fourteenth-report.pdf

Independent Monitoring Team Fourteenth Status Report of the Independent Monitor Delphine Allen, et al., v. City of Oakland, et al. July 31, 2009 to January 13, 2010 Page 5 video system and should video-record all interviews of suspects and witnesses, as its criminal investigation rooms are equipped to do. OPD should require that officers use audio and/or video recorders, as feasible, when searching residences pursuant to conditions of probation/parole and when executing search warrants. Sometimes these recordings will reveal to the public that an officer made a mistake or committed misconduct; far more often they will exonerate the Department. Regardless, such recordings shine a spotlight on police actions, allowing for discussion that can be constructive and improvement that can be life-saving. Responsibility and Accountability OPD has made tremendous gains over the past several years in ensuring that OPD officers at all ranks understand their responsibilities, and in holding them accountable where they do not fulfill those responsibilities. Sergeants are required to do far more than seven years ago to fulfill their obligations to supervise their subordinates. Sergeants are required to be in the streets with their officers to approve certain types of arrests, review higher level uses of forces, and respond where a civilian complains about his or her treatment by an officer. Performance appraisals are now completed on time (rather than one, two, or three years late) and are more substantive than seven years ago. None of these things were required, or routinely occurred, seven years ago. Use of force investigations, almost non-existent seven years ago, are becoming more substantive and probing. It is not uncommon for board reviews of high-level force investigations to identify potentially dangerous tactics and recommend training or other corrective measures. The broader acceptance and improved investigation of complaints of misconduct promotes accountability, as does the greater frequency of officers receiving discipline for committing misconduct. The promotions process now takes into account the applicants’ community policing efforts as well as any record of misconduct. The IPAS system allows for more accurate and complete reviews of officer activity and has resulted in interventions intended to address problems before they result in dangerous actions, lawsuits, or otherwise negatively impact the officer’s career or police-community relations. Despite these significant gains, OPD still has substantial work do in this area. Our recent IAD review demonstrated that, while the Department’s investigations are vastly improved, OPD still has a difficult time sustaining misconduct. OPD now generally gathers and documents the appropriate evidence, but too often does not reach a finding consistent with that evidence. Our review of OPD’s disciplinary process demonstrates that, even where complaints of misconduct are sustained, OPD still too often does not impose appropriate discipline. Whether OPD can consistently objectively analyze allegations of misconduct is an open question. OPD, like most police departments, recognizes this challenge. OPD commanders have acknowledged that they realize that more misconduct occurs than is sustained and that there is some truth in a significant number of complaints. These perceptions, however, do not square with a sustained rate that remains in the single digits. This dynamic is not uncommon in police departments nationwide, but that makes it no less serious an obstacle to a constructive working relationship between the police department and the community it serves.