seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf

Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department April 28, 2014 Page 20 described above, the complainant did not answer the callback number provided. In the other two cases, the complainants refused to provide phone numbers or addresses to facilitate a contact by a supervisor. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.3. Task 5.4 requires that specific information be documented on a complaint form and submitted to the immediate supervisor or, in his/her absence, the appropriate Area Commander (compliance standard: 85%). In order to achieve compliance with this subtask, the DIL should contain the identification of personnel; witnesses or identifying information, if known (the log should state “unknown” if not known); the date, time, and location of the incident; and the time of contact or attempt to contact the complainant by a supervisor. During the last reporting period, OPD had a 100% compliance rate with this subtask. During this reporting period, all of the logs we reviewed contained the required information (“unknown” was checked in 17 records). OPD has a 100% compliance rate during this reporting period, and is in compliance with Task 5.4. Task 5.5 requires that the supervisor or Area Commander notify Communications and forward any pertinent documents to IAD (compliance standard: 95%). OPD had a compliance rate of 100% with this subtask during the last reporting period. The DILs are administered by the Communications Section and forwarded to IAD each business day. Additionally, the DIL contains a field to record the name of Area Commander notified and the time of notification. This field was properly completed in all of the records we reviewed. OPD is in 100% compliance with Task 5.5 during this reporting period. Task 5.6 requires that an on-duty supervisor respond to take a complaint received from a jail inmate taken into custody by OPD, who wishes to make a complaint of Class I misconduct contemporaneous with the arrest of the inmate. To assess Task 5.6 during this reporting period, we reviewed all complaints that appeared to have originated from North County Jail, Santa Rita Jail, Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility, or Juvenile Hall, and were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2013. We identified four such complaints using the IAD database. We reviewed these complaints for two triggering events: an allegation of Class I misconduct; and the complaint lodged at the time of arrest. If both of these were not present, the case was deemed in compliance if it was “handled in the same manner as other civilian complaints.” Two of the four complaints were lodged contemporaneous to the arrest of the complainants, but neither of these contained at least one allegation of Class I misconduct. We note, however, that in both of these incidents, on-duty supervisors responded and interviewed the complainants. In one, the complainant alleged that she was falsely arrested for assault. She was arrested for a domestic violence offense under OPD’s mandatory arrest policy, even though the victim declined to prosecute. A supervisor responded to the North County Jail and took her complaint. In the other, an individual arrested on a warrant attempted to assault the arresting officers in the North County Jail as his handcuffs were being removed. The subject suffered minor injuries while being subdued by the officers and Alameda County jail deputies. A supervisor responded to Highland Hospital and took a complaint of excessive force from the complainant. Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page21 of 88