seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf

Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department April 28, 2014 Page 36 or an allegation of excessive use of force, unless community unrest or other conditions makes this impracticable. 5. OPD notify: a. The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office immediately or as soon as circumstances permit, following a use of lethal force resulting in death or injury likely to result in death. b. The City Attorney’s Office as soon as circumstances permit following the use of lethal force resulting in death or serious injury. At the discretion of the City Attorney’s Office, a Deputy City Attorney shall respond to the scene. The Deputy City Attorney shall serve only in an advisory capacity and shall communicate only with the incident commander or his/her designee. c. Departmental investigators regarding officer-involved shootings, in accordance with the provisions of Section V, paragraph H, of this Agreement. 6. OPD enter data regarding use of force into OPD’s Personnel Assessment System (PAS). (Negotiated Settlement Agreement V. A.) Background: During the last reporting period, we found OPD in compliance with Task 24. Discussion: As previously reported, OPD published Departmental General Order K-4, Reporting and Investigating the Use of Force (February 17, 2006), which incorporates the requirements of Task 24. OPD revised DGO K-4 on August 1, 2007. On April 15, 2009, OPD issued Special Order 8977, amending DGO K-4. The revised policy also incorporates the requirements of Task 24. On November 23, 2010, OPD issued Special Order 9057, amending DGO K-4 to extend Level 1 and Level 4 reporting timelines. In December 2012, OPD issued a revision to Special Order 8977, Use of Force Reporting – Pointing of Firearm/Restrained Subject/Use of Vehicle to Intentionally Strike a Subject. The revision to this policy allows OPD officers to use a “low ready”/retention position when un-holstering their firearms. In this position, the firearm is pointed at a 45-degree angle or less and not at a person. The Department began training on the revised policy immediately after its authorization.12 As the Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on these above-listed policies, we find OPD in continued Phase 1 compliance with this Task. 12 Special Order 8977 affords officers an intermediate option that does not require them to point their firearm(s) directly at a person, as was allowable by past Departmental policy. For this reason, following the adoption of this policy, we expected a decline in the number of gun pointing events. However, the number of events where OPD members have intentionally pointed their firearms has decreased considerably – significantly way more than expected. The Department experienced a 15% reduction in Level 4 uses of force from the last to the current reporting period (from 483 to 412) after five consecutive reporting periods of steady decline. During our next site visit, we will discuss this with Department officials. Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page37 of 88