19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 14 complaint resolution (ICR), and nine cases in which at least one allegation was resolved via summary finding. We also reviewed three cases in which a combination of these closures was used. In all but one of the ICRs we reviewed, the complainants agreed to the informal complaint resolution process. Where an agreement was secured in a telephone conversation, that information was contained in the case documentation (in many cases, the exact minute/second mark of the agreement was recorded) and in follow-up letters to the complainants. Five of the cases involved allegations of poor demeanor. In three cases, complainants alleged that their reports of crime were not properly investigated, or arrests were not made when they believed that arrests were justified. In one case, the complainant was upset with the slow response time to her report of a burglary in progress. As mentioned above, in one case, the complainant did not agree to the ICR process. A citizen complained that an officer was using a smokeless tobacco product while guarding a prisoner. The allegation was sustained during a Division Level Investigation (DLI), but when the case was presented to the Chief of Police, he ordered that the case be informally resolved pursuant to policy M-3.1, Section III.A.1.b, which affords the IAD Commander – and consequently, the Chief of Police – the discretion to invoke the process. The Chief determined that this was “an isolated incident that lacked intention or egregiousness,” and believed that training was more appropriate than discipline. The administrative closures that we reviewed were investigated before IAD arrived at the determination that such a closure comported with policy. Two cases were administratively closed because they only involved complaints of delayed response times. Two cases were administratively closed because they did not involve MOR violations. Two others were closed because the complaints lacked specificity. In one, the complainant indicated that the officer was rude but did not elaborate, and the PDRD video did not reveal any improprieties. In the other, the complainant indicated that he was almost struck by an OPD vehicle while crossing the street, but he did not provide enough information to identify the vehicle or the operator. The remaining allegations that were administratively closed comported with policy, in that the complaints either lacked specificity, claimed innocence of charges best left to appropriate adjudication venues to decide, or otherwise did not constitute MOR violations. Where they were accompanied by allegations that warranted a full investigation, these additional allegations were investigated in accordance with policy. We also identified several administrative closures in our Task 7.3 (Anonymous Complaints) review, and they are further discussed in that section. The cases resolved via summary finding were approved for such designation as required by policy. In six of these cases, the interactions between officers and citizens were recorded on PDRDs, negating the need to interview all of the involved officers. In another case, security cameras outside of the Oakland Coliseum recorded the interaction complained of, revealing that security officers were involved and not OPD officers. In another case alleging improper