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 42 1. Approval of Field-Arrest by Supervisor (Task 18; S.A. IV.A.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By January 20, 2004, OPD must develop and implement a policy requiring the approval of field-arrests by a supervisor in most cases. This policy necessitates that OPD develop standards for field supervisors that encourage or mandate close and frequent supervisory contacts with subordinates. The Settlement Agreement sets forth certain criteria regarding supervisor review of field-arrests, including that, under ordinary circumstances, supervisors respond to the scenes of field-arrests for felonies; narcotics-related possessory offenses; situations where there is an investigated use of force; and arrests for obstructing, resisting, or assaulting an officer. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The compliance deadline for this task occurred in January 2004. OPD drafted a policy, General Order M-18, Arrest Approval and Report Review in the Field. The IMT determined that the policy complied with the Settlement Agreement. 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. On August 12, 2005, OPD published Special Order 8287 to assist it in tracking those instances in which sergeants disapprove arrests at the scene. The policy establishes a unique code to be provided to Communications by sergeants upon any arrest disapproval. During the tenth reporting period, OPD published Special Order 8536, Probable Cause Arrest Authorization and Report Review, which clarified that Task 18.2.2, the witness identification provision, requires identification of witnesses to the criminal offense. Also during the tenth reporting period, the IMT confirmed that the Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on Special Order 8536. During the sixth reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s compliance in actual practice with Task 18 and found that OPD’s practice was not in compliance with the requirements of this task. Based on the documentation we were provided, OPD was not in compliance with the requirement that supervisors respond to the scene of designated arrests. In September 2005, OIG conducted an internal audit of Task 18 that, although it found improvement, resulted in similar findings. During the tenth reporting period, the compliance standards for this task were lowered from 95% to 90%. The IMT conducted its second audit of OPD’s compliance in actual practice with Task 18 during the tenth reporting period. We found that, since our previous review of Task 18, OPD had made significant progress in ensuring that its supervisors respond to the scene of designated arrests and that required elements are reviewed and documented sufficiently. We found OPD in compliance with each requirement of Task 18 that was assessed (one provision