seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf

Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department April 28, 2014 Page 14 Task 4.7 requires that every complaint received by any supervisor or commander be reported to IAD on the day of receipt (compliance standard: Yes/No). If IAD is not available, the supervisor or commander shall contact IAD at the start of the next business day. To assess Phase 2 compliance for Task 4.7, we reviewed 92 Daily Incident Log (DIL) entries and a random sample of 73 IAD case files that were approved during the period of October 1, through December 31, 2013. The Office of Inspector General forwards completed DILs to us on a daily basis. We found no evidence of unwarranted delay in the delivery of these complaints or in the intake process once IAD was made aware of them. OPD is in compliance with Task 4.7. Task 4.10 requires that OPD comply with criteria it has established when resolving complaints through informal complaint resolution (ICR), administrative closure, or summary finding (compliance standard: 90%).6 This subtask is intended to ensure that OPD provides the proper level of investigation for each complaint, and does not resolve meritorious complaints of misconduct without determining – and documenting – whether the OPD member or employee committed misconduct. During this reporting period, from a sample of IAD cases that were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2013, we reviewed 11 cases in which at least one allegation was resolved via administrative closure, nine cases in which at least one allegation was resolved via informal complaint resolution (ICR), and 10 cases in which at least one allegation was resolved via summary finding. In all but one of the ICRs we reviewed, the complainants agreed to the informal complaint resolution process. Where an agreement was secured in a telephone conversation, that information was contained in the case documentation (in many cases, the exact minute/second mark of the agreement was recorded) and in follow-up letters to the complainants. Six of the cases involved allegations of poor demeanor. In another case, the complainant was dissatisfied that the officers did not exit their vehicle during their response to the complainant’s call for service. In another case, the complainant alleged that her cell phone was misplaced during the detention and booking process. As mentioned above, in one case the complainant did not agree to the ICR process. The complainant alleged that an officer was talking on a cell phone while driving. The caller did not provide an address, and he failed to answer several return calls from OPD. The case was informally resolved pursuant to policy M-3.1, Section III.A.1.b, which affords the IAD Commander the discretion to invoke the process. Documentation was provided that the officer was counseled. The administrative closures that we reviewed were investigated before IAD arrived at the determination that such a closure comported with policy. Four cases were administratively closed because they only involved complaints of delayed response times. Five cases were 6 Summary findings are investigations in which the Department believes a proper conclusion can be determined based on a review of existing documentation with limited or no additional interviews and follow-up. Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page15 of 88