19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 21 In one case, we do not believe that OPD appropriately used the preponderance of the evidence standard. In the domestic violence case referenced above, the investigating sergeant arrived at an exonerated finding for an allegation of failing to properly investigate and document the incident. Based on our review, we believe the complainant’s allegation had merit and the finding should have been sustained. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.18. Task 5.19 requires that each allegation of a complaint is identified and resolved with one of the following dispositions: unfounded; sustained; exonerated; not sustained; or administrative closure (compliance standard: 95%). Our sample of 25 cases contained 76 allegations that received dispositions as follows: 30 exonerated; 6 not sustained; 30 unfounded; 6 sustained; and four administratively closed. PDRD video continues to be used in more and more cases to arrive at definitive conclusions. We did not agree with one of the findings, as noted in Task 5.18. With a 99% compliance rate, OPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this subtask. Task 5.20 requires that the IAD Commander review all “filed” cases quarterly to determine whether the conditions that prevented investigation and final disposition have changed (compliance standard: 90%). A filed case is defined as an investigation that cannot be presently completed and is pending further developments that will allow completion of the investigation; filed is not a final disposition. As part of our review of this Task, we also review cases that are tolling. OPD defines a tolled case as an administrative investigation that has been held in abeyance in accordance with one of the provisions of Government Code Section 3304. During our most recent site visit, we met with the Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Risk Management and the commanding officer of IAD, who advised that as of that date, no cases were classified as filed or tolling. Filed and tolling cases are reviewed with the Chief during his weekly IAD meetings and are listed by case number on the printed meeting agendas. OPD is in compliance with this subtask. Task 5.21 requires that any member or employee who is a subject of an internal investigation, as well as any other member or employee on the scene of an incident at which misconduct has been alleged by a complainant, shall be interviewed and a recorded statement taken (compliance standard: 90%). However, with the approval of the IAD Commander, investigators are not required to interview and/or take a recorded statement in all cases. For example, interviews are not needed from a member or employee who is the subject of a complaint, or who was on the scene of the incident when additional information – beyond that already provided by the existing set of facts and/or documentation – is not necessary to reach appropriate findings and conclusions. Five of the 25 cases we reviewed were resolved via summary finding, and all were appropriately approved for such closure. (These do not include the cases referenced in Task 4, for which summary findings were also appropriate.) In four of these cases, the availability of PDRD video was the primary reason interviews were unnecessary.