21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 22 Task 5.20 requires that the IAD Commander review all “filed” cases quarterly to determine whether the conditions that prevented investigation and final disposition have changed (compliance standard: 90%). A filed case is defined as an investigation that cannot be presently completed and is pending further developments that will allow completion of the investigation; filed is not a final disposition. As part of our review of this Task, we also review cases that are tolling. OPD defines a tolled case as an administrative investigation that has been held in abeyance in accordance with one of the provisions of Government Code Section 3304. During our most recent site visit, we met with the commanding officer of IAD, who advised that as of that date, no cases were classified as filed or tolling. Filed and tolling cases are reviewed with the Chief during his weekly IAD meetings and are listed by case number on the printed meeting agendas. OPD is in compliance with this subtask. Task 5.21 requires that any member or employee who is a subject of an internal investigation, as well as any other member or employee on the scene of an incident at which misconduct has been alleged by a complainant, shall be interviewed and a recorded statement taken (compliance standard: 90%). However, with the approval of the IAD Commander, investigators are not required to interview and/or take a recorded statement in all cases. For example, interviews are not needed from a member or employee who is the subject of a complaint, or who was on the scene of the incident when additional information – beyond that already provided by the existing set of facts and/or documentation – is not necessary to reach appropriate findings and conclusions. Eight of the 25 cases we reviewed were resolved via summary finding, and all were appropriately approved for such closure. (These do not include the cases referenced in Task 4, for which summary findings were also appropriate.) In all of these cases, the availability of PDRD video was the primary reason interviews were unnecessary. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.21. As described above, during the last two reporting periods, we had deferred our assessment of Tasks 5 and 45 due to the then-ongoing Court-ordered investigation of the Department’s discipline and arbitration process. On August 14, 2014, the Court expressed its dismay with the recent reinstatement of an officer whom Chief Sean Whent had terminated, and with the City’s poor performance in other recent arbitrations – several of which also overturned terminations of officers who had been sustained for serious misconduct. The Order reads, in part: “This is not the first time an arbitrator has overturned an officer’s termination by Defendants, and, indeed, this Court previously ordered the parties to discuss the reinstatement of [another officer] by arbitration at the September 22, 2011 status conference. The City’s promises to correct deficiencies at that time have fallen short, and further intervention by this Court is now required. “Failure to address the issues addressed in this order will prevent compliance, let alone sustainable compliance, with the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (“NSA”). Defendants cannot be in compliance with Task 5 if the internal