21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 47 Discussion: OPD has developed several policies that, in concert, incorporate the requirements of this Task. These include: Manual of Rules (MOR) Section 314.48, Reporting Violations of Laws, Ordinances, Rules or Orders; MOR Section 314.49, Confidential Reporting of Police Misconduct; Departmental General Order D-16, Check-In and Orientation; MOR Section 370.18, Arrests; and MOR Section 370.27, Use of Physical Force. The Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on these policies, and remains in Phase 1 compliance with this Task. We found OPD in Phase 2 compliance with Task 33 during the last four reporting periods. Reporting Misconduct Task 33.1 requires that in all sustained internal investigations, OPD conduct an assessment to determine whether members/employees/supervisors knew or should have known that misconduct occurred (compliance standard: 95%); and Task 33.2 requires that where OPD determines that members/employees/supervisors knew or should have known that misconduct occurred but did not report it as required, OPD is required to take appropriate action (compliance standard: 95%). To assess OPD’s Phase 2 compliance with these subtasks during this reporting period, we discussed management of reporting misconduct by officers and employees of the Department with the Commander of IAD. We queried the IAD database to identify any cases with sustained findings that were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2014, that were applicable to Task 33. We identified and reviewed 27 cases with a total of 35 sustained findings involving 28 different officers and employees that were approved during this reporting period. We added four cases with eight sustained findings pertaining to four officers that had been brought to our attention during the previous reporting period but which were not disciplined until the third quarter of 2014. Our review, therefore, encompassed 31 cases with 43 findings pertaining to 32 officers. We found no instances where OPD disregarded indications that its employees or officers failed to report misconduct. Management Action to Address Reluctance to Report Misconduct We have noted consistently that the activation of PDRDs can be key in resolving allegations of use of force that arise from citizen contacts – particularly during demonstrations. Accordingly, it is a serious violation for an officer dealing with such circumstances to fail to activate his/her PDRD. In our review of the 31 cases in which there were sustained findings, we found six in which an officer was equipped with an operational PDRD should have activated it. In five of these cases the officers activated their PDRDs as required. In the one remaining case, the officer failed to activate his/her PDRD during his first contact with the citizen, and IAD sustained this violation. A three-day suspension was imposed as discipline in this case.