21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 24 Discussion: OPD published Departmental General Order M-03, Complaints Against Department Personnel and Procedures, which incorporates the requirements of Task 6, on December 6, 2005. General Order M-03 was revised most recently on August 22, 2013. The requirements of this Task are also incorporated into Manual of Rules Sections 314.07, 398.70, and 398.76. As the Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on these policies, we find OPD in continued Phase 1 compliance with this Task. OPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with Task 6 since the eighth reporting period. Task 6 requires that OPD members and employees who refuse to accept a citizen complaint, fail to refer a citizen to IAD (when the citizen can be reasonably understood to want to make a citizen’s complaint), discourage a person from filing a complaint, and/or knowingly provide false, inaccurate, or incomplete information to IAD, are disciplined (compliance standard: 95%). To assess Phase 2 compliance with this Task, we reviewed a random sample of 92 Daily Incident Log entries from October 1, through December 31, 2014; and a random sample of 25 IAD investigations (conducted by both IAD and via Division-level investigation) that were closed during the same period. We found no cases in which an allegation of Failure to Accept or Refer a Complaint went unaddressed. We also queried the IAD database to identify any allegations of MOR 398.70-1, Interfering with Investigations; MOR 398.76-1, Refusal to Accept or Refer a Complaint; and MOR 398.76-2, Failure to Accept or Refer a Complaint; that were investigated and approved during this same time period. We identified eight such cases. However, none resulted in sustained findings for one or more of the applicable MOR violations. In seven of the cases, findings of unfounded were made for the applicable MOR violations. In three of these cases, PDRD recordings proved instrumental in determining the finding. In another case, IAD discovered that it had in its possession properly completed complaint forms, refuting the complainant’s assertion that the supervisor never followed through in processing his complaint. In another, an officer should have taken a complaint, but was provided with inappropriate direction when he contacted his supervisor. The allegation was therefore unfounded with respect to the officer, but the supervisor was sustained for two MOR violations for failing to properly supervise her subordinates. In one case, the finding was not sustained. We concur with the finding, as there were conflicting statements between the complainants and the involved officers, with no video or other independent evidence available to provide clarity as to what transpired. OPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with Task 6. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In compliance Phase 2: In compliance