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 59 deadline. These improvements are the result of greater management oversight by BFO commanders, including the assignment of a hardworking administrative sergeant to monitor the timeliness and quality of these investigations. In addition, field sergeants are becoming increasingly adept at conducting use of force investigations. In our audit report, we recommended that, to come into compliance with this task, OPD reinforce use of force investigative deadlines to all field supervisors and commanders and hold them accountable for meeting deadlines. OPD is not in compliance with Task 25. 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.) 3. Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) (Task 26; S.A. V.C.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By July 20, 2004, OPD must develop and implement a policy to enhance the Use of Force Review Board. The Settlement Agreement sets forth certain criteria that must be included in this policy. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The compliance deadline for this task occurred in July 2004. During the eighth reporting period, OPD completed General Order K-4.1, Force Review Boards. This policy incorporates the Settlement Agreement’s requirements for this task. OPD also trained over 95% of relevant personnel on this policy. OPD’s commitments to this project enabled it to complete both the policy and training by the court-ordered deadlines. During the tenth reporting period, OPD revised General Order K-4.1 to reflect stipulations it reached with the Plaintiffs’ Attorneys modifying several of the NSA’s use of force provisions. During the tenth reporting period, some of the compliance standards for this task were modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. During the eleventh reporting period, the IMT conducted a compliance assessment of Task 26. Task 26.1 requires OPD’s Force Review Board (FRB) to review all Level 2 Use of Force Investigations following the completion of the investigation of the incident by a supervisor.5 We found OPD in compliance with Task 26.1, although we noted a wide variance in the quality of the reviews conducted. While some of the FRBs did a good job identifying 5 Under OPD’s current policies, the following types of force are considered Level 2 uses of force: any strike to the head (except for intentional strikes with an impact weapon which are considered Level 1 uses of force); carotid restraints that do not result in the loss of consciousness; uses of impact weapons where contact is made; unintentional firearms discharges that do not result in any injuries; police canine bites; and any use of force which results in injuries to the subject requiring emergency medical treatment or hospital admittance. During the time period for the cases we reviewed, use of a Taser was also considered a Level 2 use of force subject to review by the FRB.