19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 2 Section One Introduction This is the nineteenth quarterly report of the Monitor of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) in the case of Delphine Allen, et al., vs. City of Oakland, et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In January 2010, under the direction of Judge Thelton E. Henderson, the Parties agreed to my appointment as Monitor of the Oakland Police Department (OPD). In this capacity, I oversee the monitoring process that began in 2003 under the previous monitor. The current Monitoring Team conducted our nineteenth quarterly site visit from August 11, through August 15, 2014, to evaluate the Department’s progress with the NSA during the three-month reporting period of April 1, through June 30, 2014. During our site visit, we met with several Department officials, including the Chief and Assistant Chief of Police and Deputy Chiefs; as well as personnel from the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Bureau of Field Operations (BFO), Bureau of Investigations (BOI), Bureau of Services (BOS), Internal Affairs Division (IAD), Training Section, and Communications Section; OPD officers, managers, supervisors, and commanders – including sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. We also conferred with the Plaintiffs’ attorneys, City Administrator, and the Office of the City Attorney (OCA). During and since the time of our site visit, we observed Department meetings and technical demonstrations; reviewed Departmental policies; conducted interviews and made observations in the field; and analyzed OPD documents and files, including misconduct investigations, use of force reports, crime and arrest reports, Stop Data Forms, and other documentation. In the body of this report, we again report the compliance status with the remaining active Tasks of the Agreement. By the end of the seven-year tenure of the previous monitor, the Department was in full compliance with 32 of the 51 required Tasks, and in partial compliance with 16 additional Tasks. As a result, the Parties agreed to reduce the number of Tasks under “active” monitoring to the current list of 22. For this reporting period, we continue to find the Department in Phase 1, or policy compliance, with all 22 of the remaining active Tasks. With regard to Phase 2, or full compliance, we find that OPD is in compliance with 18 (82%) of the 22 remaining Tasks, and in partial compliance with two (9%) Tasks. We also placed two (9%) Tasks in deferred compliance status. These numbers show an increase in compliance levels by one Task from the last reporting period – and the highest number of Tasks in compliance that we have found since the beginning of our tenure. These overall numbers reflect a change from partial compliance to in compliance with Task 20, Span of Control; Task 26, Force Review Board; and Task 30, Executive Force Review Board. The Department has wavered between in compliance and partial compliance on both Task 26 and Task 30 over the course of this monitorship. During this reporting period, the Department also experienced a change from in compliance to deferred compliance status with