21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 2 Section One Introduction This is the twenty-first quarterly report of the Monitor of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) in the case of Delphine Allen, et al., vs. City of Oakland, et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In January 2010, under the direction of Judge Thelton E. Henderson, the Parties agreed to my appointment as Monitor of the Oakland Police Department (OPD). In this capacity, I oversee the monitoring process that began in 2003 under the previous monitor. The current Monitoring Team conducted our twenty-first quarterly site visit from February 9, through February 13, 2015, to evaluate the Department’s progress with the NSA during the three-month reporting period of October 1, through December 31, 2014. During our site visit, we met with several Department officials, including the Chief and Assistant Chief of Police and Deputy Chiefs; as well as personnel from the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Bureau of Field Operations (BFO), Bureau of Investigations (BOI), Bureau of Services (BOS), Internal Affairs Division (IAD), Training Section, and Communications Section; OPD officers, managers, supervisors, and commanders – including sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. We also conferred with the Plaintiffs’ attorneys, City Administrator, and the Office of the City Attorney (OCA). During and since the time of our site visit, we observed Department meetings and technical demonstrations; reviewed Departmental policies; conducted interviews and made observations in the field; and analyzed OPD documents and files, including misconduct investigations, use of force reports, crime and arrest reports, Stop Data Forms, and other documentation. In the body of this report, we again report the compliance status with the remaining active Tasks of the Agreement. By the end of the seven-year tenure of the previous monitor, the Department was in full compliance with 32 of the 51 required Tasks, and in partial compliance with 16 additional Tasks. As a result, the Parties agreed to reduce the number of Tasks under “active” monitoring to the current list of 22. For this reporting period, we continue to find the Department in Phase 1, or policy compliance, with all 22 of the remaining active Tasks. With regard to Phase 2, or full compliance, we find that the Department is in compliance with 19 (86%) of the 22 remaining Tasks, and in partial compliance with three (14%) Tasks. The Department is in partial compliance with Task 5, Complaint Procedures for IAD; Task 34, Vehicle Stops, Field Investigation, and Detention (commonly referred to as “stop data); and Task 45, Consistency of Discipline. These overall compliance numbers represent the same number of Tasks in compliance as we found during the last reporting period – there is a change from deferred compliance to partial compliance with Tasks 5 and 45. During the last two reporting periods, we had deferred our assessments of Tasks 5 and 45 due to the then-ongoing investigation of the Department’s discipline and arbitration process. On