seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf
Figures extracted from this document
Extracted text
Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor
for the Oakland Police Department
April 28, 2014
Page 8
Section Two
Compliance Assessments
Task 2: Timeliness Standards and Compliance with IAD Investigations
Requirements:
Fairness to complainants, members/employees and the public requires that internal
investigations be completed in a timely fashion.
1.
On or before December 1, 2003, OPD shall develop policies regarding timeliness
standards for the completion of Internal Affairs investigations, administrative
findings and recommended discipline.
2.
Compliance with these timeliness standards shall be regularly monitored by IAD
command and the Department’s command staff. If IAD experiences an unusual
proliferation of cases and/or workload, IAD staffing shall be increased to
maintain timeliness standards.
(Negotiated Settlement Agreement III. B.)
Background:
During the last reporting period, we found OPD in compliance with Task 2. Per Departmental
policy, in order to be considered timely, at least 85% of Class I misconduct investigations and at
least 85% of Class II misconduct investigations must be completed within 180 days.1
Discussion:
As previously reported, OPD published Departmental General Order M-03, Complaints Against
Department Personnel and Procedures, which incorporates the requirements of Task 2, on
December 6, 2005. General Order M-03 was revised in February 2008, and again in June 2013.
The revised policy also incorporates the requirements of Task 2. 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.
Task 2.1 requires that internal investigations (IAD and Division Level) – including review,
approval, findings, and discipline – be completed in accordance with the timeliness standards
developed by OPD (compliance standard: 85%). To assess this subtask, we reviewed a list of all
internal investigations resulting in formal findings (unfounded, sustained, exonerated, or not
sustained) that were approved between October 1, and December 31, 2013, and calculated the
number of days between the complaint date and the approval date for each case. We excluded
from the dataset cases that were administratively closed, those that involved on-duty traffic
1 OPD classifies misconduct as either “Class I” or “Class II.” Per DGO M-03, Class I offenses “are the most serious
allegations of misconduct and, if sustained, shall result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal and may
serve as the basis for criminal prosecution.” Class II offenses include “all minor misconduct offenses.”
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page9 of 88