seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf

Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department April 28, 2014 Page 22 In six cases, complainants or witnesses were appropriately deemed not credible. In four of the cases, PDRD recordings directly contradicted their statements. In the other two cases, physical evidence and/or their own inconsistent statements appropriately called into question the credibility of some of those interviewed. We did not identify any cases in which relevant evidence was not identified or considered during this review. Task 5.17 requires that OPD permanently retain all notes generated and/or received by OPD personnel in the case file (compliance standard: 85%). OPD personnel document that all investigative notes are contained within a particular file by completing IAD Form 11 (Investigative Notes Declaration). During the previous reporting period, we found OPD in 100% compliance with this subtask. During this reporting period, the form was again properly completed in all 25 cases we reviewed. OPD is in compliance with this subtask. Task 5.18 requires that OPD resolve each allegation in a complaint investigation using the preponderance of the evidence standard (compliance standard: 90%). During the last reporting period, OPD complied with this subtask in 92% of the cases we reviewed. During this reporting period, OPD complied with this subtask in 25, or 100%, of the 25 cases in our sample. Again, this is the first reporting period in which we have determined that OPD has used the preponderance of the evidence standard appropriately in each case reviewed. OPD’s review and consideration of electronic evidence has certainly contributed to this. In 18 of the cases we reviewed, PDRD recordings proved material to arriving at the appropriate findings. In two other cases – allegations involving Police Communications Dispatchers – recorded phone calls were instrumental in determining the correct findings without the need for further interviews. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.18. Task 5.19 requires that each allegation of a complaint is identified and resolved with one of the following dispositions: unfounded; sustained; exonerated; not sustained; or administrative closure (compliance standard: 95%). Our sample of 25 cases contained 52 allegations that received dispositions as follows: 14 exonerated; three not sustained; 31 unfounded; two sustained; and two administratively closed. PDRD video continues to be used in more and more cases to arrive at definitive conclusions. We did not disagree with any of the findings, as noted in Task 5.18. When OPD first adopted the use of PDRDs, the majority of officers were concerned that the technology would be used to “catch” officers behaving inappropriately. Experience has now shown that, more often than not, the recordings support that officers are acting in accord with policy. This has resulted in the high number of exonerated and unfounded findings. With a 100% compliance rate, OPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this subtask. Task 5.20 requires that the IAD Commander review all “filed” cases quarterly to determine whether the conditions that prevented investigation and final disposition have changed Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page23 of 88