21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 80 were not disciplined until the fourth quarter of 2014. Our review, therefore, encompassed 31 cases with 43 findings. The discipline imposed in each case fell within the discipline matrix that was in effect at the time of the action for which the discipline was imposed. During the period of October 1, through December 31, 2014, Skelly hearings were held for five IAD cases involving five employees with sustained findings in which discipline of a one-day suspension or greater was recommended. In three of the five cases, discipline was upheld; in one case, the discipline was reduced but fell within the Discipline Matrix. We reviewed each of the reports of the Skelly hearings, and found that four of the five cases had adequate justification for the Skelly results. One disciplinary case, however, was troubling. The case involved an officer who travelled to a city in another state where he visited a nightclub with friends to celebrate his girlfriend’s birthday. He was intoxicated when he entered the club, and was observed by security guards shoving guests and causing a disturbance. He vomited on a table and refused to leave when the club’s security guards asked him to leave. The local police were called and observed the officer pushing and shoving security guards. He was handcuffed by police. He told them he was an Oakland police officer and had lost partners in the line of duty. He said that they did not understand. When no one at the club wished to pursue battery charges, the police took the Oakland officer to his hotel room and released him. The officer was sustained for 314.42-2 (Obedience to Laws – Misdemeanor Infraction), his third such violation, for which the penalty matrix ranges from a 10-day suspension to a 30-day suspension. The original recommendation for discipline was a 30-day suspension. The Skelly hearing officer reduced the recommended discipline to 15 days. The officer’s participation in an alcohol addiction rehabilitation program was cited as one of the reasons for reducing the discipline. Our review showed that in 2012 this same officer had been sustained for 314.42-1 (Obedience to Laws – DUI) for which he received 10 days suspension. His blood alcohol in that incident was .18, over twice the legal limit. His supervisor recommended the 10-day suspension and commented that he was “confident (the officer) will not make this mistake again.” In 2013, the same officer was sustained for 314.42-2 (Obedience to Laws – Misdemeanor Infraction) for an incident in which he was stumbling around outside of a bar in a nearby city and was confronted by police and determined to be intoxicated in public. A recommended discipline of eight days was reduced to a three-day suspension after a Skelly hearing. The captain who chaired the hearing commented that a factor in his decision to recommend a lower discipline was that the officer had sought assistance of a therapist and was meeting with him on a monthly basis. In the current case, OPD choose to consider this officer’s offense as the less serious Obedience to Laws - Misdemeanor (314.42-2), for which the discipline for third offense under the current matrix ranges from a 10-day suspension to a 30-day suspension. It should have considered the