19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 23 has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on these policies, we find OPD in continued Phase 1 compliance with this Task. OPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with Task 6 since the eighth reporting period. Task 6 requires that OPD members and employees who refuse to accept a citizen complaint, fail to refer a citizen to IAD (when the citizen can be reasonably understood to want to make a citizen’s complaint), discourage a person from filing a complaint, and/or knowingly provide false, inaccurate, or incomplete information to IAD, are disciplined (compliance standard: 95%). To assess Phase 2 compliance with this Task, we reviewed a random sample of 91 Daily Incident Log entries from April 1, through June 30, 2014; and a random sample of 25 IAD investigations (conducted by both IAD and via Division-level investigation) that were closed during the same period. We found no cases in which an allegation of Failure to Accept or Refer a Complaint went unaddressed. We also queried the IAD database to identify any allegations of MOR 398.70-1, Interfering with Investigations; MOR 398.76-1, Refusal to Accept or Refer a Complaint; and MOR 398.76-2, Failure to Accept or Refer a Complaint; that were investigated and approved during this same time period. We identified two such cases. One resulted in sustained findings for one or more of the applicable MOR violations. In this case, an anonymous complainant alleged that a dispatcher was rude during his call to report a person who was unconscious behind the wheel of a vehicle. While listening to the recording, the IAD intake officer noted that the complainant asked for the dispatcher’s number and asked to speak to a supervisor. IAD sustained the allegation of Failure to Accept or Refer a Complaint (Unintentional). During the presentation of the sustained finding to the Chief, he directed that the case be handled via counseling and training, as noted in the case paperwork “due to lack of history and clear unintentional act and context in which the violation occurred.” The context referred to the abusive demeanor of the complainant during the call. In the other case, a complaint filed with Citizens Police Review Board (CPRB), the complainant alleged that an officer failed to take a complaint during a landlord/ tenant dispute which the officer responded to. The interaction was recorded on the officer’s PDRD and the recording refuted the complainant’s allegations. An appropriate finding of unfounded was reached. OPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with Task 6. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In compliance Phase 2: In compliance