21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 28 focused on inconsistencies among court testimony, police reports, and PDRD footage – which lead to a sustained Miranda violation. The IAD investigation determined that there were no instances of misconduct that a member or supervisor could have discovered. There was PDRD footage taken during the criminal investigation – but IAD had no reason to review it until the inconsistencies were discovered in court. The second sustained case involved a finding of theft by an officer, which led to his termination. The officer charged a rental vehicle, which he had obtained for several months for his personal use, to the OPD agency account. This violation was discovered through a routine auditing of Departmental financial records, and there were no instances of misconduct that a member or supervisor could have discovered. The third sustained case involved allegations of false arrest and handcuffs being too tight. During the booking procedure, the supervisor was aware of the complaint and did not follow proper procedures. The misconduct by the supervisor of failing to address the complaint resulted in a sustained finding against the supervisor. The fourth complaint involved allegations of Miranda violations by an arrest team during an undercover narcotics surveillance operation. The IAD investigation determined that there were no instances of misconduct that a member or supervisor could have discovered. There was PDRD footage taken during the investigation, but IAD had no reason to review it until the inconsistencies were discovered in court. The fifth complaint involved off-duty conduct: an officer was arrested for driving under the influence. The supervisor’s failure to address the complaint resulted in a sustained finding against the supervisor. As we have discussed with OPD, the investigation report’s member/employee accountability section should include an analysis of whether it was reasonable for a supervisor – through reviewing reports, investigating force, or supervising an officer – to identify misconduct. A transparent organization identifies – through close and effective supervision – any possible misconduct of its members. During this reporting period, the cases that we reviewed properly evaluated supervisors’ accountability. OPD is in compliance with this Task. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In compliance Phase 2: In compliance Next Steps: During our next site visit, we will, as in the past, meet with the IAD Commander to discuss any Task 16-applicable cases for the next reporting period and steps the Department is taking to improve IAD investigators’ evaluations of supervisors’ accountability.