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 73 We reported in the combined fourth and fifth quarterly report that officers were failing to complete the stop data forms required by this task for more than 60% of applicable stops. In response, OPD initiated internal audits and closer oversight of officers’ compliance with this task. OPD reported during the sixth reporting period that it had achieved actual practice compliance with this task, but subsequently reported that it could not verify officers’ compliance with Task 34. During the seventh reporting period, the IMT interviewed officers on all three patrol shifts to assess their understanding of Task 34’s requirements. The IMT found that officers did not possess a sufficient understanding of this task. Contrary to OPD policy and the Settlement Agreement, a number of officers reported that they did not have to complete stop data forms unless they were making a self-initiated stop. Commendably, OPD developed a “refresher” lesson plan including instruction on the requirements of this task. OPD reports that it has provided the refresher training to over 95% of relevant personnel. During the eighth reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our eighth status report. The IMT found that, although OPD had made tremendous progress in this area, it was not in actual practice compliance with the requirement that officers complete a stop data form for at least 95% of field stops, field investigations, and detentions, as required by the Settlement Agreement. We found OPD in conditional compliance with the requirement that stop data forms be completed fully and accurately. We identified ambiguities in the SDFs that were likely the cause of substantial confusion among OPD officers about how to accurately complete them. We informed OPD of the deficiencies in the SDF form and notified it that we will not employ these conditional criteria during our next review and instead expected that OPD would correct the SDF and train its officers on its proper completion. Our audit also discussed the problems with SDF data entry and analysis. OPD recognized these problems and contracted with a third-party vendor to input SDF information into an appropriate database. We have encouraged OPD to ensure that this information is accurately and completely entered for all SDFs in a manner that permits the IMT and OPD to assess compliance with the Settlement Agreement and OPD policies. A complete summary of our audit can be found in our eighth status report. During the ninth reporting period, OPD started rolling out field-based computerized reporting (FBR). Unfortunately, it did not include the stop data forms among the computerized forms which officers can complete electronically from their vehicles. During the twelfth reporting period, OPD reported that it has contracted with a vendor to update FBR to include stop data forms. As of the current reporting period, this update has not yet been completed. Also during the ninth reporting period, OPD drafted new stop data forms. It remains to be seen whether these forms will decrease the confusion discussed above because OPD created two new forms, containing somewhat different fields. During the twelfth reporting period, OPD began requiring all officers to use the new forms. The Department is using one form for those stops that result in a citation and another form for stops not involving citations. The Department has reported that it intends revise its Field Contact Forms to incorporate the stop data forms,