Complaints against Iowa City officers sustained by review board

IOWA CITY - Complaints leveled against two Iowa City police officers, stemming from an interrogation, have been sustained by the city's Community Police Review Board.

It is unclear what, if any, discipline the officers will face. The five-member board issues reports on complaints brought to it but does not have the ability to discipline officers.

Capt. Troy Kelsay said Friday he would not comment on the complaint until the city council has reviewed the matter. The report is on the council's Tuesday agenda.

The complaint was filed Feb. 8. Police Chief Sam Hargadine investigated the complaint and turned over his findings, including audio and video records, to the city clerk on April 29. The Community Police Review Board reviewed the records May 23.

According to the Community Police Review Board's report:

Just before midnight Feb. 6, a Saturday, the complainant - who is not named - was met by officers at her home and taken via squad car to the police department. Police wanted the woman to look at photos related to an armed robbery that occurred that evening at her workplace.

The woman alleges that about 10 minutes into the interview, the tone shifted to resemble an interrogation.

'A reasonable person in the complainant's position would not have felt free to leave,” the review board said.

After 19 minutes, the woman requested a lawyer. The woman's request was denied by 'Officer A,” who continued to question the woman.

Later, 'Officer B” asked Officer A to tell the woman to put down her phone. Officer B then took the woman's phone, looked through it and returned it to her. At the end of the interrogation, Officer A took the woman's phone and said she could have it back on Monday.

At a later date, the woman met with a departmental internal affairs investigator. Officer A was at that meeting.

In issuing its ruling on the woman's allegations, the review board found the officers should have advised the woman of her Miranda rights and ended the interrogation when she requested a lawyer. The board also found the officers unjustly look the woman's phone.

Finally, the board said if the complainant needed an interpreter when meeting with internal affairs, one of the officers named in the complaint should not have served in that role.