21st-quarterly-report.pdf
Figures extracted from this document
Extracted text
Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor
for the Oakland Police Department
May 4, 2015
Page 16
treated as a complaint. The supervisor or appropriate Area Commander notified
of the complaint shall ensure the Communications Division is notified and
forward any pertinent documents to the IAD.
2.
An on-duty supervisor shall respond to take a complaint received from a jail
inmate taken into custody by OPD, who wishes to make a complaint of Class I
misconduct contemporaneous with the arrest. The supervisor shall ensure the
Communications Division is notified and forward any pertinent documents to the
IAD. All other misconduct complaints, by a jail inmate shall be handled in the
same manner as other civilian complaints.
3.
In each complaint investigation, OPD shall consider all relevant evidence,
including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, and make credibility
determinations, if feasible. OPD shall make efforts to resolve, by reference to
physical evidence, and/or use of follow-up interviews and other objective
indicators, inconsistent statements among witnesses.
4.
OPD shall develop provisions for the permanent retention of all notes, generated
and/or received by OPD personnel in the case file.
5.
OPD shall resolve each allegation in a complaint investigation using the
“preponderance of the evidence” standard. Each allegation shall be resolved by
making one of the following dispositions: Unfounded, Sustained, Exonerated, Not
Sustained, or Administrative Closure. The Department shall use the following
criteria for determining the appropriate disposition:
a.
Unfounded: The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to determine
that the alleged conduct did not occur. This finding shall also apply when
individuals named in the complaint were not involved in the alleged act.
b.
Sustained: The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to determine
that the alleged conduct did occur and was in violation of law and/or
Oakland Police Department rules, regulations, or policies.
c.
Exonerated: The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to determine
that the alleged conduct did occur, but was in accord with law and with
all Oakland Police Department rules, regulations, or policies.
d.
Not Sustained: The investigation did not disclose sufficient evidence to
determine whether or not the alleged conduct occurred.
e.
Administrative Closure: The investigation indicates a service complaint,
not involving an MOR violation, was resolved without conducting an
internal investigation; OR
f.
To conclude an internal investigation when it has been determined that the
investigation cannot proceed to a normal investigative conclusion due to
circumstances to include but not limited to the following:
1)
Complainant wishes to withdraw the complaint and the IAD
Commander has determined there is no further reason to continue
the investigation and to ensure Departmental policy and procedure
has been followed;
2)
Complaint lacks specificity and complainant refuses or is unable to
provide further clarification necessary to investigate the