21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 20 OPD remains in compliance with Task 5.6. Task 5.12 requires that the Watch Commander ensure that any complaints that are applicable to Task 5.6 are delivered to and logged with IAD (compliance standard: 90%). Since by definition these complaints must be made contemporaneous with the arrest, an on-duty supervisor must respond to the jail. Under current policy, the Communications Section must record on the DIL complaints that are received and/or handled by on-duty supervisors; the DIL is forwarded daily to IAD. As mentioned in past reports, we deem the DIL system as functionally equivalent to the requirements of Task 5.12, and the Department remains in compliance with this subtask. To assess Tasks 5.15 through 5.19, and Task 5.21, we reviewed a random sample of 25 IAD cases that were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2014. This sample included investigations completed by IAD and Division-level investigations (DLIs). It also included cases that were resolved via formal investigation and investigations that were resolved via summary finding. As in our previous reviews, we treated Tasks 5.15 and 5.16 as a single subtask with several elements, specifically that OPD: gathers all relevant evidence; conducts follow-up interviews where warranted; adequately considers the evidence gathered; makes credibility assessments where feasible; and resolves inconsistent statements (compliance standard: 85%). During the previous assessment period, we deemed the Department in compliance with all of these required elements 96% of the time. Of the 25 investigations we reviewed for this reporting period, we deemed 23, or 92%, in compliance with all of these required elements. In five cases, investigators conducted follow-up interviews with officers or civilians to seek clarification. In four cases, the complainants were re-interviewed, and in one case, the subject officer was interviewed twice. Credibility assessments were made in 20 of the 25 cases. Four of the five cases without credibility assessments were handled via summary finding, and by policy, investigators are not required to assess credibility in these instances since a determination can be made without interviewing all involved. In the other case, an investigation of alleged inappropriate conduct during a roll call, the investigator failed to reach a credibility determination for three employees who were present, citing their lack of recall of any details. Failure to remember an incident does not absolve the investigator of the obligation to assess credibility. While it may not be the case in this investigation, a claim of forgetfulness may not be believable depending on the circumstances. In nine cases, complainants or witnesses were appropriately deemed not credible. In seven of the cases, PDRD recordings directly contradicted their statements. (One, ironically, involved an allegation of failing to turn on a PDRD.) In another case, a recorded phone call in Communications disproved the complainant’s assertions. In the remaining case, a witness denied having certain phone conversations even when presented with cell phone records to the contrary.