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 60 important issues and making remedial recommendations, we found that other FRB reviews were perfunctory, failing to address significant tactical or training issues, including the effective use of Tasers; the need to take cover when threats are presented; dealing with mentally ill offenders; improperly closing the distance on potentially armed suspects; command and control issues; and poor foot pursuit tactics. It appeared that some of the variance in the quality of the reviews was due to the lack of a consistent high-level command presence at the FRBs. In a number of the cases we reviewed, the highest ranking commander attending the Board was a lieutenant. During the course of conducting our review, we informed the Department’s use of force subject matter expert about our concerns in this area. In response, OPD began requiring that a deputy chief attend each FRB and if one is not available, that a patrol captain or other experienced captain attend the board. OPD has continued this positive practice during the current reporting period. Task 26.2 requires the FRB to make a recommendation regarding whether the use of force was in or out of policy for every Level 2 use of force. We found OPD in compliance with this requirement. Task 26.3 requires the FRB to forward to the Internal Affairs Division any determination that a use of force is not consistent with OPD policy. Since the FRB did not find any of the uses of force reviewed for our audit out of policy, it did not forward any cases to IAD. Task 26.4 requires the FRB to make recommendations to the Chief of Police regarding additional use of force training; changes in policies or tactics, additional standards, investigatory policies, or training for use of force investigations. OPD is not yet in compliance with this requirement. OPD made sufficient recommendations to the Chief in only approximately one-third of the cases reviewed. In several cases where recommendations should have been made, the FRB did not make any recommendations to the Chief related to the incident. In other cases, while the FRB made at least one recommendation, the recommendations were not sufficient given the nature and seriousness of the issues requiring remediation. Task 26.5 requires the FRB to conduct an annual review of the use of force cases it examines to identify any trends in use of force that may have policy or training implications. OPD is in compliance with this requirement although we recommended that the FRB include additional details an analysis in its annual reports in order to make them more useful risk management tools for the Chief and City. Task 26.6 requires the FRB to report its annual review findings to the Chief of Police. We found OPD in compliance with this requirement. Our compliance assessment included several recommendations to assist OPD in attaining full compliance with Task 26. These recommendations include ensuring a consistent high-level command presence at FRBs; training and requiring FRB members to conduct more probing reviews; conducting a more detailed analysis of force issues each year; and continuing to provide direct, immediate counseling and feedback to officers following FRBs. A discussion of our findings is included in our eleventh status report. During the current reporting period, we continued to attend Force Review Boards and discuss our observations and concerns about use of force reporting and investigations with presenters, Board members, and commanders overseeing this process.