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 62 maintain a log of all OC canisters checked out by OPD personnel. The IMT also found OPD in compliance with the requirement that it maintain the log in an electronic format. The IMT found that OPD was not in compliance with the requirement to regularly prepare and distribute accurate reports regarding OC control and tracking. A full description of this audit and our findings is contained in our seventh status report. During the eighth reporting period, OIG conducted an audit of Task 27 and reported that OPD has implemented several improvements to help ensure that the OC reports the Department prepares are accurate. During the tenth reporting period, OPD published revised General Order C-8, Oleoresin Capsicum, addressing the Department’s purchase, receipt, distribution, and destruction of OC spray, and delineating the responsibilities of OPD officers, units, supervisors, and commanders. During the tenth reporting period, one of the two compliance standards for this task was modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. During the twelfth reporting period, OIG audited Task 27. OIG found that OPD continues to be in compliance with the requirement that it maintain a log of all members and employees who check out and use OC canisters. OIG found, consistent with the last IMT audit, that while the Department is preparing and distributing monthly reports to command staff and supervisors regarding OC spray, the reports are not yet accurate. OIG reported that it has worked with the Property and Evidence Unit to identify and resolve the source of this continuing problem. During the thirteenth reporting period, the IMT conducted another actual practice review of OPD’s compliance with Task 27. We found that OPD continued to be in compliance with the requirement that it maintain a log of all OC canisters that are distributed to OPD personnel. In addition, we found that OPD has improved and clarified the categories listed on its log that explain the reason for the canister distribution. While our audit found that for the first five to six months of the period reviewed there was a systematic failure on the part of OPD personnel to submit their OC canisters for replacement following a reported use of force involving OC Spray, we observed significant improvement in OPD’s practices during the second half of the period audited. Through proactive management efforts, OPD commanders now have a solid handle on when, how often, and which officers use OC spray during use of force incidents. OPD is in compliance with Task 27. 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.) 5. Use of Force-Investigation of Criminal Misconduct (Task 28; S.A. V.E.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By July 20, 2004, OPD must develop and implement a policy to report, as soon as possible, any use of force situation, citizen complaint, or other member/employee-involved action in