seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf

Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department April 28, 2014 Page 50 Background: Since monitoring under the NSA began, OPD has received confidential reports of misconduct in only four cases. During the last four reporting periods, we found OPD to be in partial compliance with Task 33. Discussion: As we have noted previously, OPD has developed several policies that, in concert, incorporate the requirements of this Task. These include: Manual of Rules (MOR) Section 314.48, Reporting Violations of Laws, Ordinances, Rules or Orders; MOR Section 314.49, Confidential Reporting of Police Misconduct; Departmental General Order D-16, Check-In and Orientation; MOR Section 370.18, Arrests; and MOR Section 370.27, Use of Physical Force. The Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on these policies, and remains in Phase 1 compliance with this Task. Reporting Misconduct Task 33.1 requires that in all sustained internal investigations, OPD conduct an assessment to determine whether members/employees/supervisors knew or should have known that misconduct occurred (compliance standard: 95%); and Task 33.2 requires that where OPD determines that members/employees/supervisors knew or should have known that misconduct occurred but did not report it as required, OPD is required to take appropriate action (compliance standard: 95%). During the last four reporting periods, we found OPD to be in partial compliance with these subtasks, as a result of IAD cases involving incidents that occurred during Occupy Oakland demonstrations. In those cases, many officers claimed not to have observed actions that occurred close to them; officers consistently avoided commenting about the misbehavior – and sometimes, felonious actions – of their fellow officers; and while officers apparently remembered seeing participants in the demonstrations and riots clearly, they often could not say which officers were next to them even when they viewed videos of the incidents. To assess OPD’s Phase 2 compliance with these subtasks during this reporting period, we discussed management of reporting misconduct by officers and employees of the Department with the Assistant Chief; and queried the IAD database to identify any cases with sustained findings and discipline that were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2013, that were applicable to Task 33. We identified and reviewed 18 cases with a total of 35 sustained findings involving 24 officers and employees that were approved during this reporting period. We found no instances where OPD disregarded indications that its employees or officers failed to report misconduct. Management Action to Address Reluctance to Report Misconduct We noted previously that “the activation of PDRDs can be key in resolving allegations of use of force that arise from citizen contacts – particularly during demonstrations. Accordingly, it is a serious violation for an officer dealing with such circumstances to fail to activate his/her PDRD.” This is especially critical in a police department where there is a culture that officers do not report serious misconduct by fellow officers. Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page51 of 88