21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 26 1, and December 31, 2014. We also reviewed all complaints during this selected time period that were tagged by IAD as originating from an anonymous complainant, and complaints in which the complainant field in the database was blank, to determine whether any were made anonymously. Based on the above-listed criteria, we identified five cases as potential anonymous complaints during this reporting period. After review, we determined that four were true anonymous complaints, and the complainants were not identified during the course of the investigations. The fifth case was a duplicate of a previously filed case. One of the four complaints was received via telephone to the Communications Division. Another was received by IAD via a telephone call. The remaining two complaints were taken in the field. Where possible, complainants were asked to provide corroborating evidence. In most of the cases, the complainants terminated the contact before OPD could secure additional details of the complaint. However, the complaints were investigated to the extent reasonably possible as required by this subtask. IAD or field supervisors attempted to re-contact complainants if a callback number was available, even if the complainants expressly stated they wished to remain anonymous. All four cases were administratively closed. Each met the criteria for such closure, and all were classified as service complaints. In one, the complainant was upset with the delayed response to her call for service. In another, the complainant was upset that officers’ police vehicles blocked the sidewalk while they were handling a call of a mentally disturbed person. The remaining two cases involved the Animal Shelter. In one, the complainant was upset with a change in procedures. In the other, the complainant objected to the fact that the Shelter would not accept the surrendered dog that she brought in. Shelter personnel refused because the dog was not the complainant’s, but rather belonged to her roommate. The complainant did not have standing to turn the dog in. OPD continues to provide citizens with informational business cards when their intent to file a complaint is unclear. The cards contain the information necessary to file a complaint at a later time if desired, and these citizen contacts are documented in a separate log in Communications. Like the Daily Incident Logs, these are forwarded to IAD – and the Monitoring Team – on a daily basis. This is the sixth reporting period in which this system has been used, and it appears to be having the desired effect of limiting those cases in which the complaint process is invoked unnecessarily. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with Task 7.3. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In compliance Phase 2: In compliance