19th-quarterly-report.pdf
Figures extracted from this document
Extracted text
Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor
for the Oakland Police Department
October 30, 2014
Page 53
We assessed Task 35.1 in conjunction with Task 35.2. Task 35.1 requires that use of force
reports include the name, telephone number, and addresses of witnesses to the incident when
such information is reasonably available to the members/employees on the scene (compliance
standard: 90%); and Task 35.2 requires that when there are no known witnesses, the use of
force reports specifically state this fact (compliance standard: 90%). All 14 reports that we
reviewed comported with these requirements. OPD is in compliance with these subtasks.
Task 35.3 requires reports to document instances where witnesses are present but circumstances
prevent the author of the report from gathering the data (compliance standard: 90%). During
this reporting period no incidents fell into this category. OPD is in compliance with Task 35.3.
Task 35.4 requires that use of force reports include the names of all other OPD
members/employees witnessing the incident (compliance standard: 90%). We found no
instances when an OPD witness was not documented in the 14 reports we reviewed. OPD is in
compliance with Task 35.4.
OPD is in Phase 2 compliance with Task 35.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In compliance
Phase 2: In compliance
Task 37: Internal Investigations-Retaliation Against Witnesses
Requirements:
OPD shall prohibit retaliation against any member or employee of the Department who:
1.
Reports misconduct by any other member or employee, or
2.
Serves as a witness in any proceeding against a member or employee.
The policy prohibiting retaliation shall acknowledge that retaliation may be informal and subtle,
as well as blatant, and shall define retaliation as a violation for which dismissal is the
presumptive disciplinary penalty. Supervisors, commanders and managers shall be held
accountable for the conduct of their subordinates in this regard. If supervisors, commanders or
managers of persons engaging in retaliation knew or reasonably should have known that the
behavior was occurring, they shall be subject to the investigative, and if appropriate, the
disciplinary process.
(Negotiated Settlement Agreement VI. E.)
Discussion:
We have found OPD in continued Phase 1 compliance with this Task. OPD published Special
Order 8092 on November 23, 2003, which incorporated the requirements of Task 37. This
policy consists of two Manual of Rules (MOR) Sections: 398.73, Retaliation Against Witnesses;
and 398.74, Retaliation Against Witnesses, Accountability. These MOR provisions (revised in