19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 76 between April 1, through June 30, 2014. This query yielded 40 cases, containing 50 sustained findings. All (100%) of these cases and findings contained all of the necessary information available on the printout generated by IAD for our review. OPD is in compliance with the requirement that it maintain an adequate system for documenting and tracking discipline and corrective action. Task 45.4 requires that discipline be imposed in a manner that is fair and consistent (compliance standard: 95%). To this end, the Department developed a Discipline Matrix which was adopted on September 2, 2010 and in effect until a new Discipline Matrix was approved on March 14, 2014. This new matrix will apply to violations after that date. We reviewed all the cases with sustained findings that were decided during the period of April 1, through June 30, 2014. We also reviewed three cases that were provided to us during the last reporting period in which the discipline conference was actually held in the second quarter of 2014. Thus, we reviewed a total of 43 cases containing 53 sustained findings. One finding involved an officer who left OPD before discipline was imposed. IAD advised him that should he return, the Department would impose discipline. Of the remaining 52 findings, all fell within the discipline matrix in effect at the time of the action for which discipline was imposed. During the period of April 1, through June 30, 2014, Skelly hearings were held for 12 IAD cases involving 12 employees and 25 sustained findings in which discipline of a one-day suspension or greater was recommended. In nine cases, discipline was upheld; in three cases, the discipline was reduced but fell within the Discipline Matrix. Two disciplinary cases, however, were troubling. One case involved a captain who struck a person twice after he had received a Taser shock and was lying on the ground. In addition, in clear violation of OPD policies for reviewing such videos, the captain obtained a copy of the PDRD video of the incident that had been generated by another officer. The discipline initially recommended was demotion to rank of lieutenant. The Skelly hearing was handled by a retired police chief who recommended that the captain receive counseling but no other discipline. The Chief considered the Skelly hearing result but ordered a 10-day suspension. The City Administrator overruled the chief and approved only counseling. The result of this case was that a senior command officer – who should be expected to be a leader in proper use of force – received less discipline than his subordinates would expect if they did the same thing. As a senior commander, he should be expected to perform at a higher level than his subordinates. A second case involves an officer who tossed a flash-bang grenade into a crowd of people trying to help a citizen who was lying in the street after being shot in the head and injured by a beanbag round during an Occupy Oakland demonstration. The group around the fallen man was not threatening the police. Therefore, tossing the grenade into their midst had no legitimate police purpose – and could only have been a malicious act intended to frighten or scare the people trying to help the man. The officer was appropriately terminated by OPD and City but an