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 43 was not assessed because the data was not reliable). The IMT did not assess OPD’s compliance with the requirement that available witnesses be identified due to concerns raised by OPD, which we shared, regarding the reliability of the data. OPD reported widespread confusion regarding whether this provision required officers to document witnesses to the arrest or witnesses to the underlying criminal offense. As noted above, OPD published Special Order 8536, clarifying that the witness identification provision requires identification of witnesses to the criminal offense. Because OPD was in compliance with each provision of Task 18 that had been assessed, we found OPD in conditional compliance with the task. During the eleventh reporting period, OIG conducted several assessments of OPD’s compliance with Task 18. According to OPD, it was performing well in all areas of Task 18, with the exception of witness identification. An unacceptable number of reports were silent regarding the presence or absence of witnesses. Without this information, there is no way of determining whether there were no witnesses to an incident, or whether the witnesses were not identified. OPD has addressed this issue at several commander meetings. During the twelfth reporting period, we conducted a compliance review of OPD’s actual practice focusing specifically on the witness identification provision of Task 18. Our findings were consistent with those of OPD’s own compliance assessor. Based on our review, OPD still was not in compliance with Task 18’s requirement that certain categories of arrests include documentation of the identity of available witnesses or documentation when there are no witnesses. As a result, we found that OPD was no longer in conditional compliance with Task 18. While many of the arrests reviewed may have been non-compliant because officers failed to document when there were no witnesses, other arrests were non-compliant because officers failed to identify readily available witnesses. In other cases, officers wrote in their reports that there were “no known witnesses,” when, in fact, there were witnesses who simply were not identified. A fuller discussion of our findings and recommendations is included in our twelfth status report. During the thirteenth reporting period, OIG conducted another audit of Task 18. Consistent with its previous assessments and those of the IMT, it found the Department in compliance with all Task 18 requirements with the exception of the witness identification provision. OPD is in compliance with all of Task 18 except the provision that requires that all available witnesses are identified. This subtask 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.) 2. Unity of Command (Task 19; S.A. IV.B.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By January 20, 2004, OPD must develop and implement a policy requiring that, with rare exceptions justified on a case- by-case basis, each OPD member or employee have a single,