19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 47 misconduct occurred (compliance standard: 95%); and Task 33.2 requires that where OPD determines that members/employees/supervisors knew or should have known that misconduct occurred but did not report it as required, OPD is required to take appropriate action (compliance standard: 95%). To assess OPD’s Phase 2 compliance with these subtasks during this reporting period, we discussed management of reporting misconduct by officers and employees of the Department with the Commander of Internal Affairs. We queried the IAD database to identify any cases with sustained findings and discipline that were approved between April 1, and June 30, 2014, that were applicable to Task 33. We identified and reviewed 40 cases with a total of 50 sustained findings involving 42 officers and employees that were approved during this reporting period. We added three cases with three sustained findings pertaining to three officers that had been brought to our attention during our previous on- site review but which were not disciplined until the second quarter of 2014. Our review, therefore, encompassed 43 cases with 53 findings pertaining to 45 officers. We found no instances where OPD disregarded indications that its employees or officers failed to report misconduct. Management Action to Address Reluctance to Report Misconduct We noted previously that the activation of PDRDs can be key in resolving allegations of use of force that arise from citizen contacts – particularly during demonstrations. Accordingly, it is a serious violation for an officer dealing with such circumstances to fail to activate his/her PDRD. In our review of the 53 sustained findings, we found nine in which an officer was equipped with an operational PDRD and should have activated it. In two of these cases, the officer failed to activate his/her PDRD during their first contact with the citizen and discipline was imposed on both. In the other seven cases, the officer activated the PDRD at the initial contact. Sanctions for the two failures to activate their PDRDs ranged from counseling (first instance) to written reprimand (second instance). During our last review, we found that there were no cases in which the failure to activate a PDRD went unaddressed. There was one case, however, in which the discipline was sufficient but follow-up was needed. In that case the officer had failed to activate his PDRD on three separate occasions. While we felt that the discipline imposed was adequate, we commented that the officer’s supervisor should more closely monitor his activities. A key responsibility of sergeants is to ensure that the officers they are supervising are complying with OPD policies. In the future, the supervisor could easily compare and review the officer’s activities with his PDRD recordings to ensure that he is in compliance with OPD policies. An additional benefit of review of PDRD recordings would be that the sergeant would be able to evaluate the officer’s tactics and interactions with citizens. We learned that OPD has followed up with this officer to ensure that he remains in compliance with the PDRD policy. His current supervisor conducts monthly audits of his PDRD use and submits audit forms up his chain of command.