Officer A was struck in the head, his left ring finger was jammed/sprained and the back of his neck was scratched. The Complainant sustained a contusion and a substantial blow to her left eye. After the complainant was handcuffed and taken to a patrol car for transport, she conversed with Officer B. Officer B made comments that offended the Complainant by suggesting she move back to Chicago and live off of someone else's tax dollar and by stating that he thought she probably didn't pay rent here. The Complainant was transported to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics where she was treated for her injuries which were diagnosed as "periorbital hematoma - soft tissue only. Other persons were present in the apartment during the altercation but the exact number is not known; estimates from various sources range from 5 to 25. Officers arriving at the scene noted evidence that individuals had fled from the apartment from both the front door and the rear bedroom window. The police investigation was hampered by the lack of cooperation of potential witnesses. Only one person who was at the apartment that night was interviewed. That interview was conducted over the telephone and recorded as the intervieiTpe ha returned to her home in Chicago. sn CONCLUSION — � r p Ia _ Allegation I: Excessive Use of Force ' a' S . There is no doubt that force was used in this police/citizen interaction. Tit cn issues are whether force was necessary and whether the level of force was °D appropriate. The Complainant states that when she answered the door to the officer, she attempted to step outside the apartment and close the door behind her. Officer A, she states, pushed at her with his chest and attempted to enter the apartment. The Complainant indicated the officer then slipped back on the threshold and, "came back with a right hook to my left eye." She states, "We PCRB #03-02 then began fighting. I was fighting for my life at this point because I thought I was being attacked. We fought for three minutes before I gave up on the ground outside of my house with his knee in my back." Officer A's account which is similar in outline, differs in some important details. He states that the Complainant attempted to push past him and shut the door. He then took hold of her right arm to prevent the Complainant from pushing him further. The Complainant struggled to break free and they tussled in the doorway. Officer A radioed for assistance as he continued to struggle with the Complainant. He informed her that she was under arrest for keeping a Disorderly House. This upset the Complainant more and she threatened to hit the officer in the face. Officer A states that he told the Complainant to stop resisting and that he applied control techniques to keep her facing away from him. He further states that the Complainant freed her arm and lunged at him scratching the back of his neck. Officer A states that he, "attempted to push her back and to administer another control technique at which time she struck me in the face causing some redness. I then struck -- in the face with a reactionary strike and took her to the ground outside the apartment." Officer A noted that as he waited for back up, "several subjects exited the apartment and fled on foot." He told the remaining people to stay in the apartment, but all left except one. The Chiefs report states that the police radio transmission from Officer A supports the sequence of events described by Officer A and is not inconsistent with the sequence of event at described by the Complainant. The injuries sustained by both Officer A and the Complainant could be consistent with the sequence of events as described by both. The Chiefs report concluded that Officer A struck the Complainant in response to the Complainant's actions against him. The Witness's description of events is more consistent with Officer A's, as both refer to a considerable amount of struggling between the Complainant and Officer A before the blow that caused the injury to her eye. The Complainant indicates that Officer A struck her in the eye early in the confrontation after he slipped backwards. This is not consistent with the O23 accounts of Officer A or the Witness. The Witness states that the Compl*12Mt can began screaming about Officer A punching her after she was on the ground 1 rno —1 outside the apartment. o i-- The Chiefs report concludes: "after evaluating this incident as it relates 15che i Iowa City Police Department Policy and Operating Procedures Manual, tt� :� VIP resistance directed toward Officer A was clearly perceived to be Level Fc it co Category in which the perception is the subject is assaultive and likely to cause bodily injury. ---Officer A's response to the level four threat was within the parameters of appropriate responses as outlined in the use of force model, level four." (OPS-03) The Board finds that the Chiefs conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 of the complaint is not sustained. PCRB #03-02 3 Allegation #2 Inappropriate Conversation or Comments The Complainant alleged that after her arrest an officer unknown to her (later determined to be Officer B) said in effect to her, "you need to move back to Chicago and live off someone else's tax dollars. I bet you don't even pay rent." The Iowa City Police Department's investigation found that Officer C reported hearing an Officer talking with the Complaint about Chicago, taxes and rent. He could not identify the Officer. Officer C described the Complainant as being angry with Officer B as Officer B placed her in a patrol car. Officer D recalled Officer B talking to the Complainant along the line for her to go back to Chicago and stop living off our tax dollars in Iowa City. Officer B, according to the Chief's report, "admitted engaging in a conversation with the Complainant consistent with those statements." The Chiefs report concluded that Officer B "made inappropriate comments." Officer B's actions were in violation of the Policy Manual of the Iowa City Police Department Section 209: Officer Contacts with the Public. "Although Officer B indicated that he felt his comment did not escalate the situation as the Complainant was already in a highly agitated state, it did not help de-escalate the situation. Further, the context of the comment is not consistent with the Departmental Verbal Judo Training that Officer B has recently received." The Chief's report concludes that Allegation 2 was SUSTAINED. The Board agrees. The Chiefs conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #2 of the complaint is sustained. COMMENT None. PCRB #03-02 O N o ^�g l J T a c„ CD POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD FLED 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 #03-04 DATE: 9 September 2003 2003 SEP 10 AM 9: 58 CITY -LERK IOWA CITY IOWA This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #03-04 (the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs 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 Chiefs professional expertise." Section 8-8-713 (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 these 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 8-8-713 (2) a, b, and c. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on 07 May 2003. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on 05 August 2003, and was filed with the City Clerk on 29 July 2003. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-713 (1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. PCRB Complaint #03-04 Page 1 The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: 14 August 2003, and 9 September 2003. FINDINGS OF FACT On April 26, 2003, Iowa City police officers responded to a civil disturbance on Hollywood Court where three females and a male were involved in a confrontation. The Complainant and her cousin were fighting with the Complainant's husband and his girlfriend. The husband's girlfriend had driven her van to the Complainant's house to pick up her boyfriend (the Complainant's husband) and was confronted by the Complainant and her cousin. In the altercation hair was pulled from the girlfriend; and the complainant and her cousin were injured by the complainant's husband. After investigating the situation the officers concluded that the Complainant's husband should be arrested for Assault Causing Injury and Public Intoxication. The females were advised that none of them would be charged at that time, but they could be after further investigation was completed. The Complainant was outspoken in her desire to have her husband's girlfriend arrested for assaulting her. After the officers had further investigated the situation they added Domestic Assault to the husband's charge and charged the Complainant with First Degree Burglary for entering her husband's girlfriend's van to commit an Assault Causing Injury. Her cousin was charged with Disorderly Conduct. O D ro 71 CONCLUSIONS�� o — rn 3� Tl Allegation l: The Complainant was unlawfully arrested ^ j The Complainant was dissatisfied that her husband's girlfriend was not arreste�g at the scene. The women and the Complainant's husband were involved in a physical altercation, which the Complainant stated was initiated by her husband's girlfriend. The girlfriend claimed the Complainant stuck the first blow and then requested her cousin's assistance in assaulting her (the girlfriend). The Complainant's husband joined the fight to assist his girlfriend and assaulted both his estranged wife and her cousin. There were a number of residents in the neighborhood who witnessed the fight but none were able to provide useful information regarding who initiated it. Officers on the scene decided not to charge any of the women. After further investigation, including conversation with the Complainant by phone and in person, Officer D in consultation with Officer A decided it was appropriate to charge the Complainant with First Degree Burglary as it was decided, she had as alleged, entered the van of her husband's girlfriend to commit assault. The officers decided not to charge the husband's girlfriend since it was believed that the Complainant and her cousin had started the altercation and the husband's girlfriend's actions were defensive. PCRB Complaint #03-04 Page 2 The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 of the complaint is Not Sustained. Allegation #2: Officer C. Officer B, and Officer D engaged in improper conduct by being mean, rude and not caring causing the Complainant to feel violated, discriminated, intimidated and scared. Officer C was the second officer on the scene and is alleged by the Complainant to have told her to "shut up and don't move, you must of started the fight because I'm his wife."(sic) Officer B stayed with the Complainant and her cousin while they were treated for injuries and then later to separate them from the other participants while officers further investigated the incident. Both defendants became loud and antagonistic during the later period directing their comments toward the Complainant's husband's girlfriend. Officer B directed them to ..shush" to quiet them and maintain order. The Complainant took offense at the officer's comment. Officer B directed her to go to Officer D with her complaints if she felt being told to "shush" was inappropriate. Officer D indicated that at first he was not aware that the Complainant had been assaulted by her husband and had tried to give her more attention once he learned of her victim status. A number of neighbors were interviewed regarding the incident. They reported that they believed the officers involved handled the situation appropriately and indicated they heard no inappropriate statements from the police officers at the scene. Officers at the scene reported they believed Officer B and Officer D acted appropriately and noted nothing that would give validity to Complainant's allegations. The Board finds that the Chief s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #2 of the Complaint is Not Sustained. None. PCRB Complaint #03-04 Page 3 O �n N 0 N l> m v o (— M a a D Cn co