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 25 criteria to be followed if there is delay greater than three hours in providing access to a supervisor or if the complainant refuses to travel to or wait for a supervisor. • By June 15, 2004, OPD must develop a policy to provide Oakland City Jail inmates the opportunity to file a complaint against OPD officers/employees. The Settlement Agreement sets forth certain criteria that must be included in this policy. • By June 15, 2004, OPD must develop policies setting standards for IAD investigations and dispositions of citizen complaints, including that: OPD must consider all relevant evidence; make credibility determinations where feasible; attempt to resolve inconsistencies in witness statements; employ the “preponderance of evidence” standard; and permanently retain all notes related to the investigation. This provision also defines six case dispositions (unfounded; sustained; exonerated; not sustained; filed; and administrative closure). • By October 1, 2004, OPD must implement the above referenced policies. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The implementation deadline for this task occurred in October 2004. OPD had previously drafted and published Manual of Rules insert 398.76, incorporating one part of this task (complainant access to a supervisor). The IMT determined this policy complies with the Settlement Agreement and, during the sixth reporting period, OPD provided the IMT with sufficiently reliable training data to enable us to confirm that OPD had trained 95% or more of relevant personnel on this policy. The remainder of this task is incorporated into General Order M-3.1, Informal Complaint Resolution Process; General Order M-3, Complaints Against Departmental Personnel or Procedures; the Internal Affairs Policy and Procedure Manual; and Policy C-2, Communications Division Policy and Procedure Manual. During the seventh and eighth reporting periods, OPD completed these policies and trained its personnel on them. During the ninth reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with part of Task 5. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our ninth status report. We found that while OPD had made extraordinary gains in nearly every aspect of this task, it was not yet where it needs to be and was not yet in compliance with Task 5. During the tenth reporting period, all but one of the compliance standards for this task were lowered from 95% to 85% or 90%.