seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf

Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department April 28, 2014 Page 26 Members/employees shall distribute these complaint forms and informational brochures when a citizen wishes to make a complaint, or upon request. 5. IAD shall be located in a dedicated facility removed from the Police Administration Building. 6. Complaint forms and informational brochures shall be translated consistent with City policy. 7. Complaint forms shall be processed in accordance with controlling state law.8 (Negotiated Settlement Agreement III. G.) Background: Only one provision of Task 7 (7.3) is being actively monitored under the MOU. During the past several reporting periods, we found OPD in compliance with this Task. Discussion: OPD published Departmental General Order M-03, Complaints Against Department Personnel and Procedures, which incorporates the requirements of Task 7, on December 6, 2005. General Order M-03 was revised in February 2008, and most recently in June 2013. The revised policy also incorporates the requirements of Task 7. As the Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on this revised policy, we find OPD in continued Phase 1 compliance with this Task. To assess Phase 2 compliance with this Task, we reviewed all cases listed in the Internal Affairs Division database as originating from complainants who were “anonymous,” “unknown,” “refused,” or any forms of those terms (such as “unk”) and that were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2013. We also reviewed all complaints during this selected time period that were tagged by IAD as originating from an anonymous complainant, and complaints in which the complainant field in the database was blank, to determine whether any were made anonymously. Based on the above-listed criteria, we identified 18 cases as potential anonymous complaints during this reporting period. After review, we determined that 15 were true anonymous complaints. Of these 15, the complainant was identified during the course of the investigation in one case. A female citizen, who would only provide her first name, alleged that she was not advised of the reason her boyfriend was arrested during a search warrant. The investigator learned her identity and followed up with her. Her complaint was unfounded based on PDRD recordings that captured her conversation with an on-scene supervisor during the warrant execution. Six of the remaining 14 complaints were received via telephone calls to the Communications Division. Three were received via telephone calls directly to IAD. Two were reported to officers or supervisors in the field. IAD’s Mobile Complaint Unit took one complaint, one was lodged via email, and one was received via U.S. Mail. 8 The underlined requirement is the only provision of Task 7 that is being actively monitored under the MOU. Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page27 of 88