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 50 We encourage OPD to continue the MLL position/process even after the MOU expires. This process has built a more constructive relationship between OPD and the Public Defender’s office, has allowed OPD to identify and correct problems early on, and has provided an opportunity for greater transparency. OPD is in compliance with Task 21. This task will not be actively monitored under the MOU. If the Monitor observes material non-compliance with this task, the Monitor may conduct reviews as necessary to determine whether the City has fallen out of substantial compliance and the extent and nature of the alleged deficiency. (MOU, paragraph 11.) 6. Command Staff Rotation (Task 23; S.A. IV.F.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By January 20, 2004, OPD must, based on contemporary police standards and best practices, develop and implement a regular rotation of Departmental command staff, consistent with the Department’s immediate needs and best interests. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The compliance deadline for this task occurred in January 2004. As previously reported, well in advance of this deadline, OPD published a Chief of Police Memorandum on command staff rotation policy that incorporated this Settlement Agreement requirement. On November 15, 2005, Chief Tucker reissued the Memorandum under his signature. The IMT conducted an audit of Task 23 during the seventh reporting period and found OPD in compliance with Task 23 in actual practice. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our seventh status report. Our review revealed no policy obstacles to the implementation of Task 23, and an interview with the Chief confirmed that he is not constrained by OPD policy from fully complying with this requirement. During the tenth reporting period, the compliance standard for this task was modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. OPD is in compliance with Task 23. This task will not be actively monitored under the MOU. If the Monitor observes material non-compliance with this task, the Monitor may conduct reviews as necessary to determine whether the City has fallen out of substantial compliance and the extent and nature of the alleged deficiency. (MOU, paragraph 11.) C. Use of Force Reporting (Tasks 24–32; S.A. V.) Section V of the Settlement Agreement, Tasks 24–32, requires OPD to make a number of significant changes in the way it reports and investigates uses of force. This section requires changes in reporting uses of force ranging from Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray to officer- involved shootings, and enhances the requirements for OPD’s Use of Force Review Board