19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 9 Departmental policy requires that at least 85% of Class I misconduct investigations and at least 85% of Class II misconduct investigations must be completed within 180 days to be considered timely.1 Of the 41 Class I cases we reviewed, 37, or 90%, were in compliance with established timelines – an increase from the 86% we found during the last reporting period. Also, two of the Class I cases were completed in exactly 180 days, and 20 cases were completed in between 170 and 179 days. Of the 71 Class II cases we reviewed, 66, or 93%, were in compliance with established timelines – a decrease from the 97% we found during the last reporting period. Four of the Class II cases were completed in exactly 180 days, and 16 cases were completed in between 170 and 179 days. Of the 27 sustained findings that we reviewed, all (100%) were in compliance with established discipline timelines.2 This was the same percentage that we found during the last reporting period. OPD is in compliance with Task 2.1. Task 2.2 requires that IAD and OPD command staff regularly monitor compliance with these timeliness standards (compliance standard: Yes/No). The primary responsibility for monitoring compliance with timeliness standards rests with IAD, which generates weekly reports listing the Department’s open investigations and critical deadlines for investigations retained in IAD and those handled at the Division level. The reports are distributed to IAD command staff and the respective Bureau Deputy Chiefs. In addition to the reports, the IAD Commander discusses pending deadlines for key open investigations during IAD’s weekly meetings with the Chief; the deadlines are also reflected in written agendas for these meetings. IAD also occasionally, as needed, emails individual reminders on cases approaching due dates to investigators and their supervisors. During this reporting period, we received and reviewed copies of individual Bureau and Department-wide Open Investigation Reports, Cases Not Closed Reports, 180-Day Timeline Reports, and agendas for the weekly meetings between the Chief and IAD staff. The content of these documents demonstrates active monitoring of case timeliness. A Monitoring Team representative occasionally attends and observes these weekly meetings. The Department is in compliance with Task 2.2. Task 2.3 requires that if IAD experiences an unusual proliferation of cases and/or workload, IAD staffing be increased to maintain timeliness standards (compliance standard: Yes/No). During the current reporting period, IAD opened 284 cases, an increase of 71 cases from the last reporting period. This comes after several reporting periods of reduced numbers of complaints, which the Department attributed to the implementation of the revised DGO M-03. During this reporting period, OPD did not assign any additional personnel to IAD, nor reassign any current IAD personnel. At this point, it does not appear that timeliness was adversely affected by the 1 OPD classifies misconduct as either “Class I” or “Class II.” Per DGO M-03, Class I offenses “are the most serious allegations of misconduct and, if sustained, shall result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal and may serve as the basis for criminal prosecution.” Class II offenses include “all minor misconduct offenses.” 2 We reviewed 17 cases involving sustained findings; several cases involved more than one sustained finding.