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 28 During the twelfth reporting period, we completed our assessment of OPD’s actual practice related to Task 6. To conduct our review, using several different methods, we identified every complaint from January 1, to December 31, 2007, involving an alleged or apparent violation of Task 6 (e.g., a failure to take a complaint, discouraging a complaint, providing misinformation, refusing or failing to provide name or serial number, or failing to call a supervisor when an individual wanted to make a complaint). Our assessment focused on whether, when OPD becomes aware of instances in which officers or supervisors discouraged or failed to take misconduct complaints, OPD recognized and investigated the failure, and held accountable the officer or supervisor where appropriate. While OPD cannot hope to learn of each and every instance of an officer refusing, discouraging, or failing to take a misconduct complaint, it can successfully minimize such violations if it aggressively investigates and holds accountable those who commit them. For the period assessed, we identified 37 cases meeting the criteria discussed above. We found 26 (70%) of the cases in compliance with the requirements of Task 6. While OPD was not yet in compliance with Task 6, we saw substantial improvement compared to past practice. Moreover, we noted steady improvement over time in the investigations we reviewed, and during our review worked with OPD to further improve officers’ and supervisors’ intake of misconduct complaints. We identified several areas OPD should focus on to ensure the proper intake of complaints in the field. OPD policy requires officers to contact a supervisor when learning that an individual wishes to make a complaint. We found many instances of officers not calling a supervisor or otherwise properly initiating the complaint process, and of supervisors not initiating the complaint process properly when they were called to the scene. While some of these deficiencies appeared due in part to a lack of understanding about what was required, in other instances, the refusals may have been more deliberate. We also found problems with the way complaints were being handled when they arose in connection with a use of force. While OPD supervisors routinely conducted investigations of uses of force, they often did not notify IAD when individuals complained of misconduct associated with a use of force or otherwise handle such allegations as misconduct complaints. Our audit report contained a series of recommendations to assist OPD in attaining compliance. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our twelfth status report. During the current reporting period, OIG conducted an audit of Task 6 and found OPD not in compliance with this task. OPD is not in compliance with Task 6. This task will be actively monitored under the MOU. The Monitor will conduct the required audits, reviews or studies to assess whether OPD is complying with the substantive task requirements. (MOU, paragraph 10.) 7. Methods for Receiving Citizen Complaints (Task 7; S.A. III.G.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By June 15, 2004, OPD must, based on contemporary police standards and best practices, develop a policy strengthening its procedures for receiving citizen complaints. The Settlement