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 64 OPD is in compliance with Task 28. 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. IAD Investigation Priority (Task 29; S.A. V.F.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By July 20, 2004, OPD must develop and implement a policy to coordinate its administrative investigation of a member/employee with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office if a criminal proceeding is potentially viable. • By July 20, 2004, when OPD initiates an interview or interrogation of OPD personnel and it appears that the subject may be charged with a crime, or the subject asserts his or her Fifth Amendment rights on grounds that the answers to questions posed may be incriminating, such interrogation must be preceded by a Lybarger warning. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The compliance deadline for this task occurred in July 2004. During the seventh reporting period, OPD completed the policies incorporating this Settlement Agreement task: General Order M-3, Complaints Against Departmental Personnel or Procedures; and Training Bulletin V-T.1, Internal Investigation Procedure Manual. During the eighth reporting period OPD provided the IMT with sufficiently reliable training data to enable us to confirm that OPD had trained 95% or more of relevant personnel on this task. During the tenth reporting period, OPD proposed a series of changes to General Order M-3 and to its Internal Investigations and Internal Affairs policies and procedures manuals. These changes did not materially alter the compliance requirements for this task. Also 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 tenth reporting period, the IMT conducted an audit of actual practice compliance with this task. We found that OPD’s handling of criminal misconduct allegations was evolving and improving but that OPD was not yet in compliance with Task 29. A discussion of our review findings is included in our tenth status report. During the thirteenth reporting period, we conducted another actual practice assessment of OPD’s compliance with Task 29. This assessment was done in conjunction with our Task 28 assessment and is discussed above.