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 55 training to all officers and supervisors regarding use of force reporting requirements, especially prior to special events or overtime assignments staffed by officers who do not usually work field assignments. We also recommended that OPD continue to review use of force reports for accuracy and to ensure that internal investigations of force complaints include an analysis of use of force reporting and notification requirements. Our final recommendation stressed the importance of holding officers and supervisors accountable when these requirements are not met. A full discussion of our findings is included in our eleventh status report. During the twelfth reporting period, OIG evaluated the Department’s compliance with Task 24 and found that supervisors were being notified of uses of force; were responding to the scene as required; and that officers were documenting their own uses of force appropriately. However, according to OIG’s audit, officers were not always documenting the force that was used by other officers as required by OPD policy. In response, OPD issued two Information Bulletins: Use of Force—Common Mistakes and Use of Force Preparation Format, to reinforce use of force reporting and investigation requirements. If followed, these Information Bulletins should help improve OPD’s use of force reporting and investigation system. During the current reporting period, we continued to review OPD’s use of force reports and to provide the Department feedback on tactical, training, and investigative issues related to force issues. During the current reporting period we also completed an actual practice compliance review of Task 24. Our review found that OPD is in compliance with all of Task 24 except the provision that requires OPD officers to notify their supervisor as soon as practicable following any reportable use of force or allegation of excessive use of force. OPD attained a high level of compliance with this provision (90%), but slipped from the required compliance level of 95% for this critical task, which OPD achieved during the previous audit. The lack of proper notification occurred in cases involving “Level 4” uses of force, the lowest level of force. The use of force cases we reviewed for this review had incident dates of April 2009. In April 2009, OPD issued a special order addressing concerns that some lower-level force was not being reported and reminding officers that whenever a firearm is intentionally pointed at a person, and/or a firearm is held in any ready or retention position pointed in the general direction of a person, it must be reported. OPD should be able to again attain compliance with this part of Task 24 if it continues to closely monitor use of force reporting and supervisor notification—and hold officers accountable where they do not properly report the force they used. OPD is not in compliance for Task 24. 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.) 2. Use of Force Investigations and Report Responsibility (Task 25; S.A. V.B.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By July 20, 2004, OPD must develop and implement a policy for conducting use of force investigations.