ninth-report.pdf

Independent Monitoring Team Ninth Status Report of the Independent Monitor Delphine Allen, et al., v. City of Oakland, et al. May 13, 2006, to November 30, 2006 Page 28 In marked contrast to past practice, canvassing for witnesses is routine; witnesses to the alleged misconduct are interviewed; follow-up interviews with complainants, officers, and others are commonplace; investigators make repeated visits to the homes of witnesses to secure a statement or obtain additional information; and medical records are routinely sought and obtained. OPD's analysis of evidence, credibility determinations, and resolution of inconsistent statements is also improving. In addition, where an investigation is not sufficient, supervisors often return it for more work, something we did not routinely see in previous reviews. Despite the obvious and significant improvements we saw in OPD's investigations, its compliance with these requirements remains relatively low. In the formal investigations we reviewed, OPD obtained all relevant evidence in only 47% of the cases and adequately considered relevant evidence in only 43% of these cases. We found that the resolution of each allegation was supported by a preponderance of evidence as required by the Settlement Agreement in 47% of formal investigations. We intend to work closely with OPD to explore ways to improve compliance with this task and maintain the significant gains it has made in this area already. We found case files far better organized and easier to follow than we had during previous reviews. A large part of this improvement is due to the use of chronological logs, particularly by IAD. OPD, however, is not yet in compliance with the requirement that all notes be maintained in the investigative file. We recognize that most, and in some cases all, investigator notes are kept in these chronological logs. Still, while it appeared that investigators retained notes in 63% of formal investigations, we were unable to determine whether such notes were retained in 27% of the cases reviewed. It appeared that notes were not retained in the file in 10% of the cases. While the files should contain adequate contemporaneous documentation verifying compliance with this requirement, we conducted several supplemental interviews of IAD staff regarding their practices in this area. Staff reported that they did not generate additional notes and shared with us the efforts they are making to ensure more complete and consistent documentation of this task going forward, including adding a check box on the investigator checklist regarding investigator notes. Such efforts, if implemented, should help enable OPD to attain full compliance with this requirement. Task 5 also requires OPD to identify each allegation of misconduct in a complaint and resolve it with one of the following dispositions: Unfounded, Sustained, Exonerated, Not Sustained, or Administrative Closure. OPD has improved significantly in this area and is very near compliance. In 84% of the cases we reviewed, OPD identified and resolved each allegation of misconduct. During the upcoming reporting periods, the IMT will determine whether OPD’s actual practices fully comply with this Settlement Agreement provision.