Loading...
10/20/2003 - Minutes a a • Minutes for the Salt Lake City Police Civilian Review Board held Monday, October 20, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 315, City County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Board Members In Attendance: Brent Ward, Adrian R. Autry, Nancy Appleby, Paula Wolfe, Nafitalai Unga Kioa, Susan Webster, Teddi Velarde, Ramona Gonzales, Masood Ul-Hasan, Daniel Levin and Scott McCoy. Absent Board Members: Claudia O'Grady,Nisa Sisneros and Eligio White Also In Attendance: Investigator: Linda Hamilton Administrative Assistant: Robyn Stanczyk Police Board Advisor: Dean Carr Deputy City Recorder: Beverly Jones I. The meeting convened at 5:08 p.m. Chair Brent Ward presided. II. Introductions: Mr. Ward asked when Mr. White was approved by the City Council. Ms. Hamilton said September 9, 2003. Mr. Ward said Mr. White was not present so the introduction would be postponed. III. Approval of Minutes of September 8, 2003. Ms. Gonzales moved and Mr. McCoy seconded to approve the minutes of September 8, 2003, which motion carried, all Members present voted aye. IV. New Business a. First Semiannual Report to the Mayor. Mr. Ward said they had a draft of the report to the Mayor on the board's activities. He said the report had excerpts of actual cases and decisions made by the board's panels. He asked if the decisions should be described in greater detail. Ms. Hamilton said one decision was a request for review and one case the panel had recommended the Police Department reopen it. She said one category two complaint the panel recommended it be sustained so it was sent to the Police Department. She said the other category two complaint, the panel had recommended that it not be sustained. Mr. Ward said these actions had been finalized and decisions had been sent to the Police Chief He asked if general language would be sent to the Mayor about the board's work. Ms. Hamilton said no because they had been asked specifically to include any trends the board saw in terms of police performance, 03 - 1 • problems, and training needs and the board had not been active long enough to develop this information. She said the next report would include that information. She said she would not send the report until the board had approved the request and the Chair had signed it. Mr. Ward said only the Police Chief received panel reports. He said the Board reported to the Mayor semiannually. Mr. Ward asked Ms. Hamilton to read the cover letter. Ms. Hamilton read the letter. Mr. Levin moved and Ms. Webster seconded to approve the semiannual report, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. b. Future Semiannual Reports—Compilation of comments to be included in the semi-annual report. Ms. Hamilton asked if language from each concluded panel should be put in the reports. She said she was responsible for writing the language and getting approval for inclusion in the next report. She said that would keep the board up to date as each case was completed. Mr. Ward said that was only if the panel felt there was something additional that needed to be included in the report. Ms. Hamilton said that was correct. Mr. Ward said if the panel felt something needed to be included, then the information should be given to Ms. Hamilton to track. c. Schedule for Training by City Attorney's Office. Ms. Hamilton said she had asked the City Attorney's Office if they would be willing to give the board some additional training. She said most of the board had been through training at the Police Department. She said it would be helpful if the board could have intensive training with the City Attorney's Office. She said she had suggested that the Attorney's Office present some scenarios and talk through them with the board to evaluate a police officer's behavior. She said the Attorney's Office would be available to provide training on November 17th. Mr. Ward suggested they meet from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. All members present were in favor of that time and date. Mr. Ward asked Ms. Hamilton to confirm with the Attorney's Office and let the board know where the meeting would be held. Mr. Ward asked if each board member had sat on a case panel. Ms. Hamilton said four new members had not completed their training and were not allowed to serve on a panel. Mr. Ward asked panel members if they had any comments or suggestions. Mr. Ul-Hasan said he wanted more information before further discussion was held because it would help the members make a better decision. He said it would also eliminate confusion. Mr. Ward said Ms. Hamilton was giving the board all the information she had access to. Ms. Hamilton said the board should receive a report summarizing all information at least one week before a panel meeting. Mr. Ward said when members arrived at a panel meeting, they could review interview reports. Ms. Hamilton said there would be full transcripts to review of every interview for Category One complaints. d. Elections. Ms. Hamilton said a decision on a new Chair and Vice Chair would not be made tonight, but nominations could be taken. She said the nominees would be contacted to determine their willingness or ability to serve. She said the election would be held during the first meeting in January. Mr. Ward was nominated for 03 -2 • Chair. Scott McCoy and Nafitalai Unga Kioa were nominated for Vice Chair. Mr. Ul- Hasan moved and Ms. Webster seconded to close the nominations, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. e. Schedule for next meeting. Ms. Hamilton said if the second Monday of each month worked for the board then the next meeting would be January 12, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. All members present were in favor of the date. f. Meet with Community Group Representatives. Jah-Juin Ho, Director of Commission on Racial & Ethnic Fairness in the Criminal &Juvenile Justice System, said his commission was trying to implement a State-wide complaint process for all law enforcement agencies. He said examination of racial biases within the system was important. He said minutes from previous CRB meetings talked about diversity training. He said their commission helped develop a curriculum with the Utah Multi-Cultural Legal Agency. He said currently the Courts and the Department of Corrections required all their employees to go through that training. Ms. Appleby asked about the developed program. Mr. Ho said his commission helped provide funding for the training. He said it was a State-wide effort for State employees within the legal system to gain cultural sensitivity. He said the class taught people about their own biases and how to interact with people of different cultures sensitively. Mr. Ward asked how long the class was and how it was presented. Mr. Ho said the program was flexible so it could be applied to a broad range of circumstances. He said a number of private organizations had contracted facilitators to conduct the program. Mr. Ward asked if the program could be condensed into a shorter presentation. Mr. Ho said the facilitators were good about catering the program to time limits and specifics of a particular agency. Mr. Ward asked how much time the board felt should be devoted to training. Mr. Kioa asked if the program would be part of the academy training for future board members. Mr. Ward said it would be good to have one type of diversity training. He asked what the best way was to find a program tailored to their board. He said some board members did not have training on profiling. Ms. Gonzales said diversity training was good and Mr. Ho had made the point they would be looking at themselves. Mr. Levin said the most important part was finding something tailored to the kind of questions the board would be considering. He said they could contact people from the State. Peace Officers Safety and Standards in Training (POST) Commission and see if they had any information. Ms. Wolfe said they were still trying to work with POST to include sexual minorities in their training. She said it was not at State level. Mr. McCoy said going through training would be good for the board because they would know what field officers had been taught about diversity. Ms. Hamilton said Mr. Ho's program sounded more applicable to what the board was going to be doing. She said she would perform a limited survey and see if she could find something geared towards law enforcement or the Criminal Justice System. Ms. Wolfe said she agreed that Mr. Ho's program could meet their needs. Mr. Ward said it would be helpful if the board did not participate in the entire diversity course that POST taught. He said maybe someone could come and give the board a detailed summary of what that course 03 -3 i Ill III consisted of He said if the Police Department had its own diversity training that could also be summarized in a detailed manner. Ms. Hamilton said the only people she could think of who could give the board creditable training on profiling was the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Mr. Carr said it was important for the board to know what kind of training police officers received. He said in-service training occurred often. He said he would volunteer to work with Ms. Hamilton to put together a presentation. Ms. Hamilton asked about time commitment. Ms. Appleby asked if there was some way to build in some continuing education time. She said when new board members came on, it was one thing to receive training, but as the board continued, there should be additional training. Board members present were in favor of four hours of additional training. Mr. McCoy moved and Ms. O'Grady seconded to adjourn the meeting, which motion carried, all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 6:13 p.m. ---- ' errow11111 1 Civilian Review Board Chair • Deputy City et.rder 03 - 4 mil MP • Date I% 4 , SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL ( ) �' PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM - -- Agenda Item ,,•fir b. "', , - . Corv�in�Ss ion Raciat � E,IAni c, J ti-� �t� ( ITP- �10 Fti men its*CrirruRol 4i Ivevtiit .. Name J4 Jus�tte s4�n a Dlfed c°r- Phone 5'1� 39` 4, (please print clearly) Address lt5a s ttOt '+ E-Mail Address Lid\n,v,INV1@ CWtelit t,4cojrttr- cV Subject ❑ I wish to speak regarding the subject noted above. ❑ I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: ❑ my community council ❑ serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.ut.us. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@ci.slc.ut.us • • Salt Lake City Police Civilian Review Board AGENDA City&County Building—Room 315 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah Monday,October 20,2003 at 5:00 p.m. I. Convene Meeting of Salt Lake City Police Civilian Review Board II. Introductions—Eligio White,new board member III.Approval of minutes of September 8,2003 meeting IV.New Business a. First Semiannual Report to the Mayor b. Future Semiannual Reports-Compilation of comments to be included in the semi-annual report. c. Schedule for Training by City Attoney's Office d. Schedule for next meeting e. Meet with Community Group Representatives V. Adjourn On the 1711'day of October I personally emailed a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view at the following times and locations within the City&County Building,451 South State Street,Salt Lake City,Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m.in the City Recorder's Office,Room 415;and 2. At 5:00 p.m.in the Newsroom,Room 315 3. At 5:00 p.m.outside the City Council Chambers,Room 315 Investigator • • A sound system for the hearing impaired is available and headphone can be obtained for all public meetings upon four hours advance notice. Arrangements can be made for sign language interpreters; please allow 72 hours advance notice. Large type and#2 Braille agendas are available upon 72 hours advance notice. Final action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda. After 5:00 p.m. please enter the City& County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building. 1110 • Salt Lake City Police Civilian Review Board Semiannual Report October 20, 2003 Cases Completed (redacted copies are attached) 2003-014-2 2003-007-2RR 2003-028-2RR Trends A quorum of the Board was not constituted until mid-June, 2003. Only one case has been investigated to completion and two requests for review have been completed. No trends of police performance are identifiable from the completion of these few cases. No policy, procedural issues, or training needs are identifiable from the completion of these few cases. Brent Ward, Chair Date • 110 Police Civilian Review Board Request for Review Internal Affairs Case File 2003-028-2 03-02-RR Redaction Code: X is the complainant 0 is the subject officer W 1 is one witness W2 is another witness Complainant: X Nature of Complaint: Courtesy in Public Contacts Personal Contacts Subject Officer: 01 Date Request for Review Received: August 11, 2003 Date of Police Department Disposition: July 14, 2003 Police Department Disposition: Exonerated Panel Members: Nisa Sisneros Claudia O'Grady Nancy Appleby Adrian Autry Brent Ward Date of Panel Meeting: September 8, 2003 A Request for Review was received from X on August 11, 2003 pursuant to City ordinance 2.72.230. Mr. X complains that 01 was inappropriate in dealing with him regarding an incident that took place on June 16, 2003 at the Home Depot located at 328 West 2100 South. Detective 01 was working at the Home Depot part-time as a security guard. Statements Made by Mr. X Mr. X made the following assertions during the Request for Review intake process. 1. He had returned merchandise previously purchased in the Home Depot. 1 • • 2. He then went to purchase a sprinkler. 3. The checkout lines were long so a Home Depot employee directed him to the same cashier where he had returned merchandise a few minutes earlier. 4. The cashier rejected his American Express credit card because she said the signature on the credit card did not match his signature on the receipt. She said that there was no way for her to know whether someone was committing credit card fraud. 5. Detective 01 "chased after"him to the parking lot. 6. The Detective told Mr. X he was "ignorant," and that his "conduct was uncalled for." 7. The Detective told Mr. X he could arrest him for disturbing the peace. 8. His son-in-law, Wl, was present. 9. Home Depot had called and apologized to him. The internal investigation file contained additional statements made by Mr. X during his interview. The interview was not taped, but there are typed notes in the file. 1. He stated that he had been at the Home Depot numerous times that weekend because of a home project he was completing. 2. He returned some items he had previously purchased to the return desk and had the return amount credited back to his American Express card. 3. He went into the store to obtain four additional items. 4. He heard over the store loudspeaker that anyone with a small purchase could check out at the return desk so he went there. 5. The clerk rang up the items and he attempted to put the purchase on the same American Express card he had used earlier when returning merchandise. 6. He signed for the purchase and the clerk said his signature did not match the one on his credit card. 7. The clerk requested to see his driver's license. 8. He got "angry"because the items he had returned earlier were worth much more than the purchases he was making now, but the clerk wanted to see his driver's license. 9. He wrote his signature a number of times and told the clerk that"was as good as it was going to get." 10. He eventually showed the clerk his driver's license. 11.When the purchase was completed, Detective 01 ran after them outside the store and told him to stop and that he was out of line. 12.Mr. X said that 01 said he could arrest him. 13.Mr. X said to go ahead and arrest him and he would sue him and Home Depot. 14.Mr. X said that Detective 01 had said he was ignorant three times during the conversation and that it had angered him because he is an educated man. 15. Detective 01 gave Mr. X a trespass warning and told him to leave or he would be arrested for trespassing. 16. Mr. X asked Detective 01 if he had a business card and alleges that the Officer responded "yes, but I won't give it to you." 2 • 17.Mr. X reported that neither he nor the Detective used profanity during the exchange. 18. Mr. X felt that Detective 01 overreacted and was "acting under the color of authority when there was no violation of the law." Statements Made by Mr. W1 W1, Mr. X's son-in-law, was present during the incident. The interview was not taped, but typed notes are included in the file. W1 stated the following during his interview: 1. He said he was with Mr. X at the Home Depot. 2. He said that he had not seen Detective 01 until they were approached outside of the store so he thought someone had given the Officer bad information. He did not realize Detective 01 had witnessed the entire incident. 3. W1 confiinied that the Detective had not used any profanity. 4. He said that it was common for Mr. X to act the way he did,but "that is his right." Statements Made by W2 W2 was also interviewed. She was the clerk involved in the incident. The interview was not recorded,but there are typed notes in the file. W2's reported version of the incident follows: 1. She confirms that Mr. X had returned merchandise to her a few minutes before the incident. 2. She confirms that he returned to her to make purchases using his American Express card and that, when she checked his signature, it did not match the signature on the card. Consequently she asked to see his driver's license. 3. She stated that this "angered" Mr. X and he started saying he had spent thousands of dollars in that store and that he wasn't going to show her his driver's license. 4. He grabbed the receipt and scribbled his name numerous times and said that was as good as it was going to get. 5. W2 said that a male oriental customer in line behind Mr. X tried to explain to X that she was just trying to protect Mr. X's interests and that she was doing her job. 6. W2 said that "Mr. X's son" (W1, son-in-law) was laughing the whole time like he thought this was funny. 7. W2 described X's demeanor as very arrogant and felt he was trying to make her look bad for doing her job. She said he thought he was "special"because he spent a lot of money in their store. She said he was rude. 8. She said she didn't feel threatened by Mr. X because the counter was between them. 9. She said she might have physically moved back when Mr. X was yelling at her, but that she felt more harassed. 3 I • 10. She said Mr. X "really overreacted." 11. W2 said she felt that Detective 01 did the right thing by telling Mr. X that he was out of line. Statements Made by W3 W3 was the Assistant Manager of Home Depot at the time of the incident. The interview was not recorded. Typed notes in the file provide the following information: 1. He received a call from Mr. X about 20 minutes after the incident. 2. Mr. X provided W3 with the same information as he had others. He was asked to produce a driver's license because the clerk didn't think the signature on the purchase receipt was the same as was on the card. 3. W3 described Mr. X as angry and excited. 4. He told W3 that he spends a lot of money in Home Depot and was going to sue the store "for all it's worth." 5. He said that Mr. X was angry because of the amount of money he spent in the store. 6. He was angry that Detective 01 had approached him and threatened to arrest him. 7. W3 "didn't see a problem" with the way this incident was handled by W2 or Detective 01. He said the store had not had any problems with either of the employees in the past. Statements Made by Detective 01 Detective 01's interview was recorded. The Detective stated: 1. He was standing by the return desk on the day of the incident and heard the clerk say she couldn't accept Mr. X's credit card because the signature did not match the signature on the purchase receipt. 2. He said that Mr. X"blew up" and screamed at W2. 3. He was very"angry" and signed the receipt many times. 4. A customer behind him in line told Mr. X that it was her job and that she was just trying to protect their interests. Mr. X told him to "keep his nose out of it—it was none of his business." 5. Detective 01 said there were two possible violations of the law--credit card fraud and disturbing the peace. 6. He said Mr. X's conduct was alarming the employees and customers. He thought W2 felt threatened. 7. Mr. X finally provided his driver's license and the transaction was completed. 8. Detective 01 followed X out of the store and confronted him. He told him there was no reason for him to act the way he had and that W2 was only doing her job. 9. Detective 01 told X he was "ignorant" two or three times, but stated that no profanity was used. 4 • I 10. Detective 01 concluded that the conversation was "not going anywhere" so he told Mr. X that, if he didn't leave the property, he would arrest him. 11. Mr. X said "go ahead and I'll sue you for false arrest." 12.Mr. X wanted O1's name and he gave it to him. 13.X said he would be talking to O1's Watch Commander. 14.Detective 01 offered to call the Watch Commander right there in the parking lot. Statements Made by W4 The final interview was with W4. He was the customer in line behind Mr. X. He also indicated he witnessed the incident in the parking lot. He was located by tracing cash register receipts at Home Depot. He stated the following: 1. He reported that Mr. X was yelling at the cashier and being very rude. 2. W4 said Mr. X was out of control and"acting like a baby." 3. W4 confirmed that he told Mr. X that the cashier was just doing her job. 4. W4 apparently witnessed the conversation between 01 and X. He said he did not see the Detective say anything negative or rude to Mr. X. 5. He said that Detective 01 had not done anything that reflected negatively on the Police Department. Police Department's Disposition The Police Department has exonerated the officer. The final report states: "All who dealt with Mr. X, including an uninvolved customer, felt that he was acting out in a loud and abusive manner." Panel's Recommendation All of the infoiination in the internal investigation case file was reviewed, and the one interview that was recorded has been heard. The only new infoiiniation provided by Mr. X was that he received a verbal apology from Home Depot,but the Panel is precluded from following up on that information because the ordinance states that Panel's agent may only review the case file. Witnesses may not be interviewed. The Complainant is considered a "witness." Therefore, the infoiiiiation regarding the apology cannot be considered in this review because the infoiiniation was obtained during an interview that is precluded under the ordinance. Legally, therefore,no additional infoiuiation was provided that was not already in the Police Department case file. There are no additional witnesses identified by Mr. X. 5 • 4110 D23-01-11.00 Courtesy in Public Contacts police department policy says: Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times while in public view. Although employees are subject to the same pressures as all human beings in difficult circumstances, it is important that employees be seen as possessing a sense of control, confidence and tolerance to the difficulties. All individuals having knowledge of the situation were interviewed. The views of W2, W4, and W3 support Detective 01's perception that his actions were appropriate. W4, who witnessed the incident in the parking lot, said that Detective 01 had not done anything that reflected negatively on the Police Department. A significant question, however,was never asked of the subject officer or Home Depot's representatives. Officer 01 followed Mr. X out of the Home Depot store. The Police Investigator never asked Officer 01 or Home Depot's representatives why the Officer followed Mr. X out of the store. On the surface it appears the officer reignited a confrontation that had already ended. The Panel believes this constitutes a material gap in the investigation. D23-02-11.00 Personal Contacts police department policy says: Employees will introduce themselves upon initial contact with the public. Employees will provide their Department business card to the public when appropriate and also identify themselves by name and division assignment when requested. The internal investigation case file states: Xasked Officer 01 if he had a business card and Officer 01 responded "yes, but I won't give it to you." Police Department employees are required to identify themselves upon initial contact, and when requested. They are only required to provide a business card to the public when "appropriate." Officer 01 states that he did identify himself and offered to call the Watch Commander for the complainant in the Home Depot parking lot. It should be noted, however, that if Officer 01 said, "Yes, but I won't give it to you." this would have constituted a violation of the Courtesy and Public Contacts policy in the view of the Panel. There were two witnesses to the incident in the Home Depot parking lot, W1 and W4. Neither was asked whether Officer 01 actually made the statement. The panel believes this constitutes a gap in the investigation. 6 • The policy further states: Employees will not use degrading,profane, abusive or defamatory language when in contact with the public or in public view. The complainant, W 1, and Officer 01 all confiinni that no profane language was used. The complainant did protest the fact that Officer 01 called him"ignorant," when he is an educated man. In the view of the Panel the use of the word "ignorant" does not rise to the level of degrading, abusive or defamatory language because the word ignorant is a Utah colloquialism for rude. There are two material gaps in the investigation. No allowable new information was provided. Based on the foregoing, the Panel recommends to the Police Chief that this case be reopened to answer the questions of why Officer 01 followed the complainant to the parking lot and whether he said he did have a business card,but would not give it to Mr. X. Nancy Appleby Panel Chair cc: Mayor Rocky Anderson Chief Rick Dinse Lt. Chris Burbank Lt. Sam Hemingway Detective Anthony Brereton 7 • • Police Civilian Review Board Panel Report Request for Review Case Number 2003-007-2RR Redaction Code.: X is the Complainant O is the Subject Officer 02 is the Sergeant Complainant: X Nature of Complaint: Police Officer was speeding Subject Officer: 0 Original Internal Affairs Complaint Number: 2003-007-2 Date Request for Review Received: July 8, 2003 Date of Police Department Disposition: June 12, 2003 Police Department Disposition: Exonerated Date of Panel Meeting: July 30, 2003 A Request for Review was received from X on July 8, 2003 pursuant to City ordinance 2.72.230. Mr. X's complaint was that a Police Officer was exceeding the speed limit. The alleged policy violation was D33-01-00 which states "Employees shall operate police vehicles in a careful and prudent manner and shall set a proper example in driving habits." The Police Department investigation was not conducted by Internal Affairs,but rather by a Captain because it was considered a minor complaint. The investigatory file, however, is maintained by Internal Affairs. All documents and interview tapes were reviewed. The request for review was filed timely(within 30 days of the receipt of the Chief's decision). The complaint is not based on the complainant's membership in a group. 1 • i Statements Made by X The following statements were made by Mr. X to the Board Administrator/Investigator. 1. Mr. X was on I-80 going east from Tooele to Salt Lake at the same time that the Officer was driving from Tooele to report for duty. 2. Mr. X stated that he was behind the Officer and that the Officer was going about 85 to 90 miles per hour. 3. Mr. X pulled in to another lane to pass a diesel truck. 4. Mr. X says the Officer passed him between Saltair and 5600 West. 5. The Officer subsequently pulled Mr. X over and gave him a ticket for speeding. 6. Mr. X disputes that he was speeding, but stated that his complaint about the citation he received has nothing to do with his having received a speeding ticket. He stated that the ticket was a different matter being approached in another way. 7. Mr. X states that the Officer's own report indicated he was going 79 miles per hour in a 75 mile per hour zone and that the Officer was speeding based on his own admission. 8. The Officer's captain exonerated the Officer, and Mr. X wants some kind of disciplinary action taken against the Officer because police officers are not above the law. Reviews of the Internal Affairs file and taped interviews with Mr. X, 01, and Sgt. 02 were conducted. Mr. X made other assertions during his interview with Sgt. 02, who conducted the Police Department investigation. They were: 1. He first spotted the Officer on Highway 36. The speed limit is 60 miles per hours and Mr. X alleged that the Officer was traveling at 70 to 75 miles per hour. He further stated that the Officer's speed exceeded his own by 10 to 15 miles per hour. 2. He stated that the Officer changed lanes at the Maverick station and"shot straight out." 3. Mr. X stated that he caught up with the Officer at the I-80 east bound freeway entrance and that he was three car lengths behind the Officer. 4. He said the Officer was exceeding the speed limit 5 to 10 miles per hour on I-80. Mr. X said he was 6 to 8 car lengths behind the Officer and that he had put his car on cruise control at 76 to 78 miles per hour. 5. Mr. X then stated that he passed the Officer to overtake a diesel truck at roughly 7200 West at the Saltair freeway exit. 6. He said he had his cruise control set at 76 to 78 miles per hour. When the speed limit dropped to 65 he turned off his cruise control in order to slow down. 2 S • Statements Made by Officer 01 1. When he was on Highway 36, which has a 60 mile per hour speed limit,he was traveling 62 or 63 miles per hour. He says he never exceeds that speed because he is aware of complaints about police officers speeding in that area. 2. While traveling on I-80 he was going 79 miles per hour in a 75 mile per hour speed zone. 3. He first saw Mr. X at the Saltair exist on I-80 when he (X) changed lanes and increased his speed to 85 miles per hour. He saw him in his rear view mirror and he was approaching fast. 4. Officer 01 followed X staying 6 to 7 car lengths back. The Officer stated that Mr. X traveled about 93 miles per hour for 40 blocks. He considered pulling Mr. X over at 7200 West, but decided to see whether he slowed down between 7200 west and 5600 West where the speed limit drops to 65 miles per hour. X slowed to 87 miles per hour. Officer 01 paced X's car to determine the speed. 5. Officer 01 pulled Mr. X over at the 5600 West I-80 onramp and gave him a speeding ticket for going 87 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. Statement of Sergeant 02 The only other person interviewed was Sergeant 02 who did not witness the events, but did have a conversation with both 01 and Mr. X. 1. 01 told Sgt. 02 that Mr. X called and wanted to speak with his supervisor. Sgt. 02 contacted Mr. X. 2. He asked Mr. X whether 01 was rude on inappropriate in any way. Mr. X said no. 3. Sgt 02 said X's main concern was that he had received a speeding citation. 4. Sgt. 02 told Mr. X that his recourse to express his disagreement with the citation was to appear in court. 5. Sgt 02 said that X did express concern about the Officer's speed,but that 02 had explained to him that"when pacing a vehicle we need to catch up and identify a speed." 6. Sgt. 02 thought Mr. X was satisfied and said he did not say anything about wanting to file a complaint with Internal Affairs. Police Department's Disposition The Police Department has exonerated the officer. Captain Judy Dencker concluded "Complaint is result of enforcement action taken by officer." Board Panel Conclusion Mr. X provided no additional information to the Board panel that was not already in the Police Department case file. There are no additional witnesses identified by Mr. X. There do not appear to be gaps in the investigation. All three individuals having 3 } • • knowledge of the situation were interviewed. The evidence available to the Panel made it impossible to corroborate Mr. X's statement that the Officer was speeding. Based on the foregoing, the Panel will send a recommendation to the Police Chief that this case not be reopened. Adrian Autry, Panel Chair 4 • • Police Civilian Review Board Request for an Investigation Report Internal Affairs Case Number 2003-014-2 Redacted for Board Audit Redaction Code: Complainants are Xl and X2 Subject Officer is 01 Back up officer is 02 Neighbor is N Complainants: XI X2 Nature of Complaint: Courtesy in Public Contacts Personal Contacts Subject Officer: 01 Date Investigation Requested: July 28, 2003 Date Filed with Internal Affairs: August 11, 2003 Date Investigation Completed September 18, 2003 Panel Members: Adrian Autry Daniel Levin Claudia O'Grady Masood Ul-Hasan Paula Wolfe Date of Panel Meeting: October 9, 2003 Interviews Conducted: XI X2 01 02 X1 and X2 complained about the behavior of Olwhen he responded to a call at their home at 1145 South 900 West on July 18,2003. 02 was serving as backup for 01. 01 responded to the X1 and X2's residence because a neighbor(N) had called to complain that the X1 and X2's five year old son was playing too rough with her son(also 1 • five years old). The same resident had called to complain about the X1 and X2 regarding another matter two weeks earlier. The context of this incident is a landlord tenant dispute and neighbors who do not get along with one another. X1 and X2 stated that they do not get along with their tenant and were anticipating that she was going to move. 01 had responded to the X1 and X2 residence roughly two weeks before the incident which resulted in this complaint. This first complaint was about a swamp cooler that was not working in a rental unit owned by the X1 and X2 and occupied by N. 01 had explained that this was a civil matter, but attempted to help solve the problem. 01 talked to X1 about the swamp cooler on his first call to the residence and X1 agreed he would fix it. This was during the time when the temperature was well over 100 degrees for many days. The tenant was a single mother who had a handicapped daughter. It is likely that 01 felt sympathetic towards the tenants, as would most people. Both X1 and X2 agree that 01 was very professional when responding to the first call to their residence. 01 and 02 responded to the residence of X1 and X2 again about two weeks later on a call regarding children fighting. They once again discussed the problem of the broken swamp cooler in the tenant's apartment. It had not been fixed. The two police officers also had gotten into an argument with the X1 and X2 about whether an alley that had a City street sign on it was a public or private road. The Officers logically assumed that it was a public street because it had a City street sign on it. The X1 and X2 told them that it was private. The X1 and X2 told the officers they had gone through a legal process and they knew it was private. The police officers did not believe them. Research done during this investigation revealed that the Street is private. The alleged policy violations are D23-01-11.00, Courtesy in Public Contacts, and D23- 02-00.00, Personal Contacts. The X1 and X2 stated that 01 was rude and was trying to get something on them. The specific allegations are: 1. 01 told the X1 and X2's five year old son that he could go to "jail." 2. 01 accused X2 of having a larceny charge without fully reading a report that would have identified her as the complainant. This accusation was made in front of her five year old son. 3. 01 made an insensitive remark to X1 about Israel"kicking Jordan's ass"in the 1967 war. X1 is from Jordan. 4. 01 told X1 to "be a man." 5. When discussing whether"Gold Place"was a private or public street, 01 mocked X1 by asking him whether the officers should put his name on the street sign to replace "Gold Place." 6. 01 said he would park his car 24 hours a day to find a problem with this property. 2 1111 4111 Allegation 1: 01 told X1 and X2's five year old son that he could go to "jail." During both the initial intake of the complaint by the Police Civilian Review Board and X2's subsequent interview she asserted that 01 told her son that he "would take him to jail." X2 said that her son was crying and that 01 said something to the effect of: You are crying now. They have a jail for kids that hit other kids. You will really cry there. In his interview 01 said he had told the X1 and X2's five year old that he could take him to jail. Specifically,he said: I told the boy, "When kids are naughty, there is a special jail for naughty kids, but I don't think you are a naughty kid." The six year old was afraid. I said"Are you going to be naughty?" He said no. 01 said that he made the comment in that manner so the child would understand. He indicated that a five year old would not understand a"referral to Juvenile Court." 02 said in his interview that he did not hear 01 say he would take the XI and X2's five year old son to jail. He stated he was with the complainant at the time of this discussion. Recommendation: It is recommended that this portion of the complaint be sustained. Officers should not threaten five year old children with jail. It is more appropriate to discuss problem behavior with parents. Allegation 2. 01 accused X2 of having a larceny charge without fully reading and understanding a report that would have identified her as the complainant. During her interview X2 said that 01 ran a warrants check on Xl. 01 said his record was "clean as a whistle." He then ran X2's record. She asserts 01 came back and said things "had taken a twist." She alleges that: 01 said"What do you know about larceny charges?" What do you have to tell me?" He said he found a couple of larceny charges on me. I told 01 my son had his bike stolen from the school. 01 said, "Oh, you may be the complainant." He hadn't read the report completely. Xl states that 01 said: "I found something on your wife. She shoplifted a bike or something." 3 • 01 asserts: I just said there is a larceny case. I asked her, "What is this about?" I didn't know if she was a victim, witness, or suspect. She said that her son's bicycle had been stolen. I said, "Then that is what this is." During his interview 02's recollection was: It was something about larceny. He asked X2, "Were you involved in some kind of shoplifting? Did someone steal from you?" It was about her being involved with some kind of larceny case. I am not sure whether she was a suspect or victim. I don't recall whether he accused her. Recommendation to the Police Chief: Given the events that had already transpired regarding 01's comment about the 1967 war and the argument about whether Gold Place was a public or private street, 01 should have been more sensitive. He should have reviewed the report more completely and realized that X2 was the complainant. Because the situation was already somewhat tense, 01 should have realized that anything implying that X2 could be a suspect in a larceny case, would be taken by her in the worst way possible. It is recommended, therefore, that this portion of the complaint be sustained. Allegation 3. 01 made an insensitive remark to Xl about Israel"kicking Jordan's ass" in the 1967 war. Xl is from Jordan. Xl asserts the following: I told him my name is Xl. They always ask me where I am from. I told him I am from Jordan. 01 said that in '67 Israel kicked the shit out—fuck out—of Jordan. He was playing mind games to try and get me going with the comment about the war. X2 stated: It is not building rapport with people when you throw the war in his face, when they come from that area. 02 stated: Another issue came up about the Jordan War that I think the guy misinterpreted Ol's comments. 01 said that it must have been an awful war. 01 said it was bad how the Israelis attacked Jordan. 01 said it was pretty bad how the Israelis forces invaded and attacked Jordan. X1 took offense at 01's statement. 01 stated: My degree is in Political Science with an emphasis on the Mid-East. I talk to people 4 • • about it all the time. I asked him whether he was there in 1967. I did say that Israel kicked the shit out of Jordan. I said there was a lot of unnecessary killing that took place with the Jordanians and Syrians. When I made the comment, I knew it came out wrong. I could see he was taken aback. I said "I am sorry. I didn't mean it that way. I meant that there were a lot of atrocities committed against the Jordanians and Syrians. The effects remain today. I didn't mean to offend." X1 said something about the Americans getting the shit kicked out of them. I said"I know I made that comment, but I didn't mean to offend you." He (X1) said he wasn't offended by that comment. Now in the totality of things I can see that probably wasn't the best comment. I was trying to identify with his culture. I was trying to build a rapport. Recommendation: Certainly the comment about the 1967 war between Jordan and Israel was not sensitive, but to 01's credit he recognized it and apologized twice. Additionally, 01 admitted in the investigation interview that he had made the comment. While the Panel believes that this portion of the complaint should be sustained, we commend 01 for recognizing the error and attempting to correct it. Allegation 4. 01 told Xl to `Be a man." X2 stated: 01 said, "She's just a woman. Be a man. Why are you afraid of her? Why don't you be a man? She's just a woman." I heard the`Be a man" comment. 01 stated: X1 was the first one who said we can talk like men. I said if we are going to talk like men, did you accept her rent? Recommendation: Many of the comments made by Ol in his interview were consistent with statements made by X1 in his interview. It is the opinion of the Panel that,within the context of the incident, it is quite likely that X1 said he was a man. As a result,the Panel's opinion is that Ol's statement is credible. The Panel believes that 01's comments were in response to X1. It is recommended, therefore, that 01 be exonerated on this allegation. Allegation 5. When discussing whether"Gold Place"was a private or public street, 01 mocked X1 by asking him whether the officers should put his name on the street sign to replace"Gold Place." 5 • • X1 states: I told him the alley was private. The Officer said that it was a City street—"it has a sign."....Both the officers started laughing at me. They said, "What should we do, take the street sign and put your name on it?" 01 states: I can't remember. We were talking about the name "Gold Place."I was getting his information. He was arguing with 02 that it was a private street. Recommendation: Neither 01 nor 02 refutes Xl's assertion that they said"What should we do? Take the street sign and put your name on it?" It is recommended that this allegation be sustained. It should be noted, however, that the Officers would have no way of knowing that the alley was private rather than public. Private alleys do not usually have City street signs on them. Allegation 6: 01 said he would park his car in the alley 24 hours a day to find a problem with this property. X2 states: He said this was his area. He said he would park his car in the alley 24 hours a day to find a problem with this property. 01 states: I told him that if he blocked access, he can be towed. I did tell him that this is my beat and if I see the truck out there blocking public access, there are three choices. You can move it, I will ticket it, or I will impound it. I didn't say I would watch their home 24 hours a day to get some dirt on them. 02 states: 01 told them it was his area and said if he parked his truck there, it would be impounded. I didn't hear him say anything about like I will park my car here 24 hours a day to find something wrong. Recommendation: X2 states that 01 said he would park his car in the "alley." Both 01 and 02 recall that the reference was that 01's action would be to ticket or impound Xl's vehicle if Xl's truck was blocking public access. The Panel infers that 01 was talking about the perceived problem of X1 parking his truck in a"public" alley rather than attempting to find other problems with the X1 and X2's property. It is recommended that the Officer be exonerated on this allegation. 6 M • S !. I Panel's Recommendation to the Police Chief The Panel recommends that the complaint of X1 and X2 be sustained. The Panel is aware that 01 has already been counseled by Lt. Fritz. The Panel is also aware that 01 is relatively inexperienced and that all people who do not have significant experience in their occupation are more prone to make mistakes. It should also be noted that the complainants have stated they are not seeking punishment for the Officer just education. The Panel recommends that the Police Chief take appropriate action to ensure that 01 does not repeat the mistakes that occurred during this incident Daniel Levin, Panel Chair Date Cc: Mayor Rocky Anderson Officer Chase Nash Captain Ken Pearce Lieutenant Sam Hemingway Sergeant Cole 7