DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa Committee on Human Rights policies, 1958-1986 | University Practices And Policies As They Relate To Solicitation Page 6

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa Committee on Human Rights policies, 1958-1986

University Practices And Policies As They Relate To Solicitation Page 6

-6-

III. PROPOSALS CONCERNING QUESTIONING OF PERSONS BY UNIVERSITY SECURITY

Finally, you asked us to review the practices being followed by University Security personnel in questioning members of the University community after incidents that necessitate members of the community being brought to the Security office of the University.

Current written Security policies with respect to field investigations correctly mirror, in all significant respects, the constitutional authority to "stop and question" as initially outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Hence, policies expressed in the Security Manual permit officers to stop and question individuals only where the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that a person's conduct may involve criminal activity. Where such suspicion exists, the officer may (1) stop the person and (2) ask question in an attempt to ascertain what the person is doing. According to the Manual, "the field interview must be use3d with discretion and good judgment. It must not be random, aimless stopping and question of persons. It must be based upon reasonable suspicion as a result of your training and experience as a police officer."

Moreover, the Manual makes it clear that if an individual is questioned, the officer's power to detain the stopped person is limited. The officers are advised to question the person only where the person is stopped and to remove him or her from that place only in an emergency, such as moving out of rush-hour traffic, moving away from danger, or inclement weather. These policies, in our judgment, are legally sound and are consistent with prudent law enforcement practice. We see no reason to recommend that they be modified. 

In several other respects, however, we believe that the Manual fails to reflect the current state of the law as it concerns an officer's authority to stop and question. Hence, while Security procedures are correct in providing that the stopping and questioning may occur only for a "reasonable time", we believe it is wrong to assume, as the Manual does, that the rule of thumb should be no more than twenty or thirty minutes. A much shorter period seems desirable. Moreover, we disagree with the Manual's statement that an officer is obligated to release the person being detained "when suspicions are expelled." Rather, it is our view that the law requires an officer to release persons being detained where there are insufficient grounds for a probably cause arrest.

Furthermore, our review of Campus Security practices indicates that the written "field investigation" procedure contained in the Campus Security Manual ay not have been followed in every instance. Security officers in the past may have asked

Saving...

-6- III. PROPOSALS CONCERNING QUESTIONING OF PERSONS BY UNIVERSITY SECURITY Finally, you asked us to review the practices being followed by University Security personnel in questioning members of the University community after incidents that necessitate members of the community being brought to the Security office of the University. Current written Security policies with respect to field investigations correctly mirror, in all significant respects, the constitutional authority to "stop and question" as initially outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Hence, policies expressed in the Security Manual permit officers to stop and question individuals only where the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that a person's conduct may involve criminal activity. Where such suspicion exists, the officer may (1) stop the person and (2) ask question in an attempt to ascertain what the person is doing. According to the Manual, "the field interview must be use3d with discretion and good judgment. It must not be random, aimless stopping and question of persons. It must be based upon reasonable suspicion as a result of your training and experience as a police officer." Moreover, the Manual makes it clear that if an individual is questioned, the officer's power to detain the stopped person is limited. The officers are advised to question the person only where the person is stopped and to remove him or her from that place only in an emergency, such as moving out of rush-hour traffic, moving away from danger, or inclement weather. These policies, in our judgment, are legally sound and are consistent with prudent law enforcement practice. We see no reason to recommend that they be modified. In several other respects, however, we believe that the Manual fails to reflect the current state of the law as it concerns an officer's authority to stop and question. Hence, while Security procedures are correct in providing that the stopping and questioning may occur only for a "reasonable time", we believe it is wrong to assume, as the Manual does, that the rule of thumb should be no more than twenty or thirty minutes. A much shorter period seems desirable. Moreover, we disagree with the Manual's statement that an officer is obligated to release the person being detained "when suspicions are expelled." Rather, it is our view that the law requires an officer to release persons being detained where there are insufficient grounds for a probably cause arrest. Furthermore, our review of Campus Security practices indicates that the written "field investigation" procedure contained in the Campus Security Manual ay not have been followed in every instance. Security officers in the past may have asked