seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf

Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department April 28, 2014 Page 19 As the Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on the above-listed policies, we find OPD in continued Phase 1 compliance with this Task. To verify Phase 2 compliance with Tasks 5.1 through 5.5, we reviewed 92 entries that appeared on the Daily Incident Logs (DILs) that were completed between October 1, and December 31, 2013. We identified these by randomly selecting 47 dates during this reporting period and reviewing the entries for each of those dates. Task 5.1 requires that when a citizen wishes to file a complaint, the citizen is brought to a supervisor or IAD, or a supervisor is summoned to the scene (compliance standard: 95%). During the last reporting period, we found OPD in compliance with this subtask. During the current reporting period, of the 92 DIL entries, 31 complaints were taken by supervisors in the field; and in the remaining 61 cases, complainants called 911 to express their dissatisfaction. In these latter cases, IAD or field supervisors were notified, except when the complaints were against Communications personnel (these were handled by a Communications supervisor) or were clearly service complaints (e.g., slow response time with no specific officer complained of). We noted 31 such service complaints. Three of these cases, however, did not include any detail that would allow us to verify that they were appropriately classified. We again remind OPD that the DIL entry should contain some notation as to the nature of the service complaint. During this reporting period, OPD remains in compliance with Task 5.1. Task 5.2 requires that if there is a delay of greater than three hours in supervisory response, the reason for the delay be documented (compliance standard: 85%). OPD has added a checkbox to the DIL to record such delays. In addition to reviewing this section of the logs, we also checked the times of complaint receipt and supervisor contact with the complainant (or attempted contact where the complainant was unavailable – see Task 5.3). We identified two cases in which there appeared to be greater than a three-hour delay in contacting the complainant. In the first case, the sergeant assigned to contact the complainant asked that the complaint be reassigned, as he became involved in another incident that required the investigation of a use of force. Another supervisor was assigned the complaint, but when he responded to the complainant’s location, he discovered that it was a multiple unit apartment building and the complainant’s apartment number was unknown. The complainant also refused to answer the callback number provided, and was not contacted on that date. In the second case – a complaint of reckless driving by an unknown officer – it took the assigned supervisor over three-and-one-half hours to contact the complainant, despite several attempts to do so. Since the reasons for the delays in contacting the complainants were explained in each of these instances, OPD remains in compliance with Task 5.2. Task 5.3 requires that where a complainant refuses to travel to a supervisor, or wait for one, personnel make all reasonable attempts to obtain specific information to assist in investigating the complaint (compliance standard: 90%). Of the 92 records in our dataset, we identified three instances in which the complainant “refused” interaction with a supervisor. In one case, Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page20 of 88