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 6 Our IAD and use of force reviews also demonstrated that OPD’s longstanding problems with supervisors and commanders taking responsibility and supervising their subordinates in instances ranging from searching vehicles, serving a search warrant, or responding to a critical incident, continue. While fading, hopefully permanently, the culture of allowing the most assertive officer or officers to control the scene, regardless of rank, still occurs too often. In force and misconduct cases we have reviewed, this resulted at times in dangerous tactics, disregard for an individual’s legal rights, and otherwise substandard police work. If OPD wants to substantially improve its ability to protect both its officers and community members, OPD must demand that supervisors and commanders exercise their authority as appropriate and hold them accountable where they do not. Respect for Law and Community A number of OPD commanders, complaining about the high number of misconduct complaints, have stated words to the effect of, “If we could just get our people to talk nice to people, there would be fewer complaints.” This is as good a synopsis of the problem, albeit simplified, as any. We have seen and heard countless examples of OPD officers handling potentially explosive incidents and people with incredible patience and skill. These officers, and the Department’s efforts to fight crime, are poorly served, and their efforts undercut, by those officers at OPD who exhibit little respect or concern for the community they serve or, at times, the laws they are sworn to uphold. The lack of concern for the dignity and rights of individuals is too often evident in OPD searches of people, vehicles, and homes. OPD officials with whom we have spoken agree that officers need additional training on when and how it is legal to search people, vehicles, and residences, and our recent IAD review is consistent with our past observations in this area. Significant changes in the law have occurred within the past year and OPD in particular has faced a number of challenges on this front. OPD should work closely with its legal advisors in the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that its policies are up to date and that officers are trained on conducting proper searches and held accountable where they conduct improper searches. Moreover, OPD should consider going beyond what the law requires, as many departments have done, to ensure that searches are not improperly influenced by conscious or unconscious bias rather than by objective evidence of wrongdoing. Conducting properly supported and legally defensible searches will not only result in greater respect for the dignity and rights of the people in Oakland, it can mean more effective and efficient use of police resources. While the more extreme examples of rude or callous behavior by OPD officers are usually identified by IAD, at times it appears that supervisors, including some in IAD, do not recognize the level of inappropriateness of some officer’s actions, whether an officer is describing in graphic terms to a young man how he will be raped in jail if he does not provide information the officer seeks, or simply loudly eating his lunch while on the telephone with a crime victim. We have reviewed cases of officers leaving children on their front porch after having arrested their parents, or of leaving individuals by the side of the road late at night in high-crime areas of Oakland after towing their car.