21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 11 To assess the Department’s Phase 2 compliance with these subtasks, we reviewed files – including operations plans, after-action reports, supporting documents, and evidence – related to the 11 integrity tests that were conducted from October 1, through December 31, 2014. Our review focused on the scope of the investigations, whether OPD conducted integrity tests on members and employees who were the subject of repeated allegations, and whether the selective integrity tests that OPD conducted complied with the parameters established by IAD. Of the 11 tests conducted during this reporting period, five were planned tests, in which the Integrity Testing Unit reviewed the records of OPD members and employees to verify that their vital information and records were current and, therefore, followed Departmental policy.3 All five of the planned tests focused on individual members and employees of OPD who had been arrested and or subjects of criminal investigations during the last 18 months; all five planned tests passed. The remaining six integrity tests were selective tests, focusing on whether the officers who were subjects of the test failed to adhere to OPD policies.4 Four of the selective tests passed, and two failed. The selective tests during this reporting period covered multiple topics. The first selective test was a test that had been conducted three times during our tenure. The test was initiated to determine if officers are complying with their subpoenas as mandated by Department policy. More specifically, they must appear in court at the date, time and location listed in the subpoena they are provided. Each of the previous tests that we have reviewed have been a “fail” finding that officers were not appearing in court when required of not receiving their subpoena. During this test, ITU found that on the day of the audit, 13 officers were scheduled and subpoenaed to attend court. Three officers failed to attend as required. One of those officers had signed and returned his subpoena; the two other officers had not returned their subpoenas. The test failed, due to officers not appearing in court, and ITU referred the case to IAD for further investigation. The second test during this reporting period audited Task 18, which requires that supervisors respond to the location and approve probable cause arrest for specific crimes. ITU conducted surveillance for one day, and found that supervisors appropriately responded to the arrest approval requests. The test passed. The third test was a random test on a Field Training Officer to ensure that he provided proper training and adhered to Department policy. The FTO who was selected had received a recent citizen complaint. ITU conducted a random review of multiple different incidents involving the FTO and his trainee. This review included a review of reports, field contacts, and viewing PDRD videos; and the test passed. 3 Planned integrity tests are designed specifically to test the compliance – with Departmental policies or procedures – of specific members or employees who are identified as the subject of the test. 4 Pursuant to Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures 07-01, selective integrity tests are targeted enforcement tools aimed at addressing specific issues regarding specific members, employees, or units.