19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 35 Overall, we determined officers’ pointing of their firearms to be appropriate in 148, or 98%, of the 151 instances we assessed.12 We also noted with concern, the absence of justification for the pointing of a firearm in three (2%) of the 151 events; specifically, in these cases, there was no indication that the officer(s) or others faced immediate threat of harm. The total racial breakdown for the 73 use of force events reviewed is as follows: Black, 73%; Hispanic, 21%; White, 4%; Asian, 1%; and Other, 1%. We also tabulated the racial breakdown of the subjects involved in the events where, in our opinion, the pointing of a firearm was not necessary or appropriate and found the following: the three unjustified pointing of firearms involved only three Black subjects. In all cases, the supervisory review found the officers’ use of force appropriate, objectively reasonable for a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and in compliance with OPD policy. While officers’ actions in particular cases are troubling, the continued unquestioned supervisory and command approval – of both the documentation of officers’ actions and the actions themselves – is illustrative of a need to address supervisory deficiencies. OPD is in compliance with Tasks 24.2 and 24.3. Task 24.4 requires that a supervisor respond to the scene upon notification of a Level 1, 2, or 3 use of force or an allegation of excessive use of force, unless community unrest or other conditions makes such response impracticable (compliance standard: 95%). Supervisors responded to the scene in all 14 applicable Level 1, 2, and 3 incidents in our sample. This represents a 100% compliance rate. OPD is in compliance with Task 24.4. Tasks 24.5, 24.6, and 24.8 require certain notifications in uses of force relative to officer- involved shootings and the use of lethal force.13 Specifically, Task 24.5 requires that following every use of lethal force resulting in death or injury likely to result in death, OPD notify the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office immediately or as soon as circumstances permit (compliance standard: 95%). Task 24.6 requires that following every use of lethal force resulting in death or injury likely to result in death, OPD notify the City Attorney’s Office as soon as circumstances permit (compliance standard: 95%). Task 24.8 requires that following every officer-involved shooting, OPD notify Homicide and Internal Affairs investigators (compliance standard: 95%). During this reporting period, there was one Level 1 in-custody death in our dataset. OPD met the requirements of these subtasks in event by notifying the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, and Homicide and Internal Affairs appropriately. OPD remains in compliance with these subtasks. 12 As in our more in-depth assessment of such incidents during the sixth reporting period, we gave the benefit of the doubt to involved officers whenever there was a question as to whether an officer’s action was appropriate. We also assumed that the pointing of firearms was justified in cases where officers were responding to a burglary or criminal trespass involving an actual structure search, or when making a high-risk vehicle stop based on the legitimate belief that the vehicle was stolen. 13 Task 24.7 is no longer applicable.