seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf

Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department April 28, 2014 Page 21 Two complaints were not lodged contemporaneous with the arrests of the complainants. In one, the complainant alleged that 22 years ago, an officer asked her to expose herself while she was being transported to jail. Despite the extreme length of time between the alleged incident and the lodging of the complaint, OPD conducted full investigation. In the other case, the complainant alleged that while being transported to jail in a patrol wagon five years ago, the driver stopped abruptly, causing the complainant to injure his neck. This case was administratively closed, as the complainant could not provide more specific information and investigators could not confirm an incident involving the complainant around that timeframe by a search of OPD’s databases. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.6. Task 5.12 requires that the Watch Commander ensure that any complaints that are applicable to Task 5.6 are delivered to and logged with IAD (compliance standard: 90%). Since by definition these complaints must be made contemporaneous with the arrest, an on-duty supervisor must respond to the jail. Under current policy, the Communications Section must record on the DIL complaints that are received and/or handled by on-duty supervisors; the DIL is forwarded daily to IAD. As mentioned in past reports, we deem the DIL system as functionally equivalent to the requirements of Task 5.12, and the Department remains in compliance with this subtask. To assess Tasks 5.15 through 5.19, and Task 5.21, we reviewed a random sample of 25 IAD cases that were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2013. This sample included investigations completed by IAD and Division-level investigations (DLIs). It also included cases that were resolved via formal investigation and investigations that were resolved via summary finding. As in our previous reviews, we treated Tasks 5.15 and 5.16 as a single subtask with several elements, specifically that OPD: gathers all relevant evidence; conducts follow-up interviews where warranted; adequately considers the evidence gathered; makes credibility assessments where feasible; and resolves inconsistent statements (compliance standard: 85%). During the previous assessment period, we deemed the Department in compliance with all of these required elements 92% of the time. Of the 25 investigations we reviewed for this reporting period, we deemed 25, or 100%, in compliance with all of these required elements. This is the first time that OPD has achieved this standard. In three cases, investigators conducted follow-up interviews with officers or civilians to seek clarification. In two cases, the subject officers were re-interviewed. In the remaining case, both the complainant and the subject officer were interviewed twice. Credibility assessments were made in 20 of the 25 cases. The five cases without credibility assessments were handled via summary finding, and by policy, investigators are not required to assess credibility in these instances since a determination can be made without interviewing all involved. Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page22 of 88