21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 14 Task 4.7 requires that every complaint received by any supervisor or commander be reported to IAD on the day of receipt (compliance standard: Yes/No). If IAD is not available, the supervisor or commander shall contact IAD at the start of the next business day. To assess Phase 2 compliance for Task 4.7, we reviewed 92 Daily Incident Log (DIL) entries and a random sample of 72 IAD case files that were approved during the period of October 1, through December 31, 2014. The Office of Inspector General forwards completed DILs to us on a daily basis. We found no evidence of unwarranted delay in the delivery of these complaints or in the intake process once IAD was made aware of them. OPD is in compliance with Task 4.7. Task 4.10 requires that OPD comply with criteria it has established when resolving complaints through informal complaint resolution (ICR), administrative closure, or summary finding (compliance standard: 90%).6 This subtask is intended to ensure that OPD provides the proper level of investigation for each complaint, and does not resolve meritorious complaints of misconduct without determining – and documenting – whether the OPD member or employee committed misconduct. During this reporting period, from a sample of IAD cases that were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2014, we reviewed 10 cases in which at least one allegation was resolved via administrative closure, eight cases in which at least one allegation was resolved via informal complaint resolution (ICR), and seven cases in which at least one allegation was resolved via summary finding. We also reviewed four cases in which a combination of these closures was used. In all but one of the ICRs we reviewed, the complainants agreed to the informal complaint resolution process. Where an agreement was secured in a telephone conversation, that information was contained in the case documentation (in many cases, the exact minute/second mark of the agreement was recorded) and in follow-up letters to the complainants. Four cases involved an allegation of poor demeanor. In two other cases, the complainants felt that their calls for service were handled inappropriately. Two other cases were related to perceived driving infractions by officers. As mentioned above, in one case, the complainant did not agree to the ICR process. A citizen complained about the response time to his call for service. The issue was traced to the actions of a Communications dispatcher, who had already been counseled regarding the matter before the complaint was received. Repeated attempts to re-contact the complainant were unsuccessful, and an IAD lieutenant directed that the case be informally resolved pursuant to policy M-3.1, Section III.A.1.b. 6 Summary findings are investigations in which the Department believes a proper conclusion can be determined based on a review of existing documentation with limited or no additional interviews and follow-up.