21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 21 We identified one case in which relevant evidence was apparently not considered. In this case, PDRD recordings support the complainant’s assertion of a retaliatory arrest. The investigator’s findings appear to disregard what is obvious on the video. This case is further discussed below. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.15 and 5.16. Task 5.17 requires that OPD permanently retain all notes generated and/or received by OPD personnel in the case file (compliance standard: 85%). OPD personnel document that all investigative notes are contained within a particular file by completing IAD Form 11 (Investigative Notes Declaration). During the previous reporting period, we found OPD in 100% compliance with this subtask. During this reporting period, the form was again properly completed in all 25 cases we reviewed. OPD is in compliance with this subtask. Task 5.18 requires that OPD resolve each allegation in a complaint investigation using the preponderance of the evidence standard (compliance standard: 90%). During the last reporting period, OPD complied with this subtask in 96% of the cases we reviewed. During this reporting period, OPD again complied with this subtask in 24, or 96%, of the 25 cases in our sample. OPD’s review and consideration of electronic evidence continues to contribute to OPD’s success in this area. In 20 of the cases we reviewed, PDRD recordings proved material to arriving at the appropriate findings. In another case, phone calls recorded in in the Communications Division were instrumental in determining the correct finding. In one case, we do not believe that OPD appropriately used the preponderance of the evidence standard. The complainant, who was stopped for an open container, alleged that he was ultimately arrested for public intoxication because of a comment he made which upset the arresting officer. The case devolved into an investigation of whether or not a public intoxication arrest was justified. (The investigator felt the arrest was exonerated, but command reviewers changed the finding to not sustained.) However, the complainant’s real allegation – that his comment triggered his arrest rather than his physical condition – should have been sustained based on the PDRD video. The subject was, in fact, released and moving away from the officers when his parting comment clearly upset the arresting officer and prompted the arrest. The officer was also sustained for demeanor based on his interactions with the complainant during the stop. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.18. Task 5.19 requires that each allegation of a complaint is identified and resolved with one of the following dispositions: unfounded; sustained; exonerated; not sustained; or administrative closure (compliance standard: 95%). Our sample of 25 cases contained 64 allegations that received dispositions as follows: 13 exonerated; nine not sustained; 37 unfounded; two sustained; and three administratively closed. PDRD video continues to be used in more and more cases to arrive at definitive conclusions. We did not agree with one of the findings, as noted in Task 5.18. With a 98% compliance rate, OPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this subtask.