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 26 Tasks 5.1 through 5.5 involve procedures related to OPD’s response to complaints in the field. During the tenth reporting period, OPD developed a system to document compliance with these tasks. The IMT agreed to refrain from auditing these provisions of this task while that system was being developed. The new systems are incorporated in two new policies developed the tenth reporting period and finalized during this reporting period: revised Policy C-2, Communications Division Policy and Procedure Manual (Receiving and Logging Complaints Against Personnel and Use of Force Incidents); and Special Order 8565 (Update of General Order M-3). The IMT has confirmed that the Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on Policy C-2 and Special Order 8565. During the thirteenth reporting period, we audited OPD’s compliance with these policies and procedures. We found that OPD has developed a system that does a good job at centralizing the receipt of field complaints and the forwarding of those complaints to IAD. This system appears to have resulted in better immediate response to field complaints, fewer “lost” complaints, and more complete and consistent information about complaints being sent to IAD. We found that implementation of the system is not yet where it needs to be but that if OPD focuses on compliance with its own policies and procedures, it should be able to come into compliance relatively quickly. During the thirteenth reporting period, OIG also reviewed OPD’s practices in this area and reached similar findings. Our review report included a series of recommendations to assist OPD in its efforts. During the thirteenth reporting period, we also completed an assessment of Task 5.20. Task 5.20 requires the IAD Commander to review all “filed” cases (i.e., cases that are not under active investigation due to certain specified reasons such as pending litigation or the unavailability of a the subject officer) on a quarterly basis to determine whether the conditions that prevented investigation and final disposition have changed. We found significant improvement in this area and that OPD is in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. In the past, OPD often placed “filed” cases in permanent limbo, never reviewing or resolving such cases. This is no longer the case. OPD now places such cases on its weekly IAD meeting agenda to help ensure that they are not lost or forgotten and no longer routinely delays cases because they are related to an underlying lawsuit. Our review report included several recommendations to help ensure that the gains made in this area are maintained and to help tighten up a few areas. Tasks 5.6 through 5.14 relate to complaints by Oakland City Jail inmates. As reported previously, although OPD has closed its City Jail, it has published Special Order 8270 to ensure that OPD complaints made at the Alameda County Jail are handled properly. During the last reporting period, OPD worked with the IMT and the Plaintiffs’ Attorneys to modify the Settlement Agreement to address the receipt of misconduct complaints by detainees regardless of which jail OPD takes them. This stipulation has been finalized and approved by the Court and the IMT revised its review protocol in light of these changes. During the current reporting period, we assessed OPD’s compliance with Task 5.6, which requires that an OPD supervisor respond to take complaints of serious misconduct incident to arrest from a jail inmate taken into custody by OPD. This requirement is complicated by the fact that OPD no longer operates any jail, so must coordinate with the Alameda County Sheriff’s