21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 19 Task 5.3 requires that where a complainant refuses to travel to a supervisor, or wait for one, personnel make all reasonable attempts to obtain specific information to assist in investigating the complaint (compliance standard: 90%). Of the 95 records in our dataset, we identified seven instances in which the complainant “refused” interaction with a supervisor. All but one were received in Communications, and in each case except one, the complainants did not answer the callback telephone numbers provided during their initial calls. In the remaining case, no call back number was provided. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.3. Task 5.4 requires that specific information be documented on a complaint form and submitted to the immediate supervisor or, in his/her absence, the appropriate Area Commander (compliance standard: 85%). To achieve compliance with this subtask, the DIL should contain the identification of personnel; witnesses or identifying information, if known (the log should state “unknown” if not known); the date, time, and location of the incident; and the time of contact or attempt to contact the complainant by a supervisor. During the last reporting period, OPD had a 100% compliance rate with this subtask. During this reporting period, all of the logs we reviewed contained the required information (“unknown” was checked in 26 records). OPD has a 100% compliance rate during this reporting period, and is in compliance with Task 5.4. Task 5.5 requires that the supervisor or Area Commander notify Communications and forward any pertinent documents to IAD (compliance standard: 95%). OPD had a compliance rate of 100% with this subtask during the last reporting period. The DILs are administered by the Communications Section and forwarded to IAD each business day. Additionally, the DIL contains a field to record the name of Area Commander notified and the time of notification. This field was properly completed in all of the records we reviewed. OPD is in 100% compliance with Task 5.5 during this reporting period. Task 5.6 requires that an on-duty supervisor 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 of the inmate. To assess Task 5.6 during this reporting period, we reviewed all complaints that appeared to have originated from North County Jail, Santa Rita Jail, Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility, or Juvenile Hall, and were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2014. Using the IAD database, we identified three such complaints. We reviewed these complaints for two triggering events: an allegation of Class I misconduct; and the complaint lodged at the time of arrest. If both of these were not present, the case was deemed in compliance if it was “handled in the same manner as other civilian complaints.” None of the cases we reviewed met all of the criteria for evaluation under Task 5.6. All involved allegations of Class II misconduct. Only one complaint was lodged at the time of arrest. In this case, the complainant alleged that her psychiatric hold was unjustified. A supervisor responded to Alameda County Hospital and took her complaint. The other complaints were lodged after the complainants were released from Jail. Both individuals called IAD – one 12 days after the arrest occurred.