seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf

Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department April 28, 2014 Page 23 (compliance standard: 90%). A filed case is defined as an investigation that cannot be presently completed and is pending further developments that will allow completion of the investigation; filed is not a final disposition. As part of our review of this Task, we also review cases that are tolling. OPD defines a tolled case as an administrative investigation that has been held in abeyance in accordance with one of the provisions of Government Code Section 3304. During our most recent site visit, we met with the Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Risk Management and the commanding officer of IAD, who advised that as of that date, no cases were classified as filed, and one case was designated as tolling. In this case, the subject officer has been out on extended medical leave and is unavailable to be interviewed. The case appeared to be tolling according to policy. Filed and tolling cases are reviewed with the Chief during his weekly IAD meetings and are listed by case number on the printed meeting agendas. OPD is in compliance with this subtask. Task 5.21 requires that any member or employee who is a subject of an internal investigation, as well as any other member or employee on the scene of an incident at which misconduct has been alleged by a complainant, shall be interviewed and a recorded statement taken (compliance standard: 90%). However, with the approval of the IAD Commander, investigators are not required to interview and/or take a recorded statement in all cases. For example, interviews are not needed from a member or employee who is the subject of a complaint, or who was on the scene of the incident when additional information – beyond that already provided by the existing set of facts and/or documentation – is not necessary to reach appropriate findings and conclusions. Seven of the 25 cases we reviewed were resolved via summary finding, and all but one were appropriately approved for such closure. (These do not include the cases referenced in Task 4, for which summary findings were also appropriate.) In five of these cases, the availability of PDRD video was the primary reason interviews were unnecessary. In one case involving an allegation of excessive force, we did not locate the required prior approval of an IAD commanding officer to handle the case as a summary finding. We note, however, that the case was appropriate for a summary finding based on the availability of PDRD video; the IAD lieutenant and captain approved the investigation once it was completed. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.21. OPD is in Phase 2 compliance with Task 5. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In compliance Phase 2: In compliance Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page24 of 88